Is atheism a religion?

[Juan_Bottom]

For a while, I thought of myself an atheist until I realized it was a belief, too

I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.
-- George Carlin, Brain Droppings

I was wrong, he worshiped the sun.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." On neither occasion was he talking about an actual god. I myself reference God in this way. A lot of Atheists do. Also, Spinoza's God is not a God...

Is Spinoza saying that rocks, tables, chairs, birds, mountains, rivers and human beings are all properties of God, and hence can be predicated of God (just as one would say that the table “is red”)?

I don't suggest EVER reading his work in it's original text without a lot of foot notes.

Because atheism is the same... it's possible but there is zero evidence.

Take the evidence I have already given you. EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL SINCE THE LATE 1800s HAS LEAD US TOWARDS A UNIVERSE THAT EXISTS IN AND OF IT'S OWN DOING/FUNCTION.

But it could be true. That's not a belief, it's proven. Could a God be controlling our minds now? Yes, therefore it definitely could be true... the only way you could convince me otherwise is with proof or evidence.

Do you understand what evidence or scientific reasoning is? They would laugh you out of a lecture hall. It is proven that God could be controlling our minds now? You mean the God of Abraham here don't you,.. you said "God could!!!"
My invisible worm-sperm could be crawling up your back leg right now on it's way to impregnate you. By your very own reasoning, you have to believe me. I/you have no proof that it is not... enjoy your babies. All 11,000 of them MUAHAHAHAAA

And I believe that there is some "evidence" for God, or at least observations that could be taken as such, but I'm not even bringing those up. I'm operating under the assumption that there is no evidence here.

You are wrong, there is none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... e_Sciences

Keep in mind that this is regarding disbelief or doubt, NOT just atheism. Even this broad category doesn't match your statistic.

Using this broad statistic you still get 93% of NAS scientists are either Atheist or have no opinion. With Atheist being the popular choice. This is a non-issue, but still tells you what a rational person would believe. Further reading can be done on this subject by googling papers on how even trained scientists who grew up in a home where religion was important refuse to give up their faith when it is challenged by their work. Something like 54% of all American scientists have religion in their hearts.This phenomena is what you witness with most Agnostics.

[john9blue]

I've begun worshiping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.
-- George Carlin, Brain Droppings

I was wrong, he worshiped the sun.

Admitting is the first step!

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." On neither occasion was he talking about an actual god. I myself reference God in this way. A lot of Atheists do. Also, Spinoza's God is not a God...

Is Spinoza saying that rocks, tables, chairs, birds, mountains, rivers and human beings are all properties of God, and hence can be predicated of God (just as one would say that the table “is red”)?

I don't suggest EVER reading his work in it's original text without a lot of foot notes.

"Actual God"? I wasn't aware there were real and fake classes of deity. And I've never read an original text of Spinoza's but I'm familiar with his ideas.

Because atheism is the same... it's possible but there is zero evidence.

Take the evidence I have already given you. EVERY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL SINCE THE LATE 1800s HAS LEAD US TOWARDS A UNIVERSE THAT EXISTS IN AND OF IT'S OWN DOING/FUNCTION.

That's because of people centuries ago who made a God of the gaps for everything they couldn't explain. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about God in the most general sense, the lowest common denominator of most every deity conceived by man.

But it could be true. That's not a belief, it's proven. Could a God be controlling our minds now? Yes, therefore it definitely could be true... the only way you could convince me otherwise is with proof or evidence.

Do you understand what evidence or scientific reasoning is? They would laugh you out of a lecture hall. It is proven that God could be controlling our minds now? You mean the God of Abraham here don't you,.. you said "God could!!!"
My invisible worm-sperm could be crawling up your back leg right now on it's way to impregnate you. By your very own reasoning, you have to believe me. I/you have no proof that it is not... enjoy your babies. All 11,000 of them MUAHAHAHAAA

I used a ridiculous example intentionally, not unlike the FSM guy. Learn to differentiate between these two statements:

It is proven that God could be controlling our minds.
It is proven that God is controlling our minds.

And yeah your invisible worm-sperm (lol) could be crawling up my leg, but I don't have to believe you, why would I? You have no evidence. I have some: sperm isn't invisible, I can't get pregnant, etc.

I can imagine I guess getting laughed out of my Evolution & Extinction lecture, but many of them lack critical thinking skill so it doesn't especially concern me.

And I believe that there is some "evidence" for God, or at least observations that could be taken as such, but I'm not even bringing those up. I'm operating under the assumption that there is no evidence here.

You are wrong, there is none.

Nice to see that you're open-minded...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... e_Sciences

Keep in mind that this is regarding disbelief or doubt, NOT just atheism. Even this broad category doesn't match your statistic.

Using this broad statistic you still get 93% of NAS scientists are either Atheist or have no opinion. With Atheist being the popular choice. This is a non-issue, but still tells you what a rational person would believe. Further reading can be done on this subject by googling papers on how even trained scientists who grew up in a home where religion was important refuse to give up their faith when it is challenged by their work. Something like 54% of all American scientists have religion in their hearts.This phenomena is what you witness with most Agnostics.

There are far more agnostics than atheists in the general population. I can't find any stats on scientists but I expect the ratio to be somewhat similar.

[Snorri1234]

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." On neither occasion was he talking about an actual god. I myself reference God in this way. A lot of Atheists do. Also, Spinoza's God is not a God...

Is Spinoza saying that rocks, tables, chairs, birds, mountains, rivers and human beings are all properties of God, and hence can be predicated of God (just as one would say that the table “is red”)?

I don't suggest EVER reading his work in it's original text without a lot of foot notes.

"Actual God"? I wasn't aware there were real and fake classes of deity. And I've never read an original text of Spinoza's but I'm familiar with his ideas.

Then you would know that Spinoza's God (much like Einsteins) is basically what we would say is the universe. Or rather, everything (including thoughts and such too).

This is pantheism. The idea that the universe (All Nature) is the same as God. It rejects the personal, anthropomorphic or creator God and basically says that the universe is worthy of reverence.


It is atheistic, pure and simple. All it does is basically say that the universe is wonderfull and awesome and that that is enough. In essence, the term God is used to express the strenght feeling one has towards the universe, that it is really quite wonderfull and they like it as much as theists like their God-person.

Edit: Also

That's because of people centuries ago who made a God of the gaps for everything they couldn't explain. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about God in the most general sense, the lowest common denominator of most every deity conceived by man.

Much like what jones just said, what do you mean by this? What traits should we ascribe to this general god?

[jonesthecurl]

I'm talking about God in the most general sense,

Why is there a word for "God"?

Point at it, describe it, assign some meaningful attributes to it, and it's a discussable concept.

A word describing a vague something that must be there because the universe is there , and which is "unknowable", "beyond our realms" or "greater than physical reality" or whatever is simply a way of moving the air around with your mouth, and devoid of meaning.

It's not just that I don't believe in "gods" - I can see no need for the word itself since it doesn't refer to anything describable..

[Metsfanmax]

I would just like to clarify Einstein's view of God. His view was not "atheist" in the same way atheism is normally thought of. Snorri was correct in saying that he didn't believe in an anthropomorphicized God (at least, in the later part of his life), but he did believe in a higher order, a certain set of rules the Universe followed which he thought had to come from a higher level because it was so elegant (and no, this is not the same as intelligent design). This is quite evident in his work, for example in his addition of the cosmological constant to his field equations - he believed that the universe ought to be static on large scales, an example of his belief that there were certain rules the Universe had to abide by.

He was much closer to atheism than any of the modern religions, but it would be incorrect to say that he rejected the idea of a higher power.

[Snorri1234]

I would just like to clarify Einstein's view of God. His view was not "atheist" in the same way atheism is normally thought of. Snorri was correct in saying that he didn't believe in an anthropomorphicized God (at least, in the later part of his life), but he did believe in a higher order, a certain set of rules the Universe followed which he thought had to come from a higher level because it was so elegant (and no, this is not the same as intelligent design). This is quite evident in his work, for example in his addition of the cosmological constant to his field equations - he believed that the universe ought to be static on large scales, an example of his belief that there were certain rules the Universe had to abide by.

He was much closer to atheism than any of the modern religions, but it would be incorrect to say that he rejected the idea of a higher power.

Yeah.....it wasn't a higher power as thought of by any religious folk.

You have two main schools; one that thinks the universe is in essence simple and can be, through logic and reason, deduced to it's core. and the other is that the universe is inherently complex and full of chaotic randomness we can never fully understand.
Einstein believed the former, also evidenced by his dislike of quantum-theory. That is not a matter of theism though, it's just a matter of difference in atheistic outlook on the nature of the universe.


Remember that those who self-identify as atheist in this day are almost always talking about real Gods, those advocated by major religions. The God of Einstein and Spinoza isn't the one they're talking about because it is really not a God, it's an indication of the reverence they held for the universe.

[john9blue]

I define God as a conscious creator of the universe... which sounds like a cop-out, but it's really the only definition that can encompass any definition of God possible, which is necessary when talking about theism as an idea. I'm pretty sure pantheism falls under this definition.

Also snorri, I disagree that the universe being logical is evidence against God (that seems to be what you said). If anything, it supports God.

[thegreekdog]

I thought our creator was Multivac? (According to Asimov anyway).

[Snorri1234]

I define God as a conscious creator of the universe... which sounds like a cop-out, but it's really the only definition that can encompass any definition of God possible, which is necessary when talking about theism as an idea. I'm pretty sure pantheism falls under this definition.

Then you know absolutely nothing about pantheism. Pantheism thinks of God as neither conscious nor the creator.

Also snorri, I disagree that the universe being logical is evidence against God (that seems to be what you said). If anything, it supports God.

That's not what I said. I said that einstein's view that the universe was logical had nothing to do with god.

[Mach1tosh]

If there is a God, which one is it?
God the father, God the son, God the Holy Ghost?
Buhdda?
Vishnu?
Allah?
... or any of almost inumerable deitys?

As I see it an atheist does not believe in any God period. In essence he has no religion.
A religious person has their belief system to which they subscribe in order to assist their perception and understanding of what goes on around them.
An agnostic has yet to be convinced of the true nature of what actually makes things run the way they do. Is it a deity, or the forces of the cosmos dictated mostly by gravity/mass. If there weren't gravity holding everything together we'd all just be dust in the wind.

If there is a God, he must be a real hardass. Otherwise why would he allow/condone/not do anything about the atrocities that occur every day. People slaughtering each other in a religious fervor and God does nothing about it. Priests abusing young innocents and God does nothing about it. Nuns beating the daylights out of and suppressing the cultural heritage of aboriginals and God does nothing about it. Our world is full of ungodly acts that go on under the banner of religion and it needs to stop.
The belief that these "sinners" will be dealt with on "judgement day" is at least misguided, at best a colossal cop out. The "get out of jail free" repent your sins and you will be saved is ludicrous. These miscreants of the world need to be dealt with in the here and now or they will go to their grave unpunished. No proof of heaven or hell as defined in religious dogma exists.
There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.
There is gravity which holds everything together, and so far no one has been able to convince me otherwise.

[alex951]

wait soo atheism isn't a religion?

[Mach1tosh]

wait soo atheism isn't a religion?

Nope.
That's my opinion and you're entitled to it.

[Snorri1234]

[Timminz]

Is a salt flat a body of water?

[Mach1tosh]

Is a salt flat a body of water?

Used to be, isn't now, but may be in the future.

[dwilhelmi]

A religious person has their belief system to which they subscribe in order to assist their perception and understanding of what goes on around them.

Belief in the non-existence of any Gods is still a belief system. Your belief in the lack of a God assists you in understanding what goes on around you. Without that belief, your understanding would be different, therefore your belief assists in your understanding.

There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.

There is also nothing concrete about the belief that there is no God, beyond "I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

That being said, I still maintain that atheism is not a religion in and of itself, simply because it is only one aspect of many different religions. For example, Humanism is a religion, of which one of the beliefs is atheism. Naturalistic Pantheism is another example of a religion that holds atheistic views.

Simply put, atheism is an attribute of certain religions, and not a religion in and of itself.

[Timminz]

Is channel surfing a sport?

[jonesthecurl]

...or pocket billiards?

[Snorri1234]

There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.

There is also nothing concrete about the belief that there is no God, beyond "I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

Except that we can give you evidence of their existence and even point out where you can find them. It's just not on the same level.

For example, do you think you would be ridiculed if you said you didn't believe in Zeus?

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

Actually, the existence of God is a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. It's not that we currently don't have a way of determining whether he exist, it's that we can't ever find a way because nothing disproves God.

[dwilhelmi]

There is nothing concrete about religous attitudes beyond blind faith.

There is also nothing concrete about the belief that there is no God, beyond "I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

Except that we can give you evidence of their existence and even point out where you can find them. It's just not on the same level.

For example, do you think you would be ridiculed if you said you didn't believe in Zeus?

I do not think I would be ridiculed, no. I also do not think atheists should be ridiculed. Nor do I believe that christians, buddists, followers of Greek gods, or any other belief set should be ridiculed. My example was a little off mark, but the point was simply that there is no proof that there are no God(s) in existence.

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

Actually, the existence of God is a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. It's not that we currently don't have a way of determining whether he exist, it's that we can't ever find a way because nothing disproves God.

Tongue in cheek response - sure we do, we just have to die first.
Actual response - That is exactly my point. Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God(s) can be tested. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be to draw no conclusions, and leave it in the category of pure theory.

[Mach1tosh]

Belief in the non-existence of any Gods is still a belief system. Your belief in the lack of a God assists you in understanding what goes on around you. Without that belief, your understanding would be different, therefore your belief assists in your understanding.

atheism: the denial of the existance of God, particularily with regard to theistic formulations

Not a belief in the lack of a god, but a lack of belief in the existance of a god

For example, Humanism is a religion, of which one of the beliefs is atheism. Naturalistic Pantheism is another example of a religion that holds atheistic views.
Simply put, atheism is an attribute of certain religions, and not a religion in and of itself

.

theism: the belief in a god or gods esp. belief in the one God who created and rules the universe

How can any atheistic "religion" be taken seriously, it's an oxymoron. More correctly an atheistic community.

religion: man's expression of his acknowledgement of the devine; a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred and uniting its adherents in a community; adherence to such a system; something which has a powerful hold on a person's way of thinking, interests etc. football is his religion

agnostic: a person who thinks that nothing can be known about the existence or nature of God; a person who thinks that knowledge of all matters is relative

defenitions courtesy of M. Webster

"I have not seen it, therefore it does not exist". I have never seen the Rocky Mountains, but you would all call me wacky if I told you I didn't believe that they exist at all.

I have seen, driven through, flown over and even peed behind a tree in the Rocky Mountains, trust me they are existing. As to Zues, unless he is one of those costumed nincompoops in the "professional wrestling" world, I am pretty sure he doesn't exist except in a work of fiction, akin to the Mad Hatter, Harry Potter and the like.

The logical, concrete way of dealing with a question would be to apply the scientific method to it. We have a hypothesis, we run tests against that hypothesis, we come to a conclusion based off of the results of those tests. However, the existence or non-existence of a God is a hypothesis that can't be tested, therefore the logical response would be to draw no conclusions until such time as a test can be performed.

Being that there is no way to test the hypothesis of the existance or non-existance of a god, I reiterate that gravity, being the strongest scientifically proven force known, is what really holds it all together. If you can disprove gravity in favour of a god, then my hat is off to you.

[Snorri1234]

I do not think I would be ridiculed, no. I also do not think atheists should be ridiculed. Nor do I believe that christians, buddists, followers of Greek gods, or any other belief set should be ridiculed. My example was a little off mark, but the point was simply that there is no proof that there are no God(s) in existence.

Yeah but I mentioned Zeus because it applies far better. Nobody believes in Him (our almight ruler) anymore. Sure, there's no proof that they don't exist but you can't pretend that it's as likely that he exists as he doesn't. Being a "True Agnostic" about the tribal superstitions of millions of dead people is just silly. I mean, you aren't even aware of the majority of Gods which have been conjured up. You don't simply doubt their existence, you aren't even aware that there is something to believe/disbelieve in. What if Txaryclaryquickzyxcozyl is actually the one true God, even though he's only worshipped by a small remote tribe in the jungle of Argentina?

Being atheist about it is the only really rational stance. That is: agnostic atheism where you recognise that they could exist but simply don't believe they do.

Actually, the existence of God is a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable. It's not that we currently don't have a way of determining whether he exist, it's that we can't ever find a way because nothing disproves God.

Tongue in cheek response - sure we do, we just have to die first.
Actual response - That is exactly my point. Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God(s) can be tested. Therefore, the only logical conclusion would be to draw no conclusions, and leave it in the category of pure theory.

What? The default position about unfalsifiable theories is NOT BELIEVING IN THEM.

When I tell you that there's an undetectable invisible pink elephant in your room you're not going to say "WELP CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE NO CONCLUSIONS DRAWN!"

[Mach1tosh]

What if Txaryclaryquickzyxcozyl is actually the one true God, even though he's only worshipped by a small remote tribe in the jungle of Argentina?

Not as scary as Jehovah being the one true god, those guys are certifiable and should all be confined to a big rubber room.
Now if it were true that Jehovah were the one true god, and all the world was to adopt the faith, who's doors would they go knock on?

[Symmetry]

bump, if we really want to talk about this.

[Army of GOD]

Yes: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "