getting back to what exodus was talking about, does a literal interpretation of theravada buddhism really preclude materialism. today the transhumanist movement really does offer the ability to reshape the human body beyond our species' specifications, thus making the "great chain of being" real. if we ever succeed at decoding the human brain, it could be stored on external memory, "the infinity of nirvana." and if we upload said persona onto a server with billions of other individual minds who can swap information and experience as easily as we download mp3s today, have we not truly become the godhead? why would you ever leave that to return to a physical body? the addictive nature of the internet could be misinterpreted as "freeing one's self from the chain of carbon-based reincarnation.
the hippies that dance at the airport and talking about becoming one do sound like the physicists and technophiles who work towards the ideal "singularity." btw, i'm skeptical of the transhumanist philosophy, but this should be recognizable as devil's advocacy. thoughts?
Atheism doesn't qualify to be a religion technically. To be a religion a belief system has to meet the D.E.R.M.S. It needs all of the following to be considered a religion. A doctrine of some sort (Bible, Dhammapada, Koran). Ethics or a set of rules to live by (Ten Commandments, 8 fold path). Ritual (Communion, Hajj). Myths/stories told to convey a lesson (Bible, Baskets of Wisdom) Symbols (Cross, Star of David, Ohm).
D.E.R.M.S. is only one way to define if something religion, and it isn't really the generally accepted way. The more common way is the seven dimensions.
Atheism unquestionably fulfills six of the dimensions of being a religion. The only one that was lacking for awhile was rituals, but that atheists have started adopting rituals. Birthdays, secular celebration of religious holidays (Christmas, Easter), Darwin's birthday, etc are all ritualized in atheists.
Charles Darwin may as well be a religious figure to a lot of atheists at this point. If you look at him historically, he is not as important as people make him out to be. He expanded on an existing theory he arguably stole from someone else. Most of his expansions were wrong and his later papers contain asinine theories with no supporting evidence, like pangenesis, that were completely debunked years before hand by careful experiments and observation. The Catholic Church didn't persecute him. Atheist scientists rushed to his defense before his theories started becoming accepted by most of the scientific community. Considering how much of his stuff isn't based on any real evidence and how significantly wrong he is at pretty major aspects of his theory, it isn't a surprise that his theories weren't embraced immediately as the gospel truth by most people.
When people tested pangenesis and found that it didn't exist, he would offer responses with no real scientific merit or alternative explanation. For example, his cousin decided to test the theory by using blood transfusions and it didn't work. Darwin pointed out it didn't work because "obviously" blood cells didn't have gemmules (the non-existent things responsible for pangenesis), so it didn't work, but offered no explanation as to where the gemmules are located outside essentially saying "not anything people have tested." Anyone else in the scientific community would have been called out on that, but not Darwin.
By the way, Gregor Mendel already proved genetic theory around this time. He was almost completely ignored by the same group of scientists that were hailing Darwin as a visionary, even though Mendel had proved his theory to be valid through careful, repeatable experimentation, while half of Darwin's stuff basically boils down to him going "I guess that makes sense." The only real difference between Mendel and Darwin was Mendel was a friar, but what are the odds the atheist community dismissed the friar that contradicted their savior Darwin on those grounds?
So, you Charles Darwin someone atheists have celebrated since he released the Origins of Species being pretty much worshiped and glorified for no logical reason. If you want to look at it logically, the only thing Charles Darwin did was republish someone else's theory with minimal extra evidence and a lot of conjecture that was proven to be wrong. Meanwhile, you have Mendel being ignored by the same group of people at the same time, despite his theory having extensive and repeatable experimental evidence.
D.E.R.M.S. is only one way to define if something religion, and it isn't really the generally accepted way. The more common way is the seven dimensions.
Atheism unquestionably fulfills six of the dimensions of being a religion. The only one that was lacking for awhile was rituals, but that atheists have started adopting rituals. Birthdays, secular celebration of religious holidays (Christmas, Easter), Darwin's birthday, etc are all ritualized in atheists.
Uh no. It does not even come close to conforming to the Ninian Smart.
Doctrinal -> Atheisim by definition is the absence of doctrine.
Mythological -> Atheisim is the absence of mythology.
Ethical -> Atheisim makes no statements of ethics. People of a certain ethical mold tend to be of a certain ethical mindset but the one does not necessitate the other.
Ritual -> "Secular" holidays are a matter of cultural ritual rather than of religion.
Experiential -> Atheisim is arguably Experiential but at a level too vague to be applicable.
Institutional -> Athieisim has no governing institutions.
Material -> Atheisim does not have places that embody areas of spiritual awareness or enlightenment.
Charles Darwin may as well be a religious figure to a lot of atheists at this point. If you look at him historically, he is not as important as people make him out to be. He expanded on an existing theory he arguably stole from someone else. Most of his expansions were wrong and his later papers contain asinine theories with no supporting evidence, like pangenesis, that were completely debunked years before hand by careful experiments and observation. The Catholic Church didn't persecute him. Atheist scientists rushed to his defense before his theories started becoming accepted by most of the scientific community. Considering how much of his stuff isn't based on any real evidence and how significantly wrong he is at pretty major aspects of his theory, it isn't a surprise that his theories weren't embraced immediately as the gospel truth by most people.
When people tested pangenesis and found that it didn't exist, he would offer responses with no real scientific merit or alternative explanation. For example, his cousin decided to test the theory by using blood transfusions and it didn't work. Darwin pointed out it didn't work because "obviously" blood cells didn't have gemmules (the non-existent things responsible for pangenesis), so it didn't work, but offered no explanation as to where the gemmules are located outside essentially saying "not anything people have tested." Anyone else in the scientific community would have been called out on that, but not Darwin.
By the way, Gregor Mendel already proved genetic theory around this time. He was almost completely ignored by the same group of scientists that were hailing Darwin as a visionary, even though Mendel had proved his theory to be valid through careful, repeatable experimentation, while half of Darwin's stuff basically boils down to him going "I guess that makes sense." The only real difference between Mendel and Darwin was Mendel was a friar, but what are the odds the atheist community dismissed the friar that contradicted their savior Darwin on those grounds?
So, you Charles Darwin someone atheists have celebrated since he released the Origins of Species being pretty much worshiped and glorified for no logical reason. If you want to look at it logically, the only thing Charles Darwin did was republish someone else's theory with minimal extra evidence and a lot of conjecture that was proven to be wrong. Meanwhile, you have Mendel being ignored by the same group of people at the same time, despite his theory having extensive and repeatable experimental evidence.
A man being credited with more than he accomplished is not the same as making him into a religious figure. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are American religious figures, while Gilbert du Motier isn't getting the credit he deserves.
It would be more accurate to say that Mendel's work was overshadowed by the controversy of Darwinism than blatantly ignored. Then again there's debate that his beliefs in regards to that controversy may have been among the reasons why it was glossed over.
Mendel's relative lack of fame probably has more to do with his own absence of controversy than anything else. He established the existence of traits passed on from generation to generation and provided a reasonable explanation for why traits sometimes skip a couple of generations. His studies provided factual verification of what had previously been a matter of "old wives tales." So there wasn't much to get into a controversy about.
If atheism considers other religions MAY be possibly right in some aspects, then it is a "minor religion". But if it completely denies that all theism is absolutely wrong then I would consider it almost an extreme religion. As an agnostic I actually find myself opposing both sides of the spectrum equally. Religion is undoubtedly cult like but inevitable due to our human habit of joining together to figure out the big questions ourselves. All humans are curious and sometimes desperate to know. If you think you know and you want other people to know, you are in a way, religious.
Been following this for a while now. I added the entire Freethought Blogs feed to Reader when PZ and Ed moved over there. Lots of crap, but some really interesting blogs in the mix. They have two active military members blogging as atheists within the forces, including the Military Director for American Atheists (the man interviewed in the BBC story). They also have Chris Rodda, who is part of the MRFF.
It's been interesting watching the whole thing unfold, especially in parallel with the MRFF's broader activities. The whole death threat thing is fairly common for that group, and Mikey Weinstein (something of a bomb thrower himself) is happy to share the best ones.
Atheism isn't a religion. It's a rejection of a position.(EG, are there gods? No proof. Holds the default position.) As old and tired this axiom is, if Atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby. If Atheism is a religion then being naturally bald is a hair style. If Atheism is a religion then starving is a diet.
The problem we get here is that the term "atheism" is so broad that it encompasses a lot of different groups. But i'll just bring to the table the 4 choices you have in regards to god:
1. You believe there is a god. 2. You do not believe there is no god. 3. You do not believe there is a god. 4. You believe there is no god.
If you fit into 1, you fit into 2 as well. If you fit into 4, you fit into 3 as well. But you can also fit into 2 and 3 only. This is the position i believe that most atheists fit into.
If religion is defined as a set of beliefs then yes, atheism is a religion because atheists have their own beliefs about life, god, etc. But if religion is a belief in a god then no.
If religion is simply believing in something and people believe in atheism then I guess it would make it a religion. If religion is simply just a belief.
