Thread: Is Atheism a Religion?

So, first I must say I 'm an atheist.
Having that said, I agree with the ppl for atheism being a philosophy, not a religion, because that s what atheists are trying to reject (as far as I'm concerned), be it due to science or simply because they find every religion out there to be a complete pile of ****. This may be a negative view of things, but sadly I think that religions are way too far from being helpful to anyone, except the fact that they give ppl the illusion of not just vanishing from reality, but rather living on somewhere else or as someone else, be it heaven or hell or nirvana or whatever.
This may sound very krass, but I'm not trying to bring anyone off his religious tracks, and I'm not gonna start with all the wars that have been fought over or with religion as the reason, all I'm trying to say is that I'm an atheist not just because of science, but rather also because every religion (I know of) doesn't appeal to me one last bit.
I hope I didn't offend anyone,
waiting for replies.

Originally Posted by E=mc²

Religion as no explanation about the dinosaurs. How come they are not mentioned in the Bible ?

Religion has no place in a science classroom.

ok......what does the dinosaurs have to do with whether atheism is a religion?

I find it interesting that when I looked up Religion in the dictionary, after listing it as a belief in a higher being, they listed and described both Atheism and Agnostics. I have always heard that the definition of Religion is a belief in God. To not believe in God appears to me to be a "belief" in it's own right, so yes, I would say it is a religious belief.

As for evolution, from what I have read there are many scientist that do feel that evolution (as opposed to genetic drift) has been disproven and the only reason it continues to be taught is because they have nothing to replace it with except creationism. Their words not mine. So I would still consider it a theory and a faulty one at that. In science class we used to joke about how, in order to create any theory it was necessary to throw out up to 30% of the evidence. All you need is more proof for you then against you. Well, we thought it was funny.

Incidently, from what I have read and heard Darwin himself considered Evolution (again, not to be confused with genetic drift) to be disproven in his lifetime. The same people who pushed him to publish his work then proceeded to ostrisize him. To understand you would have to understand that at the time the Catholic (and Anglican) church had a lock on science at the time. Theories or beliefs that were considered contradictory where often suppresed severely. The Atheists and Agnostics at the time felt their only chance of becomeing seperate entities was to attack the foundation of the church doctrine thereby moving church doctrine into the realm of folk belief and not fact. To discredit them by any means necessary. Darwins origanal theory gave them the ammunition they wanted and they were not going to give it up. The sad thing is that in their attack on established beliefs they themselves treated any theories that might back up religious doctrines, as fantesy and unreliable based purely on what they wanted to be true. Thereby we have lost a great deal of knowlege that used to be common in our pursuit of the all mighty scientific fact. It is only in the last few decades that scientist have been able to start questioning many of the "theories" that modern science is based upon. Some of them stand up to scrutiny, others do not. Evolution appears to be one that does not.


And incidently E=mc², dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. They are called Dragons. Dinosaur bones were originally called Dragon bones and in China were considered to have medicinal properties. "Dinosaur" is a name that was invented in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen. It would be very difficult for the word to be found in a document written in 4000BC to about 70AD.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

And incidently E=mc², dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. They are called Dragons. Dinosaur bones were originally called Dragon bones and in China were considered to have medicinal properties. "Dinosaur" is a name that was invented in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen. It would be very difficult for the word to be found in a document written in 4000BC to about 70AD.

First, dinos came before primates.
second, i dont see any medical properties about dino or in the imagination figure the soo called (dragon)
third, so they spit fire ?

Originally Posted by E=mc²

First, dinos came before primates.
second, i dont see any medical properties about dino or in the imagination figure the soo called (dragon)
third, so they spit fire ?

I'm afraid your eyeroll is only showing your lack of knowlege on the subject.

Dinosaurs considered extict have been found within the last 2 millenia. Not the large T-rex ones mind you but there is evidence that several smaller ones had survived past the expected timelines.

Dinosaur bones are still ground up into longevity serums in parts of China today.

The concept of Dragons spitting fire is a recent myth from Brition and surrounding parts of Europe. The mythos of the "Great Dragon" such as Smog in The Hobbit can be traced to this Millenia. Again, the Bible was written long before then.

Previously Dragons were described world wide as small, reptilian, and snake like. They were described as everything from something on four legs (quadriped), two legs (like a chicken), or even none at all.

Originally Posted by E=mc²

Religion has no place in a science classroom.

You'll find that many, MANY people in the sciences, especially those with advaced degrees, would strongly disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Dinosaurs considered extict have been found within the last 2 millenia. Not the large T-rex ones mind you but there is evidence that several smaller ones had survived past the expected timelines.

Dinosaur bones are still ground up into longevity serums in parts of China today.
.

Dino bones could be found anywhere by digging. You say 2 millenia ? According to the thousands of soil layers, dino bones are old as 8 millar 500 million years ago.

The creatures who as survived are the turtles, some races of fishs, some marine shell creatures, deep ocean creatures and many small reptiles and insects.

Is the concept of possibly being wrong so scary to you that you have to contradict yourself?

You pointed out that Dinosaurs lived before the Bible was written so I pointed out to you that there are some small ones that were around at the time.

The timeline of the different ages has been in debate lately so I have no opinion on the subject.

I never said that they were grinding up recent bones in China. You are right, they can be found anywhere, and in China they use them medicinally.

Chinese dinosaurs and dragon bones

Perhaps if you did some research instead of simply repeating everything you're told at school you might learn some things that would suprise you. Just because something comes from a historical or religious source does not make it wrong any more then it would automatically make it right. Scientist in the last few decades have been revisiting old stories and beliefs and are often surprised at what they find. The number of discoveries made recently are astounding. Open yourself to them and be amazed along with the rest of us.

(Come to the dark side Luke...) lol

Incidently, College textbooks are 10 years beind the scientific world and pre-College textbooks are another 10 years behind that. If you want to know what is current you have to find other sources.