Irony . . .

[MR. Nate]

It's difficult to say that atheism is/is not a belief. Beliefs can usually be stated positively or negatively. I believe in God / I don't believe that God can fail to exist. I don't believe in God / I believe God cannot exist. Denying that you have beliefs is denying that you are aware of, say, other minds. Beliefs are something that everyone has, believe it or not

What atheism is NOT is a religion. Religion presupposes the existence of a higher being, which is a belief incompatible with atheism.

FYI, it was Waldenbooks, and when I asked the manager about it, he said. that the company classifies every book, and he has to place it somewhere under the category. And then he started laughing and shaking his head.

[peanutsdad]

the store is probably run by a catholic and they put it in the middle of all the religious books to punish and annoy the atheist....


PD

Except that true Atheists don't browse the religious section of book stores.

How would you know? Are Atheist not curious, it is a human nature to be curious you know..... whether they believe in any of it or not, they be curious as to what it says.....

[Snorri1234]

Well it looks like CrazyAnglican beat me to the point since I went out for poker night with the guys after writing my last post. We're talking about belief. I don't know if you saw my post to hecter, but beliefs are stated positively. Even when stated as "I don't believe in such-and-such" you still substitute something that you positively will believe in it's place.

No actually we substitute nothing in it's place. The key-difference between atheism and all religions is that we don't belief in god(s). It's a belief in nothing supernatural. Sure you can call that still a religion, but that's just overlooking the whole point of it. Because not believing in anything is the valid starting point for any philosophical/religious position. You should start with the viewpoint of not believing in anything, and then you can add things to it.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that if there is indeed this lack of belief then that puts the atheist in a position of being a powerless individual. If only they could muster the power of belief in God...but alas, it's not to be since they lack the ability to believe in God. I hardly doubt that atheists are powerless, helpless people.

There is a lack of belief in the supernatural.

As I've said before...I think the reason atheists call it a "non-belief" or "lack of belief" is because that excuses them from defending atheism as a competing religious belief. It also eases peoples' consciences from having to defend the decision to reject God.

But it is not a religion! At least not in the common sense used by most people. Sure some people described it as basically as one's worldview and how this dictates one's actions and thoughts, but using that is silly because it's not a common defintion. It's a lack of belief in anything supernatural.

I agree with MR. Nate here.

[got tonkaed]

i guess luns id wonder why choosing not to believe in God suggests being powerless. If we both tend to agree that faith is a choice, then a choice either way suggest an act of volition. That doesnt seem to suggest powerlessness by someone who chooses to not believe.

[jiminski]

......

I agree with MR. Nate here.

Yeap, it is straightforward:

Is atheism a belief? Yes
Since it is unprovable one way or the other whether God exists it has to be. (one can argue quite significantly that any opinion at all is a belief due to the transience of truth)

Is atheism a religion? No
.. well of course it's not.

[Stopper]

......

I agree with MR. Nate here.

Yeap, it is straightforward:

Is atheism a belief? Yes
Since it is unprovable one way or the other whether God exists it has to be. (one can argue quite significantly that any opinion at all is a belief due to the transience of truth)

Is atheism a religion? No
.. well of course it's not.

Nothing's straightforward when it comes to semantic traps laid by proselytising Christians.

Anyway, the bit in bold is a (in my opinion, very odd) positive assertion, usually made by people who call themselves agnostics, and probably not by most people who call themselves atheists.

[jiminski]

......

I agree with MR. Nate here.

Yeap, it is straightforward:

Is atheism a belief? Yes
Since it is unprovable one way or the other whether God exists it has to be. (one can argue quite significantly that any opinion at all is a belief due to the transience of truth)

Is atheism a religion? No
.. well of course it's not.

Nothing's straightforward when it comes to semantic traps laid by proselytising Christians.

Anyway, the bit in bold is a (in my opinion, very odd) positive assertion, usually made by people who call themselves agnostics, and probably not by most people who call themselves atheists.

That is your belief Stopper and i respect that! *cheeky wink*

... but the fact that you beleive something makes it a belief... i agree that it is all based on semantics but it's not one of the weightiest of debates really mate; i know you agree.

The statement i made was not to define agnosticism or atheism but simply a statement of my belief as to what a belief is.. anyway that's what i ... umm .. *searches for another word or phrase of the same universal definition* ... that's the way i see it anyway.

[jiminski]

-edited as i want to go after Luns-

[luns101]

No actually we substitute nothing in it's place.

Sure you do. You substitute what you guys call reason. Others here call it rationalism or only what they can empirically observe.

The key-difference between atheism and all religions is that we don't belief in god(s). It's a belief in nothing supernatural.

OK, but you do have a belief in the natural. When you reject one idea it's because you think another idea is correct.

Sure you can call that still a religion, but that's just overlooking the whole point of it. Because not believing in anything is the valid starting point for any philosophical/religious position. You should start with the viewpoint of not believing in anything, and then you can add things to it.

You seem to be contradicting things here. On one hand, you're saying that to call it a religion is to overlook the whole point of it. In the next sentence you're saying that the starting point for any philosophical/religious position is, in fact, not believing in anything. That would infer that non-belief is the starting point for a religious position.

There is a lack of belief in the supernatural.

Which means the atheist is intellectually deprived because he lacks the power to believe. This just doesn't make sense. It also excuses the atheist from having to own up to his choice of rejecting God.

But it is not a religion! At least not in the common sense used by most people. Sure some people described it as basically as one's worldview and how this dictates one's actions and thoughts, but using that is silly because it's not a common defintion. It's a lack of belief in anything supernatural. I agree with MR. Nate here.

OK, I agree. It's not a religion in the common sense used by most people.

[jiminski]

Why do you need Atheism to be a religion Luns? If anything it is an anti-religion!

Your argument is like arguing that an antisocial person likes meeting people by definition because they have social written in their description.

[jiminski]

you see i could concede that a person could have no opinion or belief on the largely theoretical perception that dark-matter exists.. simply because they may not have heard about it.

In the case of Atheism it is the belief in the absence of god it is not the absence of belief itself.
Indeed it is a belief which has been deliberated and fought over, re-evaluated and arrived at after more inner debate than any other issue.. I would venture this is the case for most people and very strongly for the Atheist.

The Atheist is more likely a rebel in the face of religious dogma. This is someone who has cast off their comforting need to beleive in the after-life and the eternal soul.
Far from the absence of belief it the brave and noble belief in humanity as the master of its own destiny.

The Atheist has found the will to remove the stabilisers from their first bicycle.

Is this religion? no..... but i do beleive that Science could be one!

[Backglass]

the store is probably run by a catholic and they put it in the middle of all the religious books to punish and annoy the atheist....


PD

Except that true Atheists don't browse the religious section of book stores.

How would you know? Are Atheist not curious, it is a human nature to be curious you know..... whether they believe in any of it or not, they be curious as to what it says.....

I know as much about other atheists as you know about bookstore managers.

[luns101]

i guess luns id wonder why choosing not to believe in God suggests being powerless. If we both tend to agree that faith is a choice, then a choice either way suggest an act of volition. That doesnt seem to suggest powerlessness by someone who chooses to not believe.

That's not my definition. I was discussing with Guiscard who used his defintion of atheism as a lack of belief:

No. It is a lack of something. And that is what Atheism is.

So if atheism is a lack of belief then that means atheists don't have the ability to believe. They could try all they want but would be powerless to achieve it. That's not my definition. You and I agree that any belief system is a choice of the will.

To say that someone has a non-belief or lack of belief excuses them from the responsibility that they made a choice to reject one thing in favor of accepting another...in this case - God.

[hecter]

So if atheism is a lack of belief then that means atheists don't have the ability to believe. They could try all they want but would be powerless to achieve it. That's not my definition. You and I agree that any belief system is a choice of the will.

To say that someone has a non-belief or lack of belief excuses them from the responsibility that they made a choice to reject one thing in favor of accepting another...in this case - God.

I can't speak for the rest of the atheists here, but I could not believe in any deity without strong evidence. It's just the way I am. I could say I did, but I'd by lying to others and myself if I did. I may have chosen to call myself an atheist, but I did not choose to be one.

[luns101]

Why do you need Atheism to be a religion Luns?

I don't, but atheists need to define it as not being religious in order to avoid the realization that it is a competing belief system opposed to [name your theistic belief system here].

If anything it is an anti-religion!

No, what it would be is a rejection of the religious belief in God's existence. It would then replace that rejection with the acceptance of a religious belief in what atheists call "reason". By setting up the terms this way, atheists can claim their belief in "reason & empiricism" while labeling other competing religious beliefs as "unreasonable & non-empirical".

Your argument is like arguing that an antisocial person likes meeting people by definition because they have social written in their description.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that every person has the ability to either believe or reject the existence of God. I don't find atheists willing to accept that definition because then they would have to take responsibility for their conscious, willful choice to reject God. It's much easier to say, "I lack the belief" or "I have a non-belief". An antisocial person might find it more difficult to meet people, but they still have the power to do so if they choose.

[jiminski]

Did you see my later post Luns? (at the top of this page) ... i actually agree that Atheism has to be, by definition a belief .... where we diverge is at your imbuement of a capital 'B'.

It it not a vying faith.. indeed it is made up of a bunch of people who in a sense gave up believing in Santa Claus.. In a way life lost a little magic but no matter how hard you try you can no longer beleive just for the sake of personal comfort and joy.

The djinni is out of the bottle.
Religion is now an unsupportable miss-truth .. for the atheist at least. This does not make it a competitor for the spirits of men.. as it no longer acknowledges an eternal spirit

I agree that originally the Atheist movement, spearheaded by thinkers such as Nietzsche directly and passionately rebelled against religion. It was a junior adversary. Through the danger of such thought it took on many of the traits of religion; sacrifice, ostracism and intellectual faith.

This was due the utter dominance of religious doctrine and the rules of heresy. It was also due to the absolute indoctrination of the masses.

Now in our secular societies the choice is one hammered on the anvil of personal reason and is simply arrived at in light of the 'facts' and science and with reference to historical and cultural repetition and incongruence.





.

[CrazyAnglican]

I'm liking this tea pot example - keep it going!

For the sake of argument I'm using the crazyanglican refinement of teapot existence (as opposed to the orthodox guiscard model).

Geez. It sounds a lot smarter when you say it. I was just talking about a teapot (crockery pitcher actually)

What was my position before I read this thread?

I did not know of the asserted existence of the tea pot in CrazyAnglicans dining room. I had no chance to form an opinion on its size shape form, its existence or fabrication.

Therefor I was an atheist with respect to teapots. I had no belief. The non existence of belief.

Perhaps, but more accurately you were ignorant of its existence or fabrication. I'm not using the word in the insulting sense, but merely as a statement that you didn't know of it at all. As soon as knowledge comes into play, so does belief. You have heard of the teapot's existence now, and now you are no longer ignorant of the teapot. Therefore you must choose one of the other three options. I don't think anyone in this forum is truly ignorant of the idea of God's existence, so the three choices I put forth seemed appropriate.

To my way of thinking Atheism is a negative stance (purely because atheists say "No, there are no gods") and theism is a positive stance (simple because they say "Yes, there is a God or Yes, there are gods"). Ignorance is a neutral stance (I have no idea what you are talking about, How could I possibly have an opinion about this?). Ignorance of God's existence can't be considered atheism or theism. To say so is analogous to saying that zero is either a positive or negative number. It's really neither. (Come and get me Guiscard here I go making comparisons between abstract and concrete concepts )

I'd agree that ignorance of the idea of the existence of God is the only place where you could truly find the absence of belief in God. I would not agree that ignorance of God's existence truly equates to atheism; as it is not actually a stance merely the absence of one.

Next you'll be telling me you've got a "coffee maker" too!

Nope. The coffee pot's my wife's; I don't drink the stuff.

[unriggable]

People who says science is a religion disappoint me.

[jiminski]

People who says science is a religion disappoint me.

people who are disappointed by this possibility scare me.

ahh it's all a semantic exercise again mate but it does have many of the traits which could define as such ... and who knows! in the future it could genuinely be a vying religion!

We place our faith entirely in it .. we believe it is omnipotent, omniscient etc...

Doctors are trusted respected priests .. in a sense taking the place of the traditional cleric... etc etc

[unriggable]

People who says science is a religion disappoint me.

people who are disappointed by this possibility scare me.

It's just that religion is done through assumption and science is done through a careful series of experiments and a conclusion based upon those results. Very big difference.

[suggs]

Well you're better than me cos they annoy the hell out of me.
To generalise, science shares with most religions the characteristic of looking at the world in a certain way (the "World View") but here the simliarities end. Scinece is a METHOD of observing and, to an extent, explaining the world based on reason, hypothesis, deduction and induction.

Religion is just belief or faith in something that cant be tested.It's the very antithesis of science.
Of course, many scientists can e religious, but hte good ones keep it seperate.

Of course, atheism is not a religion, or a science, although it makes up part of that persons world view.

[jiminski]

People who says science is a religion disappoint me.

people who are disappointed by this possibility scare me.

It's just that religion is done through assumption and science is done through a careful series of experiments and a conclusion based upon those results. Very big difference.

I fundamentally agree of course .. i edited the post above.. but not in time !

[Frigidus]

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that every person has the ability to either believe or reject the existence of God. I don't find atheists willing to accept that definition because then they would have to take responsibility for their conscious, willful choice to reject God. It's much easier to say, "I lack the belief" or "I have a non-belief". An antisocial person might find it more difficult to meet people, but they still have the power to do so if they choose.

I think that the reason that athiesm isn't necessarily considered a religion is more that it has no structure and less that it is a "non-belief" or some other such statement. While it is debatable whether an athiest believes there is no god or doesn't believe in a god, it is pretty much undeniable that there is no Athiestic Code or something along those lines. You can't say "athiests think..." anything other than "there is no god" like you can with a religious faith. Of that also means that I can't really speak for the whole of athiesm.

[suggs]

No. Its not semantic-ie a question of the meaning of words.
I dont have "faith" in science-i accept a scientific proposition to be true, until proven otherwise.
I could have written that better-i only accept the propositon in the first place based on sound empirical testing.
FALSIFICATION is one of the big differences between sience and religion.
A scientist would accept, if ten apples in a row fly up, instead of dropping to the ground, that Newton was wrong.
But most religious beliefs wont allow the possiblity that they could be wrong.
What would it take, you may ask the theist, for you to accept that God does not exist. And usually they have no answer.
Now, Popper's falsificationism has its own problems-but its a good starting poiny to get rid of any false science/religion comparisons.

[MR. Nate]

Religion is just belief or faith in something that cant be tested.It's the very antithesis of science.
Of course, many scientists can e religious, but hte good ones keep it seperate.

If religion is truly the antithesis of science, wouldn't it be impossible to be both religious and a scientist? Or to believe in religion and science at the same time? It seems to me that religion and science deal with different subject matter.