Is Atheism a religion?

[BobCatholic]

how exactly does atheism classify as a system or school of opinions?

Atheism’s theology is simple: God does not exist. They’ve built up an entire school of opinions based on this belief.

 

[BobCatholic]

Not believing in a god does not qualify as a religion.

So if I don’t believe in Zeus, I am therefore not a Catholic and don’t have a religion?

This so called “code of ethics” doesn’t even exist, outside of your imagination.

Atheism’s code of ethics is “Do what you want”

Can you provide any solid evidence that atheism does say this???

OK then, show me where Atheism commands a particular code of ethics, that contradicts what I said.

AFAIK, there are no moral prohibitions being pronounced by the Church of Atheism. Thus, with no moral prohibitions, everything is morally permitted. “Do what you want”

When was the last time an atheist came knocking at your door, trying to persuade you to drop your faith??? Never, is the answer you’re looking for. There may be some atheists that make fun of peoples’ faith, but I’ve never heard of any trying to convert anyone.

They don’t operate that way. They take over classroom and do their persuasion there, on a captive audience. They write books and movies as propaganda pieces. Yeah, the methods are different, but the goal is the same: To get more people to join their religion of the Church of Atheism.

As a catholic, you don’t believe in the religion of islam. So using your logic, that would have to be a faith of yours. The same could applied to every other religion on the planet, so in fact you are multi-faith.

Checkmate.

Right. I don’t believe in Islam. Using your reasoning, that I don’t believe in Allah (as taught by Islam) therefore I do not have a religion.

When you choose one religion, you automatically choose not to follow other religions. Many are mutually exclusive. Some are not. Unitarian Universalism is very inclusive, so is it a religion?

Atheism is not “I don’t believe in God” - it is denying the existence of God.

Let’s take a look at a 2x2 matrix. On one side, it is “Does God Exist?” and the other side is "Do I believe in God?

If someone says “God exists, and I believe in him” - his belief reflects reality. Same for “God does not exist and I don’t believe in him”

Now, what about “God doesn’t exist but I believe in him” and “God exists but I don’t believe in him” - both beliefs do not reflect reality and could be considered insanity.

Now, can an atheist say “I don’t believe in God” without answering the question of whether God exists or not? I think not, without crossing over the border of insanity. (same thing for theists who believe in God without answering the question about God’s existence)

This is why there must be a statement of belief about God’s existence - God either exists or doesn’t exist.

Atheists must believe that God does NOT exist. Logically speaking, why disbelieve in someone that one hasn’t concluded does not exist? This is like a huge jumping to conclusions.

 

[BobCatholic]

Atheism is not a religion but a point-of-view.

Using that reasoning, Catholicism is a point of view and not a religion

 

[BobCatholic]

It appears that Atheists believe in a dis-belief in Almighty God, so in that sense it appears to be a bonefide religion since it embodies belief.

I admit, I do not have enough faith to be an Atheist.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Atheism’s theology is simple: God does not exist. They’ve built up an entire school of opinions based on this belief.

My friend, Theology means the study of god.

“God does not exist” is merely a belief, NOT a system of beliefs.

To classify as a religion there has to be a system of beliefs. not just one belief.

 

[BobCatholic]

My friend, Theology means the study of god.

“God does not exist” is merely a belief, NOT a system of beliefs.

To classify as a religion there has to be a system of beliefs. not just one belief.

Atheism is not one belief. It has a system of beliefs.

“There is no God”
“Atheism is not a religion”
“Atheism is only a point of view”
“There is no afterlife”
“There are no moral prohibitions”
“Atheism is only a philosophy”
“Atheism has no theology”

Should I go on? Since there is a system of beliefs, atheism counts as a religion.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ A system is an organized set of ideas. Youll have to explain how those are organized.

 

[BobCatholic]

^ A system is an organized set of ideas. Youll have to explain how those are organized.

There are plenty of disorganized religions

Christianity as a whole is pretty disorganized, yet it is a religion.

Many sects are so disorganized in their ideas (look at most of protestantism!), yet they are considered religions.

Unitarian Universalism has no dogmas. None. Their ideas are all over the place, and in many of their churches, half are atheists.

Yet, Unitarian Universalism is a religion.

Even your signature “You dont need organized religion to believe in and appreciate the Divine.” also hints at not requiring a system to have a religion. In order to believe and appreciate the divine, do one’s beliefs must conform to a system?

 

[AgnosTheist]

There are plenty of disorganized religions

Christianity as a whole is pretty disorganized, yet it is a religion.

“Organized Religion” simply means an organized group of individuals who each believe in a comman organized set of ideas.

so you have two levels of organization there.

atheism simply doesnt have a system of beliefs. They simply believe that there is no God, period. And any strings that you attach to that God (like afterlife) all falls into that one hole that they made.

In order to believe and appreciate the divine, do one’s beliefs must conform to a system?

I choose to believe in God even though I am completely agnostic on it. I dont have a system of beliefs about God.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
There are plenty of disorganized religions

Christianity as a whole is pretty disorganized, yet it is a religion.

“Organized Religion” simply means an organized group of individuals who each believe in a comman organized set of ideas.

so you have two levels of organization there.

atheism simply doesnt have a system of beliefs. They simply believe that there is no God, period. And any strings that you attach to that God (like afterlife) all falls into that one hole that they made.

So “atheists” do have a number of beliefs!? That number is one. This makes “atheism” a religion, as it is a system of beliefs containing only one belief.

Using your logic, as a Catholic, I could just as easily say that “Catholicism” is not a religion because my SINGLE belief is that the Church (Catholic) is true. That singular belief thus disqualifies “Catholicism” from being a religion.

How silly do you think non-atheists are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCatholic
In order to believe and appreciate the divine, do one’s beliefs must conform to a system?

I choose to believe in God even though I am completely agnostic on it. I dont have a system of beliefs about God.

So you actually have TWO beliefs: One that you believe in God, and another that you believe that the God you believe in can be the subject of the action of your being “agnostic” toward Him!

That sounds like a “system”, even by your logic, of belief to me.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So “atheists” do have a number of beliefs!? That number is one. This makes “atheism” a religion, as it is a system of beliefs containing only one belief.

unless those “number of beliefs” are organized into a set, its not religion.

Using your logic, as a Catholic, I could just as easily say that “Catholicism” is not a religion because my SINGLE belief is that the Church (Catholic) is true.

that alone doesnt make it a religion, as some hindus & muslims also believe that the church is true. That doesnt make them a follower of the christian religion. but if you follow a pattern of thoughts & practices uniquely held by the church then you do have a religion.

How silly do you think non-atheists are?

you and bob, very silly & ignorant for insisting that atheism is a religion.

So you actually have TWO beliefs: One that you believe in God, and another that you believe that the God you believe in can be the subject of the action of your being “agnostic” toward Him!

you made the last one up.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

unless those “number of beliefs” are organized into a set, its not religion.

A set of one is a set. It’s really quite easy to “organize” a set of one, for obvious reasons. Therefore, you do indeed have a set of organized beliefs whose number of beliefs is one.

Thus, you have a religion, which you call atheism (or very creatively Agnostic Theism), who membership is one. Yourself.

Saturn, as a planet, is unique, but most people would be hard pressed to say that Saturn is not a planet because it is unique in it’s “set” of “organized” attributes.

that alone doesnt make it a religion, as some hindus & muslims also believe that the church is true. That doesnt make them a follower of the christian religion. but if you follow a pattern of thoughts & practices uniquely held by the church then you do have a religion.

All humans (and probably all beings) act ONLY on their beliefs, which is their religion (their “organized set of REASONS for which they DO anything”), and you’ll have to show me precisely how “atheists” perform ANY action contrary to the above proposition. Please, go for it!

you and bob, very silly & ignorant for insisting that atheism is a religion.

If you disqualify any religion from being a religion because it’s membership is only one, and actually believe that atheists only HAVE one belief (which is an absurdity), then protestant religion is a not religion, because all protestants are “churches of one with that singular member being it’s Pope”.

you made the last one up.

Do you believe that the God you believe in can be the subject of the action of your being “agnostic” toward Him?

In other words, can you actually BE agnostic about your “God” while simultaneously believing in Him?

This is precisely saying that you can believe something exists which you only believe exists because you believe that it exists.

You say you believe in God, but you have NO reason to do so. Why, therefore, do you do so?

 

[AgnosTheist]

A set of one is a set. It’s really quite easy to “organize” a set of one, for obvious reasons. Therefore, you do indeed have a set of organized beliefs whose number of beliefs is one.

You are straying too far from the definitions of religion:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Main Entry: re·li·gion

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
note that its “beliefs”. plural not singular.

If you disqualify any religion from being a religion because it’s membership is only one, and actually believe that atheists only HAVE one belief (which is an absurdity), then protestant religion is a not religion, because all protestants are “churches of one with that singular member being it’s Pope”.

you are confusing organized religion with religion.

Do you believe that the God you believe in can be the subject of the action of your being “agnostic” toward Him?

I dont know anything about God.

You say you believe in God, but you have NO reason to do so. Why, therefore, do you do so?

I feel it.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You are straying too far from the definitions of religion:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Main Entry: re·li·gion

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

note that its “beliefs”. plural not singular.

I don’t “argue” with literalistic interpreters of either biblical scripture or non-biblical “scripture”.

I have yet to be in a rain storm of “cats and dogs”.

You are perfectly correct in your statements according to your definitions, but your insistance on an overly narrow definition of religion serves only to “shut down” discussion of the meaning of religion to those who don’t agree with your (overly) narrow definition.

you are confusing organized religion with religion.

That is a distinction without a difference. You find a hard line between “organized religion” and “religion”, while I find all religions to be organized (in SOME way in at least ONE mind) and therefore “organized religions”.

A red horse is CERTAINLY not a horse if only black horses are horses!

I dont know anything about God.

You know enough, apparently, to make the distinction between God and not-God. That is enough to say you know that God is not not-God, and that is something.

(Which in fact WILL lead you TO God if you let it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You say you believe in God, but you have NO reason to do so. Why, therefore, do you do so?

I feel it.

Your reason for believing in God is because you feel it is “right” to believe in Him.

That’s a great reason, if only an inital one in need of “follow up”, for believing in God, and means that you know TWO things about God, making your “set” of beliefs a set of two (at least!).

1. You do believe in God.
2. You have a reason to believe in God.
   …and in fact…
3. You know God from not-God.

You DO act according to these “religious beliefs”, if only by arguing in these forums that you DON’T act on ANY of your religious beliefs.

Once again, any time we act outside of Church dogma, we degenerate into displaying simple contradiction. Well done!

 

[AgnosTheist]

but your insistance on an overly narrow definition of religion serves only to “shut down” discussion of the meaning of religion to those who don’t agree with your (overly) narrow definition.

thats not my definition. thats the dictionary’s general (not narrow) definition.

you & bob are the ones who want to redefine ‘religion’ in order to cover atheism.

atheism is not a religion.
theism is not a religion.
agnostheism is not a religion.

catholicism is a religion.
islam is a religion.
wicca is a religion.

That is a distinction without a difference. You find a hard line between “organized religion” and “religion”, while I find all religions to be organized (in SOME way in at least ONE mind) and therefore “organized religions”.

read the distinction i have described in my previous posts for today, and explain how you disagree with it.

You know enough, apparently, to make the distinction between God and not-God. That is enough to say you know that God is not not-God, and that is something.

technically i dont know what is ‘not-god’ either. maybe everything is god. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

Your reason for believing in God is because you feel it is “right” to believe in Him.

thats not it. its like feeling the air, man. you feel the air not because you think its right to do so.

 

[AgnosTheist]

but your insistance on an overly narrow definition of religion serves only to “shut down” discussion of the meaning of religion to those who don’t agree with your (overly) narrow definition.

thats not my definition. thats the dictionary’s general (not narrow) definition.

you & bob are the ones who want to redefine ‘religion’ in order to cover atheism.

atheism is not a religion.
theism is not a religion.
agnostheism is not a religion.

catholicism is a religion.
islam is a religion.
wicca is a religion.

That is a distinction without a difference. You find a hard line between “organized religion” and “religion”, while I find all religions to be organized (in SOME way in at least ONE mind) and therefore “organized religions”.

read the distinction i have described in my previous posts for today, and explain how you disagree with it.

You know enough, apparently, to make the distinction between God and not-God. That is enough to say you know that God is not not-God, and that is something.

it is something, but so minor that it is negligible.

(Which in fact WILL lead you TO God if you let it.)

Lets hope so.

1. You do believe in God.
2. You have a reason to believe in God.
   …and in fact…
3. You know God from not-God.

these things are not really interrelated. like how does having a reason to believe in god related to the idea that this pencil is not god? no pattern. no system. no religion.

You DO act according to these “religious beliefs”, if only by arguing in these forums that you DON’T act on ANY of your religious beliefs.

the action should also follow a system. like christians share christ because they believe jesus advised them to do so.

Once again, any time we act outside of Church dogma, we degenerate into displaying simple contradiction. Well done!

ah so that is your agenda. the reason you want to redefine “religion” is because you want to reduce us non-religionists as self-contradicting degenerates.

 

[AgnosTheist]

but your insistance on an overly narrow definition of religion serves only to “shut down” discussion of the meaning of religion to those who don’t agree with your (overly) narrow definition.

thats not my definition. thats the dictionary’s general (not narrow) definition.

you & bob are the ones who want to redefine ‘religion’ in order to cover atheism.

atheism is not a religion.
theism is not a religion.
agnostheism is not a religion.

catholicism is a religion.
islam is a religion.
wicca is a religion.

That is a distinction without a difference. You find a hard line between “organized religion” and “religion”, while I find all religions to be organized (in SOME way in at least ONE mind) and therefore “organized religions”.

read the distinction i have described in my previous posts for today, and explain how you disagree with it.

You know enough, apparently, to make the distinction between God and not-God. That is enough to say you know that God is not not-God, and that is something.

it is something, but so minor that it is negligible.

(Which in fact WILL lead you TO God if you let it.)

Lets hope so.

1. You do believe in God.
2. You have a reason to believe in God.
   …and in fact…
3. You know God from not-God.

these things are not really interrelated. like how does having a reason to believe in god related to the idea that this pencil is not god? no pattern. no system. no religion.

You DO act according to these “religious beliefs”, if only by arguing in these forums that you DON’T act on ANY of your religious beliefs.

the action should also follow a system. like christians share christ because they believe jesus advised them to do so.

Once again, any time we act outside of Church dogma, we degenerate into displaying simple contradiction. Well done!

ah so that is your agenda. You wanted religion to cover us (to the desperate point of trying to redefine it) because you want to reduce us non-religionists as self-contradicting degenerates. :bounce:

 

[R_McGeddon]

So if I don’t believe in Zeus, I am therefore not a Catholic and don’t have a religion?

Actually, using your logic, I’m saying that your disbelief in Zeus is your other religion.

Atheism’s code of ethics is “Do what you want”

Where’s your source?

OK then, show me where Atheism commands a particular code of ethics, that contradicts what I said.

You provided no source that backs up what you’ve said, so come on… bring it!

AFAIK, there are no moral prohibitions being pronounced by the Church of Atheism. Thus, with no moral prohibitions, everything is morally permitted. “Do what you want”

There is no church of atheism, you’ve just exposed yourself as uninformed.

They don’t operate that way. They take over classroom and do their persuasion there, on a captive audience.

Unlike religion, which brainwashes impressionable children from a very early age.

They write books and movies as propaganda pieces.

If books are propaganda, that should include the bible then.

Yeah, the methods are different, but the goal is the same: To get more people to join their religion of the Church of Atheism.

Tell me, where can I find my local church of atheism?

Right. I don’t believe in Islam. Using your reasoning, that I don’t believe in Allah (as taught by Islam) therefore I do not have a religion.

As I’ve already said, your disbelief is another of your religions.

When you choose one religion, you automatically choose not to follow other religions. Many are mutually exclusive. Some are not. Unitarian Universalism is very inclusive, so is it a religion?

I don’t follow any religion, I am without religion.

Atheism is not “I don’t believe in God” - it is denying the existence of God.

This is wrong, atheism is exactly “I don’t believe in God”
Denying the existence, has the presumption that God exists.

Let’s take a look at a 2x2 matrix. On one side, it is “Does God Exist?” and the other side is "Do I believe in God?

Once existence is established, belief is irrelevant. So this is pointless.

If someone says “God exists, and I believe in him” - his belief reflects reality. Same for “God does not exist and I don’t believe in him”

Still pointless.

Now, what about “God doesn’t exist but I believe in him” and “God exists but I don’t believe in him” - both beliefs do not reflect reality and could be considered insanity.

So you’re saying belief without proof is insanity?

Now, can an atheist say “I don’t believe in God” without answering the question of whether God exists or not? I think not, without crossing over the border of insanity. (same thing for theists who believe in God without answering the question about God’s existence)

I take it you do understand your own question here?

This is why there must be a statement of belief about God’s existence - God either exists or doesn’t exist.

Now we’re getting somewhere, nobody "knows" whether God exists or not.

Atheists must believe that God does NOT exist.

If I asked you:

"Do you believe the Loch Ness Monster does NOT exist?"

                                  OR

"Do you NOT believe that there is a Loch Ness Monster?"

Which would you answer?

These questions sound very similar but the difference is big enough to matter!

Logically speaking, why disbelieve in someone that one hasn’t concluded does not exist? This is like a huge jumping to conclusions.

Do you not see the irony here?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
but your insistance on an overly narrow definition of religion serves only to “shut down” discussion of the meaning of religion to those who don’t agree with your (overly) narrow definition.

thats not my definition. thats the dictionary’s general (not narrow) definition.

you & bob are the ones who want to redefine ‘religion’ in order to cover atheism.

atheism is not a religion.
theism is not a religion.
agnostheism is not a religion.

catholicism is a religion.
islam is a religion.
wicca is a religion.

ANY system of beliefs, even if it is a system of (supposedly) ONE belief (which in actuality is impossible) believed by only ONE person, is a religion, simply because there is no way to distinguish between a single-belief-single-believer religion and a multiple-belief-multiple-believer in regards to how it affects it’s believer(s).

Just like the concept of “race”, there is no way to objectively draw distinctions between races other than to make sweeping generalizations.

Religion is an identical observable. You can say I have a religion because you recognize common traits in my stated beliefs which sound an awful like Catholicism, and I can say you have a religion because because I recognize common traits of “atheism” (or “Agnostic Theism” as you would have it) in your stated beliefs.

Essentially, each person has their own personal religion, which may be more or less congruent with other people’s personal religions, but no one possesses either a CATEGORY of religion (“theism”) or NO religion, because to hold to ANY beliefs is to hold to a religion.

Your “proof” that atheists have no religion is that atheists can’t have a religion because if they did have a religion they wouldn’t be atheists!

My “proof” that atheists do have a religion is that all that a religion is composed of are beliefs which all people have therefore all people, not only atheists, must have a religion.

• Atheism IS a religion if it is a (supposedly singular) belief that atheists hold.
• Theism IS a religion if the theist holds no belief more specific than “belief in a God of some sort”.
• Agnostheism is a religion if it is a description, however lame, of what, let’s say, some person called AgnosTheist, calls their belief.
• Catholicism is a religion because it is composed of beliefs which people hold, and is a special case of the category “theism”.
• Islam is yet another special case of the category “theism”.
• Wicca is whatever it wants to be, and SEEMS to be a special case of the sub-category “polytheism” within the category “theism”.

Religion is ALWAYS an individual special case set of beliefs held by a SINGLE PERSON. That more than one person agrees on a set of beliefs and choose to give their agreed upon set of beliefs a name is irrelevant to the pre-existing condition of each person’s religion being their own set of beliefs.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
That is a distinction without a difference. You find a hard line between “organized religion” and “religion”, while I find all religions to be organized (in SOME way in at least ONE mind) and therefore “organized religions”.

read the distinction i have described in my previous posts for today, and explain how you disagree with it.

I disagree with your distinction between “religion” and “organized religion” because ALL religion is organized (if only unconsciously by a single individual) which leads to the conclusion:

religion (which must be organized) = organized religion

You are perfectly free to say that religion which is organized is not equivalent to religion which is organized, but consider the effects on your credibility when you do so.