Atheism is a RELIGION

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheism not rooted in science, logic, philosophy, facts and based on the hasty generalization that there is no Truth in gods and religions.

Firstly, atheism isn't necessarily rooted in anything. As per your definition, atheism is a broad term covering a broad range of perspectives - including positions of ignorance or even inability to conceive of a God.

Secondly, it is not a hasty generalization as per your definition either, since an atheist can merely be unconvinced by God concepts presented to them and remain neutral on God claims that have yet to be presented to them. In other words, an atheist doesn't necessarily have to assume all God claims are false, they just need to be unconvinced by all of the God claims they have had presented to them and/or yet to encounter an argument that would convince them God exists. This is not a hasty generalization by definition, since they needn't formulate a conclusion on claims they haven't encountered yet. Consider the position "I don't believe that there are dragons". Is this position a hasty generalization based on the fact that the speaker hasn't seen 99.99% of the Universe in order to verify whether or not there are dragons in it; or is it merely a position based on the current lack of convincing evidence of dragons (that could easily be re-stated "I have yet to be presented with a good reason to believe that dragons exist)?

This is dogmatism, and it is RELIGIOUS. Different brands, but same product.

Even if both of the above statements were true, it doesn't qualify atheism as a religion, even per the definition you provided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The official definition of Atheism

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​

Conclusion

1. It is a religious claim, and not rooted in science, logic, philosophy etc.

2. The claim for belief in God (The Dawkin's Scale *)

3. The claim for disbelief in God

4. The claim for without belief in God

(vs. not making a choice when everything has its causes and effects, IS A CHOICE - Burden of Proof)​

* There are 320,000,000 Gods

Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.

Atheism is a Religion.



*

Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?

Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.​

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



4. Pure Agnostic

God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.​

equiprobable: (of two or more things) equally likely to occur; having EQUAL PROBABILITY.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

5. Weak Atheist

I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.​

skeptical​

1. not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
2. relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

6. De-facto Atheist

I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.​

improbable​

1. not likely to be true or to happen.

synonyms: unlikely, not likely, doubtful, dubious, debatable, questionable, uncertain;
More: unexpected and apparently inauthentic.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

While I generally disagree with your claim, I also have to assume that because you consider atheism a religion, you think that atheist organizations should have all the same rights and privileges as churches, and people who "preach atheism" should have all the rights and privileges of a religious minister... right?

For instance: here in Ontario, a religious minister can get a "parsonage allowance:" part of his income is untaxed. The Education Act also gives religious ministers the right to enter public schools in the area of their ministry. You think that both of those rights should also apply to atheist "preachers"... don't you?

 

[ChristineM]

Thus, and according to you:

1. Energy can be destroyed.
2. Energy can be created.
3. Energy cannot be transferred.​

Dont make stupid and ignorant guesses,far better to educate yourself

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

 

[Jumi]

I cannot know for certain is a religion now? I don't know about aliens from space, is that a religion of mine too. Or is my theism a religion? no, it isn't.

 

[wellwisher]

While I generally disagree with your claim, I also have to assume that because you consider atheism a religion, you think that atheist organizations should have all the same rights and privileges as churches, and people who "preach atheism" should have all the rights and privileges of a religious minister... right?

For instance: here in Ontario, a religious minister can get a "parsonage allowance:" part of his income is untaxed. The Education Act also gives religious ministers the right to enter public schools in the area of their ministry. You think that both of those rights should also apply to atheist "preachers"... don't you?

Yes, but separation of Church and State also needs to apply.

Not all of the major world religions worship deities. Buddhism is a good example of a philosophy and way of life, that does not worship deities, but is considered a major religion. This is the model that the atheism religion is based. Neither of these religions deal with deities. While each maintains a group method and standard for enlightenment.

Atheism and Buddhism are mirror images of each other. Buddhism is about human evolution of the mind and body through self reflection, meditation, body movement, and other forms of introversion and introspection.

Atheism is the opposite and is more extroverted. It believes in the evolution of the human mind and body through external observation, using science and technology. Neither deal with deities. However, both do admire and worship humans who excelled in their method; Buddha versus Einstein/Darwin.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, but separation of Church and State also needs to apply.

Not all of the major world religions worship deities. Buddhism is a good example of a philosophy and way of life, that does not worship deities, but is considered a major religion. This is the model that the atheism religion is based. Neither of these religions deal with deities. While each maintains a group method and standard for enlightenment.

Atheism and Buddhism are mirror images of each other. Buddhism is about human evolution of the mind and body through self reflection, meditation, body movement, and other forms of introversion and introspection.

Atheism is the opposite and is more extroverted. It believes in the evolution of the human mind and body through external observation, using science and technology. Neither deal with deities. However, both do admire and worship humans who excelled in their method; Buddha versus Einstein/Darwin.

This simply doesn't seem to be true. The only unifying position atheists hold is a lack of belief in a deity - there are no other necessary positions for an atheist to hold other than that. Atheism is more accurately a mirror image of theism; both are positions with regards to a response to the truth of a claim, but neither assert any necessary position beyond that single response. Just as a theist can be Abrahamic, deistic or, yes, even a Buddhist, and atheist can come in many stripes as well. There is even lots of cross-over between the groups. While scepticism and science are often painted as "atheist" values (for some reason), theists are just as capable of being skeptics or scientists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but separation of Church and State also needs to apply.

Only with atheism, though?

I agree that church-state separation is a worthwhile goal, but in the meantime, if religion gets special treatment and atheism is a religion, then bring on the tax breaks!

 

[Matheist]

#ChristineM said: ↑
The total energy in the universe is 0.

#Matheist said: ↑
Thus, and according to you:

1. Energy can be destroyed.
2. Energy can be created.
3. Energy cannot be transferred.

Dont make stupid and ignorant guesses,far better to educate yourself

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

So you cannot explain the contradiction?

I say it proves my point that you're living in the "Magical Fairies"... it is a dream (0) and not real (1). There is afterlife with the value of (1).

 

[Matheist]

Why would anyone want to prove their own existence? I mean, who do we a want to kid?

If you don't know the Reality/Metaphysics, then you don't have the Knowledge/Epistemology... and everything you said has no Value/Axiology. It is nonsense and delusional.

 

[Willamena]

The official definition of Atheism

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​

Conclusion

1. It is a religious claim, and not rooted in science, logic, philosophy etc.

2. The claim for belief in God (The Dawkin's Scale *)

3. The claim for disbelief in God

4. The claim for without belief in God

(vs. not making a choice when everything has its causes and effects, IS A CHOICE - Burden of Proof)​

* There are 320,000,000 Gods

Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.

Atheism is a Religion.



*

Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?

Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.​

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



4. Pure Agnostic

God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.​

equiprobable: (of two or more things) equally likely to occur; having EQUAL PROBABILITY.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

5. Weak Atheist

I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.​

skeptical​

1. not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
2. relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

6. De-facto Atheist

I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.​

improbable​

1. not likely to be true or to happen.

synonyms: unlikely, not likely, doubtful, dubious, debatable, questionable, uncertain;
More: unexpected and apparently inauthentic.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

There's a stark difference between being defined by a religious statement (of or having to do with God or gods) and being a religion, which is a practice.

 

[Matheist]

Not believing a claim, is not a claim.

While I generally disagree with your claim, I also have to assume that because you consider atheism a religion, you think that atheist organizations should have all the same rights and privileges as churches, and people who "preach atheism" should have all the rights and privileges of a religious minister... right?

For instance: here in Ontario, a religious minister can get a "parsonage allowance:" part of his income is untaxed. The Education Act also gives religious ministers the right to enter public schools in the area of their ministry. You think that both of those rights should also apply to atheist "preachers"... don't you?

Firstly, atheism isn't necessarily rooted in anything. As per your definition, atheism is a broad term covering a broad range of perspectives - including positions of ignorance or even inability to conceive of a God.

Secondly, it is not a hasty generalization as per your definition either, since an atheist can merely be unconvinced by God concepts presented to them and remain neutral on God claims that have yet to be presented to them. In other words, an atheist doesn't necessarily have to assume all God claims are false, they just need to be unconvinced by all of the God claims they have had presented to them and/or yet to encounter an argument that would convince them God exists. This is not a hasty generalization by definition, since they needn't formulate a conclusion on claims they haven't encountered yet. Consider the position "I don't believe that there are dragons". Is this position a hasty generalization based on the fact that the speaker hasn't seen 99.99% of the Universe in order to verify whether or not there are dragons in it; or is it merely a position based on the current lack of convincing evidence of dragons (that could easily be re-stated "I have yet to be presented with a good reason to believe that dragons exist)?


Even if both of the above statements were true, it doesn't qualify atheism as a religion, even per the definition you provided.

The elements from the official definition of Atheism

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

1. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

1. Natural Order
2. Nature's God
3. Accordingly you must have the "set of atheist's belief" to counter the belief in Nature's God (Fact / Natural Order)

So what is your counterargument against Nature's God?

It is your burden of proof since not choosing Nature's God IS A CHOICE, for being rebellious against the Nature's God and Natural Order.
​

OR

2. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

1. Without belief in God
2. Belief in Gods
3. Disbelief in Gods

Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE. = includes the belief in Gods

Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL. = includes the belief in Gods

De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE. = includes the belief in Gods

Nothing said about FACT, but mere system of belief.​

So how is your argument address the issue from the official definition of Atheism? It is strawman fallacy.

 

[ChristineM]

So you cannot explain the contradiction?

I say it proves my point that you're living in the "Magical Fairies"... it is a dream (0) and not real (1). There is afterlife with the value of (1).

What contradiction? A contradiction in your mind because you dont understand the science does not equate to a confirmation in reality

And if you want to continue with your personal insults based on woo then we are done.

 

[ratiocinator]

Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL. = includes the belief in Gods

De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE. = includes the belief in Gods

This is still both total nonsense and nothing to do with atheism being a religion:-

If I don't believe in god(s), my exact level of confidence in that conclusion, does not turn lack of belief into belief.

Religion is more than just belief in god(s).

 

[Matheist]

What contradiction? A contradiction in your mind because you dont understand the science does not equate to a confirmation in reality

And if you want to continue with your personal insults based on woo then we are done.

You claim the value of "0"

Thus the contradiction from that claim is:

1. Energy can be destroyed.
2. Energy can be created.
3. Energy cannot be transferred.​

How do you explain this contradiction?

 

[Matheist]

This is still both total nonsense and nothing to do with atheism being a religion

Argumentum ad lapidem - This is a fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

Please make argument from:

1. The official definition of Atheism
2. The definition of God
3. The definition of Religion
​

 

[ChristineM]

You claim the value of "0"

Thus the contradiction from that claim is:

1. Energy can be destroyed.
2. Energy can be created.
3. Energy cannot be transferred.​

How do you explain this contradiction?

Read he link. Educate yourself and stop guessing then you will realise you are talking nonsense. It in no way contradicts the laws of conservation of energy which states "the total energy of an isolated system remains constant"

FYI Zero is constant

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The elements from the official definition of Atheism

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

1. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

1. Natural Order
2. Nature's God
3. Accordingly you must have the "set of atheist's belief" to counter the belief in Nature's God (Fact / Natural Order)

So what is your counterargument against Nature's God?

It is your burden of proof since not choosing Nature's God IS A CHOICE, for being rebellious against the Nature's God and Natural Order.
​

OR

2. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

1. Without belief in God
2. Belief in Gods
3. Disbelief in Gods

Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE. = includes the belief in Gods

Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL. = includes the belief in Gods

De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE. = includes the belief in Gods

Nothing said about FACT, but mere system of belief.​

So how is your argument address the issue from the official definition of Atheism? It is strawman fallacy.

Not a single thing you've written here addresses my actual arguments. Nothing you've posted renders atheism a religion.

 

[ratiocinator]

Argumentum ad lapidem - This is a fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

This too is nonsense. I gave the reasoning in the rest of the post (that you ignored).

Please make argument from:

1. The official definition of Atheism
2. The definition of God
3. The definition of Religion

I've already done this, way back in reply #5.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The official definition of Atheism

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​

Conclusion

1. It is a religious claim, and not rooted in science, logic, philosophy etc.

2. The claim for belief in God (The Dawkin's Scale *)

3. The claim for disbelief in God

4. The claim for without belief in God

(vs. not making a choice when everything has its causes and effects, IS A CHOICE - Burden of Proof)​

* There are 320,000,000 Gods

Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.

Atheism is a Religion.



*

Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?

Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.​

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



4. Pure Agnostic

God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.​

equiprobable: (of two or more things) equally likely to occur; having EQUAL PROBABILITY.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

5. Weak Atheist

I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.​

skeptical​

1. not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
2. relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

6. De-facto Atheist

I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.​

improbable​

1. not likely to be true or to happen.

synonyms: unlikely, not likely, doubtful, dubious, debatable, questionable, uncertain;
More: unexpected and apparently inauthentic.​

Therefore:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.​

Yes, in the light of lack of evidence, stronger atheism is more of a religious bend, if religion is blind faith. But a better OP would be "Atheism lacks evidence!"

 

[Matheist]

I've already done this, way back in reply #5.

I've given the rebuttal argument at #6 and #32