Atheism is/is not a religion

The prerequisite of every religion is faith , faith is to believe in something that there is no proof to back it.
The atheists don't have faith , we ( well at least some of us ) believe things that are proven .
As an atheist i don't believe in abiogenesis because it is not proven
As an atheist i don't believe in string theory because it is not proven
As an atheist i don't believe in multiverse because it is not proven
see the point?

 

Faith can also be a somewhat complicated issue, since there's blind faith and grounded faith. It's OK to have faith that the sun will rise, because it's something normal, previously observed, even understood pretty darned well. If you're not gravely ill or otherwise direly threatened, it's OK to have faith that you'll live through the night and the next day.

But faith in a god? Unfounded, except for when people choose to attribute certain things to their unseen god. Then they think they have some foundation for their blind faith. A popular one is feelings - when people have some kind of "religious experience," they'll chalk that up to their god, and so it becomes evidence for that god (in their minds).

 

What you continue to demonstrate and what nobody is denying is that some atheists form religious or pseudo-religious organisations. What you continue to claim yet have singularly failed to support is that atheist in itself is a religion. That remains simply untrue.

Yet again, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are religions. Theism is not a religion. Atheism is the opposite of theism, not the opposite of specific theistic religions.

Atheism isn't on it at all. Some atheists are but I have less in common with them as you have in common with Muslims.

I certainly agree that (yet again) some atheists are clearly are in a place where they lack or have lost faith in any deities and maybe lost connection with the community of belonging to religious groups and are seeking something to replace that. Quite frankly, their perfectly entitled to do so and I wish them the very best in that.

The basic fact remains unaltered; regardless of what that sub-set of atheists choose to do, nothing they say or do will make atheism as a whole a religion or render all other atheists religious.

 

This is the fallacy known as an accident. Some atheists are vivid in their opinion spreading, and some of that, they claim to do in the name of atheism (so to be fair, it's actually them using the fallacy). However, this does not make their views universal to atheism, most are versions of secularism or humanism. They may be common among atheists, but that's the same kind of argument as saying "Stalin and Hitler had moustaches, therefore, people with moustaches are evil".

I agree it does look a lot like a religion, and certain subsets are closer to it than others, but only a definition can determine whether or not a word applies. "If it quacks like a duck" is a fallacy. Why not argue things like "since atheism resembles a religion in this way, I can draw some conclusion" instead of going through the hassle of making it a religion first, which is at best disputed?

Personally, I'm a bit undecided on the definition subject. The definitions that do apply to atheists are few but existent, so I'm not sure if I should determine that in practice, they do exist or not. All I argue here is that the argument you make above is fallacious.

 

Those arguments could well be false analogies, depending on the definitions of atheism and/or religion. We already know that some don't accept these claims, so it should be common practice to then back them up with some definitions.

 

I wouldn't call this faith at all. That's just experience and logic. Faith, as I understand it, is believing something when experience and logic doesn't support it or even tells you your belief is flawed.

 

Theism isn't a specific enough concept to be called a religion, certainly, but it is religious in nature.. Right? Just trying to clarify this. If theism can be called religious, then there exists the question of whether atheism could also be called religious. Since both are essentially taking a stance on an unanswered question, that is the question of whether God/gods/any god exist(s), the two might be viewed simply as two sides of one religious coin. One view says that there exists some kind of god, at least, whereas the other says... and this is where it gets tricky: Does atheism say "there exists no god of any kind," or does it simply say "I do not believe in any kind of god." Here I think lies the crux of the whole Is atheism a religion? question, because it is either making a certain statement about something, applying faith where knowledge is lacking, or it is an affirmation of disbelief, which leaves the question of whether some kind of god exists more in the realm of agnosticism. From what I have seen, the religious prefer the former view of atheism, saying that it is a leap of faith the same as the theistic position. The atheists, on the other hand, seem to favor the latter.

To reiterate and clarify, the latter position is that the atheist simply does not believe in God/gods/a god, but does not say with necessarily false certainty that no god(s) exist(s). This is a rejection of belief in something unproven and, in the opinion of the atheist, lacking sufficient evidence to be believed in. It does not exclude the possibility of God/gods/a god; rather, it rejects the positive claim that it/they exist(s) due to a lack of evidence, and nothing more. That, I think, is the best way to understand atheism. It is not a religious conviction and positive claim about the universe and god(s), but rather a simple rejection of theistic human claims about the universe and god(s).

 

It's a form of faith because we can't tell the future. We can only assume and make predictions that may or may not come true, even if they're terribly likely to come true. But that is not the same kind of faith as blind faith..

 

I disagree. Theism is about the belief in a god or gods. That doesn't automatically imply religion, which is an active practice and nor does religion require a deity. Not all theists are religious, not all religious people are theists. Theism is not religious.

The question of whether gods exist is not a religious question, it's a theological one. You can address that question from a formal academic point of view, which explicitly shouldn't have any religious aspect.

Like theism, atheism is technically a description of belief rather than a definitive statement but in practice it can be used to cover both statements. Again, none of this has anything to do with religious practice though.

I think there is a general conceptual issue in all of this, where some religious people can't get their heads around other people addressing the question of gods without being somehow religious. Religion tends to merge the theological concepts with the religious practices where as outside religion, they are (correctly, IMO) separated. Failing to recognise that seperation will lead to the flawed assumption that atheism must be religious.

 

So those people have made copies of their religious texts that do NOT bring forward the completely insane barbaric parts that clearly approve of killing innocent people (such as Moses ordering the killing of children, because he heard voices in his head, for example, or Mohammed be-heading hundreds of captives - some very young, at Banu Qurayza)? If MY texts contained that barbarity, I'd create copies that did not bring the barbarity forward. Obviously I'm not as savage as Moses, the Christian "god", or Mohammad.

 

D, how many times have you asked for a preponderance of the evidence case for God and been given one? Or two? Or three? And yet, you continue with the strawman position that there is no 'evidence' for God, ignoring millenia of Apologetics, to question the faith of others ... and typically atheist, failing to apply the standard to your position, which has no arguementation, no evidence, no prepoderance to make a massive leap of faith to declare all other religions invalide based on ... an declared piece of dogma.

If you are wondering why people consider atheism to be a religion, look at the last line up there,.

 

And you continue to ignore, quite deliberately, that there are atheist organizations, that fund raise in support policy obectives, print material and doctrine, advertise, sue, have entire philosophical schools, publish books, make videos, distribute propoganda, and recruit. And what do we call these organizations? Nothing, we pretend that they do not exist.

And cirtiquing these policies in a debate forum is impossible, because even 'honest' atheists want to pretend these things do not exist, and only there stanted opinion, whose standards are backed by no doctrine or established set of standards (but they are, its all over the internet), what there ever changing opinion - which is only one sentence - to somehow be better than all the other faiths out there by not having an opinion, not having any morality, not having science, not having a damb thing ... that seems to be creating organizations left and right ...

Theism is a religion. It is simply a categorization or general termn that encompasses all the religions that believe in God. The sects are broken down into more specific categories, etc.

Guess what? The same thing applies to atheism:

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/sects1.htm

My personal favorite there are the 'wierdoes'

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

Notice the source there? Common sense atheism?

Now, I have entire hoards of atheists making these points about the sects of atheism, but, because YOU don't want to acknolwedge these things are happening, I should pretend right alomng with you that they are not? That there are no atheists spreading this material around the world?

See above, your faith conflicts quite badly with reality.

Some atheists are in the same boat in reverse ... how would I know that? I am a former atheist. Yet my opinion on the the flaws of atheism must be rejected out of hand? Accept that atheism is 'me', correct? Its only what I thought as a atheist?

And yet you spend time in a religioous debate forum because you are ... what? And when your arguemenst sound exactly like all other atheists? What then? Should we treat your arguement as that of an individual, or notice that dozens of atheists sound exactly the same and conclude that there is a program of education and indoctrination out there?

Well, I side with the latter.

 

No Swenn, its called an analogy. And if the analogy is accurate, its not fallacious is it?

Now, where does this silly standard keep coming from that religion, in order to be a religion, must be blindly dogmatic, completely uiversal in its thinking, and totally and unthinkingly monolithic? Are there Catholic presists who sometimes question the virgin birth of Jesus, even though this conflicts with the offical church doctrine? You do understand that doctrine, one way it can be explained, is called paradigm? The synoptic gospels are one such example, with the collects works scribbed and analyzed, and ONLY those documents that were believed to be accurate were included in the gospels. It didn't miraculously end debate, but, just as sceince has general theories like evolution, that has not ended the refining debates of science that continue to expand our knowledge of evolution and how it works. Imagine if we had stopped at Darwin? Imagine if DNA evidence was never presented? Wht makes you think that church life is any different? THat there are no livey, refining debates in faith? And what then do you make of efforts to harmonize church teachings with science?

In short, what you want is one set of standards applied to your faith choice, and another set of standards applied to every other faith choice. THis is called the relativst fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html

Why not for purposes of arguementation simply conceed the point that atheism looks enough like a religion that many people, including atheists who have sougt successfully to achieve legal standing as a religion, simply treat it as such?

They are more than a few, and indeed, there are atheists out there trying deliberatrely to figure out how atheists get all the benefits of religion without the God thingy.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/atheists-up-charity-giving-good-without-god-65929/

That particular example? We can be good by copying what you guys figured ot millenia ago? And as you copy us ... what then?

 

Yes, because EVERY Christian out there claims to be a prophet of God????

 

So, when does such faith become unteneable? When you have faith that you will live to be an old man or woman? That if you get an education and are hard working that you will be successul? That you will become an imperfect but good parent? That you will be able to survive caslamities?

How about the belief that you will live through a war even as others die aound you?

 

I'm not ignoring them. They are the groups of atheists forming religions or pseudo-religious organisations I've directly referred to in the paragraph you quoted.

Now you're just being contrary! How can theism itself be a (one) religion yet encompasses all the diverse, contradictory individual theistic religions (which includes polytheism as well as monotheism)?

Please read slowly and carefully. I AM NOT DENYING THESE THINGS EXIST. I am denying that their existence renders atheism in itself a religion. Seriously, how much more clearly can I state this?

I'm not rejecting your opinion out of hand at all. I'm challenging a single statement you continue to make on the basis of clear evidence and reasoning that you've continue to ignore.

Curious, a little bored, some-what educated and informed and very occasionally discriminated against. I think attitudes towards faith and religion are going to continue to be one of the most powerful driving forces in out developing societies and so it's an important and interesting topic of discussion.

But they don't. As you keep pointing out, a lot of atheists sound like anti-theist, extremist idiots. Of course, neither of us have heard what the vast majority of atheists actually sound like anyway (though in this context, I suspect most would be silent). Yet again, you determination to lump all and every atheist together in to a single group (to attack and condemn) is wrong-headed discrimination that you quite rightly would strongly object to when the roles reversed and it is all theists who are being attacked.

 

Yep, you ar ejust saying that none of them count ... gotcha.

Because in a sentence I can use it to clarify the level of generality that I am taking one. As in, theists tend to believe, as opposed to, the Ba'hai temd to believe.

Really Joe, this is not hard.

Well, thank you for the opinion, your opinion is not fact. You are once again telling us to ignore them because your personal opinion doesn't agree with what the majority of atheism is indeed doing?

The irony of that statement is ... telling. You are asking me to ignore what atheism is doing unless YOU approve it. That is not going to happen anywhere.

To which you bring the atheist view point. Or are you claiming that your view point has been completely unshapped or influenced by the hoards of atheist propoganda out there?

Yes, we have. We do.

Remember this statement?

http://atheists.org/religion

Only ONE atheist has ever condemned it. Even though it is filled with the same overt and ineffective generalities that atheists rail against when applied to them. Even though its propogandistic dogma is laced with totally unsupported claims, claims that are clearly at odds with reality in almost every sentence. Yet only one atheist condemns it on this forum ... out of hundreds.

The one that did? The same extremist atheists that hunt me and other Christians on this forum, turned on her in a heart beat and attacked her with the same viciousness that I have so often encountered on this forum. When statement like that are supported with bullying antics rather than logic?

Again, the idea that atheism is immune to accurate polling is .. silly.

 

So, basically you changed the definition of religion until you could call atheism and theism a religion.

 

In the correct context, they are yes.

Now, why did you leave of and fail to address the examples I provided?

Again, if you wish to debate fine, but if all you are doing is ignoring most of what I write ... trying to twist my words, and then run complaining to the mods when I correct the silly twists? Again G, after our recent history, lets just say I have many good reasons to be quite cautious around you and your supporters.

 

I haven't minced or changed any of your words. What you have done is broaden the definition of religion to even encompass theism. What is your definition of religion, then, that could possibly justify broadening it out to that level?

And address the examples of what? Yes, there are groups of atheists, just like there are groups for basically anything under the sun. Are those the examples you are referring to?

 

Sure it is, so maybe we should work on displaying it's accuracy instead of just repeating it?

What makes you think I think church life is any different? I didn't mention anything about Christianity or religion in general in the paragraph you quoted, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm not saying that vivid spreading of opinion doesn't occur in religions, I'm arguing that it's not what makes it a religion.

How am I not applying it to other world views? For each argument against your argument, I have posted one argument against the equally fallacious argument that "if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour" (although, that might have to stop now, because no one is answering them).

The argument I am making is that whether or not atheism is a religion or not is solely based upon the definition of religion (and atheism) and has nothing to do with the fervour of its followers. Christianity definitely fills the criteria for being a religion, using almost any definition available. Atheism does only for a few, and it is debatable if those are enough. That's the only distinction I am making, because that's the only distinction that matters when one wants to determine whether or not a word applies to a concept.

Sure, we do that all the time, for instance, the SC ruling which everybody brings up specifically states that atheism is equivalent to a religion for first amendment purposes. Any atheist or otherwise will agree that atheism has certain similarities to religion, but we're not arguing whether atheism is similar to a religion, we're arguing whether atheism is a religion, and that is only determined by definitions and not by legal standing or similarity

Sure, and why not? For some reason, religion has hogged a few things that are not necessarily religious in nature, tax exemption, charity, certain psychiatry services and so on. In order to access those, atheists either have to mimic religions or find them elsewhere. In some cases, like charity, many atheists just give to charities that are not religion nor atheist, like doctors without borders (some give to charities that are religious too, mostly out of tradition). In other cases, they figure that atheistic organizations are places where people who don't have access to such services come together and that therefore, those are good organizations to organize charity from.

You don't have to be religious to be charitable, and if churches often have charities, being atheist severely limits your charity options, making atheist charities a decent charity idea.

Nonetheless, I don't have a particular problem with them copying a good idea. The question is specifically why copying it makes them a religion.

 

Yes, you can say that. None of it has anything to do with theism being a religion though. "Tending to believe" something isn't religion, specified doctrine and practices is religion. Neither theism not atheism come anywhere close to meeting any reasonable definition of the word.

I'm not telling you to ignore anything. Quote the opposite, I'm asking you to talk more about them, to support your claim that the religious actions of some atheists somehow automatically makes atheism in itself a religion.

Lots of men with beards are religious but that doesn't make facial hair itself religious.

Atheism is a concept - it can't do anything. Only people can do things. The concepts just describe what people are and do.

Of course it has (though only relatively recently). My view points (atheism and otherwise) have been influenced by countless things throughout my life, Christianity being not an insignificant one.

That you know of. Most atheists will still be totally unaware of it.

I have condemned it, though I'm clearly not the atheist you're referring to. I agree that their generalisations of religion and theism are as flawed, wrong-headed and insulting as your generalisations of atheism.

 

Yep, makes perfect sense. Christians tend to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, Christianity is not a religion. Furthermore, because there is ONE Bible, and its scriptural analysis differs from sect to sect, Christianity is further not a religion.

Makes perfect sense.

I am saying that the actions that make any religion confrom to the title, are the same actions exhibited by atheism - including seeking legal standing as a religion - that makle it a religion.

Nor does it mean that atheism is not a religion either does it?

Christianity is ALSO a concept. Again, what actions do atheists take that make it differ from religion in the slightest - in practice, not belief.

Yes, the propoganda of atheism influenced you to have a nihilistic appraisal of Christianity? Well, that is exactly the point.

Got it polling does not work for atheists ...

Well, that makes two ... Now you have to apply it though, and still have to figure out how to deal with atheist organizations ..

 

Yeah, see here's the key thing. ALL of Christianity is based on Scripture, even if it is different interpretations of said Scripture. Where is that foundation for atheism that ALL atheists point to and get their doctrines from?

 

I've no idea what you're talking about here but it doesn't seem to relate to what I said at all.

Again, atheism doesn't do anything. People who happen to be atheists do. Some of the things some of them do are religious but many aren't.

If a blond, American, atheist with a beard joins a Bhuddist sect, he is personally relgious. That doesn't mean being blond, being American, having a beard or being atheist all automatically become religions.

I really don't want to get in to quoting dictionary definitions of the word relgion but it is quite clear that atheism in of itself does not equate to it. Some atheists are religious. Atheism is not a religion.

Most atheists take absolutely zero action in relation to their being atheist - their lack of belief in gods is entirely passive (possibly to the point that they don't consciously recognise it). Can you practice a relgion without even being aware of it?

You know nothing about my "appraisal" of Christianity. I only said that it was a significant influence on my life (I was brought up in the UK so that was inevetable).

Polling works just fine but only within the context of the sample polled and a valid methodology.

I tend not to deal with them at all, much as you don't deal with the vast majority of theist organisations.