Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Obviously no.
Atheists do not have a "fundamental set of beliefs", so no. And just because we in general respect science does not make us into a religion, otherwise you could call the scientific community itself a religion, which would stretch the definition of a religion to the point where you would need a new word to describe the worship of a deity.
No. Same reason as above.
No, cause duh.
No.
Yeah, possibly, but the example given even shows that this particular definition does not necessarily have any relation to religion as the worship of a deity, and to equate both definitions would be to make the word useless. So, no in any way that counts.
|
The simple fact that you take a position of authority in asserting there is no fundamental set of beliefs opens the floor for the argument that there is some authoritative source to support your claim (if you wanna claim credibility) and that in turn supports the notion that there is a structure from which you derive your authority...you know, something upon which a foundation is built--ergo fundamental.
But we could bicker about the semantics of beliefs and what fundamental really is all day. So that's cool if you choose to see it that way, ignoring the true meaning.
When a group of people uniformly adheres to a system of ethics or beliefs...there is a practice of fundamentalism right there. Call it what you want but if walks like a duck and talks like a duck. It could be a flying spaghetti monster. In fact, the reality is people are walking in the paths of so many religions.
Your points are based on the colloquial usage of religion in common circles, which portends to the inclusion of the many monotheistic religions and buddhism/hinduism. But the definition of religion doesn't depend on a catalog of major, world religions.
I also even looked up the merriam-webster definition and the third branch of the definition would qualify atheism as a religion.
Just saying...
Atheism might not be as organized as the religious communities that are centuries-old, but I assure you that it fits the description. You don't have to trust me though. I mean atheists have conventions, bro! If that's not a grouping of people adhering to a set of beliefs/practices (whether fundamental or not is moot at this juncture) then I don't know what to tell you if you're unwilling to recognize it for what it is.
And the scientific community embodies the definition more than any other group...it is THE MOST-structured embodiment of a religion with regards to uniform acceptance and systematic belief, permitting varying degrees of adherence within dissenting subsects...but nevertheless a system of beliefs at the core. It's the epitome of organized religion from the standpoint of rigorous academic testing of the definition. Deductive reason, part of the scientific method and the prediction is an exercise of "faith" too!
How are you not seeing that?