Is atheism a religion?

[pimpdave]

[Metsfanmax]

sure. I'm as unsure about there being no gods as I'm unsure about evolution.

What logical reason is there to believe that there are no gods?

[muy_thaiguy]

Let me quote myself once again on this question. This is something I said two years ago and as yet I have found no reason to qualify or amend it. nor has anyone else.

I see no reason to posit the existence of a god or gods.
Without evidence for god/gods, and in the absence of any difference I can imagine between the universe as it presents itself to me and one which contains no gods, it would seem that to add putative god/s to the picture is unecessary and contrary to reason.

How's that?




This was my response to being asked to say why I am an atheist, without using the word "belief".
Please note that it does not mention "faith" either, and still works.

All it is doing is merely substituting "faith" and "belief" with "imagine."
I have faith that between the universe as it presents itself to me
I have the belief that between the universe as it presents itself to me

Same thing, different way of saying it. Therein lies the flaw, as they mean the samething. All your original sentence is doing is skirting around the words, but they can still be used to the exact same effect.

[jonesthecurl]

Let me quote myself once again on this question. This is something I said two years ago and as yet I have found no reason to qualify or amend it. nor has anyone else.

I see no reason to posit the existence of a god or gods.
Without evidence for god/gods, and in the absence of any difference I can imagine between the universe as it presents itself to me and one which contains no gods, it would seem that to add putative god/s to the picture is unecessary and contrary to reason.

How's that?




This was my response to being asked to say why I am an atheist, without using the word "belief".
Please note that it does not mention "faith" either, and still works.

All it is doing is merely substituting "faith" and "belief" with "imagine."
I have faith that between the universe as it presents itself to me
I have the belief that between the universe as it presents itself to me

Same thing, different way of saying it. Therein lies the flaw, as they mean the samething. All your original sentence is doing is skirting around the words, but they can still be used to the exact same effect.

let me be more succinct.
I look at the Universe.
I see no Gods.

[muy_thaiguy]

Let me quote myself once again on this question. This is something I said two years ago and as yet I have found no reason to qualify or amend it. nor has anyone else.

I see no reason to posit the existence of a god or gods.
Without evidence for god/gods, and in the absence of any difference I can imagine between the universe as it presents itself to me and one which contains no gods, it would seem that to add putative god/s to the picture is unecessary and contrary to reason.

How's that?




This was my response to being asked to say why I am an atheist, without using the word "belief".
Please note that it does not mention "faith" either, and still works.

All it is doing is merely substituting "faith" and "belief" with "imagine."
I have faith that between the universe as it presents itself to me
I have the belief that between the universe as it presents itself to me

Same thing, different way of saying it. Therein lies the flaw, as they mean the samething. All your original sentence is doing is skirting around the words, but they can still be used to the exact same effect.

let me be more succinct.
I look at the Universe.
I see no Gods.

Now you are just going on perspective here. May I?
I look at the Universe
I see God's creations.

[Skittles!]

I look at the universe.
I see no reason to believe in Gods.

[pimpdave]

I look at the universe
And all I see are miracles.

Like fucking rainbows.
And fucking magnets.
How do they work?

[jonesthecurl]

And , because gods(s) is/are real, the universe is utterly different than a godless universe in the following ways:

(a)
(b)
(c)


I couldn't think of a (c), let alone a (b) or an (a), but maybe somebody can.

[Army of GOD]

(a) Army of GOD is real
(b) Army of GOD is all-powerful
(c) Army of GOD asks: "What color is it?"

[Metsfanmax]

And , because gods(s) is/are real, the universe is utterly different than a godless universe in the following ways:

(a)
(b)
(c)


I couldn't think of a (c), let alone a (b) or an (a), but maybe somebody can.

It might not be different in any observable way, but that doesn't mean there aren't effects we aren't aware of.

[muy_thaiguy]

And , because gods(s) is/are real, the universe is utterly different than a godless universe in the following ways:

(a)
(b)
(c)


I couldn't think of a (c), let alone a (b) or an (a), but maybe somebody can.

And the way you are trying to make is that God(s) had no effect on how things were created or began afterwards. What this suggests is that you ignored the whole part about God creating everything. So, to take that into perspective
A universe without God(s)
a) No life on earth
b) No Earth
c) No Universe

[LikeYestrdaysJam]

sure. I'm as unsure about there being no gods as I'm unsure about evolution.

What logical reason is there to believe that there are no gods?

what logical reason is there to believe there are gods?>

[john9blue]

1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.
* Rather than being diligent and mindful of the way he practiced religion, he chose to stir up quarels by ridiculing the manner in which others do.
2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.
* At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
3. Any ongoing practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.
4. An ideological and traditional heritage.
* If you examine various churches throughout the world, you will find religion expressed in diverse ways.

1. Absence of, or rejection of, belief in the existence of a god or gods.
2. The stance that a deity or deities do not exist.

If you use atheism definition 1, then it's possible for atheism to not be a religion. If you use atheism definition 2, then atheism is a religion.

AD1 is flawed I feel in a number of ways, primarily because it also encompasses "pure agnostics" who would call themselves neither theists nor atheists. That's why AD2 must be used, and that's why atheism is a religion and a belief. It's a positive stance, not a negative one.

I've had this debate too many times, and the key point is almost always distinguishing between the two definitions of atheism. That's why I asked for definitions in the first reply.

[SultanOfSurreal]

yes: 30 votes
no: 19 votes

lollll you people are fucking idiots

[jonesthecurl]

If we're going the semantic route, let's just look at the word.
A theism. NO god.

[PLAYER57832]

How can I, as an atheist who doesn't believe in a supernatural power, and doesn't attend an atheist "church", be non-religious? What should I do, or not do?

lol.
I believe you have a preconceived notion about what religion is and have painted it as a "box" from which you wish to escape. If you came from more of an Eastern religious background, you might not see that "box" the same way or might not even see the box.

I am not trying to box you into anything. The use of the term "religion" here is merely a definition. It means that this is a belief to which you subscribe at a deep level, that lays the "fundament" of all you do, think, see and believe about other things. It has nothing to do with going in or not going in any particular building, participating in any particular ceremonies, or any of the other trappings you seem to feel are necessary for something to be a "religion". Those other things have to do with organized religion, but religion does not have to be "organized". It is still religion.

[b.k. barunt]

If we're going the semantic route, let's just look at the word.
A theism. NO god.

If we went the semantic route then "homophobe" would be laughed out, amirite?


Honibaz

[Symmetry]

How can I, as an atheist who doesn't believe in a supernatural power, and doesn't attend an atheist "church", be non-religious? What should I do, or not do?

lol.
I believe you have a preconceived notion about what religion is and have painted it as a "box" from which you wish to escape. If you came from more of an Eastern religious background, you might not see that "box" the same way or might not even see the box.

I am not trying to box you into anything. The use of the term "religion" here is merely a definition. It means that this is a belief to which you subscribe at a deep level, that lays the "fundament" of all you do, think, see and believe about other things. It has nothing to do with going in or not going in any particular building, participating in any particular ceremonies, or any of the other trappings you seem to feel are necessary for something to be a "religion". Those other things have to do with organized religion, but religion does not have to be "organized". It is still religion.

And this is my main issue with your, Beezer, and John9Blue's arguments.

First, it requires a massively broad definition of religion that incorporates almost any kind of belief or social practice. Literally everybody is made to be religious. Far from avoiding boxes, you put everyone in to a single giant box, and walk away saying "there, we're done". It's the height of intellectual laziness, and has very little to do with how we use the word "religion". John9Blue's choice of the second definition above is telling. The example given is that Star Trek is a religion. Take that broad definition as the true meaning, and being a religion, or being religious means nothing more or less than regularly watching pro-wrestling.

Second, your arguments about atheist churches, or the nature of belief systems begin to look dishonest if you truly believe that first broad definition. What does it matter if atheists have churches or not, if they are religious anyway.

Thirdly, you seem to conflate and muddy distinctions between organised religion, religious affiliation, and personal belief. Your argument about atheists having churches, bizarre as it is, is an argument that it is organised. Your most recent argument seems to suggest that atheists are religious as a natural matter of personal belief, although I note that you descended into a few cheap shots directed at what you assume I believe. That argument suggests that atheists, and indeed, anyone, is religious, but doesn't actually say that atheism is a religion. Neither argument seems particularly satisfactory.

Fourthly, it does seem to be a particularly nasty habit of some within these forums to completely ignore what atheists have to say on the subject of their own atheism.

[Metsfanmax]

sure. I'm as unsure about there being no gods as I'm unsure about evolution.

What logical reason is there to believe that there are no gods?

what logical reason is there to believe there are gods?>

That's exactly my point. Atheists are as silly as religious people. In many cases even more silly, because at least some religious people are intelligent enough to recognize the logical ludicrousness of the view and admit it's just a faith-based view, whereas most atheists are too arrogant to recognize the hypocrisy in their attacks on religious people.

[jonesthecurl]

If we're going the semantic route, let's just look at the word.
A theism. NO god.

If we went the semantic route then "homophobe" would be laughed out, amirite?


Honibaz

I'm afraid so.
(so-phobic)

[Symmetry]

sure. I'm as unsure about there being no gods as I'm unsure about evolution.

What logical reason is there to believe that there are no gods?

what logical reason is there to believe there are gods?>

That's exactly my point. Atheists are as silly as religious people. In many cases even more silly, because at least some religious people are intelligent enough to recognize the logical ludicrousness of the view and admit it's just a faith-based view, whereas most atheists are too arrogant to recognize the hypocrisy in their attacks on religious people.

Interesting argument- so the more irrational beliefs you hold, the smarter you are, as long as you recongnise them as having no grounding in reality?

And you're suggesting that atheism is just arrogance and hypocrisy?

[LikeYestrdaysJam]

sure. I'm as unsure about there being no gods as I'm unsure about evolution.

What logical reason is there to believe that there are no gods?

what logical reason is there to believe there are gods?>

That's exactly my point. Atheists are as silly as religious people. In many cases even more silly, because at least some religious people are intelligent enough to recognize the logical ludicrousness of the view and admit it's just a faith-based view, whereas most atheists are too arrogant to recognize the hypocrisy in their attacks on religious people.

how are atheists hypocrits?

[john9blue]

Because atheists don't realize that atheism is a belief. In fact, they actively claim to reject belief, without realizing that atheism (using AD2 as mentioned earlier) is a positive claim, not a negative one. The only true lack of belief is pure agnosticism, because it rejects the positive claims of both theism and atheism.

[Symmetry]

Because atheists don't realize that atheism is a belief. In fact, they actively claim to reject belief, without realizing that atheism (using AD2 as mentioned earlier) is a positive claim, not a negative one. The only true lack of belief is pure agnosticism, because it rejects the positive claims of both theism and atheism.

I don't know any atheists who claim to reject belief entirely. I certainly don't. What a strange reason to call us names.

And that second definition is pretty broad. As the example below it shows, it's more of a metaphorical use than a strict definition. "At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion" is, to my mind, not a literal statement, no?

Or to put it another way, one of my friends told me this morning that her morning cup of coffee was crack cocaine for her. I'm not going to be calling for a redefinition of drug classifications by misreading that as literal.

[john9blue]

I don't know any atheists who claim to reject belief entirely. I certainly don't. What a strange reason to call us names.

And that second definition is pretty broad. As the example below it shows, it's more of a metaphorical use than a strict definition. "At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion" is, to my mind, not a literal statement, no?

Or to put it another way, one of my friends told me this morning that her morning cup of coffee was crack cocaine for her. I'm not going to be calling for a redefinition of drug classifications by misreading that as literal.

I'm talking about the second definition for atheism, the one that calls it a "stance" instead of an "absence". Also I know there are atheists with beliefs. I didn't say "all atheists", perhaps I should have said "some atheists" though...