[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, that's not right. There may be a fine line between agnosticism and atheism, but it is an important line. It's not just unwillingness to be labeled as atheists but a rather deep feeling that the leap of faith into affirmative non-belief that is true atheism isn't one that we can all make (or in my case, it is a leap that I have made and later in life found myself unable to maintain). Thus, agnosticism is a true position, quite distinct from atheism.

As you said: "don't try to convince me that your internal reality has some universal external validity." That includes respecting agnostics' right to describe their own understanding of where they are philosophically.

You're allowed to offer your analysis of where people stand philosophically ("you cannot say that athiesm is not an expression of faith"), and I'm not? Is this a new rule?

We simply differ on terminology. As I see it, agnosticism is more an epistemological concept that concerns how we know rather than what we believe. Thus, a person could believe in God while acknowledging that he can't prove God's existence, making him an agnostic theist. Similarly, a person could have no affirmative belief in God while acknowledging that he doesn't ultimately know, which would make him an agnostic atheist. I'm less inclined to view agnosticism as a separate category. However, as I indicated in my first post, I recognize that my view is somewhat different from popular usage. That's fine, but either way I still think it's misguided to describe atheism as a religion, and IMO you haven't said anything to refute that point.

I think it's unfortunate that the word atheism has acquired such scary connotations, such that even you seem concerned about being "labeled an atheist." I still maintain that, strictly speaking, an agnostic is an atheist for the simple reason that he isn't a theist. However, I've seen it suggested that since atheist has become such a loaded term - equivalent to anti-theist - non-theist might serve better, which is probably true.

There are all sorts of variations - soft agnostic/atheist, hard agnostic/atheist, etc. The point remains that atheism is not a religion.

These are just the external manifestation of religion as tradition. Do you really think of religion entirely in such trivial terms? I'm surprised.

They aren't the only indicia of religion, but they are valid indicia. If they were as trivial as you suggest, why do so many religions place so much importance on them? Are we now saying that the Bible and Koran are trivial? I'm surprised.

There are other indicia of religion, such as a unified belief system and/or ethical creed, belief in one or more deities, an organization/hierarchy, and the like. None of these are characteristic of atheism either. So my point that atheism is not a religion remains valid. Atheism does not bear any of the hallmarks of religion, unless of course one stretches the meaning of religion beyond any real usefulness. The way some people are using it, religion could include any belief of any kind, which is silly.

Saying that atheism requires a form of faith doesn't make it a religion either. I have faith that my car will start tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I've started a religion. Religion and faith aren't synonymous, but to the extent that they're related, religious faith contemplates faith in a deity. Since atheism doesn't involve faith in a deity, it isn't a religion.

Similarly, saying that some atheists are zealous does not make atheism a religion. It just means that they're zealous, like car salesmen and Greenpeace volunteers. Like I said, there's a difference between a cause and a religion.

I recognize that all of these terms are fluid, I just don't think it serves to render them so fluid that they're deprived of real meaning.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You're allowed to offer your analysis of where people stand philosophically ("you cannot say that athiesm is not an expression of faith"), and I'm not? Is this a new rule?

Not "people" in general. Me. I'm allowed to state where I stand philosophically without you coming along and declaring that when I say I am an agnostic I really mean I am an athiest. It's insufferably arrogant of you to equate the two and eliminate a distinction that goes a lot deeper than mere terminology.

It's especially arrogant of you to imply that an agnostic is just someone without the courage to call themselves an athiest. If I was an athiest, I'd have no problem calling myself an athiest (indeed, for many years that is exactly how I described myself). But I will not be forced to accept a label that misdiscribes me.

Label yourself how you will, but don't presume to label the beliefs of others.

Originally posted by zigzag:
religious faith contemplates faith in a deity. Since atheism doesn't involve faith in a deity, it isn't a religion.

Not all religions are theistic.

This is why I said that while I wouldn't generally make the argument that athiesm is a religion, it does depend a lot on how narrowly you define religion. If you define it using western theistic concepts, then no, it isn't a religion. You could, however, make plausible arguments based on other traditions. I think you especialy could make one based on the fact that Athiests have a belief that cannot be objectively proven by personal observation. Even the objective proof that science provides is still mostly knowledge handed down and accepted based on authority. It's little different really from adopting the theology of any priesthood. And that which isn't is based on perception the objective validity of which can never be proven -- because we each only have our own subjective perceptions.

But that is one of those philosophical discussions with no answer. What is more clear is that both Athiesm and religion presume to have answers to the same basic questions, and that those answers at a minimum exclude one another. Someone who labels himself an agnostic is stating that he does not choose either of those answers, and does not exclude either. That is the difference. It's not a matter of being a closet case Athiest, but genuinely knowing that you do not know.

[RonnieoftheRose]

All theists are agnostic if left alone for a while with no one to impress.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not "people" in general. Me. I'm allowed to state where I stand philosophically without you coming along and declaring that when I say I am an agnostic I really mean I am an athiest. It's insufferably arrogant of you to equate the two and eliminate a distinction that goes a lot deeper than mere terminology.

. . .

Label yourself how you will, but don't presume to label the beliefs of others.

I'm still unclear as to how it's insufferably arrogant of me to discuss what these terms mean to me, but it's not insufferably arrogant of you to discuss what they mean to you. Apparently, if we don't accept your definitions, we're insufferably arrogant. I've at least acknowledged that the terms are fluid and that people use them differently.

It's especially arrogant of you to imply that an agnostic is just someone without the courage to call themselves an athiest. If I was an athiest, I'd have no problem calling myself an athiest (indeed, for many years that is exactly how I described myself). But I will not be forced to accept a label that misdiscribes me.

I believe that many people are reluctant to identify themselves as atheists because of the connotations it carries. I've seen and experienced this myself. You might not be one of them, but your language suggested to me that you would object strenuously to being described as an atheist despite the fact that, at least in my view, you're an atheist as well as an agnostic. That's the phenomenon that I've been trying to address: the unusual power that the term seems to have acquired, and the very strong reactions that it draws from people. I apologize if I appeared to question your motives - I believe you're sincere about your beliefs and your terminology. I'm simply trying to get at the fact that "atheism" has acquired such powerful connotations even though, at its root, it means nothing more than an absence of an affirmative belief.

Even if you aren't one of them, would you dispute my contention that many people are reluctant to identify themselves as atheists? You might dispute it, which is fine, but having witnessed and felt this phenomenon myself, I stand by my contention. Ask any politician what it would mean to publicly identify themselves as an atheist.

Not all religions are theistic.

This is why I said that while I wouldn't generally make the argument that athiesm is a religion, it does depend a lot on how narrowly you define religion. If you define it using western theistic concepts, then no, it isn't a religion. You could, however, make plausible arguments based on other traditions. I think you especialy could make one based on the fact that Athiests have a belief that cannot be objectively proven by personal observation. Even the objective proof that science provides is still mostly knowledge handed down and accepted based on authority. It's little different really from adopting the theology of any priesthood. And that which isn't is based on perception the objective validity of which can never be proven -- because we each only have our own subjective perceptions.

But that is one of those philosophical discussions with no answer. What is more clear is that both Athiesm and religion presume to have answers to the same basic questions, and that those answers at a minimum exclude one another. Someone who labels himself an agnostic is stating that he does not choose either of those answers, and does not exclude either. That is the difference. It's not a matter of being a closet case Athiest, but genuinely knowing that you do not know.

Given your definitions, I agree with you all down the line. I simply don't accept your definitions, at least not completely, and therefore think it's a stretch to call atheism a religion, even by non-Western standards. But that's OK - I don't mind disagreeing.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yep. True atheism would be summed up as, "No, we don't believe in God. However, we really don't care enough to create a belief system". In contrast, most "atheists" aren't even atheists at all, they're anti-theists. They're just as "religious" about getting their point across as any JW or Southern Baptist.

Do you get the "whatever" response frequently after people in general "listen" to you for a while or do only "atheists" -identified by your own so far rather obscure definition- respond in that way to your orations?

Will you post your definition of religion by which atheism can honestly be defined as a religion and will you then continue any discussion of religion, or even the discussion on the topic of this thread about the future of European religion, using only that definition of religion? Will you ever concede that to persist in applying only that definition would not be beneficial for maintaining your profession or for maintaining credibility on the subject?

To go back to Demograph68's comments about devotion. What If devotion to the mac makes creating a document in AppleWorks a religious experience will you then honestly state that Windows is the current dominant world religion? Does it not follow from applying the definition of religion that loosely to include application of and devotion to computer operating systems? It is disingenuous to persist in such folly in a tread like this. Does Linux replace or does soccer rival atheism as the front runner in the category rising religions in Europe, in your opinion?

I still maintain that any definition of religion that has a useful application for the purpose of this thread about the future of religion in Europe does not cover atheism, soccerism or macfanism and that for that reason your opening remark in this thread is useless. Atheism is not a religion and therefore it can't be the rising religion in Europe. Some people will go over this post religiously for errors in grammar and spelling. Does that make spell checking a religion?

My message you just responded to was not even a defense of atheism. It was written to call attention to and protest about your deceptive use of language. Language employed purely to win a semantical point that has no real life application or meaning for the purpose of this thread.

Would you persist in holding this position anywhere else, but on a message board at MacNN, beyond this point? Say for example in a professional setting as an invited/tenured speaker on the topic "What is next for religion in Europe?" You might get some sniggers in the first 5 lines of your introduction if you cited the examples and comments you have so far made in this thread but with a serious audience there would be some uncomfortable coughing if you'd continued in this vein beyond the first 20 minutes. If after a year you came back to the same topic and merely repeated these same tired lines you reposted with barely even an attempt to rephrase you'd probably be laughed off campus. Or should be.

Can you stop being condescending, son, and give the topic some honest enough attention to post truly meaningful insights? I've seen a considerable amount of your messages here over the years and frankly, even for you, what you have contributed so far to this thread is beneath you. All you do is condescend and taunt. You expect courtesy in return? Pot meet kettle, at the very least. Feel free to continue like this though. Victory awaits you...

What do we have from you so far?
1. "Atheism is the rising religion in Europe."

2. " Yep. True atheism would be summed up as, "No, we don't believe in God. However, we really don't care enough to create a belief system". In contrast, most "atheists" aren't even atheists at all, they're anti-theists. They're just as "religious" about getting their point across as any JW or Southern Baptist."

To tackle* those 2 line by line is I "believe" the custom here although not all posters follow this custom "religiously".

*(Tackle: from soccer liturgy. You may or may not have to refer to scripture for the definition. Alternative; Tackle: Objects of worship and utility from the ancient animistic religion known, in English, as fishing.)

For the defense of the first statement would you honestly be content in describing atheism as mentioned in quote 1. as you "pontificated" in quote 2.?

2. 's initial dissection

"True atheism would be summed up as, "No, we don't believe in God. However, we really don't care enough to create a belief system".

Yet you maintain that atheism is a religion?
True atheism could perhaps be summed up better as, "No, there are no gods." "Atheism is not a religion."

"In contrast, most "atheists" aren't even atheists at all, they're anti-theists."

In contrast to what? Even if true, what significance does that have? Being sick of the influence of imaginary creatures on politics and law -most significantly- doesn't make one a religious person. Neither does the cause of being anti-theist become a religion of its own for the further unspecified category "most atheists" if they can indeed be described accurately as anti-theists.
Does the majority of these people you differentiate from actual atheists, by labeling them anti-theists, not say "there are no gods" when asked directly about the existence of deities? Presumably they would answer something along those lines. Does that make them not atheists at all? Does it make atheism a religion even when all self identified atheists respond in a similar fashion to that question about the existence of gods? No evidence of gods exists. Little faith required to make a statement like that.

"They're just as "religious" about getting their point across as any JW or Southern Baptist."

Perhaps, but does that persistence make the subject/object of their persistence a religion?

I'm religious about getting my point across that continuing to breath is an essential part of scuba diving training. I zealously pursue the point throughout any conversation with -particularly- the uninitiated, prospective diver and those who supervise and guide them in the first steps on the path. I must confess that I have "converted" quite a few "unbelievers" and subsequently "baptized" them in the bubble blowing "faith". Some professed to be born again through the experience. Based on the published numbers from the various denominations on the output of their seminaries, the number of scuba divers has risen all over Europe as well, in recent years. Will scuba become the dominant European religion soon? Of course not. Neither scuba diving nor breathing becomes a religion as a result of my zealous pursuit of that most basic of points -to continue breathing while submerged. Or does it, by your own honest definition of religion -yet to be revealed- which -presumably- has application in every aspect of the current topic. Does breathing become a religion by virtue of the point being pressed religiously? If so I am exercising yet another faith at this very moment. Your messages even give me an elevated rate of worship sometimes.

Is my persistent interest in the topic evidence of religion yet or do we have to exchange several more pages of repartee before you can honestly call it that, son? What religious affiliations have I revealed so far by expressing belief in the truth of statements? You wrote a one sentence statement that I rejected as fact that apparently requires more debate than initially asserted but does that make me religious. What religion did I denounce by not believing your comment for truth absolute? I believe that calling you "a pompous arse" would be an ad hom. Without dwelling on the veracity of the comment about posteriors itself, what religion did I just profess to "believe" in?

Do you want to stop playing word games? It's entertaining but not very productive. Not to imply that "religiously" increasing productivity is necessarily the goal of every MacNN thread, of course. God forbid... Uh Oh did I just make a religious comment? Darn... I must really believe... Surely a "real atheist" would deny even the common use of words and expressions referring to non-existing deities. Or, "pray" tell, is that also mass misconception among the faithful?

Just piling up words. Most with more than one meaning. Combined what do they add up to? What a way to idle away the Sunday, eh? Yeah whatever...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm still unclear as to how it's insufferably arrogant of me to discuss what these terms mean to me, but it's not insufferably arrogant of you to discuss what they mean to you.

You wrote:

Originally posted by zigzag:
Agnostics are, in fact, atheists. If one doesn't believe in a deity, one is an atheist.

That's telling self-described agnositics (specifically me, because I was the one who brought the subject up) that in fact I am an athiest. You simply dismissed my point of view about what I believe about religion, (or its secular equivalent). That's arrogant. It's just as arrogant as telling a religious person that they don't really believe in God.

Calling me an athiest as well as an agnostic may be your definition of an agnostic, but it is mistaken. Agnosticism is not the same thing as athiesm. Athiesm is more than lack of belief in a diety, it is a positive answer to whether or not there is a diety. If the question is "Is there a God" an Athiest answers "No" whereas an agnostic answers "I don't know." I don't know means the answer could be yes, as well as that the answer could be no.

Your overbroad definition of agnostic wipes out the idea of being an agnostic altogether. Thus, you are forced to invent a new term -- agnostic athiest -- as if agnostics are just a schism within the church of athiesm when agnostics themselves maintain that they are outside the church of athiesm altogether.

I don't share your faith that there is no diety. That sets me as apart from athiests just as my lack of faith that there is a diety sets me apart from the religious. It's not some middle ground that is more socially acceptable, but in many ways an exposed position that makes the agnostic subject to the proselytizing of both sides. Both believiers in religion and believers in athiesm sense that the agnosic is not yet "lost" to the other camp, and is thus persuadable to their camps. That's how I see your attempt to define my beliefs as being just a subset of yours. Nice try, but you won't win a convert that way.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You wrote:

That's telling self-described agnositics (specifically me, because I was the one who brought the subject up) that in fact I am an athiest. You simply dismissed my point of view about what I believe about religion, (or its secular equivalent). That's arrogant. It's just as arrogant as telling a religious person that they don't really believe in God.

Calling me an athiest as well as an agnostic may be your definition of an agnostic, but it is mistaken. Agnosticism is not the same thing as athiesm. Athiesm is more than lack of belief in a diety, it is a positive answer to whether or not there is a diety. If the question is "Is there a God" an Athiest answers "No" whereas an agnostic answers "I don't know." I don't know means the answer could be yes, as well as that the answer could be no.

Your overbroad definition of agnostic wipes out the idea of being an agnostic altogether. Thus, you are forced to invent a new term -- agnostic athiest -- as if agnostics are just a schism within the church of athiesm when agnostics themselves maintain that they are outside the church of athiesm altogether.

I don't share your faith that there is no diety. That sets me as apart from athiests just as my lack of faith that there is a diety sets me apart from the religious. It's not some middle ground that is more socially acceptable, but in many ways an exposed position that makes the agnostic subject to the proselytizing of both sides. Both believiers in religion and believers in athiesm sense that the agnosic is not yet "lost" to the other camp, and is thus persuadable to their camps. That's how I see your attempt to define my beliefs as being just a subset of yours. Nice try, but you won't win a convert that way.

Respectfully, we're still just disagreeing over terminology. IMO, my use of the word atheist is faithful to its root meaning. A-theist. Absence of theism. That could include everything from virulent anti-theism to complete indifference to "I don't know." If you aren't theistic, which you aren't, that makes you atheistic in my book. That this draws such strong reactions is partly what interests me, and I think is indicative of the unnecessarily negative connotations the word has acquired in our culture. But if you prefer to restrict the use of the term atheism to describe an affirmative denial of the existence of God, that's fine - the dictionaries treat it both ways.

As for agnosticism, Thomas Huxley coined it and described it as a methodology, not an independent creed or doctrine. In that sense, it's not unlike empiricism - an epistemological concept that can be applied to any subject including but not limited to religion. If one thinks of it in those terms, it's easy to understand what I mean when I say that one is either theistic or atheistic, but can be agnostic (or not) about one's theism or atheism. I recognize that popular usage has given agnosticism a sort of independent status, and has equated atheism with anti-theism, but I think it's worth exploring why that is and why it might not necessarily be faithful to the original meanings.

I'm not the first person to make these arguments, nor is this the first time I've made them - any time the subject of atheism comes up, so does the subject of agnosticism. So, I didn't mean to target you personally (my original post was directed towards the group in general), but neither am I going to refrain from offering my views. And don't worry, I'm not trying to "convert" you to my "church" - I only proselytize when people are in the middle of dinner.

I'm still confused as to why you think you're entitled to characterize my beliefs ("faith," "church") according to your terms, but I'm not allowed to offer my own analysis of where your beliefs stand on the terminology continuum. In any case, my beliefs are probably best described by Isaac Asimov: "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." In other words, I'm essentially indifferent. Does that make me an agnostic, an atheist, a non-theist, a soft or hard atheist/agnostic, or what? Whatever the case, it certainly doesn't strike me as a religion.

Anyway, to get back to the original issue: someone once said "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." I think that pretty well sums it up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Respectfully, we're still just disagreeing over terminology.

No, you are disrespectfully disagreeing with what my personal belief structure is, as well as those like me who are neither theists, not atheists. If we want to be lumped in with athiests, then we'll say so. But please allow us to define ourselves. Thank you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Anyway, to get back to the original issue: someone once said "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." I think that pretty well sums it up.

One of the definitions of religion is..

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

I've met atheists that fit that to a tee.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One of the definitions of religion is..

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

I've met atheists that fit that to a tee.

Mac users tend to fit that description too

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Busemann:
Mac users tend to fit that description too

Spiritually speaking, anything you use to replace the void meant for spiritual things, is your religion.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, you are disrespectfully disagreeing with what my personal belief structure is, as well as those like me who are neither theists, not atheists. If we want to be lumped in with athiests, then we'll say so. But please allow us to define ourselves. Thank you.

I could say the same, but I'd rather discuss it than get indignant about it. Oh well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I could say the same, but I'd rather discuss it than get indignant about it. Oh well.

You really don't get it, do you? The difference is that I am not slapping labels on you, but you are insisting on slapping labels on me. You called yourself an athiest, and I have no problem with you self identifying that way. But apparently you feel empowered to tell agnostics that really, they are atheists -- a term and a worldview they reject. That's the disrespect.

Add to that your insulting "observation" that agnostics are just too cowardly to call themselves athiests, and you wonder why I'm indignant?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You really don't get it, do you? The difference is that I am not slapping labels on you, but you are insisting on slapping labels on me.

You called yourself an athiest, and I have no problem with you self identifying that way. But apparently you feel empowered to tell agnostics that really, they are atheists -- a term and a worldview they reject. That's the disrespect.

Add to that your insulting "observation" that agnostics are just too cowardly to call themselves athiests, and you wonder why I'm indignant?

No, I don't get it. Suggesting that my relatively indifferent brand of atheism is dependent on "faith" and is some sort of religion/church is also slapping labels on me that I don't think apply, for the reasons I've stated. I'm still baffled as to what makes you think you're allowed to make such judgments while the rest of us are not. I disagree with your analysis but I'm willing to discuss it and try to make cogent arguments in support of my views. You're welcome to counter my arguments or simply agree to disagree, but instead you continue to treat my analysis as a personal attack, which is not my intent.

You've established that you're not personally afraid of the word "atheist." I've acknowledged that and apologized for leading you to believe that I was directly questioning your sincerity. I've repeatedly acknowledged that agnosticism is a widely used and valid descriptor for those who choose to use it as such, even if I might classify it differently. I nonetheless believe that there are many people who are afraid to publicly identify themselves as atheists, which point you haven't refuted, and which I think is pertinent to the discussion. Are you going to address why public figures are afraid to identify themselves as atheists, or are you going to treat everything I say as a personal attack? Does Huxley's original conception of agnosticism have any bearing, or not?

I'm interested in having a detached discussion about the meanings of these terms, how they mean different things to different people, and their cultural significance. I might express strong generalized opinions, just as you do, but I don't mean to attack anyone personally and wish we could get beyond that. Since I've said about all I have to say on the subject, it's moot at this point, but I accept the fact that you disagree with me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Are you going to address why public figures are afraid to identify themselves as atheists,

That's not always the case. You have probably never lived in a country where most people describe themselves as not being religious, but if you do happen to travel to one, have a look around. I think you will find that the shoe on the other foot kicks the same. I could give you personal examples where I saw religious people mocked and criticized because most people were athiests, or you could take a look at what is said about Tony Blair. His religiosity has come under fairly regular criticism. As a Labour PM it would probably be easier for him if he was not seen so much as a man of faith.

Either way, it is nothing more than simple human nature that voters tend to prefer people they think share their values and beliefs. In my experience, though, calling yourself an agnostic does not mitigate this. If anything, it causes you to be attacked by both sides wherever you are. That's further evidence to me that whether or not we choose to call athiesm a religion or not, the mindset is very similar.

[swrate]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
All theists are agnostic if left alone for a while with no one to impress.

Jamais deux sans trois, my third time trying to post,
perseverance, Faith in extreme conditions. do all fail do all fall?

Agnostic- agnostic was the word in my mind as I read the title of the thread. It was strange to see the word, merci

Marked over the cognitive semantics.

imo
Unless the population becomes oppressed religion could stay the same.
North East South West relies on different rituals and the patches certainly grow when wars are started in the E, or the M-E.
People from the South � Italy, Spain, Portugal Greece have more Faith or at least show it more then Northerners.

This diversity in religious, cultural, and social background is evident, seen different neighbourhoods in big cities, China Towns, Little-Italies Bronxes Sohos .... icy such intolerance why


I wonder about the next religion for the US, where religions and politics mingle.

*secular here

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's not always the case. You have probably never lived in a country where most people describe themselves as not being religious, but if you do happen to travel to one, have a look around. I think you will find that the shoe on the other foot kicks the same. I could give you personal examples where I saw religious people mocked and criticized because most people were athiests, or you could take a look at what is said about Tony Blair. His religiosity has come under fairly regular criticism. As a Labour PM it would probably be easier for him if he was not seen so much as a man of faith.

Either way, it is nothing more than simple human nature that voters tend to prefer people they think share their values and beliefs. In my experience, though, calling yourself an agnostic does not mitigate this. If anything, it causes you to be attacked by both sides wherever you are. That's further evidence to me that whether or not we choose to call athiesm a religion or not, the mindset is very similar.

I quite agree that if I lived in a different country, it might seem to the contrary. Actually, I probably couldn't count the number of times in this country when I've seen people reluctant to admit to being either Christian or atheist, or experienced that feeling myself. I never meant to suggest that the prejudices ran in only one direction. I do, however, believe that in American public life, atheism is a dirty word in a way that Christianity is not, and I find that regrettable.

My experience is that agnostic is a much safer term here than atheism. I've used it myself on occasion just to avoid the controversy that would arise from identifying myself as an atheist. Thus the remark that offended you. If your experience is different, so be it.

You've lived here quite a while but I wonder if it's the same as growing up here, since England seems to have a much less fervent religious tradition. I suspect that growing up among fervently religious Americans, from the 1950's onward, has colored my perspective. I'm from a generation for which God was returned to the Pledge of Allegiance. As I said in my first post, identifying oneself as an atheist here has often seemed akin to identifying oneself as a Communist. People look at you funny. Major university settings obviously tend to be to the contrary.

I don't claim to have definitive answers as to how everyone should be classified with respect to their religious beliefs. I can only speak to how I see it, and as I see it, the terminology is very fluid. My belief that a non-believing agnostic is also an atheist is essentially academic if people don't use the terms that way. I'd like to see people settle on a term that describes people like myself who (a) don't believe and (b) are extremely skeptical but (c) are otherwise indifferent and (d) don't claim to have definitive knowledge. By your definition, that would seem to put me somewhere between agnostic and atheist, whereas by my definition, it would make me an agnostic atheist, although further along the spectrum than you are. Since atheism has become such a loaded term, perhaps non-theist will do, but it doesn't really resolve the problem.

Thanks for your comments.

[lurkalot]

"Originally posted by Zimphire:
One of the definitions of religion is..

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

I've met atheists that fit that to a tee."

I agree. So have I. By that one definition -but only by that one overly broad definition- can atheism be classified as a religion. Will a concession like this be treated honestly and will the qualifying comment be remembered on future occasions...?

Now apply that one definition consistently to the topic of this thread, identified in the title as "What is next for religion in Europe".

Do you honestly think that definition is a useful definition of religion to consistently apply in the context of this thread?

Take for example the definition "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." and look at this claim "Atheism is the rising religion in Europe".

Is a meaningful assessment of the future of religion in Europe the result of applying that definition to that claim? Seriously?
Personally I would say that it would be of extremely limited utility to conduct a discussion of this topic on those terms.

It would require at the very least the replacement of "the rising religion" with "a rising religion" given the competition from freedom, human dignity and wine tasting to name but 1 random example of a cause, principle or activity that are pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion by some if not all Europeans.

Do these Europeans, classified broadly as atheists by outside observers and commentators, even identify themselves as atheists? For example in surveys, on census forms and on application forms for voting rights, military service or marriage/durable partnerships when/if asked about their religion or religious affiliation? What do they put on those forms. Is it atheist or do they write no/none religion/religious affiliation more commonly?
Or comments about rising european atheism based on such data and will those who make claims like "Atheism is the rising religion in Europe" reveal the supporting statistics for their claim?

Do these European people pursue their non-religion with zeal and conscientious devotion or do they simply not believe gods exist or -when they can't be certain- do gods and religion simply not play an important role in their own private lives and future? Does that make the European future a religious one or a non-religious one? Does atheism spiritually speaking, replace the void meant for spiritual things? Does stating and defending the statement that "there are no gods" or "I do not believe in gods" fill a spiritual void or is more required to make a religion?

Are the European atheists mostly anti-theists or do they sit in respectful silence for a while as their religious friends pray before dinner? Do they go to church/mosque/synagogue weddings or funerals when religious friends or relatives are married or buried there. Do they attend baptisms of the children of friends and relatives? Are they invited and do they accept the invitation to the festivities if jewish children reach the age of thirteen? Does that kind of behavior even mean anything for the topic even if such respectful treatment or acceptance of religious rights takes place among the riots/pogroms currently raging on the Eurasian continent? Are the atheists -individually or collectively through their atheist churches- behind all the current religious bloodshed and vandalism all over europe?

Does wanting a secular society governed on secular law and principle make one an anti-theist? Is freedom of religion not specifically mentioned and recognized in the text of the most recently proposed Constitution common to the European member states? Will european atheist accept or reject this document?

Did the framers of that document have the definition you posted in mind, you think? They wrote;
"Article II-70 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. The right to conscientious objection is recognized, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right."

In the context of this Constitution does freedom of thought best cover atheism? Is atheism a freedom of conscience or is it properly filed under a freedom of religion heading? What was the definition of religion the members of the convention had in mind when they wrote this clause? Was it seriously "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.", you think? Did they know that their definition should encompass the soon dominant atheist denominations in order for the document to have relevance as European law?

Will these European atheists and their rising "religion" -best described as anti-theism- soon send the next Roman Catholic Pope into exile after sacking Vatican city and first desecrating and then redecorating the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with atheistic religious symbolism or will the mere thought of lost tourist revenue prevent them from such iconoclasm? If the Cardinals manage to announce the next Roman Catholic Pope without burning the place down in weeks to come first, of course, otherwise there may not be anything left for the next wave of heretics to defile.
Will these anti-theists inspect every 2 Euro coin for that offensive phrase of the fringe before accepting it as valid payment or offering at their new atheist temples?

I ran into this quote recently. I thought you might like it.
��I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.�
Stephen Roberts

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
I agree. So have I. By that one definition -but only by that one overly broad definition- can atheism be classified as a religion. Will a concession like this be treated honestly and will the qualifying comment be remembered on future occasions...?

I was offering that up to the plate just to show that in secular terms it could still be seen as a religion.

In my opinion, anything that takes the place of God in your life is your religion.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was offering that up to the plate just to show that in secular terms it could still be seen as a religion.

In my opinion, anything that takes the place of God in your life is your religion.

It had already been offered and some swings had already been taken at it but besides that, given the second line of your reply I see that as a definition of religion the one you offered first doesn't really satisfy you either. ("A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.")

Now the second definition you appear to find more satisfactory. (Anything that takes the place of God in your life is your religion.)

Does stating and on appropriate ocassion defending the statement "I don't believe in gods" or "there are no gods" truly take the place of religion in the lives of even the people who consciously make that statement? How many of the Europeans make such a conscious decision?

Does this occupy a place comparable to even a small degree of what place is taken by gods, belief and associated ritual or observance in the lives of truly religious people in the lives of most of those identified as European atheists? Your second definition is no more satsifying than the first when attempting to apply it to non-believers.

Some people play or watch soccer instead of going to church on Sunday. Does that ritual replace the time they would otherwise have devoted to gods? Does that make soccer a religion?

[Zimphire]

Hey I didn't say you had to believe what I believed. I only mentioned what I believed in the matter.

I believe we were all born with a void. A void meant to be filled with Godly, spiritual things.

Now, being that we have free will, we choose what we put into this void.

Anything you put in this void above God, is your God. Your reason for living. It doesn't have to be atheism.

Every atheist probably has his or her own religion or God. They just don't realize it.

Or, I have no clue what I am talking about, no God exists, and we all get reincarnated into dung beetles.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey I didn't say you had to believe what I believed. I only mentioned what I believed in the matter.

I believe we were all born with a void. A void meant to be filled with Godly, spiritual things.

Now, being that we have free will, we choose what we put into this void.

Anything you put in this void above God, is your God. Your reason for living. It doesn't have to be atheism.

Every atheist probably has his or her own religion or God. They just don't realize it.

Or, I have no clue what I am talking about, no God exists, and we all get reincarnated into dung beetles.

I know. I can still state my opinion about your publicly posted theories though, right?

I also believe we are all born. I believe we all want to lead meaningful, fulfilling lives until our inevitable death. I don't see that time between those two certain moments we call our life as a void meant to be filled with godly, spiritual things and don't think this search for fulfillment is inherently religious or spiritual in nature nor do I think that atheism does what you describe. It doesn't fill such a void. Atheism consists of no more that the sum total of all people who do not believe in gods.

By your comments in this message I reply to I think it is safe to say that atheism in itself is not a religion.

Out of curiosity. Are there any adherents of religions other than the Christian religion that you would identify as atheists? In my opinion. Belonging to a religion and accepting gods by definition excludes people from being identified as atheists.

Can someone worship something that could genuinely be called a god without realizing it?

This comment you made "Every atheist probably has his or her own religion or God. They just don't realize it." is an oxymoron of sorts, in my opinion. It contradicts the most commonly used definitions of atheism.

There would certainly be enough of it to roll around for them. For a while at least...

[roberto blanco]

what everybody tends to ignore here, is that in "a state of nature" people would not come up with a concept of "god"(textbook definition in any cultural context) ad hoc.

atheism and agnosticism are reactions to being confronted with religion. without a "religious concept" there would be no atheism. but by all sensible definitions, atheism (or should i rather say, - "non theism")is the default human "philosophy" (attitude).

the fact that it also takes "faith" to absolutely "not" believe in a god is due to our (lack of) capability of scientific and philosophical reasoning from a "status quo" position. agnosticism is the most philosophically "honest" position one could take on the matter.

BUT!, this in no way makes theism (religion) and atheism (non-theism) the same. the big difference is, that one always has to be taught, while the other one wouldn't even be defined as any philosophy, - but simply a "state of existence".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
what everybody tends to ignore here, is that in "a state of nature" people would not come up with a concept of "god"(textbook definition in any cultural context) ad hoc.

I think anthropologists would disagree. In the literal state of nature, all cultures the world over have come up with a concept of God. The universality of some form of religion is one of the reasons I can't dismiss it.

Athiesm and agnosticism are recent phenomena -- confined at most to the last couple of hundred years.

[ryaxnb]

Belief in Christ won't die off for hundreds, if not a thousand or more, years. Like it or not, some people throw full weight at the church. I know many happy churchgoers here; they're firm Christians.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
By your comments in this message I reply to I think it is safe to say that atheism in itself is not a religion.

Atheism in itself no. Whatever you used to replace God with would be your religion.

Now, if you replace God with a zeal to promote Atheism, then yes, it would be your religion.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think anthropologists would disagree. In the literal state of nature, all cultures the world over have come up with a concept of God. The universality of some form of religion is one of the reasons I can't dismiss it.

Universality of religion only proves that the entire human race has the same curiosities - most visibly the need for an explanation of origin, purpose and destiny, the basic core of all religions.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Athiesm and agnosticism are recent phenomena -- confined at most to the last couple of hundred years.

The next step in our quest - an acceptance that blaming (or praising!) The Big Guy With The Beard is getting weak.

I can't wait.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Atheism in itself no. Whatever you used to replace God with would be your religion.

Now, if you replace God with a zeal to promote Atheism, then yes, it would be your religion.

It is impossible to "replace" something that was never there to begin with.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Universality of religion only proves that the entire human race has the same curiosities - most visibly the need for an explanation of origin, purpose and destiny, the basic core of all religions

And science.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And science.

Perhaps that's more arguable, in terms of universality.

There are cultures in which science has never really developed beyond addressing the physical necessities of daily life, where religion has complete dominion over theories of origin and destiny.






Alabama, for example.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Perhaps that's more arguable, in terms of universality

You missed the point. Science shares the same basic core with religion. It answers the same basic questions as religion. It answes the "need for an explanation of origin, purpose and destiny." That doesn't in and of itself make science a religion, but it does in a broad sense make the two concepts not completely unrelated.

That human need that finds expression in science as much as any religion is probably also why many secular adherents share the same tendency to dogmatism, intolerance, and the need to convert non-believers. See numerous threads in this board for illustrations.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You missed the point. Science shares the same basic core with religion. It answers the same basic questions as religion. It answes the "need for an explanation of origin, purpose and destiny." That doesn't in and of itself make science a religion, but it does in a broad sense make the two concepts not completely unrelated.

That human need that finds expression in science as much as any religion is probably also why many secular adherents share the same tendency to dogmatism, intolerance, and the need to convert non-believers. See numerous threads in this board for illustrations.

If you're heading towards 'Science is just another religion' then I would have to disagree. I think it's an evolution, rather than a surrogate.


edit: sorry, just re-read and saw this

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That doesn't in and of itself make science a religion, but it does in a broad sense make the two concepts not completely unrelated.

So yeah.

But to be honest, give anyone from around these parts access to Google and a couple of hours and they'll make anything 'not completely unrelated' (in a broad sense, of course)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
what everybody tends to ignore here, is that in "a state of nature" people would not come up with a concept of "god"(textbook definition in any cultural context) ad hoc.

atheism and agnosticism are reactions to being confronted with religion. without a "religious concept" there would be no atheism. but by all sensible definitions, atheism (or should i rather say, - "non theism")is the default human "philosophy" (attitude).

the fact that it also takes "faith" to absolutely "not" believe in a god is due to our (lack of) capability of scientific and philosophical reasoning from a "status quo" position. agnosticism is the most philosophically "honest" position one could take on the matter.

BUT!, this in no way makes theism (religion) and atheism (non-theism) the same. the big difference is, that one always has to be taught, while the other one wouldn't even be defined as any philosophy, - but simply a "state of existence".

So, you're saying that religion couldn't exist in a vacuum? On this, I'll wholeheartedly agree. Mankind didn't invent those concepts on his own, he was taught.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
what everybody tends to ignore here, is that in "a state of nature" people would not come up with a concept of "god"(textbook definition in any cultural context) ad hoc.

atheism and agnosticism are reactions to being confronted with religion. without a "religious concept" there would be no atheism. but by all sensible definitions, atheism (or should i rather say, - "non theism")is the default human "philosophy" (attitude).

the fact that it also takes "faith" to absolutely "not" believe in a god is due to our (lack of) capability of scientific and philosophical reasoning from a "status quo" position. agnosticism is the most philosophically "honest" position one could take on the matter.

BUT!, this in no way makes theism (religion) and atheism (non-theism) the same. the big difference is, that one always has to be taught, while the other one wouldn't even be defined as any philosophy, - but simply a "state of existence".

Actually, I was going to posit the question: How do we classify a newborn child?, but I didn't want to roil the waters further. By my reckoning the child is an atheist, because the child is absent of theism. The child might later become theistic, but until then, the child is atheistic, just as the child is apolitical. Agnostic doesn't fit IMO because the child hasn't had an opportunity to contemplate whether it knows or doesn't know - the child is simply void of any theistic considerations whatsoever. In my book, that's atheistic. Of course, as a practical matter no one would call their child an atheist - people have come to equate atheism with anti-theism, and to disdain it - so my analysis is academic, but I think it's consistent. Non-theistic would appear to be a useful and less loaded alternative.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
If you're heading towards 'Science is just another religion' then I would have to disagree. I think it's an evolution, rather than a surrogate.

I thought I was fairly clear when I said:

That doesn't in and of itself make science a religion, but it does in a broad sense make the two concepts not completely unrelated.

If you are calling science an evolution of religion, then you are in effect saying that the two concepts are not unrelated. I agree. But I think that is the core of why so many atheists seem to have the tendency to try to convert. It's very religious-like behavior, even if we don't define athiesm itself as a religion.

I think that is an interesting question. If believers in a non-religion act just like believers in a religion, is there any meaningful distinction?

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I thought I was fairly clear when I said:

You were. I edited. Not quickly enough tho.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I thought I was fairly clear when I said:



If you are calling science an evolution of religion, then you are in effect saying that the two concepts are not unrelated. I agree. But I think that is the core of why so many atheists seem to have the tendency to try to convert. It's very religious-like behavior, even if we don't define athiesm itself as a religion.

I think that is an interesting question. If believers in a non-religion act just like believers in a religion, is there any meaningful distinction?

I would say that perhaps the biggest gap is in terms of required evidence. A good scientist will term their findings theories until they are directly observed or otherwise recorded. Most traditionally established religions don't take too kindly to their doctrines being described as theoretical, nor do they actively seek to disprove their 'theories'.

But there are big overlaps, most noticeably that we're still at the point where a lot of what science is positing requires a little faith!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You missed the point. Science shares the same basic core with religion. It answers the same basic questions as religion. It answes the "need for an explanation of origin, purpose and destiny." That doesn't in and of itself make science a religion, but it does in a broad sense make the two concepts not completely unrelated.

That human need that finds expression in science as much as any religion is probably also why many secular adherents share the same tendency to dogmatism, intolerance, and the need to convert non-believers. See numerous threads in this board for illustrations.

Science is a method. It might be employed to try to answer both ultimate questions and how to unclog the kitchen drain, but I disagree that it shares the same basic core as religion.

I stated earlier that people were confusing skepticism, zealotry, faith and belief with religion, and I think this confuses method and curiosity with religion. Actually, what puzzles me most is why people are so determined to demonstrate that so many human activities are "religious" or equivalent to religion when the relationship is incidental at best. What exactly is the point? There might be a valid one, I'm just wondering.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, I was going to posit the question: How do we classify a newborn child?, but I didn't want to roil the waters further. By my reckoning the child is an atheist, because the child is absent of theism. The child might later become theistic, but until then, the child is atheistic, just as the child is apolitical. Agnostic doesn't fit IMO because the child hasn't had an opportunity to contemplate whether it knows or doesn't know - the child is simply void of any theistic considerations whatsoever. In my book, that's atheistic. Of course, as a practical matter no one would call their child an atheist - people have come to equate atheism with anti-theism, and to disdain it - so my analysis is academic, but I think it's consistent. Non-theistic would appear to be a useful and less loaded alternative.

I agree with that. People are born without a belief in or understanding of the concept of gods.

You wrote:
"people have come to equate atheism with anti-theism, and to disdain it - so my analysis is academic,"

Unfortunately the desire to explain the real meaning of the words and addressing the many misconceptions that persist about atheists/atheism is turned into evidence of a religious zeal which in turn is used to assert that atheism is therefore a religion.

I don't believe that replacing the term would serve a real purpose. A thorough understanding and honest use of the existing word would be more useful, imo.

I wonder if a devout Christian who is able to grasp and honestly explain the concept of atheism would be called an atheist if he/she wrote at length about atheism on MacNN forums.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Science is a method. It might be employed to try to answer both ultimate questions and how to unclog the kitchen drain, but I disagree that it shares the same basic core as religion.

I stated earlier that people were confusing skepticism, zealotry, faith and belief with religion, and I think this confuses method and curiosity with religion. Actually, what puzzles me most is why people are so determined to demonstrate that so many human activities are "religious" or equivalent to religion when the relationship is incidental at best. What exactly is the point? There might be a valid one, I'm just wondering.

Assuming for a moment that religions are all nothing but the "opiate of the masses" (i.e. that there is no truth to it, and no deity or creator taught humans to be religious), then what we have seems to be a basic need among humans to ask, and answer certain questions. All cultures developed religion, and evidence of religion is found in the archaelogical record of our species pretty much as far back as it is possible for archaelogy to probe. That negates Roberto's state of nature theory, and your newborn baby theory. By simple chicken and egg logic, at some point religion arose spontaneously (assuming no diety taught it).

This seems to be somewhat unique to humans, since I don't believe that religious behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom (though my cat is quite devoted to me and has figured out that if he worships me, he gets cat treats. )

Viewed that way, science can be seen as a replacement for religion in that it answers the same questions. Removing religion didn't make the questions go away, and in fact, you could argue that the rise of alternative, non-religious explanations for phenomena in the universe takes away from the need for relgion. (At least, you can argue that point plausibly).

Why this is interesting to me isn't to attack either religion, or secular theories like science or athiesm. It's to explain the behavior of self-described athiests and their zealotry. Many seem to approach science as having the purpose of undermining religion, and seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy to attacking religion and the religious. As I said above, whether or not it is motivated by something we define as religion, it is still very religious-like behavior. Intolerance and persecution of non-believers is, sadly, very much a hallmark of the human embrace of religion.

This is again, on the assumption that what caused humans to be religious in the first place is a psychological need, rather than divine intervention.

[Macrobat]

Most who call themselves agnostics are "just-in-casers." They know that it clearly states in the Bible that the only truly unforgivable sin is to deny the existence of God, so they simply don't ever voice that particular opinion "just in case."

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why this is interesting to me isn't to attack either religion, or secular theories like science or athiesm. It's to explain the behavior of self-described athiests and their zealotry. Many seem to approach science as having the purpose of undermining religion, and seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy to attacking religion and the religious. As I said above, whether or not it is motivated by something we define as religion, it is still very religious-like behavior. Intolerance and persecution of non-believers is, sadly, very much a hallmark of the human embrace of religion.

On the other hand, how many times have you heard scientists attacking homosexuality as 'against Science's plan'? Or, alternately, attacking the religious 'lifestyle choice'?

In terms of persecution and intolerance, science has a long way to go by any stretch of the imagination before it catches up with the established proponents of traditional religion.


Alternately, one of the few interesting elements of the 'Intelligent Design' schism is that the religious are clearly aping scientific reasoning for the first time in an attempt to lend authority to their claims. Not necessarily 'good' science, but it's a start!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Assuming for a moment that religions are all nothing but the "opiate of the masses" (i.e. that there is no truth to it, and no deity or creator taught humans to be religious), then what we have seems to be a basic need among humans to ask, and answer certain questions. All cultures developed religion, and evidence of religion is found in the archaelogical record of our species pretty much as far back as it is possible for archaelogy to probe. That negates Roberto's state of nature theory, and your newborn baby theory. By simple chicken and egg logic, at some point religion arose spontaneously (assuming no diety taught it).

This seems to be somewhat unique to humans, since I don't believe that religious behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom (though my cat is quite devoted to me and has figured out that if he worships me, he gets cat treats. )

Viewed that way, science can be seen as a replacement for religion in that it answers the same questions. Removing religion didn't make the questions go away, and in fact, you could argue that the rise of alternative, non-religious explanations for phenomena in the universe takes away from the need for relgion. (At least, you can argue that point plausibly).

Why this is interesting to me isn't to attack either religion, or secular theories like science or athiesm. It's to explain the behavior of self-described athiests and their zealotry. Many seem to approach science as having the purpose of undermining religion, and seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy to attacking religion and the religious. As I said above, whether or not it is motivated by something we define as religion, it is still very religious-like behavior. Intolerance and persecution of non-believers is, sadly, very much a hallmark of the human embrace of religion.

This is again, on the assumption that what caused humans to be religious in the first place is a psychological need, rather than divine intervention.

Agreed, with the following caveats:

Do we describe a newborn as theistic because humans in general have historically had an innate tendency towards theism? Or does it require some sort of conscious deliberation? If a person hasn't formed an opinion and doesn't even have the capacity to do so, I would still call them a-theistic. It's academic, but illustrative.

Is religion innate or has it simply served as the best available explanation for things and is gradually being supplanted by rationalism and scientific method? I don't claim to know the answer, but I suspect it's some of each. Science has become a more reliable way to explain why it rains, while religion remains a reliable way to cope with it, at least for many.

I tend to subscribe to the opiate theory, while recognizing that it's overly broad and pejorative. The thing is, I think it's fine for religion to serve as a coping mechanism, as long as people keep it in perspective. We all need ways to cope with life's mysteries and cruelties.

Of course, when I say these things, I get jumped on for disparaging religion. But then the same people tell me "I've never met anyone in a foxhole who doesn't believe in God," which I don't think is true but in any event confirms my belief that religion is in large part a coping mechanism. Most of the non-fundamentalist churchgoers I know tell me they like it because it's "comforting," which is perfectly valid. To me, God is like an adult version of an imaginary friend, which is fine. As I've said before, my objection arises when God is passed off as some sort of universal external truth.

I agree that atheists and scientists can also be zealous and doctrinaire, and that that can assume a religious-like quality, but that can also be said of any teenager trying to convince you that Aqualung is, in fact, the single greatest record ever made and that you can't possibly have a fulfilled life if you disagree. The problem is that many people want to classify atheism as not just sharing certain superficial traits with religion, but as a capital R Religion, which I think is absurd. Europeans aren't substituting one religion for another - they're rejecting religion.

I think most of the zealotry on the part of atheists arises from (a) frustration with an adherence to anachronistic religious beliefs that have persisted in contributing to ignorance, oppression, war, pestilence, etc., and (b) a desire to be left alone. IMO, it's an understandable counter-reaction. As someone once said, if there were no God, there would be no atheists.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Agreed, with the following caveats:

Do we describe a newborn as theistic because humans in general have historically had an innate tendency towards theism?

You'd have to let the newborn grow up to see. That's not an easy experiment to conduct since we begin educating and acculturating the newborn right from birth. However, the fact that all cultures in all times have independently become religious is a powerful argument that there is something innate. If not, it is a hell of a coincidence (or, of course, divine inspiration).

but that can also be said of any teenager trying to convince you that Aqualung is, in fact, the single greatest record ever made and that you can't possibly have a fulfilled life if you disagree.

I doubt there have been any teenagers in quite a while who are still extolling Jethro Tull. Time for a new analogy!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


I doubt there have been any teenagers in quite a while who are still extolling Jethro Tull. Time for a new analogy!

They're rarer these days, but still can be found. While on lunch I was playing the London Symphony Orchestra's version of Locomotive Breath through speakers on my iPod, and two fourteen year olds recognized it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I doubt there have been any teenagers in quite a while who are still extolling Jethro Tull. Time for a new analogy!

It just popped into my head, having known many Tull acolytes. I've been touting Beggar's Banquet for 35 years, so I'm not one to talk.

Actually, I've always felt that popular culture bears a much stronger resemblance to religion than atheism or science do. I think that's where most of the real substituting goes on.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I haven't managed to make the leap of faith in either direction to say, thus, I call myself an agnostic (though I could call myself "Church of England" ).

lol

[undotwa]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You missed the point. Science shares the same basic core with religion. It answers the same basic questions as religion. It answes the "need for an explanation of origin, purpose and destiny." That doesn't in and of itself make science a religion, but it does in a broad sense make the two concepts not completely unrelated.

That human need that finds expression in science as much as any religion is probably also why many secular adherents share the same tendency to dogmatism, intolerance, and the need to convert non-believers. See numerous threads in this board for illustrations.

The questions which science and religion answer are similar but slightly different and so they actually complement each other. Right and wrong, the essence of humanity and of its relationship with God(s) can only be answered by faith. Science on the other hand can study detrimental or positive physical consequences of actions, a biological definition of humanity and neurological functions in the brain. Science which tries to answer questions such as right and wrong can only be properly classified as pseudo-science as these subjects cannot be studied by utilization of scientific method. In the answering, presumptions and the human experience have to be relied upon.