In article <1D2k3.978$db.201661 at news1.epix.net>,
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. <utzj at auhs.edu> wrote:
>czar at ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <378fe27d.0 at ecn.ab.ca>...
>>Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. (utzj at auhs.edu) wrote:
>>>>: Interestingly, people who live their lives based on their religious
>>: beliefs, whether western religion, eastern religion, native American
>>: religion, or atheism live longer and healthier than those who don't.
>>>>Atheism isn't a religion, idiot. And people with pets live longer,
>>healthier lives than those without pets. So what does this tell us?
>>>>1) Please do not attack other people here. It is impolite and sets a bad
>tone for this (or any) group.
1) Please don't act like an idiot and then tell atheist how
not to react on their own newsgroup.
>>2) Atheism actually is a religion. A religion is defined as (MW, 10th
>collegiate ed.) "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with arbor
>and faith." Athism meets this definition. So does science, BTW.
2) Like I said, don't act like an idiot. When you do this you
have no complaint when you're treated like one. Especially
when you compound it with dishonesty like this second
round. So stop arrogantly insisting you knowe somebody's
POV better than they do themselves.
2.1) Atheism is simply the absence of the defining property of
most westen religions (theism). SOME religions are atheistic
but in this case the atheism is incidental because they have
nothing to say about deities. So at most it's a metaconcept
a couple of levels removed from religion.
2.2) Your definition is the metaphorical use of the word religion
to describe somebody's passion for eg their favourite
sport. It is dishonest idiocy to ignore the primary
definitions which are the ones actually associated with
religion. You weren't going to equivocate from the
metaphoric usage to the everyday one, were you? Nah, that
would be dishonest.
But even that metaphoric usage doesn't apply to either atheism
science. They have none of the attributes, requirements etc
that go along with religion. Because the absence of somebody
else's belief isn't "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs
held with ardour and faith." Because it's a non-event as long
as believers don't force their beliefs on us OR LIE ABOUT US
AS YOU'RE DOING - and then we *react* to their negative actions
and behaviour.
And science is just an objective method for finding how
the world works. Which is accepted because of its usefulness.
It's the antithesis of religion.
2.4) Congratulations. You've just made anything and everything
a "religion" so rendering the word meaningless. Eg chasing
the insurance company when somebody drove into your car.
>>: This kind of argues that people should live their lives according to
>>: their religion, whatever that is, doesn't it?
>>>>No, all it tells us is that having something that comforts you is
>>beneficial. Hell, that's almost a tautology.
>>Actually, no. Christians (people who beleive in Christ) who do not observe
>their faith don't live as well or long as those who do.
Some do, some don't. The bland serene calmness might have
something to with it. Or the diet if your denomination prescribes
one - eg mormons tend to live longer. But then so do those who eat
organic food.
