Is Atheism a Religion?

[Malacasta]

The idea that science, with its rather narrow focus, can take the place of religion, frankly boggles me.

In what sense do you mean “taking the place of religion”? Are you suggesting that religion is better at explaining the material world around us than science is? If you are, then let’s argue that. If you’re saying that science can take the role of religion in terms of answering all the unanswered questions and bringing comfort in the promise of an eternal afterlife if only you believe in God, then obviously it can’t. Nobody suggested on this thread that science can replace religion, so it’s hard to know where this comment is coming from.

This is about the time that the conversation usually devolves into an argument that our own conscious existence is really just an illusion brought on by our brain functions in an attempt to invalidate that part of universal human experience

I don’t know anyone who holds this opinion, it sounds like a wank. Are you arguing with post modernists? Just because some things exist in the world that we don’t understand, doesn’t mean that those things have to have a supernatural explanation.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Malacasta
Nobody suggested on this thread that science can replace religion, so it’s hard to know where this comment is coming from.

Originally posted by Urgot
Do I accept that science (in all its chaos) has more value than religion (in all its diversity) in making sense of the world, our place in it, and how we may affect that place?

Yes, I do.

Especially since he added the phrase, "our place in it," it seems to me that this is exactly what he said, that religion can be replaced by science.

Originally posted by Malacasta
I don’t know anyone who holds this opinion, it sounds like a wank. Are you arguing with post modernists? Just because some things exist in the world that we don’t understand, doesn’t mean that those things have to have a supernatural explanation.

What I said is that either it is supernatural or it is not, but one way or the other it IS, "It" being our consciousness and seeming ability to control our behavior. It seems to be both immaterial and yet universally experienced. It's the little invisible pink unicorn, so to speak. Whatever explanation you have for it, the fact remains that it is not material in and of itself, and stands as a constant reminder that we are more than the dirt that we are made of, whether or not it is the dirt itself that gives rise to us, or some other power.

[Malacasta]

Consciousness is not an invisible pink unicorn. Consciousness is something every conscious human being has and recognizes. An invisible pink unicorn is something that requires faith to believe in because it can’t be recognized. This is a really strange argument because I already said that there are things that science has no strong explanation for yet. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to understand those things and give them up as proof of the existence of god or some other supernatural thing. If we did that for every little thing that science had no explanation for, then we’d still be subscribing to the belief that the universe is a set of crystal spheres.

Your posts are frustrating because you keep raising arguments that nobody has made about things already answered. Science doesn’t have a good explanation for consciousness to my knowledge. This proves nothing about science apart from the fact that it doesn’t have the all the answers to everything we could learn about our existence. If that’s supposed to be some sort of victory for your side, then so be it.

I also don’t see what this has to do with atheism being a religion.

[Lokrian]

We are definitely not speaking the english to each other a-pretty-pretty-good, that's for DAMN-sure.

Originally posted by Malacasta
Consciousness is not an invisible pink unicorn. Consciousness is something every conscious human being has and recognizes. An invisible pink unicorn is something that requires faith to believe in because it can’t be recognized.

The problem here is that no one believes in invisible pink unicorns. People believe various things regarding spirituality because they experience the world spiritually, in their opinions, through their immaterial conscious awareness. Invisible pink unicorns, aside from being self-contradictory (if they are invisible they can't be pink), are a straw man sort of argument against religion. I included the reference merely to be cute. It was a superflous comment. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by Malacasta
This is a really strange argument because I already said that there are things that science has no strong explanation for yet. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to understand those things and give them up as proof of the existence of god or some other supernatural thing. If we did that for every little thing that science had no explanation for, then we’d still be subscribing to the belief that the universe is a set of crystal spheres.

Another straw man, and the second time you have refused to acknowledge my out and out admission that the consciousness may very well be phenomenon that is nothing to do with the supernatural. The point is that if it is perfectly natural, then there is no reason to believe that other spiritual beings do not exist naturally, but simply have yet to be percieved by you or certain others.

Originally posted by Malacasta
Your posts are frustrating because you keep raising arguments that nobody has made about things already answered. Science doesn’t have a good explanation for consciousness to my knowledge. This proves nothing about science apart from the fact that it doesn’t have the all the answers to everything we could learn about our existence. If that’s supposed to be some sort of victory for your side, then so be it.

Since you've never actually acknowledged that Urgot did indeed imply that religion is useless in light of science, the victory of getting you to admit that science has not yet demonstrated its superiority in defining our place within the universe might seem to you to be a small thing, sure.

Originally posted by Malacasta
I also don’t see what this has to do with atheism being a religion.

Because you have not yet acknowledged how Urgot's system of belief resembles religious dogma.

[Gromgor]

Once upon a time Religion was thought to be the known way of the world and science and magic were lies and not to be trusted. Now Science is considered the known way of the world and how it works while religion and magic are considered lies and not to be trusted.

I can't wait till magic takes it's rightful place and shows you all the truth.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Gromgor
Once upon a time Religion was thought to be the known way of the world and science and magic were lies and not to be trusted.

First off, it's important for people to realize that people such as Harry Houdini and others who pretend to be "illusionists" are actually members of a DANGEROUS Cabal who take demonic oathes of secrecy, but who in actuality practice the darkest sorts of witchcraft and magic.

Secondly, I don't imagine I understand at all the idea that science was at one time thought to be a lie. Certainly there have been particular discoveries that people have made over the years that have been considered anathema to religion, but whoever invtented language, the wheel, the first house, the toothpick, exciting underwear, horse drawn carriages and the atlatl, and so on and on, did so using more or less the same system of trial and error that is now formalized and labelled "science". Being able to think is not THAT new.

Finally, please ignore the first paragraph, as it was posted by my alter ego, who is quite insane.

signed,
Mr. Throat Warbler Mangrove, Deceased. (Retired)

((Procrastinate? Me?))

GAWD I hate this paperwork.