Is atheism a religion

[kainosktisis]

What were you lied to about?

 

[kainosktisis]

You may have a point - honestly.

That was one of the problems I had with Protestant denominations. I’d been a Baptist, a Fundamentalist, & a Nondenominationalist over time. In Catholic schools, I’d observed one truth in understanding Scripture.

I’d attended at a Nondenominational church once that had offered a ministry apprenticeship program for people to take who were interested in getting into some ministry or another or for personal spiritual growth. I noted that when assignments were completed, the usual reviews given sounded the same regardless of what people had written. They can’t all be right. How is that possible? But yet it seemed like any interpretation of Scripture was good - I guess, so long as it didn’t clash with the pastor’s?

It started to make more sense that without any way to authoritatively interpret Scripture, anyone could do it in anyway. So we have this church saying baptize is a symbol, & another one says it isn’t even necessary, & yet another says it saves - all claiming to know the truth based on Scripture, but having various “truths” that don’t agree - even where one’s salvation is at stake. I started to understand how thousands of denominations were possible that can’t agree on matters of faith - even contradicting each other.

This is where the Catholic Church differed for me. It made sense to me that if Jesus said that He’s the way, the truth, & the life that His teachings & His Church would also reflect that as His Body.

I’ve often heard the Church accused of creating manmade traditions, but the accusers don’t bother looking at their own situations.

 

[kainosktisis]

You don’t sound lazy or illogical. It sounds like you offered guidance. I make the distinction that some parents don’t do any of that in considering their child’s spiritual formation.

 

[KD8TZC]

Sorry, but I don’t believe in atheists.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Ok. I think I understand though it has odd implications.

Parents who sacrifice material goods, time and effort made children their god, especially those who go the extra mile to afform private religious school.

 

[Damian]

As an atheist, I don’t believe there actually is something to the label “Atheism”. There are “Atheists” or an “Atheist” but there is no “-ism” to being an Atheist. Being an atheist is to take a single position to a single question put to you. “Are you convinced that the supernatural exists?” If you say no, then you’re an Atheist. Being an atheist is the default position everyone is born to. Then they have to become convinced to the positive claim that the religious are presenting. To imply an “-ism” to this answer is to imply that there is a world view to that. What world view would that be that leads people to not be convinced of your side of that question exactly?
Example: Take a look at a jury. There are 12 people that are neutral to the case being presented. They are at the default position of not accepting the positive claim of the prosecutor is trying to argue for. The prosecutor is arguing for the positive claim that “X” is a true statement about reality. The jury listens to the arguments and evidence the prosecutor puts forth. In the end, there are 8 members who remain unconvinced and 4 that are convinced that “X” is a true statement about reality. Okay, now tell me what those 8 jury member’s world view is now. Tell me their education level, their world philosophy, anything at all about them other than they were unconvinced based on the bad evidence and arguments the prosecutor put forth. You can’t, its not possible.
There are world views that tend to have more atheists in them, like philosophical naturalism, secular humanism, etc. However, you can be religious and a theist and still be these world views as well.
There is no single world view of “Atheism”. There are individual Atheists though. But if you want to know what their world view is or why they don’t believe in the supernatural, you’ll have to ask each one because each of us has our own reasons for why we don’t believe the positive claim that the religious presented.

If you want to know why I’m still an atheist, check out:

Why are you an Atheist? - Catholic Answers Live - 12Nov2018 Apologetics

On 12Nov2018, during the second hour of the show, I called in to talk to Trent Horn about why I am an Atheist. I opened up the conversation that theistic claims for why they believe in the supernatural are all internally logically consistent, but there is no evidence of it in reality so far that anyone can point to that demonstrates its existence. That’s where I pointed out the similarity of religious claims to comic books and fantasy stories. These are all internally logically consistent, b…

 

[QwertyGirl]

Great post.

 

[kainosktisis]

Well, I guess that’s good. I think as far as people go, some are kind, & some are difficult - but still created in the image of God…

 

[SunshineGrandma]

My atheist bro-in-law says his atheist group has meetings and are very active, much like a religious group would be.

They hold meetings to discuss and further their views, to the point of proselytizing, and are very active in their community and on social media- all in an attempt to persuade others to their viewpoint.

Sounds like a religion to me, in many ways.

 

[Damian]

So every group that is politically active is a religion?
There are overlaps of politically active groups and organized religion, but the differences is what we are talking about I believe.
So what is a religion to you then so we can discuss what the difference is between organized religion, personal religion, and other groups. Otherwise we are running into this problem of X is no different than Y.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

They are more than politically active (if you were responding to me?) as I clearly articulated in my post. They are out to win converts to atheism.

 

[Aquinas11]

“Are you convinced that the supernatural exists?” If you say no, then you’re an Atheist.

No, that’s an Agnostic, someone who asserts a lack of knowledge (i.e., not “convinced”) in God.

An Atheist makes an affirmative claim that there is sufficient evidence to be convinced there is no God.

 

[Mary888]

Chaos is a temporary state of a system. So then can atheism be part of a religion even if they disagree that there should be religion at all? Or can atheism be a state that will cause a new religion that since it doesn’t exist the atheists can’t deny it but they can produce it?

 

[MPat]

As an atheist, I don’t believe there actually is something to the label “Atheism”.

Yes, that seems to be one of dogmas of Atheism.

Being an atheist is to take a single position to a single question put to you. “Are you convinced that the supernatural exists?” If you say no, then you’re an Atheist.

No. For example, why on Earth would being “convinced” be necessary? Theists and atheists can have a “crisis of faith”.

The jury listens to the arguments and evidence the prosecutor puts forth. In the end, there are 8 members who remain unconvinced and 4 that are convinced that “X” is a true statement about reality. Okay, now tell me what those 8 jury member’s world view is now. Tell me their education level, their world philosophy, anything at all about them other than they were unconvinced based on the bad evidence and arguments the prosecutor put forth. You can’t, its not possible.

You know, it does depend on that “X”.

As a matter of fact, in many cases even one’s view concerning actual arguments of a prosecutor can indicate a lot about someone’s world-view and the like. Just like in case of Dreyfus.

And one can tell still more if we are dealing with a question like “Does the supernatural exist?”.

There are world views that tend to have more atheists in them, like philosophical naturalism, secular humanism, etc. However, you can be religious and a theist and still be these world views as well.

I guess I happen to be “unconvinced based on the bad evidence and arguments the prosecutor [you] put forth”…

Let’s look how “RationalWiki” (I hope no one will try to claim it’s on Catholic side) defines this “Philosophical naturalism”: “Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is — in other words, that the supernatural is definitionally impossible”.

Are you seriously claiming that answer to “Does the supernatural exist?” has nothing at all to do with accepting this doctrine?

And do you really expect us to take this your claim seriously?

Furthermore, let’s say that you somehow manage to prove that Atheism has just one doctrine. Then what? How are you going to get from that to “Atheism is not a religion.” (or “Atheism is not a world view.”)?

There are 12 people that are neutral to the case being presented. They are at the default position of not accepting the positive claim of the prosecutor is trying to argue for.

That’s obviously nonsense: if they start at a default position, then they are not really neutral. Being neutral would require having no position.

 

[Damian]

Stating your are not convinced of something is not to say you know that is the case.
Here we are talking about the difference between belief and knowledge. Both are degrees of certainty about a reference point.
So the theist makes the positive knowledge claim about reality that the supernatural is part of reality.
Since no one can actually demonstrate this to be the case, we just argue over logical models that conclude that to be the case. Just like how people can argue over mathematical models.
Well logical models of reality are fine to start with, just like mathematical models of reality are fine to start with, but you have to actually demonstrate that result in reality before you can claim to Know that to true for reality. Until then, you can hold that logical model as a reason to look at reality for your conclusion, but you’re not justified in holding that conclusion as a justified true belief (aka Knowledge claim) about reality until you can demonstrate that conclusion in reality.
Just like how Einstein mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist in reality based on his mathematical models. However, we were not justified in holding that conclusion as knowledge of reality, as justified true belief of reality, until we actually detected them in 2015. We were justified in looking for them, but not justified in updating our model of reality to include them.
IE: Belief vs Knowledge claims about reality.

So since the religious are making the positive claim that the supernatural exists and I say that I don’t believe that is the case based on their bad reasons, have I actually made a positive statement about the supernatural or have I only made a statement about why their bad reasons for believing in the supernatural don’t work for me?
Example: Jar of marbles that no one can investigate. The theist claims there is an even number of marbles in there. Atheist says, I don’t believe you. Does that mean the Atheist believes there is an odd number of marbles? No, no they don’t. The Atheist didn’t actually make a positive claim about the even or odd of the marbles. They only responded to not believing the theist position based on the bad reasons the theist believes the marbles are even. To make an even or odd claims about the marbles is a knowledge claim, which no one can actually know.

 

[Damian]

No. For example, why on Earth would being “convinced” be necessary? Theists and atheists can have a “crisis of faith”.

Person A is making a positive claim about reality to Person B. Person B is at the default position of not accepting that new updated model of reality until Person A presents their reasons. If Person A fails to convince Person B why they should update their model of reality to Person A’s model of reality, that is not convincing them. Or do you see this differently and why?

Theists and atheists can have a “crisis of faith”.

Atheists don’t use religious language. Faith is a term used by the religious. So you’d need to use a term that is universal to both groups. Just like you don’t use the term magic but people that believe in Harry Potter do.

You know, it does depend on that “X”.

Not in this case because this is an example of just not convincing someone for why someone else believes X. The specifics of X is irrelevant, I am just pointing out that some people can be convinced with the evidence presented and others need more evidence or better evidence before they are convinced of X.
X becomes relevant when you want to know why people didn’t believe that to be the case. All I did was stop at illustrating that they are unconvinced. As to why, that’s the second question. That is when you bring up what the X is and what they had issue with the evidence and argument in reference to X.

As a matter of fact, in many cases even one’s view concerning actual arguments of a prosecutor can indicate a lot about someone’s world-view and the like. Just like in case of Dreyfus.

You can make assumptions, but you can’t actually know what their reasons are until you ask them.

“Philosophical naturalism”: “Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is — in other words, that the supernatural is definitionally impossible”.

Every scientist in the lab is a philosophical naturalist. So you are saying that every scientist is not a religious person? Philosophical naturalism just states that all we are allowed to offer as an explanation for something is what reality indicates to be part of reality. That is why the supernatural is not allowed to be an explanation for anything because the supernatural has yet to be demonstrated to be part of reality at all. However, when we run into something that is an “I don’t know” answer, that is when the scientist has to honestly say “I don’t know.” and then can go on to have a philosophical discussion of her religion and belief in the supernatural for how it could address this. But they are not allowed to actually present the supernatural as the actual honest answer to that unknown question.

 

[Damian]

That’s obviously nonsense: if they start at a default position, then they are not really neutral. Being neutral would require having no position.

They are neutral in that they are fine changing their model to yea or nay. However, they are at the default position of what reality was before the change that the prosecutor is arguing for.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

So then can atheism be part of a religion even if they disagree that there should be religion at all?

Atheism is a label. The church like aspect of some groups seems to be replicating the social aspect of church only.

Or can atheism be a state that will cause a new religion that since it doesn’t exist the atheists can’t deny it but they can produce it?

It seems that when I get into these types of discussions that nonbelief gets twisted into a religious paradigm as if genuine lack of belief is impossible. Perhaps atheists are anomalies. 90-97% of humans believe in something supernatural. Maybe most atheists just lack the needs that religion fulfills for most?

 

[niceatheist]

There are more than a few examples of governments that claimed to be aligned with God being pretty nasty places. Post-Reconquista Spain may have been the land of the devout, unless you were Jewish or Moorish.

The whole point of a secular society is that people of various religions can live together without one seeking dominance over the rest. The alternatives, as the Founding Fathers of the US knew, very unpleasant indeed, ranging from persecution to war.

 

[Anicette]

atheism is the absence of religion

a = without
theos = God.

And God is the essence that brings people together (religere, join together).

Atheism does not brings people together under a God. It is not an organized thing.
Atheists can be at the maximum some political, or social club.

So, no it is not a religion.