Is Atheism a religion?

[R_McGeddon]

The poster was responding to a woman who said that every atheists that she had met was a moral person. He was only pointing out that there are plenty of atheist-just like everyone else-who were not moral.

The poster always brings up those particular atheists when someone says that all the atheists they’ve met are good moral people, as if it is going to change something.

 

[R_McGeddon]

R McGeddon

Maybe some atheists were bad …

MAYBE? There are bad so-called Christians and there are bad atheists.

Live with it!

I’m not the one that has a bee in his bonnet when someone says they know some atheists that are good people.

Get a grip!

 

[Sixtus]

Seems to me that Aethiests are about belief in an unbelief. Therefore it is a belief system therefore it is a religion

 

[R_McGeddon]

Seems to me that Atheists are about belief in an unbelief. Therefore it is a belief system therefore it is a religion

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

How can a lack of belief be considered as a belief??? it’s a total contradiction in terms.

 

[deb1]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

How can a lack of belief be considered as a belief??? it’s a total contradiction in terms.

The opposite of religion is not atheism but Agnosticism.

Atheists *believe *that there is not a God.

Just as no one can absolutely prove that there is a God-we accept this on faith; no one can absolutely prove that there isn’t a God. Atheist accept on faith just as very religious people do.

Now an atheist’s faith might be founded on what he/she believes is good intellectual reasoning but I, as a Christian, believe that my faith is founded on intellectual reasoning as well.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Maybe some atheists were bad, but that doesn’t mean all of them are. There are bad people in the church’s history, but I don’t generalise that religious people are also bad.

You can avoid generalizations though and acknowledge that Atheism (most commonly in the form of Communism) has had a body count that makes the excesses of religion seem positively tame by comparison.

Literally tens of millions of deaths were inspired by Karl Marx.

 

[R_McGeddon]

The opposite of religion is not atheism but Agnosticism.

Agnostic means unknown and is not the opposite of religion.

Atheists *believe *that there is not a God.

Theism means: a belief in God or gods.

In Greek, where these words come from, adding “A” to the beginning of a word is the English equivalent of adding “un” or “without” to the begining of a word. Therefore, atheism means: without a belief in God or gods.

Just as no one can absolutely prove that there is a God-we accept this on faith; no one can absolutely prove that there isn’t a God. Atheist accept on faith just as very religious people do.

Not at all, atheists just don’t have faith.

Now an atheist’s faith might be founded on what he/she believes is good intellectual reasoning but I, as a Christian, believe that my faith is founded on intellectual reasoning as well.

Again, no. Atheists don’t accept the reasoning behind faith. This isn’t faith, it is a “lack” of faith.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You can avoid generalizations though and acknowledge that Atheism (most commonly in the form of Communism) has had a body count that makes the excesses of religion seem positively tame by comparison.

Literally tens of millions of deaths were inspired by Karl Marx.

Totalitarian regimes are not driven by atheism, they’re driven by megalomania.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Totalitarian regimes are not driven by atheism, they’re driven by megalomania.

Certainly megalomania has it’s role, but the communist movements of the 20th century were deeply inspired and imbedded in the philosophies of Karl Marx. We cannot separate them and pretend that there is no relationship.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Oh, and my two cents is that Atheism is clearly a religion.

It is something that requires faith, and it’s followers are intent on convincing others of their views.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Oh, and my two cents is that Atheism is clearly a religion.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that having no belief is, in itself, a belief??

It is something that requires faith,

It is the state of having no faith. Why do you require faith to have no faith???

it’s followers are intent on convincing others of their views.

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

So if they ruled that God definitely didn’t exist, would it be so?

No, but there are legal ramifications (i.e. Separation of Church and State)

However, I was listening to Al Kresta last week and the guest was saying that Secular Humanists (akin to agnostics and athiests) considered Secular Humanism a religion until it was not to their advantage to do so.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that having no belief is, in itself, a belief??

You are answering your own question. It is the belief that there is no God, despite that fact that such an assertion cannot be proven. In fact, it’s probably a more difficult equation logically, since it posits a creation without a creator.

It is the state of having no faith. Why do you require faith to have no faith???

In order to be a true skeptic, you’d have to be skeptical about your own skepticism. If you aren’t skeptical about your skepticism, then you are actually engaging in faith.

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. It’s pretty clear that Christianity seek conversions. It’s also pretty clear that Atheism does as well. What does that have to do with pots and kettles?

The very fact that Atheism’s followers want conversion speaks to its religious character.

 

[jman507]

Is atheism a religion? I guess thats really a matter of semantics, and what you want to catagorize as religion. For pratical matters, it works quite the same way in shaping ones life as any philosphy and theology would.

I’d say one can ask if you neglicted to make a choice, does that mean you made a choice? Technically I could see one making an arguement that no choice was made, but economically a choice has been made.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You are answering your own question. It is the belief that there is no God, despite that fact that such an assertion cannot be proven.

When someone asserts that they don’t believe in God, you think that they have to prove that disbelief??

In fact, it’s probably a more difficult equation logically, since it posits a creation without a creator.

I don’t even posit a creation. The Earth and everything on it, is this way because conditions allow it.

For example, if the Earth was the size of Jupiter the gravity would be far too intense for humans to withstand, making our existence impossible.

In order to be a true skeptic, you’d have to be skeptical about your own skepticism. If you aren’t skeptical about your skepticism, then you are actually engaging in faith.

That’s ridiculous, where do you draw the line? You’d end up being a skeptic about being skeptical over your skepticism. It could go on forever.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. It’s pretty clear that Christianity seek conversions. It’s also pretty clear that Atheism does as well. What does that have to do with pots and kettles?

Never mind, it’s an English idiomatic phrase.

The very fact that Atheism’s followers want conversion speaks to its religious character.

Not all atheists want conversions.

 

[jman507]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that having no belief is, in itself, a belief??

Having no belief is, in itself, is not a belief, but Atheism is not having no belief, except no belief in God. No belief in God, is a belief there is no God. If one does not have a belief in God nor a belief in no God, just a flat refusal to belive anything, then there would be no belief.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

When someone asserts that they don’t believe in God, you think that they have to prove that disbelief??

No, they don’t have to “prove” it. The fact is that they accept such a conclusion without having proof. In other words, they accept in on faith.

Atheism is a position of faith because it cannot be proven to be correct.

I don’t even posit a creation. The Earth and everything on it, is this way because conditions allow it.

This is semantic. If something – anything – exists, it must have been created in some fashion. The Atheist point is that creation occurred as a matter of random chance. However, there are logical problems with this notion.

That’s ridiculous, where do you draw the line? You’d end up being a skeptic about being skeptical over your skepticism. It could go on forever.

No, it doesn’t have to go on forever. It ends with the rather simple idea that Atheism is indeed a religion. It abandons skepticism when it gets to the unproven belief system that it finds personally comforting.

Never mind, it’s an English idiomatic phrase.

I know what it is. My point is that you used it in an incorrect sense. In effect, the phrase is used to denote hypocrisy. I posted nothing that was hypocritical, so using that phrase was inappropriate.

Not all atheists want conversions.

I’m not so sure that this is even true. But in any case, even if there were some Atheists that didn’t want conversions, it would be impossible to deny that the Atheistic movement – from Scientific Materialism to Communism – has been quite aggressive in promoting it’s point of view. So, the movement actively seeks conversions. It’s also engaged in remarkable (and successful) disinformation regarding the supposed incompatability between faith and reason (a position that can only make sense if history is completely ignored).

 

[R_McGeddon]

No belief in God, is a belief there is no God.

No it is not, this is just a feeble attempt to make out that atheism is a faith just like christianity.

Example, the believer would say that they have faith that there’s a God. The non-believer would say that they don’t have that faith.

The second statement is totally different from saying that they have faith there is no God, it is also the true meaning of atheism.

 

[R_McGeddon]

No, they don’t have to “prove” it. The fact is that they accept such a conclusion without having proof. In other words, they accept in on faith.

Atheism is a position of faith because it cannot be proven to be correct.

If you study the Greek language, as I have done, you will discover that atheism is the absence of belief. It is believers that have tried to twist the meaning of it, into one of faith.

 

[Mickey]

If you study the Greek language, as I have done, you will discover that atheism is the absence of belief. It is believers that have tried to twist the meaning of it, into one of faith.

To believe in the absence of something, is still a believer of sorts.