Is atheism a religion?

[skace]

Originally posted by: yllus
Or to rephrase the above, regarding the more logical position of weak agnosticism:

The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

Sulllllllyy, read the wiki on atheism also.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

LOL. That's the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time...

Then you must read only intelligent things.

When you're pontificating about the existence of Object X, saying, "No! X definitively does not exist!" is hardly better than, "Yes! X definitively does exist!" Neither side can perform tests to determine the existence or nonexistence of Object X, so what exactly is an athiest basing his/her claim upon?

Or to rephrase the above, regarding the more logical position of weak agnosticism:

The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

You are lumping all atheists together.
I believe there is no God or god(s) because there is no evidence for it.
If there was evidence for it, I would believe it, but there is none. This means I don't believe in religion, because there is no reason for me to. There is no logical reason to assume God/god(s) exist, in my mind, therefore I believe they do not exist.

It's not really possible to disprove something, since the fact that it isn't there is pretty much the proof, which is why there is no proof god(s) do not exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
The slogan simply reminds us that we cannot prove a negative, that we can never be 100% sure of anything. If someone claims that a heavy object that we are unable to move would rise up in the air if dropped, we can't prove him wrong, although there is no evidence to support his claim. Although every dropped object in history has fallen down, not up, we can't be absolutely sure the next one won't rise up; we can't prove that it won't. Similarly, if someone says the moon is made of green cheese, maybe it is, although there is no evidence to support the claim; we can't prove that it isn't. Hence, we must concede, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[...]
To make this motto useful I suggest the following revision: "While absence of evidence is not absolute evidence of absence, it is generally evidence of a high probability of absence."

It's highly probably God/god(s) do not exist, because there is no evidence for them existing, same as it's highly probable that the moon is not (internally) made of cheese.
An atheist bases his or her claim upon the lack of evidence indicating a high probability that god does not exist, while admitting that there is no way to be absolutely certain, but they have a very strong basis for god not existing, in the same way that most other things which we take to be true and certain are mostly just based on an incredibly high probability of being right.

 

[LanceM]

There are too many accepted definitions of "religion" to really apply (or not apply) that word to it.

I go by what the dictionary says, so unless some grand world order decides on one, strict definition, then there you have it.

EDIT: BTW, I'm agnostic.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

LOL. That's the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time...

Then you must read only intelligent things.

When you're pontificating about the existence of Object X, saying, "No! X definitively does not exist!" is hardly better than, "Yes! X definitively does exist!" Neither side can perform tests to determine the existence or nonexistence of Object X, so what exactly is an athiest basing his/her claim upon?

Or to rephrase the above, regarding the more logical position of weak agnosticism:

The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

That's remarkably silly. If I conjure up some random notion of anything and suggest its existence, are you obliged to assume an agnostic position simply because you can't prove me incorrect?

Of course not. You'll likely assume a position based on existing knowledge, knowledge that gives you a rather distinct impression as to whether or not my random notion could possibly be true. I'd like to refer to Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot to further expound on this.

Your argument is one of the more common, but it's easily refuted.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

Disbelief in something that "hasn't" been proven, not "can never be."
I would say it's very rational to believe something false until you see it yourself, especially something like God. Otherwise, you are merely going on hearsay, which is often times unreliable.

I think the most rational solution would be to not have an opinion about things that no one knows anything about.

So, if that is correct, atheism isn't the most rational answer, believing that something does not exist because you can't see it, isn't the same thing as not having an opinion.

I agree, that would be the most rational answer. And it's the view I have. But I never said Athiesm was the most rational answer.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

LOL. That's the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time...

Then you must read only intelligent things.

When you're pontificating about the existence of Object X, saying, "No! X definitively does not exist!" is hardly better than, "Yes! X definitively does exist!" Neither side can perform tests to determine the existence or nonexistence of Object X, so what exactly is an athiest basing his/her claim upon?

Or to rephrase the above, regarding the more logical position of weak agnosticism:

The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

You are lumping all atheists together.
I believe there is no God or god(s) because there is no evidence for it.
If there was evidence for it, I would believe it, but there is none. This means I don't believe in religion, because there is no reason for me to. There is no logical reason to assume God/god(s) exist, in my mind, therefore I believe they do not exist.

It's not really possible to disprove something, since the fact that it isn't there is pretty much the proof, which is why there is no proof god(s) do not exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
The slogan simply reminds us that we cannot prove a negative, that we can never be 100% sure of anything. If someone claims that a heavy object that we are unable to move would rise up in the air if dropped, we can't prove him wrong, although there is no evidence to support his claim. Although every dropped object in history has fallen down, not up, we can't be absolutely sure the next one won't rise up; we can't prove that it won't. Similarly, if someone says the moon is made of green cheese, maybe it is, although there is no evidence to support the claim; we can't prove that it isn't. Hence, we must concede, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[...]
To make this motto useful I suggest the following revision: "While absence of evidence is not absolute evidence of absence, it is generally evidence of a high probability of absence."

It's highly probably God/god(s) do not exist, because there is no evidence for them existing, same as it's highly probable that the moon is not (internally) made of cheese.
An atheist bases his or her claim upon the lack of evidence indicating a high probability that god does not exist, while admitting that there is no way to be absolutely certain, but they have a very strong basis for god not existing, in the same way that most other things which we take to be true and certain are mostly just based on an incredibly high probability of being right.

Precisely.

This isn't opinion, it's fact; unfortunately, most people don't know what it means to hold an atheistic position. Sometimes I think the point is lost in having to explain it, beacause 99% of the time people regurgitate the same arguments about atheism that have been addressed ad nauseum.

 

[yllus]

Well I'm assuming that this thread concerns strong/explicit athiesm (aka the poll's "athiestic zealots") which I'm taking as being defined as people who state, "God does not exist," or "the existence of God is impossible." That's poor logic.

Really what most of us are arguing over is definitions. I'm certainly not a God-lover.

 

[ForumMaster]

if atheism is the denial of religion, how can it be a religion? most atheists don't say Oh my science!, they just believe that there is a rational explanation for everything.

while i'm am not totally atheists (i do take part of the various holidays,) i don't believe in god.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Descartes
That's remarkably silly. If I conjure up some random notion of anything and suggest its existence, are you obliged to assume an agnostic position simply because you can't prove me incorrect?

Of course not. You'll likely assume a position based on existing knowledge, knowledge that gives you a rather distinct impression as to whether or not my random notion could possibly be true. I'd like to refer to Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot to further expound on this.

Your argument is one of the more common, but it's easily refuted.

Nah, I'm just trying to be concise. Clearly we can try to make a definition as to how things probably work in the world. However, I should copy and paste:

Some atheists argue that believing in the possibility of a God is as ridiculous as believing in the possibility of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so forth, and find it contradictory that weak agnostics believe in the possibility of the former but not any of the latter. However, to a weak agnostic, this fails to assess the situation logically and with clearly defined lines.

To a weak agnostic the concepts of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Christian God, and so forth, are clearly defined claims akin to claiming the existence of alien life on a specific planet in our solar system, whereas the general concept of God is more akin to the concept of alien life anywhere in the universe. Given that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so forth, can be argued against using proofs and data, it is not contradictory to dismiss those things that can be disproven while keeping an open mind to those things that have not.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: yllus
Well I'm assuming that this thread concerns strong/explicit athiesm (aka the poll's "athiestic zealots") which I'm taking as being defined as people who state, "God does not exist," or "the existence of God is impossible." That's poor logic.

Really what most of us are arguing over is definitions. I'm certainly not a God-lover.

That's largely a misconception, and it is unfortunately a position held by people that proclaim to be atheist and know little about it; it's not unlike holding a theistic position in this respect, as people simply identify with a label that mimics their beliefs... or spite. It's for this reason that I simply wish people would not apply the label of atheism. What's the value in a label of any kind if it carries with it so many ill perceptions?

And I agree. Anyone that says the existence of a theistic God is impossible is likely using the label more out of spite than reason.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JackBurton
It's not a freakin' religion. The only reason people say it is a religion is because they want to put it on the same playing field when arguing about religion. Atheism is a belief, that's it. And like it has been said, belief does not equal religion. MOST people believe there is no Big Foot, and most likely would ridicule someone who DOES believe in BF. Is the non-believing group then considered a religion? No.

Psychology refutes your statement. Humans have a basic need for religion. It's just how the brain works.

And of course you have scientific facts to back that up?

Atheism is just an extent of this belief system and a means to connect with and congregate with other people who share similar beliefs. You see it all over this board and any other board. It's the exact same kind of behavior as any other religion. So to deny that it isn't a religion is just foolish and ignorant of the facts. Open minded and free thinking people see it for what it is - another religion following the same path as every other religion.

I don't think it is a religion, but if it is, it's a religion that doesn't require you to do anything. It would be like believing in a god that doesn't care what you do and/or has no powers to do anything. Or if you believe in god, but have no way of knowing what that God likes or doesn't like. For all we know, god may like evil people and bring them to heaven, and send all the good people to hell. If you have no way of knowing if what you are doing is helping or hurting you in the afterlife, why do anything at all about it? And if you have a belief that does not influence what you do, then is it religion?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JackBurton
It's not a freakin' religion. The only reason people say it is a religion is because they want to put it on the same playing field when arguing about religion. Atheism is a belief, that's it. And like it has been said, belief does not equal religion. MOST people believe there is no Big Foot, and most likely would ridicule someone who DOES believe in BF. Is the non-believing group then considered a religion? No.

Psychology refutes your statement. Humans have a basic need for religion. It's just how the brain works.

And of course you have scientific facts to back that up?

There have been studies. I cited Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran in another thread as he has performed studies on patients with seizures of the temporal lobe, a lobe which has been considered to be the cognitive center for religiosity; that is, for feelings of "connectedness" to something greater. It was suggested that this area of the brain was an evolutionary compensation for our acknowledgement of mortality as a species; in other words, since we know we're ultimately going to die.

It's been a while, but if you Google around I'm sure you'll find some studies. Let's not suggest that the brain requires religion; rather, let's consider it more abstractly and simply say that the brain requries, or at least seems to require, some level of inquisitiveness about that which precedes ourselves.

Atheism is just an extent of this belief system and a means to connect with and congregate with other people who share similar beliefs. You see it all over this board and any other board. It's the exact same kind of behavior as any other religion. So to deny that it isn't a religion is just foolish and ignorant of the facts. Open minded and free thinking people see it for what it is - another religion following the same path as every other religion.

I don't think it is a religion, but if it is, it's a religion that doesn't require you to do anything. It would be like believing in a god that doesn't care what you do and/or has no powers to do anything. Or if you believe in god, but have no way of knowing what that God likes or doesn't like. For all we know, god may like evil people and bring them to heaven, and send all the good people to hell. If you have no way of knowing if what you are doing is helping or hurting you in the afterlife, why do anything at all about it? And if you have a belief that does not influence what you do, then is it religion?

I agree. Of course it's not a religion. To suggest that it's a belief system is to suggest ignorance about atheism itself, and by extension the whole congregation argument is moot. Religion has nothing to do with congregation, and hopefully we learned this with some of the more reformative movements of early Christianity, thus removing the need for such nonsense.

[edit]Quoting was messed up.[/edit]

 

[VictorLazlo]

I was thinking about religion a little bit the other day. I was thinking about how to define religion, and this is what I came up with. If I asked you to devise a system of beliefs that could not be disproven, religion would be the result.

Religion is what happens when a belief attempts to avoid being disproven, and evolves into perfect "un-disprovability".

Does atheism fit that definition?

 

[randay]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
The slogan simply reminds us that we cannot prove a negative, that we can never be 100% sure of anything. If someone claims that a heavy object that we are unable to move would rise up in the air if dropped, we can't prove him wrong, although there is no evidence to support his claim. Although every dropped object in history has fallen down, not up, we can't be absolutely sure the next one won't rise up; we can't prove that it won't. Similarly, if someone says the moon is made of green cheese, maybe it is, although there is no evidence to support the claim; we can't prove that it isn't. Hence, we must concede, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[...]
To make this motto useful I suggest the following revision: "While absence of evidence is not absolute evidence of absence, it is generally evidence of a high probability of absence."

excuse me while i roflmao.

 

[Turin39789]

No seriously, if you think atheism is a religion, then I need to be tax exempt as I have weekly services at the local pub quiz.

 

[theeedude]

If you have a job that doesn't pay you anything and doesn't ask you to do anything or go anywhere, do you have a job?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: VictorLazlo
Religion is what happens when a belief attempts to avoid being disproven, and evolves into perfect "un-disprovability".

Does atheism fit that definition?

1. Your definition of religion sucks
2. No atheism does not fit into that
3. Wikipedia may not work on essays, but you really should use it before trying to summon definitions out of thin air: Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that (generally) involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life.

Atheism is simply the categorization of those who lack belief.

Also, spidey mentioned some psychology thing that all people require religion, so I did a little google search and came up with this:
"These basic human needs ? which include honor, idealism, curiosity and acceptance ? can explain why certain people are attracted to religion"
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/religdes.htm

They key word is CERTAIN people, not all people. The research attempts to explain why people are attracted to religion, not why all people require it, which isn't true.

 

[Tom]

"To suggest that it's a belief system is to suggest ignorance about atheism itself,"


sorry, but I consider this a preposterous position put forth by persons who suffer from some level of narcissism, or the need to have an answer for everything, even when no real answer exists.

It is also nothing but a belief, to say that that one can determine the probability that something is true, by a lack of evidence.


Something else, atheism is not the rejection of other religions, it is the denial of the existence of god(s). There really is no relationship between the two. What I mean is the existence or non-existence of god(s) has nothing to do with religion.

My only interest in this is to refute the idea that atheism is somehow more scientific, logical, rational, than other beliefs, when it isn't, because anytime any belief system promotes itself as superior for whatever reason, it diminishes a fundamental truth that I BELIEVE in, that we are all equal.

 

[YoungGun21]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JackBurton
It's not a freakin' religion. The only reason people say it is a religion is because they want to put it on the same playing field when arguing about religion. Atheism is a belief, that's it. And like it has been said, belief does not equal religion. MOST people believe there is no Big Foot, and most likely would ridicule someone who DOES believe in BF. Is the non-believing group then considered a religion? No.

Psychology refutes your statement. Humans have a basic need for religion. It's just how the brain works.

Atheism is just an extent of this belief system and a means to connect with and congregate with other people who share similar beliefs. You see it all over this board and any other board. It's the exact same kind of behavior as any other religion. So to deny that it isn't a religion is just foolish and ignorant of the facts. Open minded and free thinking people see it for what it is - another religion following the same path as every other religion.

I guess you could call me an atheist... I don't believe in god, but I don't bash him/her. I don't go to church. I don't normally talk about religion with other people. But...

How can you say its the exact same behavior as every other religion when every other religion worships something? Atheists don't pray. Atheists don't go to churches or temples or mosques. Atheists worship nothing. Afterlife, what afterlife? When you die, you die. Imagine this, there is no such thing as Heaven or Hell, or reincarnation. When you're dead and gone, you really are dead and gone. Wouldn't that be a huge shocker!

Religion is the biggest problem in the world today. Without religion we would be a lot closer to peace.

 

[IGBT]

..anyone can be religiously dedicated to a belief system. And athesim is a belief. You see the same religious mania among so called "enviromentalists"..many of whom show symptoms of psychosis and irrational thought patterns..fueled by medical marijuana and prescription drugs.

 

[Vic]

For the zealots, yes. When you believe strongly in something that cannot be proven, it is faith. When you organize with like-minded people who share the same faith to discuss proper living and ways of spreading that faith, it is religion.
See the Dawkins video posted here recently. He pounds a pulpit and ridicules a non-believer in front of a crowd cheering hallelujah. If that ain't religion, then nothing is.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
All religions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions.

Sums it up.



Atheism isn't a religion because we make a distinction between religious and scientific thought. Science is based on the observable world and all that jazz. Atheism is science's theory of god, just like evolution is science's theory of creation.

 

[Dumac]

Hey everyone, a dictionary can be useful.

Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

1) It says ESPECIALLY when considered by a superhuman agency, not that it has to be. Athism provides a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpsoe of the universe, does it not?
2) Athiesm does have a specific fundamental set of beliefs generally agreed on by most athiest.

3) Three could fit any group adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

So, in a dictionary definition, the world can sort of fit, but it takes a little bit of reaching.

In my opinion, this question is a stupid one. Religion is just a word. Like the word 'God', 'religion' can be twisted to mean all sorts of things.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
All religions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions.

Sums it up.



Atheism isn't a religion because we make a distinction between religious and scientific thought. Science is based on the observable world and all that jazz. Atheism is science's theory of god, just like evolution is science's theory of creation.

When did science disprove God?

What disturbs me about your post here is that you're trying to equate science to a religion (with beliefs in creation and the supernatural) in order to support atheism. Kindly don't do that, thank you.

Science is based on the observable and the measurable. That which is not observable or measurable is not a negative to science, but simply a null. Meaning that science doesn't hold any belief in those things, pro or con.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Vic
When did science disprove God?

What disturbs me about your post here is that you're trying to equate science to a religion (with beliefs in creation and the supernatural) in order to support atheism. Kindly don't do that, thank you.

Science is based on the observable and the measurable. That which is not observable or measurable is not a negative to science, but simply a null. Meaning that science doesn't hold any belief in those things, pro or con.

So "theory" means "proof," now?