Is atheism a religion

[Daemonia]

Atheism, whilst supposedly the opposite to theism or any sort of belief, actually ends up being a following of its own. Sure it doesn’t hold to a deity but it acts often as unifying force for stupid people who can’t prove anything either.

To the atheist absence of proof that is subjective to their view/opinion is proof of absence. Which ofcourse it isn’t, that’s just nonsense.

The semantic back and forth regardless burden of proof goes back and forth but i think personally, as do many scholars, that the wise and scientific stance for uncertainly is agnosticism instead.

The position held by those who can except no significant proof in either direction.

Atheism often gets projected by people who have an immoral agenda. I.e they can’t resist being spiteful or nasty to people who hold belief in anything - usually labelling them with some sort of derogatory generalisation.

That’s not to say that all unbelievers are like that and not minding their own business but seldom do you know those people’s stances unless you ask.

Someone actively making a point of labelling themself an atheist usually has an agenda ending in expletives every few lines. Quite pathetic really.

 

[niceatheist]

Nothing demonstrates Christian charity like being called stupid and being typecast as a cartoon version of a non believer.

 

[kainosktisis]

But what of atheist regimes such as the former USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, PRC? They claimed to not be aligned with any god - secular…Were they any better - or worse…?

Do you live here in America? How does your life compare here than if there?

 

[Damian]

Being atheist has nothing to do with a political agenda.

Proper comparison would be a secular state in comparison to a theocratic state.
AKA America vs Iran for example.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I never understood this idea of theists wanting to peg atheism as a religion, a sort of “You and I are not so different afterall.”. Atheism not being a religion doesn’t make it more or less likely to be true, nor does it mean that atheists are dumber or smarter than theists.

It’s merely one item that one doesn’t have faith in. Atheists may have faith in other unseen and maybe they don’t. There is no checklist for atheism apart from that one item:

[ √ ] Is there not enough evidence at this time for the existence of any deity?

That’s all it is. Each of us has a billion checklist items, and often they are independent of other boxes that may or may not have been checked. For example I might say:

[ _ ] Should politicians be worshipped like gods?
[ _ ] Should contraception be illegal?
[ √ ] Is capitalism preferable to communism?

Other atheists might disagree on 1, 2, or all 3 items.

[nerd] By the way, I keep my god/worship slot empty so I can wield two-handed weapons. [/nerd]

 

[Pattylt]

Those types of regimes replaced worship of God with worship of a personality or the state. They were religious in trying to replace God with something every bit as authoritarian as religion. It didn’t work mostly because you can not force someone to change beliefs and the political state they created was unworkable.

Today, atheistic societies have grown out of theocratic or more accurately nations that had a stated religion as their guiding principles. It is an organic process. The Netherlands and even England are examples of this process. Religion will probably never disappear in those countries, it will just continue to have less relevance to the non religious peoples lives.

 

[kainosktisis]

To me that’s just semantics. It is atheist at heart. Calling it secular sugarcoats the reality of it.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

I think things have changed. Atheists used to be more the “I don’t believe in God and you do. Live and let live”.

Now, it’s “take the nativity out of the town square” and “let’s have meetings discussing our intelligent non-belief in the God of the oh-so-gullible Christians”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think things have changed. Atheists used to be more the “I don’t believe in God and you do. Live and let live”.

Now, it’s “take the nativity out of the town square” and “let’s have meetings discussing our intelligent non-belief in the God of the oh-so-gullible Christians”.

So a group of people who share a similar viewpoint should not get together to discuss why people who don’t share that viewpoint are mistaken? Be careful, because there are some places all around the world who do just that on a weekly basis (especially Sundays).

 

[Aquinas11]

Stating your are not convinced of something is not to say you know that is the case.

The former is Agnosticism (not convinced that God exists), the latter is Atheistism (saying you know God doesn’t exist).

Everyone should watch William Lane Craig v. Christopher Hitchens debate on YouTube. Craig pigeonholes Hitchens on this issue. He forces Hitchens to choose between:

(1) Being an Agnostic, in which he doesn’t have to prove a claim, but then has to concede possibility God exists (Hitchens would never ever do, since too arrogant), or

(2) Being an Atheist, in which case he gets to arrogantly claim no possibility God exists, yet then has made a positive claim that God doesn’t exist and thus now has evidentiary burden.

Its brutal to watch Craig play with Hitchens like a dog playing with a bone, before he asks him for his evidence to back up his claim in (2) that he must now prove. And of course Hitchens has no evidence. He’s operating on blind faith and can’t back up his claim.

Most atheists are too arrogant to be agnostics, since they’d have to concede God may exist, and so end up having evidentiary burden in (2) above. Poor Hitchens had to have a full medical team come in after that debate was done

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Where did I say that? I was responding to your comment that theists want to peg atheism as a religion. I remember what atheists used to be like and they weren’t meeting up on a regular basis with other atheists to discuss their lack of belief.

I think atheists are very much as organized as church-going believers. They just think they’re not because…they discuss what they don’t believe.

Which is still a belief.

 

[Daemonia]

Agnostic positions aren’t allowed here then I’m guessing?

I don’t follow the Christian sky daddy but may consider it if you summon him into my dining room to shake my hand.

Plenty of people on this forum are stupid. But I avoided calling out anyone in particular. So that’s hardly a breach of rules. I’m allowed to think that a ideology or perspective is stupid. People choosing to be insulted because they feel I have insulted their ‘label’ is a little obtuse in my book. I mean where does such thinking stop? People could go out of their way to subscribe to ANY belief just to claim ‘im offended’ and it would be endless.

Anyway. Nobody can prove anything. You can’t show me what’s outside of time and space (prior to Big Bang in theory, correct?) just as much as the theist can’t.

It’s why the silly debate between your sides is just so hilariously adorable and utterly nonsensical.

If anyone could PROVE anything - you wouldn’t be here.

 

[Pattylt]

I call myself an agnostic. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim and atheism is a belief claim in my understanding. Since I don’t know if God exists, I currently don’t believe He does. But! If my knowledge changed, so would my belief.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your initial comment reflected on atheists getting together was pejorative. You claimed that atheists used to be quiet “live and let live”, but now they are doing all these things that shouldn’t, like getting together and talking about the problems with theism.

I didn’t say atheists weren’t organized (although the joke is that trying to get atheists together is like herding cats). It’s just that you seem to have some trouble with that as opposed to earlier atheists who often said little in public on the topic of religion. The fact is these earlier atheists also had strong opinions but didn’t speak as often due to very real world consequences that could stem from such speaking.

Also only a few beliefs qualify as religions. There are two meanings to the word. Belief can mean a position based on understand or prior experience. I can believe someone is being honest based on knowing them, their track record of telling truthful things, and the plausibility of what they are saying. I can believe gravity won’t stop tomorrow. I can believe that a deity is unlikely based on claims made and not met on the matter. A religious belief goes beyond just reason to feeling and faith. Again, I’m not saying that religious faith isn’t true, but that it’s not the same as believing a commute will be slow because of bad weather.

 

[Aquinas11]

Agnosticism is a knowledge claim and atheism is a belief claim in my understanding. Since I don’t know if God exists, I currently don’t believe He does

A knowledge claim is “I know X” , not “I do not know X”

 

[Pattylt]

I don’t think anyone’s religious or non religious beliefs are stupid. We all have beliefs and have differing levels of confidence in them. I admire and respect anyone’s sincerely held beliefs even though they are different from my own. I don’t live inside their head and they don’t live in mine. I’m sorry that you feel that both atheism and theism are stupid. I don’t even know how to respond to that statement!

 

[Pattylt]

Ok, I know that I do not know. Is that better?

Agnosticism = without knowledge

 

[MPat]

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.

OK, so, by “convinced” you meant “persuaded” and not “certain”, as I have thought. Still, it makes no difference: what is that supposed to add to the definition of an atheist?

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.

I do not use the word “magic”?

How do you get such nonsense?!

And just to avoid answering a single point…

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

And why would that be relevant to the subject of this thread?

Yes, atheists are not all precise copies of each other. But then neither are all Christians, all Catholics, all Muslims, all Conservatives, all Liberals, all Nazis, all Communists, all Marxists…

As you can see, something can be a religion (or a “world view”) without all of its adherents being precise copies of each other.

And thus trying to demonstrate that atheists are not precisely the same is not going to help you. Especially given that you are doing a rather bad job at proving this point - the point that we could just grant you for free anyway…

It’s merely one item that one doesn’t have faith in. Atheists may have faith in other unseen and maybe they don’t. There is no checklist for atheism apart from that one item:

[ √ ] Is there not enough evidence at this time for the existence of any deity?

That’s all it is. Each of us has a billion checklist items, and often they are independent of other boxes that may or may not have been checked. For example I might say:

[ _ ] Should politicians be worshipped like gods?
[ _ ] Should contraception be illegal?
[ √ ] Is capitalism preferable to communism?

Other atheists might disagree on 1, 2, or all 3 items.

Um, if you claim that some atheists would actually say that “Should politicians be worshipped like gods?”, that would mean that they definitely have a religion…

 

[twf]

You’re defining a certain ideology prevalent in America. This hardly defines atheists in general. And many of the “doctrines” you list are also applicable to Catholics. Social justice is something all Catholics are called to fight for. Rape culture is something all Catholics are called to fight. Climate change / environmental stewardship is something Pope Francis has prioritized. Etc.

 

[Damian]

Still, it makes no difference: what is that supposed to add to the definition of an atheist?

This is how I see the difference between belief and knowledge claims.
Theistic claims are statements about beliefs, or what you’ve been convinced of without first hand demonstrated experience.
IE: I believe you have a new puppy, even though I haven’t actually seen the puppy. But I have seen puppies before and you showed me a picture of you holding a puppy.
The Atheist is not convinced you actually own a puppy based on your testimony and the picture. They need more evidence to convinced them of your claim that you own a puppy.
Gnostic claims are knowledge claims about reality. Claims about reality that you believe are a justified true statement about reality.
IE: You know that you own a puppy because you actually went to the store and bought a puppy.
The agnostic wouldn’t make that statement unless they were there with you. They don’t have first hand experience of that event.

So you can be any combination of Gnostic/Agnostic and Theist/Atheist. Since one is a position about a knowledge claim and one is a belief claim.
1: Gnostic Theist: Claims to know that a deity exists based on first hand experience and also believes the arguments for the existence of a deity is enough to belief it exists as well. Your basic bible thumper.
2: Agnostic Theist: Does not claim to know that a deity exists but believes the arguments are enough to convince them that a deity is probably true. Your basic Jew.
3: Gnostic Atheist: Claims to know that a deity does not exist and claims that the arguments don’t actually convince them that a deity should exist.
4: Agnostic Atheist: The default position everyone is born to. Does not have first hand knowledge of the existence of a deity and is not convinced that the arguments for one is enough to believe that a deity exists.
I’m your basic Agnostic Atheist.
However, I do claim to know that your deity is not all good, because I judge its the character of its recorded actions as a devil instead of divine though. One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist example here.

I do not use the word “magic”?

I don’t use the word “faith”. This is why I don’t use “Faith”.
Faith is not belief or hope. Faith is the excuse you use for holding a belief about reality when you have no good reason to hold that position. If you did have a good reason, then its just called “belief”.
Belief: To understand what the possible results can be based on a situation in reality.
Ex: I belief a 1-6 value will be the result of rolling a 1d6 dice.
Hope: To desire a specific known result out of all the known possible results.
Ex: I hope a 5 will be the value from a 1d6 dice roll since I bet on the number 5 to appear.
Faith: The excuse you use to hold a belief about reality when reality doesn’t even demonstrate that is possible yet.
Ex: I have faith that a 7 will result from a 1d6 dice roll.
This is how I see the difference between these labels and why I disagree with your assertion that atheists have “faith”. Its your word, not ours.