Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious

[anotherneil]

To me, when someone identifies as atheist, it's as if they're saying, "I am religious, I just don't believe that God - or a/any god - exists." By identifying as "atheist," an individual is making an assertion about a religious issue, specifically that God - or a/any god - does not exist.

I, myself, identify as not-religious because I don't want to make a religious assertion - theistic, atheistic, or agnostic; to me it's a way of saying "I make no religious assertion of any kind and have no desire to do so."

There may be those who aren't religious but consider the word "atheist" to be the label that applies to themselves. I'd say that they're not religious, and "atheist" would really just be a misnomer for them.

There are also those who are only labeled as atheists by others because they don't believe in God (or a/any god), aren't religious, or don't practice religion, such as going to church (or attend any religious services), reading the bible or any religious texts, performing rituals, etc. Since these individuals aren't applying the word "atheists" to themselves, I would say that there's nothing to show that they are religious, so no one can call them religious.

 

[LuisDantas]

It gets rid of the infinite regress issue:

Does it? Again, I am not seeing it.

Instead, presuming that there was a "time before reality existed" lends that issue a significancee that it is not warranted, without hinting at any solution to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Huh?? For atheists, the infinite regress problem can manifest in various forms. One common argument is the infinite regress of explanations. If we explain the existence of the universe by the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang? If we say natural laws caused it, what caused those laws? This can lead to an infinite chain of explanations, which may seem unsatisfactory or incomplete.

Another aspect for atheists is the problem of explaining the origins of morality, meaning, or purpose without appealing to a transcendent source. If there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to the universe, how do we find meaning in our lives? This can lead to existential questions and a search for alternative frameworks for understanding the world.

Sorry, I don't think this holds any water for atheists. It certainly doesn't hold any for me.

I don't think you are an atheist, even if you somehow decided to call yourself one.

 

[LuisDantas]

To me, when someone identifies as atheist, it's as if they're saying, "I am religious, I just don't believe that God - or a/any god - exists." By identifying as "atheist," an individual is making an assertion about a religious issue, specifically that God - or a/any god - does not exist.

That amounts to choosing a very, very generous conception of "religion' - which I don't think works at all.

While there are movements that atempt to raise atheism (and theism) to positions of religious significance, that is just a serious (if common) mistake, made possible by confused notions of religion and religiosity.

In truth, theism and atheism are belief stances of an aesthetical nature. They have very little religious relevance one way or another (and what little exists makes atheism better aligned with religious practice, despite common and influential misconceptions). And they are entirely stranged from anything of a rational or logical nature, mostly because they are defined in relation from the idea of a god that "people somehow ought to believe in". That is vague, odd, and probably self-contradictory in the first place.

I, myself, identify as not-religious because I don't want to make a religious assertion - theistic, atheistic, or agnostic; to me it's a way of saying "I make no religious assertion of any kind and have no desire to do so."

There may be those who aren't religious but consider the word "atheist" to be the label that applies to themselves. I'd say that they're not religious, and "atheist" would really just be a misnomer for them.

No idea of why you would do such a thing.

There are also those who are only labeled as atheists by others because they don't believe in God (or a/any god), aren't religious, or don't practice religion, such as going to church (or attend any religious services), reading the bible or any religious texts, performing rituals, etc. Since these individuals aren't applying the word "atheists" to themselves, I would say that there's nothing to show that they are religious, so no one can call them religious.

What would make them different from any other atheists, though?

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, I don't think this holds any water for atheists. It certainly doesn't hold any for me.

I don't think you are an atheist, even if you somehow decided to call yourself one.

That was my impression.

That amounts to choosing a very, very generous conception of "religion' - which I don't think works at all.

Religion seems to be a vague word. Look at how many these days refer to themselves as "spiritual, not religious", yet they behave in ways that they learned from religious traditions.

Could atheists doing yoga be considered religious? Or do meditation? To my mind being religious means following a tradition of belief and ritual that centers around belief in some sort of God. I also argue that the more religious a person is the less spiritual they tend to be. I suggest spirituality means to seek balance in any number of ways that includes mental and physical.

While there are movements that atempt to raise atheism (and theism) to positions of religious significance, that is just a serious (if common) mistake, made possible by confused notions of religion and religiosity.

It's funny that some theists will assert that atheism is a religion as a response to criticisms of religion. It's a bad approach because theists believe they have trutynthrough religion and aren't wrong, but they think atheism is a religion and IS wrong, so religion CAN be wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly, or material, entities.

So you mean "non-supernatural"?

"Secular" means "having no religious basis." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the metaphysical or supernatural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still think you are in the realm of supernatural controlling mind, therefore you are not an atheist. IMHO.

Only to the same extent that a Christian who believes in angels is not a monotheist.

 

[anotherneil]

That amounts to choosing a very, very generous conception of "religion' - which I don't think works at all.

Before I even ask "why not?", you "don't think works at all" - to achieve what purpose?

I essentially look at it this way - something has to earn the right to not be called a religion, such as Newton's laws of motion.

While there are movements that atempt to raise atheism (and theism) to positions of religious significance, that is just a serious (if common) mistake, made possible by confused notions of religion and religiosity.

Who decides? How is this useful? This only seems like semantics & quibbling that doesn't help put food on my plate or a roof over my head. Newton's laws of motion do put food on my plate & a roof over my head.

In truth, theism and atheism are belief stances of an aesthetical nature. They have very little religious relevance one way or another (and what little exists makes atheism better aligned with religious practice, despite common and influential misconceptions). And they are entirely stranged from anything of a rational or logical nature, mostly because they are defined in relation from the idea of a god that "people somehow ought to believe in". That is vague, odd, and probably self-contradictory in the first place.

This isn't meaningful or useful in any way, to me.

The only way religion would be useful to me - and I'm only saying this to make a point (but I'm not opposed to actually doing this, either), is if I were to be paid to listen to someone preach religion or talk about their religious positions & same goes with having me engage in such a discussion or debate. For example, if I'm walking along and some street preacher approached me and wanted to engage in one-on-one talk to "testify" or "share the good news", I would ask them what it's worth to them to keep me there to spend my time listening to what they have to say & if the price is right, for a given amount of time, and they were to pay me in advance, then I'd stay and listen to them for that given amount of time. I would then be able to use that money that I earned towards putting food on my plate & a roof over my head.

No idea of why you would do such a thing.

Precisely! What's in it for me to do such a thing?

Religion draws resources from me; it doesn't provide me with access to resources. This is only one of the problems with religion.

There are many other problems with religion, and the reason I'm on this forum is because I want to know why anyone has a desire to cause such problems with their religion. They only place a burden on humanity, and I would like to make things better for humanity by removing that burden. For instance, here in the US, despite the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment there are politicians who blatantly ignore it, which in turn burdens me and anyone else who isn't religious, or even those who have differing religious beliefs from such politicians.

What would make them different from any other atheists, though?

I can't answer this as it is a loaded question; they are not necessarily atheists.

Now, if you want me to answer this question: what would make them different from any other atheists, though?

The answer to this simple. There are atheists who allow resources to be drawn from them by devoting much of their life studying religious doctrine, debating theists, etc. & these individuals don't do that. They're only devoting their time & effort for enjoying life or doing something useful for themselves and society. High pressure salespeople and lawyers are doing something useful, at least compared to those who are engaging in religious activities.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it's not.

Still wouldn't fly in formal recognition as being any religion. That would require significant legal hurdles to be declared a religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I checked not sure. I don’t necessarily think of atheism as a religion, rather a worldview. Nevertheless, I think atheists can be just as dogmatic in their thinking and beliefs as any religious person.

That's true to an extent.

An atheist can develop atheistic style dogmatism if conclusions are made without the proper evidences first that can mirror theistic dogmatism.

Atheism is definitely not a worldview, since everyone born is "one without gods" by default, where theism is introduced later on causing the term "atheism" to surface as a response to the claim of a dieity or dieitys.

It has no prior worldviews and would still be today if theism had never been proposed and introduced.

 

[Link]

I think atheism is hijacking the definition of worship and god(s) and overcomplicating it. I think atheism is polytheism without belief in the supernatural.

But you would not be an atheist per their definition nor mine.

 

[LuisDantas]

It amounts to selecting definitions of religion that can have.some actual meaning without being blanket derogatories, @anotherneil

 

[LuisDantas]

I think atheism is hijacking the definition of worship and god(s) and overcomplicating it. I think atheism is polytheism without belief in the supernatural.

But you would not be an atheist per their definition nor mine.

Só... polytheism without theism?

I suppose. But I fail to see any reason to take polytheism as a starting point.

 

[anotherneil]

It amounts to selecting definitions of religion that can have.some actual meaning without being blanket derogatories, @anotherneil

Ok; what's wrong with blanket derogatories & why should I care? Actions speak louder than words, and the words I speak are benign compared to the burdens, problems, and atrocities (including oppression, slavery, and genocide) from religion. I consider such actions to be unacceptable. I can go on and on about how religion plays a role in contributing to, or is the cause for problems in society such as poverty, homelessness, crime, war, and many other disasters.

 

[Link]

Só... polytheism without theism?

I suppose. But I fail to see any reason to take polytheism as anstarting point.

gods don't have to be supernatural. The most common god is lust.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Still wouldn't fly in formal recognition as being any religion.

What wouldn't?

 

[LuisDantas]

gods don't have to be supernatural. The most common god is lust.

Can you give me a definition of god that you find valid?

 

[Link]

Can you give me a definition of god that you find valid?

Words usually are defined with respect to other words. In this case, I would say, there is tiers of a type of thing called valuing.

Valuing - Respecting -honoring- exalting - worship.

Everything has some value, even animals. However, we can't say we truly respect animals like we do humans. The reason is we eat them. Some humans reach greatness and are honorable, and deserve to be seen as honorable great.

Yet still, we can honor way higher, and that's God's chosen ones, they are honored above normal people, to such a high degree, that great people no matter how great don't compare to the greatness of the chosen ones.

Yet exalting above us can be done higher, and we can value way above all else, and the relative highest type of valuing we do, we can call the worship. A being worthy of highest exaltation is a God. I believe since the Creator is totally in a field by himself, he is the one God.

However, if there is no supernatural, no highest being and Creator, then a person still values something higher then all.

I don't think it's about a fixed amount (worship), I think it's about how we see a thing relative to other things.

If there is no exalted chosen ones from God, we exalt maybe actors, famous rich people, smart inventors, and so on and so forth.

If are selfish and value our caprice above all others, than is what we exalt and value above all else. Hence our caprice becomes our God. It maybe we also value compassion on a equal level. But what I'm trying to explain is that it's all relative to how we value things in priority sort of way.

Everyone has this priority que in their minds. The believers for example in Quran are said to prefer the Nabi (s) over themselves, he has more of priority to them then themselves. And believers are said to be strongest in love towards God.

Because God is so above all else, the love of the perishing world is condemned in the Quran, that anyone who desires this world will go to hell. This is because that type of love is opposite towards the love towards God, his exalted and greatness of their followers. If you believe in the unseen value of God, then love of world becomes impossible. The next world is what is craved instead and this world sacrificed for it.

There are those who are neither lovers of this world nor the next, but are caught between them, and it depends what direction they go towards, but they aren't guaranteed paradise like those who crave the next world nor guaranteed hell like those who desire the life of this world over the next. They are between a choice, but if they equate petty things with God's sustenance, they will go to hell. That is polytheism doesn't have to be outwardly acknowledged.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a very questionable definition indeed.

 

[Link]

That is a very questionable definition indeed.

What word to we have for highest valuing? Ancients knew it offhand as worship. It's academics that are making definition of worship too complex.