atheism is a (religious position)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to Pew Research, 81 percent of atheists do not believe in a god or gods.

8 facts about atheists

Around six-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (64%). And seven-in-ten are ages 49 or younger, compared with about half of U.S. adults overall (52%).

www.pewresearch.org

Apparently, 19% of atheists are very confused.

 

[HonestJoe]

And yet here you are on a site designed to invite religious views and opinions.

This is a site for discussing religion. Religion is very much real and has real and significant effects on us all. That is why I discuss things here. What you believe is essentially irrelevant to me but if that leads to you characterising or labelling other people (me included) in a particular way that could in turn impact how they're perceived and treated, it obviously becomes relevant. If atheism is deemed a religion and I'm deemed an atheist, I have been implicitly deemed religious, which I am not.

I agree that atheism is not a religion, but it can be and sometimes is practiced similarly. And often in terms of it's dogmatic 'evangelism'.

No, atheism isn't practiced - it describes something people are, not something they do. There can be sets of beliefs and practices which include atheism (directly or by implication), some of which can be formally recognised as actual religions and some of which would not. Nobody practices atheism just as nobody practices theism.

Most atheist do, but that is not a logically supportable position.

So you keep saying, but you've not come close to convincing me and have never come close to describing my actual beliefs (which are, I admit, unusual in this context of people who actually choose to discuss the topic).

I would also point out that the vast, vast majority of (agnostic) atheists won't engaging in any kind of discussion about this topic (many of them won't even be consciously aware of the labels or their beliefs) so most of the "atheists" you encounter on this forum will be an unusual sub-set. You shouldn't define atheism on the basis of their statements or behaviour alone.

If God exists, God's nature and existence is a mystery to us.

Now it's your turn to avoid conflating beliefs and religion. This may well be true of the God of your religion but it is not implicit to the general concept of gods and therefore not what we're talking about. I'd respectfully recommend you continue to use the lower-case g here to keep that context in mind.

There is no logical reason to presume these imaginary representations should be similar, or agree. Why would they be? And there is no logical reason to confuse them with the actual possibility of God, though people often do.

The representations are different because they are representations of different gods. Pretty much the only reasons any religions have any of the same aspects of their gods is that the split off from the same source (like the Abrahamic faiths) or elements have been merged when peoples with different beliefs encountered each other (like the Greek and Roman pantheons).

They are all different people's solution to the question of the existence and nature of God. And no one knows if any of them are accurate, including the atheist's solution.

Again, not God, god or gods. And trying to present an "atheist's solution" as simple another option in the long list of proposed gods or pantheons is simply wrong. For a start, a lot of gods wouldn't necessarily exclude the existence of other gods and many could be seen a different perceptions of the same god or gods. Atheism is simply a matter of not believing in any of them.

Theism is not about what anyone believes. Theism is a philosophical proposition. It is the proposition that God/gods exist, and in a way that matters to us.

Theism is literally about what someone believes and, like atheism, is something people are, not something they do. You can certainly present a philosophical proposition that a god of some sort exists, but I don't think you can do that without identifying at least some individual characteristics of that god, which means it's no longer generic theism but a defined theistic belief (one to add to that long list mentioned in the last paragraph).

If we accept the validity of that proposition, we call ourselves theists. If we reject that proposition as invalid, we call ourselves atheists. If we neither accept nor reject it because we lack sufficient information to determine the validity of the proposition, we call ourselves agnostic.

If we accept the validity, we are theists due to believing in that defined god. If we reject the validity, we don't believe in that defined god but we could believe in a different god (indeed, that might be why we reject the new proposition).

None of this automatically tells us anything about agnosticism at all.

Belief really has nothing to do with it. Belief is just a proclamation of our own presumed righteousness. When we say "I believe" all we're really saying is that "I am now convinced that I am right". And that's not really relevant to the question of God's existence or nature, or much of anything else.

None of this is relevant to the actual existence of any gods, it is all about individual beliefs.

I'd also suggest the beliefs can have levels of conviction. Some people are all but certain in their beliefs while others only lean one way or another but aren't as certain (and therefore could be more open to being convinced otherwise). And as for atheism, there are some proposed gods I'm almost 100% don't exist (because I consider them internally contradictory or go against clear evidence) but there are others I wouldn't express such certainty (if only because they're not clearly defined) and therefore, I wouldn't express such certainty on the general concept of their being some kind of god as yet unknown.

I explain and clarify the terms using logic but they don't care. They just want to "win the argument" and if that means bending and changing the definitions and logic of the terms, that's what they'll do.

Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. How can you say that you wouldn't come across to them in exactly the same way? You don't accept anyone else's clarification of terms using logic either, because that would mean you "loose the argument".

 

[Eddi]

And I'm saying that a religion is a specific type of hobby: something done regularly in one's spare time for pleasure outside of paid work.

According to that particular definition I would agree

However, that seems a rather narrow definition to me, I think that there is more to any hobby than just those things

Questions of lifestyle and identity etc

Maybe religion and hobbies are two different types of the same thing?

I think that would make sense

Perhaps religions and hobbies are different types of the same thing????

In which case what would that thing be?

I don't know right now.......

Perhaps identities or lifestyle choices???.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to that particular definition I would agree

However, that seems a rather narrow definition to me, I think that there is more to any hobby than just those things

Questions of lifestyle and identity etc

Have you ever met an NFL fan? A golfer? A general aviation pilot?

Maybe religion and hobbies are two different types of the same thing?

I think that would make sense

Perhaps religions and hobbies are different types of the same thing????

In which case what would that thing be?

I don't know right now.......

Perhaps identities or lifestyle choices???.

I already told you my view: they're related because religion is a category of hobby.

 

[Eddi]

I already told you my view: they're related because religion is a category of hobby

OK I agree that it is a category of hobby

The category that involves a God Concept

That would make it different to being an avid golfer, for example

Which I would class as a different category of hobby

Not necessarily less valid

Just different

 

[Eddi]

OK I agree that it is a category of hobby

The category that involves a God Concept

That would make it different to being an avid golfer, for example

Which I would class as a different category of hobby

Not necessarily less valid

Just different

Which I think can go for Atheism too, if it is a well thought out opinion as opposed to simple ignorance of God concepts

So I'd operate that distinction

@9-10ths_Penguin your participation on these forums suggest to me that Atheism is a hobby of yours correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Heyo]

Would you say that holding an opinion on motor bikes is not a motor bike opinion?

....and why?

Would you say that holding an opinion on boxing is a fighting opinion.

Religion is one of the words that changes meaning when made into an adjective or an adverb.
Being religious is not the same as having a religion and even atheists can follow a rule religiously.

 

[PureX]

Is that what religion is supposed to be about? Sure doesn't seem that way from the outside.

Religion isn't for us outsiders.

I kinda prefer being an 'outsider', myself, so I'm not religious. But I get that a lot of folks feel differently about that. And as I get older, I'm gong to pay for my independent lifestyle. We humans were made to need and depend on each other. Religion very often helps people to do that. Even in spite of the times they fail and ruin people's lives.

 

[dybmh]

Actually, "belief" has nothing to do with it.

Theism is an assertion, not a belief.

If you accept the assertion that God/gods exist and in a way that matters to us as valid, then you have adopted the position of a theist.

If you reject the assertion that God/gods exist and in a way that matters to us as being invalid, then you have adopted the antithetical position of an atheist. (Atheism is the antithetical to theism.)

If you remain undetermined about the validity of the assertion due to a lack of sufficient information, then you are either an 'undecided' or an agnostic (the difference being that the agnostic asserts that we can not ascertain the necessary information).

Meh. I disagree. I am a believer. And proud of it. I don't expect you to agree because you are confusing religion with philosophy. Do you still identify that way? Let's see.... clicking on "About".... YUP!

Conflating religion with philosophy is going to render skewed results. Maybe for YOU, Theism is a "rational" philosophy. And that requires redefining "faith" so that it is "rational". And somehow denying any believers. But that's just your own version.

 

[dybmh]

I 'believe' very little. The older I get the more I find that belief is just the ego needing to assume and maintain an illusion of righteousness.

Accepting belief for what it is, is the ego being humbled. Denying belief when it exists is the ego needing to assume and maintain an illusion of righteousness.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yet Atheism dictates a certain stance towards religions based on a certain opinion about the existence/non-existence of God

It is an opinion about God beliefs that causes non-religiousness to be practiced

Hence it is an opinion about religions

No. Atheism dictates nothing, and definitely nothing about religions. It is just a statement of disbelief. It has no power over other people's conceptions and beliefs about either religion or deities.

And, not to be too subtle about it, but I strongly disagree that belief in deities is in the least helpful - let alone necessary - to religion.

There are many atheists that make the same unwarranted and misguided jump that you do, which is presuming that religiosity requires belief in the literal existence of some form of deity. That is quite untrue.

 

[PureX]

This is a site for discussing religion. Religion is very much real and has real and significant effects on us all. That is why I discuss things here. What you believe is essentially irrelevant to me but if that leads to you characterising or labelling other people (me included) in a particular way that could in turn impact how they're perceived and treated, it obviously becomes relevant. If atheism is deemed a religion and I'm deemed an atheist, I have been implicitly deemed religious, which I am not.

No, atheism isn't practiced

Oh sure it is, for some people. I see it on here all the time. Any pro-religious post or thread immediately gets it's share of "I'm an atheist! Everyone acknowledge my atheism, now!" responses. No one can assert a pro-religious sentiment on here without the inevitable counter from the usual gung ho atheists. And it sure looks like "practice" from my perspective. It's automatic, routine, repetitive, 'knee-jerk', just like practicing is.

- it describes something people are, not something they do.

Well, actually atheism describes an antithetical philosophical position. Not a person. The "atheist" is just what we call a person that subscribes or claimes to subscribe to that antithetical philosophical position.

There can be sets of beliefs and practices which include atheism (directly or by implication), some of which can be formally recognised as actual religions and some of which would not. Nobody practices atheism just as nobody practices theism.

Beliefs and practices are a different subject from the philosophical ideals involved with theism and atheism. They are sort of the carts being pulled along behind the horse.

So you keep saying, but you've not come close to convincing me and have never come close to describing my actual beliefs (which are, I admit, unusual in this context of people who actually choose to discuss the topic).

I have no interest in nor ability to convince you of anything. And it's not my job. What, when, and how you learn is completely up to you. All I can do is share my observations and opinions, and read about those of others.

I would also point out that the vast, vast majority of (agnostic) atheists won't engaging in any kind of discussion about this topic (many of them won't even be consciously aware of the labels or their beliefs) so most of the "atheists" you encounter on this forum will be an unusual sub-set. You shouldn't define atheism on the basis of their statements or behaviour alone.

Why are they a "subset" in your mind? I would have thought that those who come here wanting to discuss/debate it would be those that have given at least some thought to the issue, as opposed to those not interested in discussing it because they just don't think about it. And honestly, if I were an atheist, why would I be thinking about it? Wouldn't I have already decided and dismissed the issue?

Now it's your turn to avoid conflating beliefs and religion. This may well be true of the God of your religion but it is not implicit to the general concept of gods and therefore not what we're talking about. I'd respectfully recommend you continue to use the lower-case g here to keep that context in mind.

I am not religious, and I do not pretend to know that God/gods exists, or what the nature of their existence would be. I am a theist by choice, not by knowledge or belief. I use the upper case to designate the meta-concept of God, as opposed to any specific religious god-concept. "God" as the English term referring to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

The representations are different because they are representations of different gods. Pretty much the only reasons any religions have any of the same aspects of their gods is that the split off from the same source (like the Abrahamic faiths) or elements have been merged when peoples with different beliefs encountered each other (like the Greek and Roman pantheons).

There are a hundred different words for and dozens of different phenomenal presentations of the molecule H2O. They are all different, and yet they are all directly related to that molecule. This is how things are from our limited binary perspective within a huge holistic and yet very, very complex existential event. Whatever God is, or isn't, it's by definition far beyond our comprehension. And that means it is a mystery to us that will almost certainly remain a mystery. The words and images and stories and rituals and ideals we associate with that mystery depends on who we are, where we live, and when, and how. But the great mystery remains, and remains evident to all humans throughout all times and places. There has never been an tribe, community, city, or civilization made up of atheists. "God" is written into our DNA. You can reject it if you want to, but as there is no reason for doing so, and there are some good reasons for NOT doing so, rejecting the possibiities seems foolish, to me. But you do you, as they say.

Again, not God, god or gods. And trying to present an "atheist's solution" as simple another option in the long list of proposed gods or pantheons is simply wrong.

I couldn't care less how long the list of human god concepts is. Any more than I care about how many words and stories we humans have invented for the substance H2O over the centuries. Nor do I care that a few humans refuse to accept the concept of God, because whatever we call it or refuse to call it, the great mystery that the words and images refer to, remains. Whether we label it or not, or "believe in" it or not, or whether we acknowledge it or not. The mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, including us, remains. Unknown. Yet ever-present. Because the ability and the desire to ask thse questions is written into our DNA. And has been from the beginning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet Atheism dictates a certain stance towards religions based on a certain opinion about the existence/non-existence of God

It is an opinion about God beliefs that causes non-religiousness to be practiced

Hence it is an opinion about religions

Atheism doesn't dictate anything. Atheism describes those who have not taken a position that a god or gods exist.

 

[PureX]

Accepting belief for what it is, is the ego being humbled. Denying belief when it exists is the ego needing to assume and maintain an illusion of righteousness.

What is, is, whether I believe it is, or not. That's what I believe, now. So from here on out, I see little need for belief.

 

[PureX]

Atheism doesn't dictate anything. Atheism describes those who have not taken a position that a god or gods exist.

They aren't atheists, either. Their just undecided.

 

[Nakosis]

"Lack of belief" describes nothing as there in no logical expectation regarding "belief" in the first place, that could then be "lacking". It requires no label at all as it's just meaningless gibberish.

What is actually occurring is the rejection of someone else's (proclaimed) belief. It's not a "lack", it's a rejection (the opposite of acceptance). The terms "disbelief" and "non-believer" both apply, here, but relative to the position, and to the person holding the position, respectively.

"Unbelief" does not. "Unbelief" is the cousin of "lack of belief", neither of which refer to anything. They are meaningless gibberish.

Gibberish to you because you won't connect these concepts in your head.

The term "atheism" refers to the antithetical of theism. It is not just non-acceptance of the theist proposition. It is the antithetical to the theist proposition; i.e., it is the rejection of theism. Theism being the philosophical proposition that God/gads exist and in a way that matters to us (or should matter to us). Atheism is then the active philosophical rejection of that proposition: i.e., that God/gods do not exist in any way that matters to us (or should matter to us). These are first and foremost philosophical terms that refer to philosophical positions. They are not about whether or not anyone "believes in" them.

A theist is therefor someone that accepts the theistic proposition as valid, while an atheist is someone that rejects that proposition as invalid. The point being that the atheist is NOT INDIFFERENT. And atheism is not a non-position in spite of the many and constant lies to the contrary.

Not how I use the term. Atheism meaning without theism.
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

So gibberish to you as you as you have define the word for yourself.
However I will continue to use the term in this way because it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They aren't atheists, either. Their just undecided.

"People who have not taken a position that a god or gods exist" includes a range of people:

- people who have taken the position that some gods do not exist (provided that they haven't taken the positionthat dome other god does exist).
- people who have taken the position that no gods exist (if such a thing is even possible).
- people who have not taken any position on any gods (if such a thing is even possible).

All of these people are atheists.

 

[dybmh]

What is, is, whether I believe it is, or not. That's what I believe, now. So from here on out, I see little need for belief.

You have a belief that belief isn't need. M'Kay.

 

[dybmh]

"People who have not taken a position that a god or gods exist" includes a range of people:

- people who have taken the position that some gods do not exist (provided that they haven't taken the positionthat dome other god does exist).
- people who have taken the position that no gods exist (if such a thing is even possible).
- people who have not taken any position on any gods (if such a thing is even possible).

All of these people are atheists.

None of those people are agnostic.

 

[PureX]

Gibberish to you because you won't connect these concepts in your head.

There is noting to connect. There is no "lack of" without an "expectation of". And there is no expectation of 'belief' because belief is nothing more than an internalized presumption of righteousness. It means nothing to anyone but ourselves and it provides noting for consideration to others. Its just useless gibberish.

Not how I use the term. Atheism meaning without theism.

You can use the term any way you want. But that isn't what the word actually means. Because "without theism" is an infinite set of possibilities. Which renders it a meaningless term because as such it defines nothing. My fernace is "without theism". The moons of Jupiter are "without theism". If it includes anything then it defines nothing.

What "atheism" actually refers to is the antithetical to theism. And that means the rejection of the theist proposition. Which is the logical antithetical to accepting it. And rejection is not a non-position, nor an undetermined one.