Is atheism a religion

[C1ay]

It's really not so complicated.

 

The statement "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God". For the people that advocate and believe there is no God the statement "I do not believe in God" is true. For people that simply do not believe there is or is not a God for a lack of evidence either way the statement "I believe there is no God" is not true. Both groups lack belief in God and both are atheist. One group believes in the non-existance of a God, there other does not. Neither can be classified as agnostic on these positions alone.

 

Agnostics believe there can be no proof that a God does or does not exist. They believe it is not possible to know or discern the truth. It has nothing to do with their belief or lack of belief in a God. There are both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

 

For some atheists there is a belief that there is no God. So what. One belief is not a belief system.

[Pyrotex]

Indeed! Convince me I am wrong, and I will change my personal conclusion of being extremely probably right.:lol:

You are engaging in "belief-punning", as I suggested before. You say that if the atheist has a "belief" concerning the non-existence of god, then he is engaging in the process of "believing in" and therefore has some equivalent to a "religion", which we may say is a "believing in".

 

It's all language weaving and dictionary poppycock. You've proved nothing at all, except that you can shift meanings of a word in mid-sentence.

 

When I say the atheist has a "belief" concerning the non-existence of god, I mean it only in the sense of having reached a conclusion, or of taking a stand. Those are ALSO valid definitions of "believe".

[imaplanck.]

You are engaging in "belief-punning", as I suggested before. You say that if the atheist has a "belief" concerning the non-existence of god, then he is engaging in the process of "believing in" and therefore has some equivalent to a "religion", which we may say is a "believing in".

 

It's all language weaving and dictionary poppycock. You've proved nothing at all, except that you can shift meanings of a word in mid-sentence.

 

When I say the atheist has a "belief" concerning the non-existence of god, I mean it only in the sense of having reached a conclusion, or of taking a stand. Those are ALSO valid definitions of "believe".

 

:lol: But "belief" is and wasn't used in that manner!

 

I shifted nothing in midsentence!

 

Dickhead!

[C1ay]

You are engaging in "belief-punning", as I suggested before. You say that if the atheist has a "belief" concerning the non-existence of god, then he is engaging in the process of "believing in" and therefore has some equivalent to a "religion", which we may say is a "believing in".

 

And that's really the fallacy most theists trip on when they try to argue that atheism is a religion. While I simply claim a lack of belief concerning god(s) I have a very firm belief in gravity even though we don't exactly know what it is or isn't. How many think a belief in gravity makes it a religious belief simply because it's a belief?

[Pyrotex]

:lol: But "belief" is and wasn't used in that manner!...!

Who are YOU to define how someone else has used such a vague and nebulous word as "belief"? Given the context of Dawkins' statement, there must be half a dozen broader interpretations that fit equally well. You are engaging in hard core fallacy here, and you are certainly not the first to try.

 

But cheer up! After you learn that "dictionary-wanking" is fallacious and not to be confused with rigorous logic, you will be a much better debater and no doubt you will be welcomed into larger and more elite circles of conversation. You have a lot to look forward to.

[phoenixbyrd]

Some try to use the example of belief as a means to equate it with religous belief, yet all you gotta do is pop open a damn dictionary guys.

 

Tonights homework - this SHOULD clear up any issues over atheism's supposed religious status.

 

Look up these words in a dictionary.

 

Religion

Belief

Assent

 

If you still don't understand then there's just no hope.

 

Atheism is not a religion.

[HydrogenBond]

Aetheists do not believe in God. It highest principle, that replaces the concept of God, is the ego or self. Neither of these terms are carved in stone but are still philosophical and therefore nebulous. In that respect, the highest principle of the aetheist, although defined by terms accepted by social convention, is not something that can be conclusively mapped out in the brain or proven to exist since it is hard to conclusively define.

[ughaibu]

What do you mean "replaces god"? Atheists haven't had god removed from them.

[Pyrotex]

Aetheists do not believe in God. It highest principle, that replaces the concept of God, is the ego or self.....

Ughaigu is right. You are engaging in "pulpit-speak". That's the way preachers describe atheists.

 

The atheist doesn't "replace" anything. The atheist "abandons" something (a belief in deities). The atheist does not, at that point, "take on" something to replace that which he or she has abandoned.

 

The same applies the other way around. The believer has taken on a belief in deities. The believer did NOT "replace" some other philosophy or some other belief structure with god-belief. He or she merely absorbed an additional belief.

 

And BTW, god believers are just as wrapped up in ego and self as atheists are.

[Lancaster]

Theism is defined as a belief in a god/gods. The prefix "a" means "non." Atheism translates to nontheistic. An atheist does not believe in a god/gods. Period. That is the definition.

[Pyrotex]

Theism is defined as a belief in a god/gods. The prefix "a" means "non." Atheism translates to nontheistic. An atheist does not believe in a god/gods. Period. That is the definition.

Hey Lancaster!! :)

You must be new around here!! :)

 

Your definition is spot on.

 

the problem is, we get so many theists here (and all over the internet!!) who insist vehemently that

"believing there is NO god"

 

is a "belief system" equivalent to religion, and therefore must be founded on blind faith as is religion.

 

The justification or motivation seems to be: "yeah, my faith may be unsupported by facts but your 'belief' is just as unsupported, so you're in the same boat as I am! So, nyah, nyah, nyah!"

 

or, "if you don't want me to accuse YOU of having a 'religion', then you better not try to justify or explain your atheism; cause IF YOU DO, they you're no better than me! So, nyah, nyah, nyah!"

 

Reminds me of school bullies on the playground (3rd grade) taunting: "Billy has a religion! Billy has a religion!"

 

This is chanted in a sing-song fashion that makes 'religion' sound as bad as 'cooties'.

 

It is irrational as hell. It makes NO sense at all. But many theists come to Hypography apparently with no other intention than to beat us over the head with their dictionary-wanking of the words 'believe' and 'belief'.

 

I fail to see what they get out of it. Some kind of strange, twisted satisfaction that makes them feel smarter than us, perhaps. It is bizarre. Kinda of like finding oneself in the middle of a zombie movie.

[Boerseun]

I fail to see what they get out of it. Some kind of strange, twisted satisfaction that makes them feel smarter than us, perhaps. It is bizarre. Kinda of like finding oneself in the middle of a zombie movie.

I suppose they do it in an attempt at self-justification of their stance.

[Boerseun]

I fail to see what they get out of it. Some kind of strange, twisted satisfaction that makes them feel smarter than us, perhaps. It is bizarre. Kinda of like finding oneself in the middle of a zombie movie.

I suppose they do it in an attempt at self-justification of their stance.

[Pyrotex]

I suppose they do it in an attempt at self-justification of their stance.

I think you are right.

But just wait until the great god Buul returns to Earth with his legions of Bovingals, and they suck the brains out of those barbaric non-believers who have not yet converted and "had a cow". Praise be to Buul and to his prophet, the Boerseun.

 

:xparty: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa- mennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[TheBigDog]

I think part of it comes from the activities associated with atheism. There are atheist groups that have the purpose of expanding their belief system, and target believers with their dogma in an attempt to rescue them from the clutches of God believing. This crosses over from I don't believe, to Nobody should believe. Or rather, everyone should believe as I do. Call them Orthodox Atheists, or Reformed Modern Atheists, or whatever you want. Denying such activities, or stating that they don't represent your own version of atheism does not make them disappear.

 

Positive Atheism (since 1995) Join the Struggle Against Anti-Atheist Bigotry!

American Atheists

Why Atheism?

Daylight Atheism

10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism :: Sam Harris

 

Bill

[phoenixbyrd]

That's just silly ...

 

Atheist's don't hold a belief in a religious sense, it's the absence of belief in a god(s).

 

Comparing atheist tactics to educate the masses that there is no giant boogeyman in the sky to that of fundamentalist tactics of brainwashing people into believing there is like comparing a teacher teaching a child that santa isn't real.

 

So why do we not bash on the teachers/parents that finally tell the child that santa, easter bunny, etc. isn't real, but we bash on those who try to dispell the myths of a primitive group of people who honestly had no clue what the heck they were going on about?

[ughaibu]

TheBigDog: Your post is very odd, as this has been discussed many times. Atheism is not a belief system, there are no systems of belief in atheism. I'm not denying that some atheists undertake the activities that you've criticised, neither am I stating that they don't represent my own version of atheism. I am going to try to explain, again, why atheism doesn't in itself have practices or versions, that these attributes are meaningless when applied to atheism.

You are aware of what is known as the burden of proof, those proposing positive claims have the responsibility to support those claims, the default position is that any unsupported positive claim is false. This principle is a basic necessity of reasoning, for scientists, philosophers or anyone else who wants to effectively communicate with people. Atheism is simply the default position, it is not a belief or a belief system, there are no atheistic activities, there are only activities undertaken by people who happen to be atheists.

Think about any default position regarding the burden of proof, for example someone might claim that there's a cat in this room, despite the fact that there's no evidence for one. The default position is absolute, "there is no cat", that's all there is to it. Sure, sometimes I might feel glad that there's no cat, but there is only one way to understand a complete absence of cat, there are no degrees of non-cat that are not levels of imaginary-cat, and those who imagine the cat, no matter to how small a degree, do not espouse the default position. Likewise with pracitices celebrating the absence of a cat, such practices entail a conception of the cat, but there is no cat, so again the default position has been compromised.