Is atheism a religion

[Chacmool]

Hats off to the Tempestuously Tyrannical Turtle of Truth.

- That was a great article, by the way...

If you liked the article, you should definitely read the book: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He shows exactly why even being agnostic isn't good enough, and that atheism is the only logical way of thought. Dawkins doesn't hold any punches, and he almost makes Sagan look like a doting choir boy!

[IDMclean]

I like the position of nontheism.

 

The question of "is there a god?" is a loaded question. Much like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?". Being that I enjoy much of the buddhist philosophy I have an answer to such a question. "Not" or simply "Mu". Neither yes or no, for either answer affirms the question, that is validates the premise and creates a position that is incapable of validation.

 

Hence my objection to atheism, atheism in denying the existence of a god, or gods, put the burden of proof onto the atheist. You can't prove the question right or wrong, because the question itself is built upon a false premise.

[C1ay]

I like the position of nontheism.

Uh, that's basically what atheism means. A·theist literally means not·theist....

[IDMclean]

Here check this out yourself, then come back and we'll discuss it, perhaps in another thread?

 

Theist

Atheist

Nontheist

Agnostic

[C1ay]

Your link for atheist redirects to atheism where it states:

 

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of deities.It is commonly defined as the explicit (i.e., conscious and deliberate), positive rejection and denial of theism;however, many atheistic philosophers and groups prefer to define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities(cf. nontheism), in some cases designating people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well....

I am one of those that has always referred to it as a simple absence of belief...

[ughaibu]

In order for an atheist to "reject" or "deny" god, there needs to be a theist proposing god, otherwise there is no more "rejection" of god than there is constant universal "rejection" of an infinity of possible weird nonsensical ideas. In other words, it is only for theists that atheists hold a relation to god.

[C1ay]

In order for an atheist to "reject" or "deny" god, there needs to be a theist proposing god, otherwise there is no more "rejection" of god than there is constant universal "rejection" of an infinity of possible weird nonsensical ideas. In other words, it is only for theists that atheists hold a relation to god.

This reminds me of Richard Dawkin's replty to the claim that science cannot disprove God:

"There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

If it weren't for the people that persist in believing in God, there would be no God to disbelieve in....

[IDMclean]

So clay it would seem that you are a nontheist. It's not that you don't believe in god, that your answer to the question of "is there a god" is not "no.", but rather the denial of the question itself.

 

The reason I maintain that Atheist are religious is that they still engage in the question itself, which is a loaded question. If you answer yes or no you still acknowledge that the premises, assumptions and othersuch that the proposition is based on might be valid. The reality is that the question of an unknowable entity outside our experience is irrelevant to the whole. It's like the question of "What is the sound of one hand clapping" or "Are you still beating your wife" or "Does your mother know that your gay?".

 

Therefore I will make the distiction, because clearly there is a distiction that a theist and an atheist both are religious in that they believe that there either is or is not a god, and it is an important belief for them. They affirm that the question is valid.

 

A nontheist is not implicitly religious, as they do not acknowledge the question, as it is a fallacious question. They do not except the framing, and refuse to engage in a discussion of what is ultimately irrelevant to here and now, in everyday life. Sure you might die tomorrow and meet the maker that may or may not exist, but that's like fearing invisibile, intangible, scentless pink elephants. it's pointless and non-germain to reality.

 

Nontheism (or non-theism), broadly conceived, according to Caporale & Grumelli (1971), is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena). Nondualism provides a related conceptual and philosophical background. Nontheists avoid the belief/disbelief dichotomy as meaningless, unimportant or irrelevant hence the prefix "non" rather than "a" like in atheism, but some hold that combining Latin non and Greek theism simply amounts to an (incorrecly formed) synonym of atheism, the absence of a belief in gods (without requiring the absence of a belief in their non-existence).

 

Nontheism is used somewhat differently by certain liberal theologians—such as Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong and Anglican bishop John A.T. Robinson—who define a "nontheistic God" as "the ground of all being" rather than as a personal divine being (in Greek Θεος).

 

The word is often employed as a blanket term for all terms which are not theistic and yet somehow related to spirituality, including atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain Eastern religions like Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.

 

Mu, and not

Loaded Question

[Pyrotex]

...I maintain that Atheist are religious is that they still engage in the question itself...because clearly there is a distiction that a theist and an atheist both are religious in that they believe that there either is or is not a god...

Over and over and over and over again, you continue to equate 'belief' and 'religion'.

 

There are an infinite number of things that a person can believe (or 'believe in') that are NOT religions.

 

The mere act of believing is not sufficient to define a religion; some would argue that it is not even necessary. The act of believing is not a priori a religious action.

[rising crescent]

yes,atheism is religion,other than theis religion.

 

why? because Human cannot avoid God-ness. Even God in religion is not whom someone worship,then presence other God than God in religion like communist, or small gods like democration,advancement,capitalsit God/money,etc

[ughaibu]

Utter rubbish. Demonstrate an inate tendency to hallucinations of "god".

[Boerseun]

"God" can also be described as the set of knowledge lying outside the parameters of our own knowledge. The more knowledge we gain, the smaller the space in which "God" can exist. "God" is a placeholder for the unknown, a definition of our ignorance.

 

So, yes, in a certain sense, humans might have an innate tendency to invent "God" or "Godlike" explanations for all the phenomena of which the explanations lie outside the boundaries of the individual's set of knowledge.

 

But that's basically it. In this sense, "God" is very real and definable. "God" is a handy term for what we don't know. But there is a cure. It's called "education", and, please note, "education" of the objective sort. You get shammy excuses for "education" which invokes "God" as being the cause of everything, basically simply formalising the student's (and the teacher's) ignorance. But it's not objective, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Don't crucify me for this, now. It's simply my opinion.

 

And, coming back to the initial question posed in this thread, asking whether atheism is or is not a religion: What do we define a religion to be? If 'religion' is simply the institutionalised form of belief in the unknown and supernatural, then no, atheism is not it. Atheism isn't structured or formalised in any way. Atheism is simply not bothered with it.

If religion is seen as a set of moral laws and guidelines, then yes, I guess you could see atheism as a religion. And in my honest opinion, atheism would be the bedrock of a purer and more honest morality than any religion can pretend to be. Atheists take personal responsiblity for their moral viewpoint. Deeds are done in this life with no expectation of payoff in the remote future, after death. Good deeds or bad deeds, doesn't matter - we face the consequences in this life, in the Here and Now.

 

That's pure and honest - no passing of the buck, or doing good deeds hoping for any reward. We atheists do good deeds and live a moral life because we are good people. Sure, you get bad atheists too. But percentagewise, the amount of bad, immoral atheists should number around the same as the percentage of bad people calling themselves "Christians", and go to church every Sunday. Morality is tightly bound to human nature, and slapping a label on it won't change it one iota or title.

 

My 2 cents worth of drivel that will probably be ignored and prove useless and futile in the Grand Scheme of Religious Rambling and Ignorance in General.

[rising crescent]

"God" can also be described as the set of knowledge lying outside the parameters of our own knowledge. The more knowledge we gain, the smaller the space in which "God" can exist. "God" is a placeholder for the unknown, a definition of our ignorance.

sounds like freurbach for me...

[Fatstep]

Atheism is not a "belief system". Atheism is a lack of belief. If someone says the sky is is purple and I say, "I don't believe you, prove it", then I am stating a lack of belief. The same is true when someone claims there is a God, I don't believe you, prove it.

 

Religion is, as you say, a belief system, a set of beliefs, values, and practices. IMO, atheism is not a religion.

 

This is a quote from Richard Dawkins " For some reason atheists are people who have two horns and a tail, there are figures that show atheists are the most mistrusted group in America. Which is pretty astonishing considering as I say the innocuousness of what they actually are, they are just people with a different belief system.

 

So is one of the most famous atheists in the world contradicting what you all are arguing?

[ughaibu]

Apparently.

[C1ay]

This is a quote from Richard Dawkins....

 

Source?

[InfiniteNow]

This is a quote from Richard Dawkins " For some reason atheists are people who have two horns and a tail, there are figures that show atheists are the most mistrusted group in America. Which is pretty astonishing considering as I say the innocuousness of what they actually are, they are just people with a different belief system.

Actually, the quote from the CNN interview http://youtube.com/watch?v=3OAUnzM-8v8with Paula Zahn is:

 

"For some reason, people have been brought up to believe that athiests have two horns and a tail. Well... I mean, there are figures that show that athiests are the most mistrusted group in America. Which is pretty astonishing, considering, as I say, the inoccuousness of what they actually are. They're just people who hold a different belief system."

 

Regardless, unlike the way the pope speaks for all catholics, Dr. Dawkins is but one human being, and tasking him to speak for an entire group of people is, while well intentioned, an inaccurate method of representation.