Comments on: Why I Think that Michael Ruse is a Disaster http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/ Atheism & Religious Skepticism Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:44:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8664 James Tracy Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:55:56 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8664 That would be sweet! Now I just need to turn this into an atheist ministry :) That would be sweet! Now I just need to turn this into an atheist ministry :)

]]> By: openlyatheist http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8663 openlyatheist Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:46:59 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8663 So if atheism is a religion I hope atheist blogs like this are filing for their tax exempt status. I'm going to go down to city hall right now and get some! So if atheism is a religion I hope atheist blogs like this are filing for their tax exempt status. I'm going to go down to city hall right now and get some!

]]> By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8662 James Tracy Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:31:31 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8662 Even if we take your definition of religion as ""a stance towards what sort of god/being/power actually made the world and keeps it created etc" then atheism is still not a religion, because atheism does not entail any particular stance with regards to the origin and cause of the universe other than skepticism of theism. But, by your definition, many cosmologists must have their own religion. I would define religion generally as a set of rituals/dogmas centering around the worship/appeasement of supernatural entities that require our attention. Even if we take your definition of religion as ""a stance towards what sort of god/being/power actually made the world and keeps it created etc" then atheism is still not a religion, because atheism does not entail any particular stance with regards to the origin and cause of the universe other than skepticism of theism. But, by your definition, many cosmologists must have their own religion.

I would define religion generally as a set of rituals/dogmas centering around the worship/appeasement of supernatural entities that require our attention.

]]> By: Numerous http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8655 Numerous Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:24:53 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8655 Well, your stance on 'what all-powerful being made the world' is pretty much religion. One stance is atheism. So technically, its a religion. Like I said, atheism is a religion like 0 is a number. You can say you want 10 pies, or you want 0 pies, even though *technically* ordering 0 pies isnt actually ordering any. *** I just realised, we *might* have different definitions we're referring to. In terms of faith, then no, atheism isnt a religion because we follow logic, and you don't "have faith". BUT, if we're talking about "a stance towards what sort of god/being/power actually made the world and keeps it created etc, then yes, it is. Because it's an alternative to christianity, and every other religion. Well, your stance on 'what all-powerful being made the world' is pretty much religion. One stance is atheism.
So technically, its a religion.
Like I said, atheism is a religion like 0 is a number. You can say you want 10 pies, or you want 0 pies, even though *technically* ordering 0 pies isnt actually ordering any.
***
I just realised, we *might* have different definitions we're referring to.
In terms of faith, then no, atheism isnt a religion because we follow logic, and you don't "have faith".
BUT, if we're talking about "a stance towards what sort of god/being/power actually made the world and keeps it created etc, then yes, it is. Because it's an alternative to christianity, and every other religion.

]]> By: Numerous http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8643 Numerous Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:48:48 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8643 Of course, when something is 100% proven, it doesn't actually matter if it goes against a religion or not, truth doesn't pander to popular belief. Of course, when something is 100% proven, it doesn't actually matter if it goes against a religion or not, truth doesn't pander to popular belief.

]]> By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8640 James Tracy Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:00:05 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8640 What would "technically" make it a religion? What would "technically" make it a religion?

]]> By: Numerous http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/why-i-think-that-michael-ruse-is-a-disaster/comment-page-1/#comment-8639 Numerous Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:26:04 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3602#comment-8639 Actually, atheism is technically a religion. It's an alternative to christianity, islam, etc etc etc. So it's a category. It's a religion like 0 is a number. Of course, that doesn't mean that we 'believe' it. You can't multiply 0, either (well it doesnt get anywhere). Actually, atheism is technically a religion. It's an alternative to christianity, islam, etc etc etc. So it's a category. It's a religion like 0 is a number. Of course, that doesn't mean that we 'believe' it. You can't multiply 0, either (well it doesnt get anywhere).

]]>