Is Atheism a religion?

[jman507]

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.

Oh wow I finially get it, you don’t believe in anything. I guess you cannot even assert I’m posting this to this thread.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

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

Atheism is very clearly a philosphical position about God or, as atheists like to insist, gods.

However an atheist is right to claim that he has no religion. Some groups of atheists may from organisations with religious characteristics, be those Marxist or environmentalist or feminist in flavour, but by no means all atheists are members of such organisations or movements.

In fact there are very few statements that one can make about all religions. An Indian man once said very sweetly that Hinduism has no fundamentals to be fundamentalist about, for instance. Quakers don’t demand adherence to any particular doctrines about God, Buddhists don’t necessarily believe in God, Jews have no idols, Confusionism is more what we would call a philosophy. Atheism is not clearly distinguised from these, except that it defines itself by what it is not rather than by a positive.

For most legal purposes I would imagine that atheism can be treated as a religion. For instance laws granting freedom of religion would include the right to be an atheist. Laws prohibiting religious teachings in schools would also prohibit distribution of atheist propaganda as set textbooks. However not necessarily all - for instance it would be quite hard to claim tax exemption for a cocktail bar on the grounds that it was only open to atheist customers, a lot easier to claim it for a temple of Bacchus.

 

[deb1]

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

.

Just curious, what sort of implications do you see, if atheism if viewed as a religion?

We should all pat our selves on the back, thus far we all-atheists and Christians alike-have had a very polite and well thought out discussion.

 

[R_McGeddon]

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

is anybody capable of grasping the correct end of the stick here?

 

[Mickey]

is anybody capable of grasping the correct end of the stick here?

Isn’t that a quote by Sigmund Freud?

 

[R_McGeddon]

Oh wow I finially get it, you don’t believe in anything. I guess you cannot even assert I’m posting this to this thread.

Oh wow, you’re not even close.

If an atheist says they don’t believe in God, you seem to think that means they don’t believe in anything, why is that???

 

[R_McGeddon]

Just curious, what sort of implications do you see, if atheism if viewed as a religion?

I see it as an indication that people don’t know the proper meanings of the words.

We should all pat our selves on the back, thus far we all-atheists and Christians alike-have had a very polite and well thought out discussion.

I couldn’t find the pat on the back smilie, so I’ll use this one

 

[R_McGeddon]

Isn’t that a quote by Sigmund Freud?

It may well be.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I see it as an indication that people don’t know the proper meanings of the words.

CS Lewis said that the devils had a philological arm.

Words are important, but ultimately linguistic categories such as “religion” can only give a rough reflection of reality. You can have partial members of the set. For instance, it was recently ruled in Britain that Scientology is not a religion, because, although Scientologists believe in a supreme being, they do not show reverence for that being.

That’s a rather technical definition of religion. For many purposes, it is more useful to regard Scientology as a religion.

 

[kellie]

is anybody capable of grasping the correct end of the stick here?

Yes

I don’t think atheism is a religion, as you don’t believe in religion.

I think some people tend to see the word “believe” and automatically associate it with “religion”.

But to believe in something doesn’t necessarily indicate there is a god present.

I believe I will pass my accounting diploma that I am currently studying, but I am not a member of the “accounting diploma” religion.

So when an atheist says they don’t believe in God or gods, they are just saying the word “believe” as in their thoughts they hold to be true.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

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.

I’m absolutely sure that you’ve convinced yourself of this, and I can see from your posts how important this is to you.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that you do indeed have a belief in the cosmos that cannot be supported by evidence. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

Obviously, you are perfectly entitled to your faith, but it is a faith in how the universe exists.

And if Atheism is not a religion, you still haven’t explained why Atheists seek conversion to the extent that they do. If it’s not a faith, why are so many of you trying to spread it as if it is one?

Answer: it is a faith.

Look, I understand your dilemma. I am a former atheist, and I’ve thought through the various aspects of it. The first issue is the desire to be rational. Unfortunately, Atheism has serious logical problems that are very difficult to overcome, and even in terms of probability is a fairly unreasonable and foolish choice.

But it is irrational to believe that the universe came to be from random chance when you can’t even explain how such a thing occurred. And that’s the rub – science cannot truly explain how the various combinations of proteins formed life. In lieu of an actual explanation you are jumping to the conclusion that it MUST have been random occurance, even though the science doesn’t back it up. How could this NOT be a faith?

The answer is that it is.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Yes

I don’t think atheism is a religion, as you don’t believe in religion.

I think some people tend to see the word “believe” and automatically associate it with “religion”.

But to believe in something doesn’t necessarily indicate there is a god present.

I believe I will pass my accounting diploma that I am currently studying, but I am not a member of the “accounting diploma” religion.

So when an atheist says they don’t believe in God or gods, they are just saying the word “believe” as in their thoughts they hold to be true.

Not really true. We are talking about the belief in reference to the existence of life and the universe and the inability to explain it.

Your belief in your accounting degree is not really an example of what we are talking about. It has no relation whatsoever to the fundamental issue of the cosmos.

Religion attempts to answer the questions of creation and spirituality. An atheist – by definition – has an answer to both of those questions. The answer may be different, but it is no less mysterious and unsupportable by the evidence that our rational mind can perceive.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I’m absolutely sure that you’ve convinced yourself of this, and I can see from your posts how important this is to you.

I didn’t need much convincing, once I had a good grasp of the Greek language and the fact that words don’t change their meaning when borrowed from another language, it was easy.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that you do indeed have a belief in the cosmos that cannot be supported by evidence. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

I believe in existence, this is supported by the fact I exist. Sorry, but that is the way it is.

Obviously, you are perfectly entitled to your faith, but it is a faith in how the universe exists.

It is a fact that we exist, not a faith.

And if Atheism is not a religion, you still haven’t explained why Atheists seek conversion to the extent that they do. If it’s not a faith, why are so many of you trying to spread it as if it is one?

Some might seek conversion, but it is to convert from having faith to not having a faith.

Answer: it is a faith.

Correction, it is not a faith.

The first issue is the desire to be rational. Unfortunately, Atheism has serious logical problems that are very difficult to overcome, and even in terms of probability is a fairly unreasonable and foolish choice.

How rational is it to have faith in something that can’t be seen, touched, heard or proven. That is hugely unreasonable and foolish.

But it is irrational to believe that the universe came to be from random chance when you can’t even explain how such a thing occurred.

Why is it irrational?

And that’s the rub – science cannot truly explain how the various combinations of proteins formed life.

Not yet it can’t, but that doesn’t mean it never will. Science brought us the internal combustion engine. If we relied on faith, we’d all still be riding on horses.

In lieu of an actual explanation you are jumping to the conclusion that it MUST have been random occurance, even though the science doesn’t back it up. How could this NOT be a faith?

Random occurrence is a far better explanation than invisible entity.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

I didn’t need much convincing, once I had a good grasp of the Greek language and the fact that words don’t change their meaning when borrowed from another language, it was easy.

Not sure what your point is here.

I believe in existence, this is supported by the fact I exist. Sorry, but that is the way it is.

So what? It has nothing to do with our discussion.

It is a fact that we exist, not a faith.

Which is not under debate here. The questions is HOW and WHY we exist.

You have your answers, and they have utterly no basis in rational thought.

Some might seek conversion, but it is to convert from having faith to not having a faith.

To say it correctly, you mean to not have faith in GOD. Not that you don’t have faith. Your post proves that you have an abundance of faith and superstition; you just don’t believe an an unconditioned reality. Instead you believe in an infinite number of conditional realities, which is irrational, because the Infinite is a number that cannot possibly be achieved.

Correction, it is not a faith.

From the Encarta Dictionary:

Faith: Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.

That is your position on how life came to be. You have no explanation for it, nor logical proof, but you believe in random occurance, and an infinite number of caused causes.

That’s faith to the letter.

How rational is it to have faith in something that can’t be seen, touched, heard or proven. That is hugely unreasonable and foolish.
Why is it irrational?

But you believe in any number of things that can’t be seen, touched, heard or proven!

Not yet it can’t, but that doesn’t mean it never will.

So, you are admitting that science can’t explain your existence, and then also admit that you have faith that science will? Heh.

I rest my case. Thank you.

Random occurrence is a far better explanation than invisible entity.

How? Because you declare it so? This is your rational rebuttal? What gives your declaration any weight? In what way is it “better”?

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Let me put it another way, just so that we can have a probability assessment here.

There are four possible combinations in the God/No God scenario.

1 – God exists and you believe in him.

Good. You’re okay here.

2 – God exists and you don’t believe in him.

You’re screwed.

3 – God doesn’t exist and you believe in him.

No harm done.

4 – God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe in him.

Again, no harm done.

In other words, there is only one of the 4 scenarios where being an Atheist works. To the contrary, believing in God does no harm under the Atheist scenario, but under the God scenario is essential. Now, as a former financial adviser, I can tell you that anyone that is willing to take such an obviously inferior position mathematically is pretty foolish.

It’s simple math… and reason.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Not sure what your point is here.

The apparent misunderstand of the meaning of atheism.

So what? It has nothing to do with our discussion.

Re-read the quote I replied to.

Which is not under debate here. The questions is HOW and WHY we exist.

Are you actually reading these posts fully?

You have your answers, and they have utterly no basis in rational thought.

Who says, you?

To say it correctly, you mean to not have faith in GOD.

I know exactly what I mean.

Not that you don’t have faith. Your post proves that you have an abundance of faith and superstition

Really? please enlighten me of my faith?!?!

you just don’t believe in an unconditioned reality.

I would answer this if I knew what an unconditioned reality was.

because the Infinite is a number that cannot possibly be achieved.

Care to prove that?

From the Encarta Dictionary:

Faith: Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.

I know the meaning of faith, this thread indicates that some don’t know the meaning of atheism.

That is your position on how life came to be. You have no explanation for it, nor logical proof, but you believe in random occurance, and an infinite number of caused causes.

I freely admit that I have no explanation, the get out of jail free card of “God did it” is no explanation either.

That’s faith to the letter.

I’ll be extra specific and say that I have no religious faith.

But you believe in any number of things that can’t be seen, touched, heard or proven!

Such as?

So, you are admitting that science can’t explain your existence, and then also admit that you have faith that science will? Heh.

Science is a wonderful thing, the computer attached to the Internet that you’re sat in front of is the result of scientific research, not religious faith.

I rest my case. Thank you.

It’s a shame that your case is empty though.

How? Because you declare it so? This is your rational rebuttal? What gives your declaration any weight? In what way is it “better”?

Because it satisfactory to me.

What gives anything you’ve said any more weight?

 

[jman507]

Oh wow, you’re not even close.

If an atheist says they don’t believe in God, you seem to think that means they don’t believe in anything, why is that???

How can you believe in anything without faith? You cannot even get to a starting point unless you start out with some unprovable givens that you have to take on faith.

I suppose there might be some confusion on the exact definition of faith we are using. As far as I’m concerned the definition I use is: belief that is not based on proof. Well I guess I forgot unless your omniscient, I’m just assuming your not.

If you can argue that you have no faith at all, using no givens as a starting points, I’m really interested in hearing that. That might be hard to prove without an example to start from. Can you prove that what you observe really is really a true representation of what is? Like I’m writing this post at my computer, and that is not just a figment of your imagination.

Also when I use that definition, I’m not trying to make a feeble attempt to say that Atheism is a faith just like Christianity. There are lots of definitions one can use when describing faith. Not all the ways a Christian can use the word faith will fit Atheism, but when using the most basic definition (belief that is not based on proof) both Christianity and Atheism will work. Well I guess unless a Atheist can prove there could not be a god.

 

[kellie]

Let me put it another way, just so that we can have a probability assessment here.

There are four possible combinations in the God/No God scenario.

1 – God exists and you believe in him.

Good. You’re okay here.

2 – God exists and you don’t believe in him.

You’re screwed.

3 – God doesn’t exist and you believe in him.

No harm done.

4 – God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe in him.

Again, no harm done.

In other words, there is only one of the 4 scenarios where being an Atheist works. To the contrary, believing in God does no harm under the Atheist scenario, but under the God scenario is essential. Now, as a former financial adviser, I can tell you that anyone that is willing to take such an obviously inferior position mathematically is pretty foolish.

It’s simple math… and reason.

IF it is the Christian,Jewish God that u are basing this mathematical equation on though

 

[R_McGeddon]

How can you believe in anything without faith? You cannot even get to a starting point unless you start out with some unprovable givens that you have to take on faith.

I suppose there might be some confusion on the exact definition of faith we are using. As far as I’m concerned the definition I use is: belief that is not based on proof. Well I guess I forgot unless your omniscient, I’m just assuming your not.

If you can argue that you have no faith at all, using no givens as a starting points, I’m really interested in hearing that. That might be hard to prove without an example to start from. Can you prove that what you observe really is really a true representation of what is? Like I’m writing this post at my computer, and that is not just a figment of your imagination.

Also when I use that definition, I’m not trying to make a feeble attempt to say that Atheism is a faith just like Christianity. There are lots of definitions one can use when describing faith. Not all the ways a Christian can use the word faith will fit Atheism, but when using the most basic definition (belief that is not based on proof) both Christianity and Atheism will work. Well I guess unless a Atheist can prove there could not be a god.

What I’m saying is that just because someone may lack faith in God, they may still have faith in other basic things.

 

[jman507]

What I’m saying is that just because someone may lack faith in God, they may still have faith in other basic things.

Well good, I was hoping we were not going to have a suicide of thought.

When I say that Atheism is a faith I say that, because unless you can show me where I am wrong, regarding what Is, unless you know all or somehow contract that is included in Is, you really cannot prove there is or is not God. If you prove that there is a god, then there cannot be no god. If you prove that there is no god, there cannot be a god. The only who do not have a faith would be those who claim they know or don’t know. I don’t know how you could prove there is no god, unless you could prove it to me.