OK, as my view is basically that of Zairak's, Killshot's and Grim's I will not brother repeating what they have already said, but I would like to clarify a few terms for everyone's benefit.
Atheism=The lack of a belief in God/Gods. Simple as that. Though, in twisted logic 'some' Atheists, such as myself possibly, could be defined as believing in a lack of belief due to the strength of their convictions, the point remains that a positive plus a negative still makes a negative. (It is also worth noting that Atheists who do take an anti-religious stance do not need to be Atheists to do this. Their beliefs or convictions against religion are against the religion's rules, teachings and practices, not the idea of God itself, and as such, their actions actually in truth have f-all to do with their atheism and everything to do with their personal/social issues with a particular religion/religions, issues which those who believe in God could equally hold.)
Religion=This is not the belief in God. Religion is a defined organisation based on a commonly held set of 'spiritual' teachings, rules and practices used to find holy or spiritual enlightenment. This is why, even if Atheism is a belief (which it is not to most peoples' minds), it is still not a religion. To be Atheist takes no action at all, there are no rules, teaching or practicies, and there is certainly no holy or spiritual enlightenment to it; it is just a state of being. As I said, some Atheists may be more open about their Atheism, but that does not make them anymore or less of an Atheist because other than their lack of belief, there is no common practice or anything of such regard required to be considered an Atheist.
Philosophy=Religion is not a philosophy, philosophy again is not something defined by teachings, rules or common practices, it is a school of reasoned thought about culture, man and existence. Philosophy is arguably a brand of academic thought and in that regard can be part of an organisation/other organisations, but fundamentally philosophy is about studying and learning through reason. Religion on the other hand, as I stated, is about finding holy or spiritual enlightenment.
Agnosticism=This is about accepting the lack of evidence for/against God and thus abstaining from a conclusive answer. Note conclusive, that does not mean they do not have any opinion.
Belief=To think something is correct/true, even if one does not have the evidence to prove it so. Note, you believe in anything, not just god, so even if one does not accept the logic that + plus - = -, and holds fast to the idea that Atheism is a belief in not believing, that does not make Atheism a religion, it just makes it a twisted form of belief; however, I will now go on to explain why I think calling it a belief is wrong.
Faith=(This is important, because this is different to belief) to believe that something is truth/right, even if you cannot prove it to be so. This is much stronger than belief, and that is why it is only a noun, not a verb. Believing is something we just do, we do it a lot actually. Faith, however, is something we have (not something we do) and to have faith therefore, requires us to have faith in something. You can have faith in a belief, but you cannot believe in faith. That is the key difference, and this is why religious people often say they have faith in god, and not just believe in him. Someone who believes that God exists, may not have faith in him. Anyway, I am just digressing now, my point here is that you cannot have faith in Atheism because there is nothing there to have faith in, which is why I would assert that it is not a belief, let alone a religion. It is lack of them.
Morals=A commonly held set of ideals by a group or culture based on a range of academic, religious, cultural, social, and scientific practices and norms. So yes, religion can be used to form morals, but to claim religion is the only mandate upon which morality can be defined by or based upon is wrong. Furthermore, to say that without religion morals would just be instincts is crazy. Other animals base their actions on instincts, but humans are far more self-aware than that, and as such, we base our morality on a range of reasoned and logical deductions, even the unreasonable ones. This is why humans experience social evolution as well as physical. PS As final point, the Law is neither moral nor religiously motivated, but I cannot be bothered to define Law when the confusion its definition was small, unimportant just not worth the hours it would take me to give any sort of adequate definition of what the Law really is. Though I guess I could explain what it is meant to do/ not do easily enough.
There are probably other terms which require further definition, but for now, I feel this clears up any misunderstandings which have been displayed in a way which is detrimental to the progression of this debate.
|