Big Religion Chart

[Tenebrae]

More of a table really

[MrDad]

I'm surprised to see Fremasonry included.

[Tenebrae]

Yeah, I'm kind of confused by it being there too. More of a secret society than an actual religion, I'd have thought... that and if they lumped ALL of Christianity together (except the Mormons and a couple of others) it's surprising the Free Masons were given their own.

 

IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

 

I suspect Jack the Ripper to also be involved.

[Antilles]

Hey they missed Jedi :)

[GorunNova]

Naah, they didn't want to include religions based on fictional accounts. Oh, WAIT... that would exclude damned near every religion they've got on there! *tiddy boom!*

 

^^'... sorry, couldn't resist.

[TetsuoShima]

Nice website in general if you want to get some basic idea about some of the religions.

[Tenebrae]

I was surprised there are a billion atheists/agnostics etc.

 

Good stuff. I SHALL FORGE THEM INTO AN ARMY!

 

That very joke crossed my mind Gorun - I knew I shouldn't have set my brain to sharing...

[Symok]

Atheism shoudn't be on there, techinically, since it is, by deffinition, NOT a religion. Oh well.

 

Naah' date=' they didn't want to include religions based on fictional accounts. Oh, WAIT... that would exclude damned near every religion they've got on there! *tiddy boom!*[/quote']

 

GorunNova++;

[TetsuoShima]

Atheism shoudn't be on there' date=' techinically, since it is, by deffinition, NOT a religion. Oh well.[/quote']

 

I beg to differ.

 

Depending of course on how broad your definition of "religion" is (for some people it is really strict, for me it is quite broad). Atheists "believe" there is no God. Thus, it is a religion, since they believe! Religion doesn't have to be restricted to gods. Even science can be a religion to some people (and I'm not talking scientology :p ). Everything that can be "worshipped" (be it in a traditional or an abstract manner) can be converted into a religion.

 

For example, people who have a 'blind faith' in science are actually worshipping science. They could believe for example, that science, in the end, can solve any problem you throw at it, given enough time. However, since science does not actually has solved all problems, this would be considered a "belief" in science, so I'd say they have science as religion. It might not be a religion in the tratitional sense, but regarded abstractly, it should be clear that the 'core' is there. (a belief in something you cannot verify (yet?)).

 

So atheists, believe there is no god and they (abstractly) worship that idea. So that qualifies them as a religion to me (and other who see religion in a broad sense).

 

 

 

edit: Forget about the above, I just read the quoted post again, and I missed the 'technically' part. :p

[GorunNova]

Atheism isn't a religion, because belief is an additive thing, not a subtractive thing. It isn't about believing there's an absence of a god... it's about not having seen any real evidence or need for a god in the first place. If lack of belief is a religion, we all worship the lack of an infinity of things, NOT just the lack of a god.

[Megalith]

i think Jedi should be on the list lol i believe in the force

[MrDad]

Atheism isn't a religion' date=' because belief is an additive thing, not a subtractive thing. It isn't about believing there's an absence of a god... it's about not having seen any real evidence or need for a god in the first place. If lack of belief is a religion, we all worship the lack of an infinity of things, NOT just the lack of a god.[/quote']Don't confuse belief and worship.

[GorunNova]

I said worship because religion implies worship.

[TetsuoShima]

I said worship because religion implies worship.

 

Not necessarily, but usually/stereotypically, yes.

 

 

Religion is believing in something without needing proof for it. Believing there is no God amounts to the same thing in that respect as believing there is. But maybe my definition of atheism is too narrow: an ateist for me is someone who believes there is no God, period! Whether you haven't seen proof or not isn't really that relevant, since you haven't seen proof of the opposite either. So in that respect it amounts to a belief. An atheist believes there is no God.

 

Lack of belief as you put it, applied to atheism, results in belief of the non-existance of God, since there is no proof for either one way or the other.

 

For most things, I imagine, where there is a lack of belief, there is a proven reason, and thus it wouldn't qualify as a belief. (the same reasoning can be applied to the opposite)

 

Since atheists require no proof for their belief (or lack) and they are not open to the possibility of there existing a God, it is quite reasonable to call it a religion (even more so, since it deals with a religeous question).

 

 

Of course, as I said originally, it really depends on your definition of religion, mine might be even a little broader than wikipedia's but even theirs will do for defining atheism as a religion:

 

_Wiki_: Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.

[GorunNova]

Ah... but I don't need to supply proof that God exists. Only the people that claim he's there have to, due to that wonderful rule of logic called 'Burden of Proof' (aka. "He who claims something is, must show that something is.") Logically, the default is that nothing exists until evidence or necessity (if there's any difference) says otherwise, because if we assume everything exists by default we'd be spending our entire lives proving that an infinite number of nonexistant things are actually genuinely nonexistant.

 

Edit: Anyways, that's why atheists say that atheism is not a religion. If one supplies genuine, uncontestable proof that a God exists, real atheists will accept it. Then again, maybe there needs to be a term seperating those who unconditionally claim there is no god and those that claim that evidence for god is required before assuming god's there. Would 'naturalism' cover the requirement of evidence?

 

Edit 2: Wikipedia entry on 'naturalism'. Yep, I'm definitely not an atheist, but a naturalist (of the metaphysical sort, it would seem).

[TetsuoShima]

Ah... but I don't need to supply proof that God exists. Only the people that claim he's there have to' date=' due to that wonderful rule of logic called 'Burden of Proof' (aka. "He who claims something is, must show that something is.") Logically, the default is that nothing exists until evidence or necessity (if there's any difference) says otherwise, because if we assume everything exists by default we'd be spending our entire lives proving that an infinite number of nonexistant things are actually genuinely nonexistant.[/quote']

 

That is again, just how you (as a general term, not necessarily you :) ) look at things. If I make a mathematical proposition and I do not provide proof, but it cannot be disproven either. Then mathematicians do not automatically presume that the propositions is false. They hold it in consideration, and even make use of it untill such time it can be proven. (there are numerous mathematical examples about this, Fermat's last theorem for example). So I'd say it's a little more complicated then what you propose.

 

The burden of proof is (or should be in some cases) evenly devided between the parties/points of view.

 

You propose nothing exists until it is proven, I propose: we do not know whether or not something exists until it is proven/disproven.

 

We should not simply say, start with nothing and add the rest, we do not know whether or not there is nothing to start with (if you know what I mean). So to go with your proposition, you'd have to prove that first proposition before the rest that follows from it can be accepted. I simply say, we do not know and thus should not make assumptions about it. Both could be right or wrong. I see no need in my proposition to prove that we do not know, since that is rather trivial imo. :p

 

 

 

Edit: Anyways, that's why atheists say that atheism is not a religion. If one supplies genuine, uncontestable proof that a God exists, real atheists will accept it. Then again, maybe there needs to be a term seperating those who unconditionally claim there is no god and those that claim that evidence for god is required before assuming god's there. Would 'naturalism' cover the requirement of evidence?

 

Edit 2: Wikipedia entry on 'naturalism'. Yep, I'm definitely not an atheist, but a naturalist (of the metaphysical sort, it would seem).

 

This naturalism thing sure is pretty broad in its definition too. :)

 

In the end, anything that people believe in very deeply without needing proof for it and it having to do with 'supernatural' things can be classified as a religion imo. But I don't write the dictionaries. :D

 

 

 

edit: Man, I read some more of these things and it's rather impossible to have a good discussion about religion. Why because nothing is clearly defined. If I say atheist/religion/... and you say it, we can both can mean entirely different things... :( I'm guessing our 'tracks' are not that far appart (though different), but we've simply got seriously different definitions of these concepts...

[GorunNova]

Well... the big problem is, without proof you don't have just one god to contemplate... but an infinity of them, all with equal basis (i.e. none have real evidence to back them). One can't just 'assume' one god exists without assuming they ALL exist... unless one wants to be a hypocrite. ;)

 

Besides, nothing in science is 'proven'... if I used the term, it's due to bad habit. I really should have said 'has evidence supporting it'. Nothing can be 'proven', but things can be shown to exist by evidence and necessity (e.g. gravity both has evidence, and is necessary due to the fact that if gravity didn't exist, objects wouldn't be doing what they're doing.)

 

I still hold that the burden of proof is on those arguing for the existance of God, just as the burden of proof is on me if I claim that an invisible, weightless, noiseless orangutang is sitting on your head.

[Megalith]

yes quite right TetsuoShima burdon of not proof is as much a part of burdon of proof, essentially can gurun Nova prove that god (or a higher spiritual entity/entities) doesnt exist?

 

obviously neither side of the argument has 'proof' this is one of the major problems with spirituality and to state that god doesnt exist requires as much 'faith' as a christian saying that he does, both have there reasons but neither has proof.

 

if it was proven that god didnt exist then only the truelly insane would claim that he did and use a global conspiracy theory to support their beliefs just like the flatearthers do today.

 

i believe that there are invisable forces in the universe and science has proved this to be true. "May the force be strong in all of you." oh! and dont forget "The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Obi-Wan Kenobi.

 

 

[TetsuoShima]

Well... the big problem is' date=' without proof you don't have just one god to contemplate... but an infinity of them, all with equal basis (i.e. none have real evidence to back them). One can't just 'assume' one god exists without assuming they ALL exist... unless one wants to be a hypocrite. ;)[/quote']

 

Well, that's mixing two ideas in one, I guess. I was simply saying that we do not know whether one God exists or not, I do not mean that we should thus simply accept that God exists, if it sounded like that, then I'm sorry for the confusion. I would also say, we do not know whether or not multiple gods exist, they could and they couldn't. I must admit however, that I'm culturally more inclined to direct myself in the one God direction.

 

Besides' date=' nothing in science is 'proven'... if I used the term, it's due to bad habit. I really should have said 'has evidence supporting it'. Nothing can be 'proven', but things can be shown to exist by evidence and necessity (e.g. gravity both has evidence, and is necessary due to the fact that if gravity didn't exist, objects wouldn't be doing what they're doing.)[/quote']

 

That's why I used mathematics as an example, no need for 'real life' considerations. :D

 

I still hold that the burden of proof is on those arguing for the existance of God' date=' just as the burden of proof is on me if I claim that an invisible, weightless, noiseless orangutang is sitting on your head.[/quote']

 

If you'd be so kind to provide some more characteristics, I might be able to disprove that! But it's going to be costly. :cyclops:

 

 

i believe that there are invisable forces in the universe and science has proved this to be true. "May the force be strong in all of you." oh! and dont forget "The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Obi-Wan Kenobi.

 

I hear ya, the force. And Dubya hears ya too. ;)

 

Funny "Jedi Bush" Clip

 

 

 

[GorunNova]

If you'd be so kind to provide some more characteristics, I might be able to disprove that! But it's going to be costly. :cyclops:

 

I'd love to help, but all I know is that he's invisible, weightless, and noiseless. ;)

 

o_O... and I think he just threw a handful of invisible, weightless, noiseless, and smellless poo at me! >_<