Uyi Iredia:
@ OLAADEGBU >>> I love the way u presented it. >>> Evolution is the religion of Atheism >>> I had subtly mentioned this earlier

You did and I responded to it with the theory of evolution being a scientific theory and not a religion.

Uyi Iredia:
. . .
@ all posters >>> you must understand that I didn't wake up one morning to declare 'Atheism is a religion' >>> over time and in the course of debating atheists >>> i noted similarities between atheism (especially militant atheism) with religious mold of thinking

Again with this "militant atheism". What does it mean? Can you define or describe it to me?

davidylan:

this is incoherent in of itself. Faith is not primarily tied to religion. For example you have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow . . . now on what evidence is that based? How do you know the earth wont end in the next 2 mins?

It is not faith in the religious sense because, based on evidence from physics, a body in motion requires some force to make it stop. So I expect the sun to rise or set tomorrow. Besides, the sort of force that would make it not rise I expect to be a powerful meteor strike and with the current tools observing space, I also expect that such a body would have been detected.

I don't know that the earth won't end in the next 2 minutes.

davidylan:

With regard to your last comment . . . yeah my non-belief in Zeus is based on faith . . . faith that he never existed.

Is it actually faith or have you arrived at this position based on what we now know about say the mechanisms of thunder and lighting strikes, or the fact that Mount Olympus is actually not inhabited by Gods?

thehomer:

It is not faith in the religious sense because, based on evidence from physics, a body in motion requires some force to make it stop. So I expect the sun to rise or set tomorrow. Besides, the sort of force that would make it not rise I expect to be a powerful meteor strike and with the current tools observing space, I also expect that such a body would have been detected.

But you really dont know right? All this is speculation. A cataclysmic shift in the earth's center may occur or the sun may suddenly explode (afterall science tells us (by faith) that it appeared following a big bang right?

thehomer:

I don't know that the earth won't end in the next 2 minutes.

but by faith you believe it wont right?

thehomer:

Is it actually faith or have you arrived at this position based on what we now know about say the mechanisms of thunder and lighting strikes, or the fact that Mount Olympus is actually not inhabited by Gods?

By faith pretty much. It is totally possible that it was untrue that Zeus controlled thunder and lightening. He might exist somewhere else . . . you and i dont know right?

OLAADEGBU:
@Uyi Iredia,

I will rather take it a step further and say that the religion of atheism is evolution.  Religion, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is:

"a cause, a principle or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion"

If you wish to go by this, then to the diligent and highly motivated student his education a religious activity.

OLAADEGBU:
It does not necessarily have to involve the concept of a deity for it to be classified as a religion, it has to be a cause or principle that is zealously pursued as is displayed by our folks here on the NL religion section.

No it doesn't. So is the pursuit of universal suffrage a religion?

OLAADEGBU:
The belief in molecule-to-man evolution causes most people to become atheists as Richard Dawkins, the atheists' leading armour bearer admitted in the interview below when he was answering a question about the logical extension of atheism to evolution, He said:

"My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx?p=2

So what?

OLAADEGBU:
This is what Michael Ruse, a doctor in one of the evolutionary sciences, wrote:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.  Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

This quote if accurate is simply this man's opinion which I think is inaccurate.

OLAADEGBU:
Another Professor of one of the Evolutionary disciplines William Provine tells of the beliefs that evolution is religion when he said:

"There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.  There is no life after death.  When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead.  That's the end for me.  There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."

You can see from their quotes that the religion of atheism has no end product and that they believe that evolution reigns supreme.

Evolution reigns supreme in what way? It is a plain fact just as gravity is a plain fact.

davidylan:

But you really dont know right? All this is speculation. A cataclysmic shift in the earth's center may occur or the sun may suddenly explode (afterall science tells us (by faith) that it appeared following a big bang right?

No. Faith has no part to play in it. I simply do not expect it to knowing what we know about the age of the sun and how long we expect it to last. Besides, these events you describe will have shown some warning signs that by now we can detect due to our proximity to these bodies.

davidylan:

but by faith you believe it wont right?

Again not by faith. I simply don't expect it to based on our accumulated scientific knowledge.

davidylan:

By faith pretty much. It is totally possible that it was untrue that Zeus controlled thunder and lightening. He might exist somewhere else . . . you and i dont know right?

Not so. If the deity did not control thunder and lightning here on earth where the Greeks were able to write about him, then it was not Zeus.

Actually, there is a point to what Olaadegbu said though perhaps it is preferable to substitute "rationalism" for evolution (EDITED: though we can actually stand atheism on its own without necessarily relating it to either evolution or even rationalism). For example, let us take thehomer's own preferred definition of "religion" (even though Jesoul has already shown the intellectual inadequacy of sticking to one of four definitions offered by the same source):

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

I will pause to let that sink in!

Enigma:

Actually, there is a point to what Olaadegbu said though perhaps it is preferable to substitute "rationalism" for evolution (EDITED: though we can actually stand atheism on its own without necessarily relating it to either evolution or even rationalism). For example, let us take thehomer's own preferred definition of "religion" (even though Jesoul has already shown the intellectual inadequacy of sticking to one of four definitions offered by the same source):

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

I will pause to let that sink in!

I picked that definition for some reasons which I outlined in my response to JeSoul. If you have a better definition, you're free to present it.

Rationalism, atheism and evolution are not religions. Going by my preferred definition, what are the sacred beliefs and teachings that they have?

^^^ So you cannot see that by your own preferred definition the beliefs and teachings do not have to be "sacred"?

Here is your own preferred definition again:

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued [size=16pt]or[/size] sacred.

Enigma:

^^^ So you cannot see that by your own preferred definition the beliefs and teachings do not have to be "sacred"?

Here is your own preferred definition again:

There is an "or" in the definition which is a very important part of the definition. So go ahead and present the practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued with rationalism, atheism and evolution keep in mind that these practices ought to be consistent across groups.

^^^

1. This is the breakdown of your own preferred definition of religion. Religion is

(a) A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued; OR

(b) A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are sacred.

That is the importance of the "or" that you referred to.


2. I made a distinction earlier between "passive" atheists and evangelical (if not indeed aggressive and/or militant) atheists. It is patently clear from this thread that the focus is primarily on the evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheists. Thus the case is really that evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheism is a religion.

3. Here are are some of the practices, beliefs and teachings of evangelical atheism

(a) the practice of actively seeking to convince others that there is no god
(b) the practice of actively seeking to 'debunk' Christianity and/or religion
(c) the practice of actively challenging Christian and/or religious doctrine
(d) the belief and teaching that rationalism is supreme and that anything that cannot be proven by rational or scientific methods is unsustainable or not true (remember our debate on faith and reason?).

I can list more but these are enough.

4. You ask that the practices, beliefs and teachings be consistent across atheist groups; well, they are certainly consistent among evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheist groups. What is more, beware of falling into double-standards since not all religious groups (not even all Christian groups) have wholly consistent practices, beliefs and teachings.

5. Here are samplings of what evangelical atheism means:

From here http://evangelicalatheism.org/

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality of atheism.

Life is hard, and religionists take comfort in "knowing" that it's all according to God's purpose. But, if true, would it really be comforting? That a benevolent, loving god could think of no better way to do what he needs to do by causing so much suffering along with joy?

Life ends in death, but wouldn't eternal life be worse?

Many people go to religious services to reinforce their love of God, but isn't that palpable feeling really the love of each other?

We all are lonely, but aren't six billion of us, most of whom are really fine people, enough?

and from here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evangelical%20atheist

An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one. Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Mostly teen angst if you ask me,

Conclusion? Evangelical atheism is a religion ----- especially according to your own preferred definition of religion.

So you fellows should stop denying what you are i.e. members of the evangelical atheism religion.

Oh, by the way, if you want an example of evangelical atheism in action try this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

Enigma e ku ise o. Howdi.

I have been you in this thread, not seeing the need to respond intoto, you know how you do when you view something as beneath you. . .

But your last post is indeed worthwhile to respond to: I'd like to say that neither atheism nor evangelical atheism are religions.

For the simple reason that religion by its very nature, purpose and intent, is a set of doctrines cast in a sacred mould which is driven towards spirituality. It is in every case a purposeful journey towards that which is deemed the spiritual light.

That can not be said for atheism or even for evengelical atheism for that matter.

^^
one of the core values of being an atheist it self is hypocritism. Way to go fella!

African adage: " you cant hide two things: character and pregnancy when they both fully manifest.

Enigma:

Oh, by the way, if you want an example of evangelical atheism in action try this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

Would you call evangelical communism a religion? ? ?

Wow! So are you theists trying to say that all atheist are religious? Because all religions have a diety & atheists have no diety

@  Deep Sight

I think I have expressed my view on the thread subject clearly enough. Naturally, others are entitled to different views.

[size=14pt]Atheism Is A Religion: The errancy of polarizing faith and reason[/size]

With the way science/religion, faith/reason are portrayed, especially in Western culture, a stereotype could emerge: Science/Reason would SOLELY be associated with atheism while Faith/Irrationality would equate to religion. I had earlier connoted this in my post.

I quickly noted a trend (meme) in atheist discussion forums, sites, literature e.t.c which I have been chanced to peruse, and intend to keep on perusing (at least for the sake of knowledge). Any notion of faith or belief is snubbed. Atheists on Nairaland naively associate faith (and by extension belief) with religion_an annoying demotic. This is the root cause for my denouncement of atheism as a religion_with just cause. It amounts to sin on the part of atheists (and even agnostics) to repudiate the very faith they effuse because of the religious connotations it has

"One can have a reasoned approach to (or view of) his faith. Even the minutest of reason, involves faith" (q.v)

"Science and Religion are mutually inclusive. As long as one is both are"

- Uyi Iredia

Science and Religion are inescapably tied down to ideologies. They influence the worldview of a person. I opine that Science is an inquiry into nature; while Religion is an inquiry into the underlying cause of nature_who/what is behind the universe. Note that, if "Science" and "Religion"  are interposed in my definitions, it would still hold true. (e.g Religion is an inquiry into nature). Both have patrimony in philosophy. We know that many (if not all) religions could be classified under theism/deism. We are also aware that people such as St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley et al defended theist philosophy in their various treatises.

Errors of polarizing science and religion include:

*1 >>> the fallibility of polarity
*2 >>> their immutability in philosophy
*3 >>> the sin of 'convenient ignorance'
*4 >>> the scourge of 'non-intertwining concepts'
*5 >>> the malaise of 'inherent flaws'

The thrust of my debate is predicated upon expatiating and clarifying the errors listed above. I hope that this will make the truth and lies of the topic made more lucid.

The fallibility of polarity

---

Polarizing distinguishes between two objects for the purpose of clarity by contrasting such objects. In doing so it ignores the fact that object or subjects are interrelated and enmeshed. There is also a tendency to revert to polarity because it is easy to_ humans are lazy. An example of polarizing is oft found in the question: What is good or evil ? As kids we were admonished to do 'good' and shun 'evil'. I outquote good and evil because of this: Evil actions are considered by their perpetrators to be good. The same applies if I were to interpose good and evil.

Moreover, the ongoing debate in moral philosophy as espoused by 'isms' (e.g pragmatism, liberalism, conservatism e.t.c ) goes to show that the line between good and evil  blurs. Another example which has more bearing is on polarizing faith and reason. To this end I will repeat one of my citations

"One can have a reasoned approach to (or view of) his faith. Even the minutest of reason, involves faith"

the moment you polarize faith and reason you have blundered as regards the above statement de gustibus.  You ignore their enmeshment simply by polarizing. I hope that is clear.

---

Their immutability in philosophy

---

Philosophy is derived from the Greek word the word philosophia which means 'love of wisdom'. So I was taught in philosophy class last year. Do I need to sermonize to show that this love of wisdom is common to both science and religion ! The only intricacy I see with this_and rightly so_ is that science and religion percieve wisdom in various ways. To this end I visualize Science and Religion as Siamese twins (sharing vital organs) both whom have their unique persona despite their outward likeness. Their immutability in philospphy is also proven by how one invariably impacts the other. Many medieval philosophers hugely impacted on the scientific method during the Medieval age (of course their impact cascaded into present scientific thought); likewise, we know of how scientific theories (e.g the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, even Newton's laws of mechanics) left their imprints on religious thought and in the case of evolution spurred violent reactions. I rest my case

---

the sin of 'convenient ignorance'

---

Any keen observer would note that  right from the list that this point (i.e the sin of convenient ignorance) and the subsequent errors are by-products of the first 2 reasons. For example when you polarize to concepts (for the purpose of contrasting) you ignore their similarities.

Convenient ignorance per se is a self-describing term. It means to ignore for the sake of convenience. It ignores what it knows, its flaws, its lies and dangers_for the sake of convenience. You can't polarize science and religion, for example, without the following  posit:

" Religion can be scientifically applied in one's life & Science religiously adheres to logical positivism"
- Uyi Iredia

A religious critic (e.g Deep Sight who specializes in polarizing science and religion) will ignore the truth in the above posit and hype its flaws *SMH at this possibility  * Convenient ignorance is a sin, apparently , because it ignores the truth of a proposition for the purpose of (needless) knifing.

---

look at this space ooo !!! I'm going to add more points to it

"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God by extension, atheism is the religion of the foolish" ----Rhino.4dm

Enigma:

^^^

1. This is the breakdown of your own preferred definition of religion. Religion is

(a) A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued; OR

(b) A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are sacred.

That is the importance of the "or" that you referred to.

Yes and it seems you wish to go with the (a) portion only.

Enigma:

2. I made a distinction earlier between "passive" atheists and evangelical (if not indeed aggressive and/or militant) atheists. It is patently clear from this thread that the focus is primarily on the evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheists. Thus the case is really that evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheism is a religion.

I did not notice this distinction.

And I'll ask you too. Can you define or describe what you mean by militant atheism?
So your case is against "evangelical atheism"? That is the religion?

Enigma:

3. Here are are some of the practices, beliefs and teachings of evangelical atheism

(a) the practice of actively seeking to convince others that there is no god
(b) the practice of actively seeking to 'debunk' Christianity and/or religion
(c) the practice of actively challenging Christian and/or religious doctrine
(d) the belief and teaching that rationalism is supreme and that anything that cannot be proven by rational or scientific methods is unsustainable or not true (remember our debate on faith and reason?).

I can list more but these are enough.

So your argument basically amounts to: discussing or promoting one's views publicly is a highly valued religious practice on par with e.g the practice of regular communion, regular prayers at certain times of the day etc?
This interpretation would make promotion of communism, socialism even the promotion of some aspects of philosophy religious activities.

I remember our discussion but please understand that several times you refused to defend your position.
Also, I don't see what the problem is with acting rationally or encouraging people to act rationally because that is what is expected of humans. Trying to deny that humans try to act rationally is like cutting a branch off a tree that you're sitting on to get to a higher position.

Or do you think rational actions are not useful?

Enigma:

4. You ask that the practices, beliefs and teachings be consistent across atheist groups; well, they are certainly consistent among evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheist groups. What is more, beware of falling into double-standards since not all religious groups (not even all Christian groups) have wholly consistent practices, beliefs and teachings.

What you described as practices are simply not religious practices. Those are activities carried out during an exchange of ideas about God.

Enigma:

5. Here are samplings of what evangelical atheism means:

From here http://evangelicalatheism.org/

and from here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evangelical%20atheist

Conclusion? Evangelical atheism is a religion ----- especially according to your own preferred definition of religion.

So you fellows should stop denying what you are i.e. members of the evangelical atheism religion.

Even if you wish to call some people "evangelical atheists" they simply do not have consistent practices that may be considered highly valued or sacred without destroying the meaning you wish to get across.
You may be better off describing "evangelical atheism" as being a movement rather than a religion.

I do agree that defining religion is very tricky but the way I see it, any definition that tries to lump concepts like atheism, theism etc into it simply becomes so broad as to be virtually devoid of meaning.

I was asked what would make me consider a movement as being religious, and my response was made here
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.96.html#msg7129510

I think for a movement to get to the level of religion, I think it needs sacred texts, rituals (acts that are repeated in a certain way expecting some response from the deity it's being directed at), poor evidence of efficacy of said acts and some other things. These were just on the spur of the moment and may still need to be modified.

@ the homer >>> my conception of militant atheism  is  Atheism that actively seeks adherents and denounces all forms of religion whilst accepting ev olution as the SOLE basis of man's existence. u forgot to correct my error; under what are Shintoism and Taoism classified ? >>> also note that what is sacred is predicated upon what is highly valued >>> the ONLY thing which distinguishes both is the concept of 'divine' i.e something wrt a deity) which applies PRIMARILY to anything sacred >>> of course I mentioned the defining theme which is sacred to atheism

I think for a movement to get to the level of religion, I think it needs sacred texts, rituals (acts that are repeated in a certain way expecting some response from the deity it's being directed at), poor evidence of efficacy of said acts and some other things*1. I do agree that defining religion is very tricky but the way I see it, any definition that tries to lump concepts like atheism, theism*2 etc into it simply becomes so broad as to be virtually devoid*3 of meaning.

*1 >>> like your reference of faith (in which u said u only mean religious faith when talking about faith) , this definition is constrictive. You effectively annulled this definition when u said that defining religion is tricky (which I'' take to mean that the concept of 'religion' is ambiguous) >>> U probably thought otherwise b4 entering this discussion ?

*2 >>> Don't think 'religious' adherents will agree with that. Besides this definition creates a quandary when I consider stuff like "Atheo-Buddhism" or the so-called "New Age religions"

*3 >>> This is the same 'sin' u committed in your definition of religion. Besides the fact that one can categorize religions under theism opens Atheism up to the same possibility. Virtually devoid isn't devoid


@ Deep Sight >>> Why u don't see this (your definition of religion) in humanism (and by extension atheism) surprises me. To clear the dust >>> Please !!! >>> Expantiate on the terms '(spiritual) light', 'sacred' and 'spirituality'. >>> Let's work from there

Uyi Iredia:

[size=14pt]Atheism Is A Religion: The errancy of polarizing faith and reason[/size]

With the way science/religion, faith/reason are portrayed, especially in Western culture, a stereotype could emerge: Science/Reason would SOLELY be associated with atheism while Faith/Irrationality would equate to religion. I had earlier connoted this in my post.


"One can have a reasoned approach to (or view of) his faith. Even the minutest of reason, involves faith" (q.v)

I do not agree with this because, religious faith as I understand it depends on poor or no evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

"Science and Religion are mutually inclusive. As long as one is both are"
- Uyi Iredia

Mutually inclusive? I hope you are quite aware of the wide chasms between the practices of science and religion?

Uyi Iredia:

Science and Religion are inescapably tied down to ideologies. They influence the worldview of a person.

Religion may be tied down but science is not tied down to ideologies this is one of the reasons for its universality on earth. The very same electromagnetic principles work whatever the ideologies of the practitioners.

Uyi Iredia:

I opine that Science is an inquiry into nature; while Religion is an inquiry into the underlying cause of nature_who/what is behind the universe. Note that, if "Science" and "Religion"  are interposed in my definitions, it would still hold true. (e.g Religion is an inquiry into nature).

Religion no longer enquires it already has the answers written in books and with the religious authorities.

Uyi Iredia:

Both have patrimony in philosophy. We know that many (if not all) religions could be classified under theism/deism. We are also aware that people such as St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley et al defended theist philosophy in their various treatises.

Humans have been engaged in religious activities before they codified their thoughts in philosophy but scientific thinking came later much later.
So what if they used philosophy to try to defend their positions?

Uyi Iredia:

Errors of polarizing science and religion include:

*1 >>> the fallibility of polarity
*2 >>> their immutability in philosophy
*3 >>> the sin of 'convenient ignorance'
*4 >>> the scourge of 'non-intertwining concepts'
*5 >>> the malaise of 'inherent flaws'

The thrust of my debate is predicated upon expatiating and clarifying the errors listed above. I hope that this will make the truth and lies of the topic made more lucid.

This post is getting too long. I'll break up my responses to the sections.

Uyi Iredia:

@ the homer >>>my conception of militant atheism  is  Atheism that actively seeks adherents and denounces all forms of religion whilst accepting ev olution as the SOLE basis of man's existence.

Is militant the best word to use in that phrase? I ask because militant groups generally use or encourage violent means to achieve their ends.

Uyi Iredia:

u forgot to correct my error; under what are Shintoism and Taoism classified ?
. . .

I did. I placed it under atheism. This is the post. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.96.html#msg7129803

Uyi Iredia:

[size=14pt]Atheism Is A Religion: The errancy of polarizing faith and reason[/size]

. . .

*1 >>> the fallibility of polarity
*2 >>> their immutability in philosophy
*3 >>> the sin of 'convenient ignorance'
*4 >>> the scourge of 'non-intertwining concepts'
*5 >>> the malaise of 'inherent flaws'

The thrust of my debate is predicated upon expatiating and clarifying the errors listed above. I hope that this will make the truth and lies of the topic made more lucid.

The fallibility of polarity

---

Polarizing distinguishes between two objects for the purpose of clarity by contrasting such objects. In doing so it ignores the fact that object or subjects are interrelated and enmeshed. There is also a tendency to revert to polarity because it is easy to_ humans are lazy. An example of polarizing is oft found in the question: What is good or evil ? As kids we were admonished to do 'good' and shun 'evil'. I outquote good and evil because of this: Evil actions are considered by their perpetrators to be good. The same applies if I were to interpose good and evil.

Moreover, the ongoing debate in moral philosophy as espoused by 'isms' (e.g pragmatism, liberalism, conservatism e.t.c ) goes to show that the line between good and evil  blurs. Another example which has more bearing is on polarizing faith and reason. To this end I will repeat one of my citations

"One can have a reasoned approach to (or view of) his faith. Even the minutest of reason, involves faith"

the moment you polarize faith and reason you have blundered as regards the above statement de gustibus.  You ignore their enmeshment simply by polarizing. I hope that is clear.

---

The use of the word faith with respect to science and religion usually fails due to the fallacy of equivocation.
Faith in religion is basically based on poor or no evidence.
When the word faith is used in science, it generally implies that one does not know the future based on uncertainties but, the core difference is that with science, there are loads of evidence backing up the expectation of what is to happen.

Uyi Iredia:

Their immutability in philosophy

---

Philosophy is derived from the Greek word the word philosophia which means 'love of wisdom'. So I was taught in philosophy class last year. Do I need to sermonize to show that this love of wisdom is common to both science and religion ! The only intricacy I see with this_and rightly so_ is that science and religion percieve wisdom in various ways. To this end I visualize Science and Religion as Siamese twins (sharing vital organs) both whom have their unique persona despite their outward likeness. Their immutability in philospphy is also proven by how one invariably impacts the other. Many medieval philosophers hugely impacted on the scientific method during the Medieval age (of course their impact cascaded into present scientific thought); likewise, we know of how scientific theories (e.g the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, even Newton's laws of mechanics) left their imprints on religious thought and in the case of evolution spurred violent reactions. I rest my case

---

What do you mean by immutability? Scientific theories are deliberately modified when the need arises but religion generally does not change even when some evidence is available that points out some problems with doctrine. Did any of the scientific theories you mentioned cause modifications to the religious texts?

Uyi Iredia:

the sin of 'convenient ignorance'

---

Any keen observer would note that  right from the list that this point (i.e the sin of convenient ignorance) and the subsequent errors are by-products of the first 2 reasons. For example when you polarize to concepts (for the purpose of contrasting) you ignore their similarities.

Convenient ignorance per se is a self-describing term. It means to ignore for the sake of convenience. It ignores what it knows, its flaws, its lies and dangers_for the sake of convenience. You can't polarize science and religion, for example, without the following  posit:

" Religion can be scientifically applied in one's life & Science religiously adheres to logical positivism"
- Uyi Iredia

I guess some religions may be rigorously followed but many cannot in this present day and age.
You're about to define religion in a way that makes it too vague to be useful.

Uyi Iredia:

A religious critic (e.g Deep Sight who specializes in polarizing science and religion) will ignore the truth in the above posit and hype its flaws *SMH at this possibility  * Convenient ignorance is a sin, apparently , because it ignores the truth of a proposition for the purpose of (needless) knifing.

---

look at this space ooo !!! I'm going to add more points to it

Ok.

@thehomer regarding post no 178

I went by your preferred definition of religion, which you supplied which I even hinted was intellectually inadequate.

I believe that I have proven adequately that evangelical atheism is a religion ----- according to your preferred definition of "religion" which you supplied.

Enigma:

@thehomer regarding post no 178

I went by your preferred definition of religion, which you supplied which I even hinted was intellectually inadequate.

I believe that I have proven adequately that evangelical atheism is a religion ----- according to your preferred definition of "religion" which you supplied.

Yeah it's inadequate and religion is hard to define. But of course going by your chosen interpretation, promotion of communism, socialism even the promotion of some aspects of philosophy are religious activities. If you're satisfied with this conclusion then that's fine.
You've also decided to ignore other aspects of the post that criticize some views you wished to promote.

Uyi Iredia:

@ the homer >>> my conception of militant atheism  is  Atheism that actively seeks adherents and denounces all forms of religion whilst accepting ev olution as the SOLE basis of man's existence. u forgot to correct my error; under what are Shintoism and Taoism classified ? >>> also note that what is sacred is predicated upon what is highly valued >>> the ONLY thing which distinguishes both is the concept of 'divine' i.e something wrt a deity) which applies PRIMARILY to anything sacred >>> of course I mentioned the defining theme which is sacred to atheism

*1 >>> like your reference of faith (in which u said u only mean religious faith when talking about faith) , this definition is constrictive. You effectively annulled this definition when u said that defining religion is tricky (which I'' take to mean that the concept of 'religion' is ambiguous) >>> U probably thought otherwise b4 entering this discussion ?

The fact that I pointed out that defining religion is tricky does not automatically mean my definition was wrong. You are also free to present your definition. The definitions tend to attempt to concisely describe what they are for.
I knew it was difficult to define but why should that stop me from contributing to the discussion?
I don't think what you mentioned was sacred to atheism in fact, I'll go further to say that atheism has no sacred practices.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> Don't think 'religious' adherents will agree with that. Besides this definition creates a quandary when I consider stuff like "Atheo-Buddhism" or the so-called "New Age religions"

In what way?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> This is the same 'sin' u committed in your definition of religion. Besides the fact that one can categorize religions under theism opens Atheism up to the same possibility. Virtually devoid isn't devoid
. . .

Classifying religions under atheism or theism does not make such concepts religions. I used virtually devoid because I have not sat and thought of all other possibilities. If you have, then you can help me make the statement more accurate.

Religion is a belief in an unseen order; and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves hereto.

^^^^ brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaannnnnntttttttttttttt! ! ! ! ! ! !

@thehomer re post 184

The fact is that on one definition - your own definition - evangelical atheism is a religion. You are the one who picked that definition. Whether others want to fit communism etc within that definition is not presently my business.


Meanwhile I really don't know what points you say I avoided.

Krayola:

Religion is a belief in an unseen order; and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves hereto.

KrayoBABA!!!! Lon g tim eno show for this end. Okay one question for YOU. Hehehe what about the seen order(s), where people directly worship the seen and not the unseen? :p

thehomer:

You did and I responded to it with the theory of evolution being a scientific theory and not a religion.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory it remains a belief that cannot be proved scientifically.

Enigma:

@thehomer re post 184

The fact is that on one definition - your own definition - evangelical atheism is a religion. You are the one who picked that definition. Whether others want to fit communism etc within that definition is not presently my business.

It was not my definition. It was one I picked out of four from a satisfactory site for the purposes of this discussion. The conclusions have to be your business because they are direct implications of your interpretation. If you also agree that communism and others are religions too then that is fine since you're being consistent with it.

You may also note that I actually did tentatively come up with my own description of what I think describes a religion in my previous response to you on my post #178 with some other points I made about the concept of highly valued actions being considered religious.

Enigma:

Meanwhile I really don't know what points you say I avoided.

The points were in forms of questions I'll state them here.
1. What is your description or definition of "militant atheism"?
2. Do you consider discussing or promoting one's views about God(s) publicly a highly valued religious practice on par with e.g the practice of regular communion, regular prayers at certain times of the day etc?
3. Do you think rational thoughts or actions are wrong?