Religion in the Furry Community

[tisr]

The point that I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't my dog's ghost, then I have no freaking clue what that noise was was, though I would appreciate your theories, if only I could have something to test against.

Then, the best guess you have is that you do not know. Having an answer for the sake of having an answer is not a good idea. Unless you are able to prove with certainty that a soul did it, it appears that you do not know.

 

[CaptainCool]

Fallow, I admit that I might be wrong, it may not have been my dog's ghost. I tested other explanations first. Before I made the ghost assumption, I asked my mom (the only other person in the house that night) if she heard anything. She said she did, which rules out the theory that it was all in my head. After that, I looked for anything else that might have made those noises and couldn't find anything in that house that sounded like my dog.

The point that I'm trying to make is that if it wasn't my dog's ghost, then I have no freaking clue what that noise was was, though I would appreciate your theories, if only I could have something to test against.

as for the CD thing, I'm pretty sure that CDs work through a system of bumps and reflective areas that are used as 1s and 0s in binary code, the only electricity involved is the laser that reads the CD by reflecting off the reflective parts. So it's not a perfect analogy.

I hear noises in my apartment all the damn time and I have no clue what they are. Am I supposed to believe those are ghosts too just because I don't know what they are?

Also, there is another problem with your "solution". If your answer is that it was the ghost of your dog you also have to prove that ghosts actually exist.
That is the problem with magical answers. They always raise further questions that you have to answer as well. Instead of solving your mystery you are only creating more mysteries.
Same thing goes for a magical creator of the universe. If a god created everything, where did that god come from? So now you have to answer two questions, not just one.

 

[RedSavage1]

ITT: Confirmation Bias

 

[Mauve]

I'm an atheist. Btw, atheism shouldn't be on this list, because it's not a religion. The etymology of the word makes this quite clear.

 

[RedSavage1]

I'm an atheist. Btw, atheism shouldn't be on this list, because it's not a religion. The etymology of the word makes this quite clear.

Oh get off it.
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

You believe that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise.
It's an organized belief.
It's a religion.

 

[Mauve]

Oh get off it.
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

You believe that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise.
It's an organized belief.
It's a religion.

Define "organized," and maybe I'll agree with you.

 

[RedSavage1]

Define "organized," and maybe I'll agree with you.

I would define 'organized' as two or more individuals meeting in forums, both public and online, to discuss and share ideas about their belief.

See:

http://atheists.org/
http://atheists.meetup.com/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/
http://ffrf.org/
http://bornatheist.com/organizaitons.html
http://www.weareatheism.com/resources/organizations/

 

[Nikolinni]

Define "organized," and maybe I'll agree with you.

Also it is possible to be atheist and have a religion. Because atheism is merely not believing in a god. There's nothing in the dictionary that suggests atheism is some kind of package deal where you must reject God(s) AND anything supernatural/spiritual/what have you

 

[jtrekkie]

Also, there is another problem with your "solution". If your answer is that it was the ghost of your dog you also have to prove that ghosts actually exist.
That is the problem with magical answers. They always raise further questions that you have to answer as well. Instead of solving your mystery you are only creating more mysteries.
Same thing goes for a magical creator of the universe. If a god created everything, where did that god come from? So now you have to answer two questions, not just one.

Hey CC, that's the situation anyway. In fact part of Newton's claim to fame was on precisely that subject, or rather his approach to it.

 

[Captain Howdy]

I think RedSavage missed the part where atheism is not a belief - It's a lack thereof.

 

[RedSavage1]

I think RedSavage missed the part where atheism is not a belief - It's a lack thereof.

And I think you missed the part where religion is NOT defined by a "belief in a god", but rather a "belief about humanity concerning existence."

If you'd like to define religion as something that doesn't include Atheism, that's -your- complex, not mine. I'm fully aware of Atheism being a non-belief about the existence of God and the Afterlife. However, that is a belief about existence, which defines it as religion.

This is simple and very clear cut.

If you want to be non-religious, then the very act of -not- having an opinion either way about ones existence is the only way.

 

[Fallowfox]

Oh get off it.
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

You believe that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise.
It's an organized belief.
It's a religion.

If that's the case, I suppose I am devoted to the religion of anti-toothfairy-ism.

And I think you missed the part where religion is NOT defined by a "belief in a god", but rather a "belief about humanity concerning existence."

If you'd like to define religion as something that doesn't include Atheism, that's -your- complex, not mine. I'm fully aware of Atheism being a non-belief about the existence of God and the Afterlife. However, that is a belief about existence, which defines it as religion.

This is simple and very clear cut.

If you want to be non-religious, then the very act of -not- having an opinion either way about ones existence is the only way.

Oh, semantics is difficult, right?

Religion is properly defined as: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Being skeptical that there is any such power does not satisfy this definition, for what power are we worshiping by our failure to believe in a power at all?
If you're not worshiping something- like past buddhas, gods, giants, imps, the sun, etc, then you're not a religion.


Essentially, you couldn't be bothered to read a dictionary.

 

[RedSavage1]

If that's the case, I suppose I am devoted to the religion of anti-toothfairy-ism.

--except that the tooth fairy has nothin to do with concerning one's existence.
You know, sarcasm always seems to be an atheist's common tool. You know, you can argue on your own behalf a without acting like prats. Why is this such a common trait that you must attack outside beliefs with aggression and bitterness?

Hmm comes off a lot like religion...

Oh, semantics is difficult, right?


Religion is properly defined as: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."


Being skeptical that there is any such power does not satisfy this definition, for what power are we worshiping by our failure to believe in a power at all?
If you're not worshiping something- like past buddhas, gods, giants, imps, the sun, etc, then you're not a religion.
Essentially, you couldn't be bothered to read a dictionary.

I like how you use -properly- defined when you quote your definition of Religion. I did in fact look up the definition of religion before posting. And what I found was the thing I quoted directly in my first post. "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." What I looked up had NOTHING to do about gods.


Now--I will concede that many definitions of religion exists, many of which include mention of theological entities. As someone who has no belief either which way on religion, I take an outside perspective that ALL views, equally unprovable as the other, pertaining to the existence of humanity is a religion. One simply claims there is, and one claims there is not.


If you'd like to claim Atheism as simply the anti-thesis of theological belief, then yes. That's not a belief about existence. But basically that would render Atheism as made up a word for the dissenting opinion, which wouldn't even be necessary if it was as simple as that. Because it is an organized belief that many hold to themselves, it looks, smells, and tastes like religion to me.


I feel in the end that if it's just simply a contrary opinion, there wouldn't need to be a different word for it.
"Religion" is not some dirty word where you have write a belief as outside of it to justify atheism. If you'd like to use your own personal definitions and sources to support Atheism as "outside" of it, fine. Go for it. Do it without argument and be confident in your decision. I shall hold what I consider to be a more neutral, simpler definition of the cause, and I'll waste no more effort or breath trying to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[Fallowfox]

Please site the dictionary you used. The definition of religion you are employing isn't useful because it spuriously defines the perspective 'religion is a load of bullshit' as a religion- apparently on the grounds that 'people can talk about it on a forum'.
According to your definition, chemistry is a religion.

Your view that, regarding all unprovable views as equal, is naive. We could surmise that there exists a teapot, floating in space just beyond the range of the best telescopes. Let's make things even weirder. There is a sphere of a such teapots surrounding the entire observable universe, just beyond detection.
Are you going to regard the view 'that is bullshit', as equally meritable to the claim 'the universe has a teapot sphere?'

This is why, in science and philosophy, positions of skepticism are regarded as the null hypothesis [default option] until any evidence emerges to change our position. Otherwise we will fill our heads with all sorts of nonsense.

By your standard, we should throw our hands up in the air and say that 'maybe' is the best answer we have to the teapot sphere question- as if that is the most neutral and useful position.

 

[tisr]

--except that the tooth fairy has nothin to do with concerning one's existence.
You know, sarcasm always seems to be an atheist's common tool. You know, you can argue on your own behalf a without acting like prats. Why is this such a common trait that you must attack outside beliefs with aggression and bitterness?

Hmm comes off a lot like religion...

I define atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You claimed that believing "that there's nothing to believe in deity-wise or afterlife-wise" is considered a religion, and thus if you apply the tooth fairy into the equation, by your definitions, the lack of belief of a tooth-fairy is a religion, and subsequently, the lack of belief of any imagined god or afterlife would be a religion.

Also, the style of answering questions has nothing to do with one's religious belief.

I like how you use -properly- defined when you quote your definition of Religion. I did in fact look up the definition of religion before posting. And what I found was the thing I quoted directly in my first post. "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." What I looked up had NOTHING to do about gods.

If you'd like to claim Atheism as simply the anti-thesis of theological belief, then yes. That's not a belief about existence. But basically that would render Atheism as made up a word for the dissenting opinion, which wouldn't even be necessary if it was as simple as that. Because it is an organized belief that many hold to themselves, it looks, smells, and tastes like religion to me.

Firstly, atheism is not an organized collection of beliefs. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. And yes, atheism is the dissenting opinion which opposes theism, which is the belief in gods.

 

[Nikolinni]

Please site the dictionary you used. The definition of religion you are employing isn't useful because it spuriously defines the perspective 'religion is a load of bullshit' as a religion- apparently on the grounds that 'people can talk about it on a forum'.
According to your definition, chemistry is a religion.

Your view that, regarding all unprovable views as equal, is naive. We could surmise that there exists a teapot, floating in space just beyond the range of the best telescopes. Let's make things even weirder. There is a sphere of a such teapots surrounding the entire observable universe, just beyond detection.
Are you going to regard the view 'that is bullshit', as equally meritable to the claim 'the universe has a teapot sphere?'

This is why, in science and philosophy, positions of skepticism are regarded as the null hypothesis [default option] until any evidence emerges to change our position. Otherwise we will fill our heads with all sorts of nonsense.

By your standard, we should throw our hands up in the air and say that 'maybe' is the best answer we have to the teapot sphere question- as if that is the most neutral and useful position.

I feel that Merrian-Webster's definition of religion is a little bit too narrow. It focuses way to much on the whole "Superhuman worship" aspect of religions. Tell me -- what is it that Buddhists worship again? And if you're wondering, RedSavage used Wikipedia (Copy/Paste does wonders eh?)

Me personally, I don't feel that Atheism alone is a religion. It's a belief, but not a religion. Being atheist doesn't make you a religious person. Now, if one were to say, make an institutionalized organization with a set of beliefs atheists were to follow, or even a Church of Atheism (This exists by the way: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/ ). But then in that case I'd say that little brand of Atheism is a religion or like one, rather than just saying "Look! ALL of Atheism is a religion!"

I think it's possible to make religions with no Gods or Supreme Beings involved. Kinda like a friend's story where there's a bunch of towns that have religions based off of human intellectual properties (no, really). To be honest, some towns do believe in Magic and the Supernatural (the aptly-named town Halloween fits this bill), while there's others that don't believe in the supernatural and feel there's an explanation for everything via science; the town of Noir is like this -- they centered their religion around the 1940's themed flicks where cops and gangsters go at it. Detectives are almost like ministers in the sense that one on the "Criminal Element" side can confess for their crimes and become absolved. Which rarely happens but hey.

I'd say for something to be a religion there needs to be a certain attitude about the whole thing. I like this ask.com article's ( http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/a/definition.htm )set of points on what makes a religion:

"Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
A social group bound together by the above."

 

[Fallowfox]

Buddhists worship a collection of things, depending what type of Buddhist they are, including previous individuals who supposedly ascended to Nirvana, obtaining super-human status.
Atheism is a belief like not believing in Santa clause is a belief.

I agree that religions are characterised by belief in divinity, moral codes, devotions and so further who express their religion through rituals.

 

[jtrekkie]

Santa Clause was a real guy. You should stick to the tooth fairy.

OK, on topic. Theology and religion and related but different. What you're really talking about is theology. Atheism is a theology and a "religion" in that sense.

 

[Captain Howdy]

*Just facepalms at this page* This is just getting

Theology is literally the study of god(s). Atheists might read up on theology, but that is their individual perogative - Irrelevant to atheism itself.

The absolute basic qualifiers to be considered a religion, require an agreed upon set of rules/beliefs/etc. (plural?) Atheism doesn't have this, because it is literally the lack of belief - Split the word into 'a-' and '-theism' if you really must be pedantic.

Can we please move on >_>

 

[jtrekkie]

Theology is the study of beliefs, especially ontology and other "religousy" beliefs.
Atheism is a belief, in the widest terms the disbelief of belief.
Therefore atheism is a theology.

If you're going to yell at someone, yell at CC. He revived this thread.

 

[Captain Howdy]

If you're going to yell at someone, yell at CC. He revived this thread.

I'm not even going to bother with your incorrectness.

However, have you tried to yell at CC? Nobody wins! And in fact, it bends space and time so that people not even in this thread, let alone forums, lose as well :v (<3 U CC)

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

I finally gave in and joined 'Anti-theist Furs'. At least if we're talking about the Abrahamic god. Others seem silly but harmless by comparison.

 

[Kosdu]

Religion is a somewhat standardized set of beliefs regarding the metaphsyical.

Athiesm literally is the lack of religion.
Like really.

Fallow with his tea pots is the best explanation.

Edit:

I should also mention there are people who are ignorant and hateful on both sides of religion/athiesm.

Maybe that should tell people something about people.

 

[RedSavage1]

Okay so in the spirit of being at least HALF as open minded and pragmatic as I wish to claim to be, I did a fuck-ton of research on Atheism and the concept of it being/not being a religion. I forgot all the pretentiousness of the arguments being posted (really---how long will atheists beat that damned tea-cup argument into the ground without having to use such a belittling metaphor? Yes it's clever and funny but--well never mind), and forgot my own initial reaction at getting irritated at that ONE GUY that must always point out some contradiction simply for the sake of making a statement. (Which with heavy and much disgruntled introspection I realized is my own automatic and irrational reaction. People are not required to not-be-assholes when typing what may or may not be sheer facts).

Conclusion: All of the sources are biased-as-balls and completely split on the opinion. But....Just wait for my final answer.

Essentially, I boiled it down to two schools of thought, one of them Non-Religious leaning and the other Religious leaning.

The Non-Religious lean is that Religion is strictly defined by deity-based beliefs and understandings of existence due to such deities in a manner that can be described as 'organized'. Atheism, as such being a non-belief of such entities and such need for organization, thus excludes itself from the definition.

The Religious lean employs a looser definition of religion as simply a set of beliefs about the nature of existence. Thus, since believing it wasn't created by deities is in itself a belief, it qualifies as a religion. However, this lays out interesting implications for scientific beliefs being considered religions within themselves. Big Bang, constant universe, etc.

So.... hell, I'll say it. I consider myself wrong on two grounds. One, if the definition of religion becomes too broad it becomes obsolete. And I can't fairly dictate where that "broadness" ends for the sake of convenience, (as much as I would like to). And Two, something occurred to me as I was going through all the sources. Many of the sources that remained ambiguous on the debate of Atheism being a religion and/or supported the blanket term of religion were either A: Religiously affiliated or B: Philosophically Affiliated (with no clear unbiased sources contributing to the conclusion as a whole). In fact, the only sites I found stating -explicitly- that Atheism was not a religion were pro-Atheist, agnostic, or Free Thought sites. This irked me because I kept thinking, "Well, who the hell are they to say what it is and isn't?" Then it occured to me with a moment very similar to a slap to the face.

The proprietors of said belief can dictate it as whatever the hell they want. Suddenly it was a very large case of "because I said so", and I couldn't deny that beliefs in general, either way or the other, are unique in that the holders can make it WHATEVER they want. Now, that's not to say certain people within the Atheist community might hold a belief about atheism being a religion (and under one definition, they're not wrong). But it doesn't account for, obviously, an overwhelming majority of people saying, "Wait... it's different, it really, really is."

And shit. I can't ignore that, a group of individuals creating their own meaning for their own definition of themselves. This may sound strange, but it pertains to me in a personal way in terms of gender identity and the likes. A big -face palm- moment when I realized I was thinking conservatively in the same schools of thought that tell me I can't be the way I am because I fall under X, Y, and Z characteristics of this OTHER thing.

So bite me Mauve, Captain Howdy, and Fallow and Co. , because actually you made me rethink my beliefs on a topic and actually change said opinion when my own logic fell apart to further nitpicking. Not saying all your supporting arguments were valid, but the end result is the same so it literally doesn't matter anyhow.


(But in all honestly---I love this shit. I'm okay with being wrong and forcing myself to rethink and muse on these levels, so long as I come to a newer, better realization, which is what y'all helped me come to. So, I guess, thanks for willing to speak up and put-up when it would have been easier to roll your eyes and walk away.)

 

[jtrekkie]

Excellent post, Savage.