atheism is a (religious position)

[Eddi]

I'm sure that you realize that this is about nomenclature, not ontological status. I'm an agnostic atheist and humanist, and what that is doesn't depend on how one defines religion. Calling it a religion changes nothing about that set of beliefs and unbeliefs.

The purpose of prose is to communicate ideas. I have a thought in my head right now that you don't know about yet, but I want you to hold it as well for whatever purpose. If I choose my words well and you are literate in my language, that happens when I translate that idea into words, send them to you, and you render them as a thought in your head. Do these thoughts look alike? Are we thinking the same thought now? If so, I have achieved my purpose.

But to do this, the words must have limited, restricted meaning. The extension of a definition is the collection of things and types of things to which it refers. The more we can narrow that, the better success we have in sending ideas to one another using words. What you want to do is to broaden that extension, to include more kinds of things under the rubric of religion. This just makes it more difficult to know what you mean when you use the word.

Information theory concerns itself with this matter of the fidelity of the transmission of information mathematically: "Information theory is the mathematical study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information."

We have a similar problem in contract bridge, where we are trying to describe the strength and shape of our hands to our partners to decide or optimal contract or defense. The best bidding systems are the most granular, that is, the bids have the most limited and specific meanings. But we have orders of magnitude more possible hands to describe than bids and legal bidding sequences to represent them all, so each bid must describe a range of possible hands, but the fewer per bid, the better for communicating what you're looking at to your partner (and the opponents).

Likewise, ordinary language is the attempt to map a much smaller assortment of words onto a much larger assortment of possibilities to describe, and thus we must balance between giving words a range of meanings and limiting or constricting those meanings. We sould never broaden the meanings for no useful purpose.


OK. Now let's make the word hobby refer to everything (and therefore nothing). Let's let the word apply not just to the things we do but also to those we don't do, so now, when I tell you I have 347,000 hobbies, you can't tell if I have any that take my time.

Let's conflate those as well. Now ask me what I believe.

Here's a good idea. Let's give everybody the same name. Now you're Bob, and so am I. So is everybody else. "By the way, Bob called and wants you to call him back." "Bob who?" you ask. "I don't make such distinctions," I answer.


Speaking of collecting as a hobby, I have several of these assembled that might amuse some. The two best known ones come first:

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
Atheism is a religion like transparent is a color.
Atheism is a religion like health is a disease state.
Atheism is a religion like death is a lifestyle.
Atheism is a religion like nonsmoking is a habit.
Atheism is a religion like fasting is a menu entree.
Atheism is a religion like unemployment is a career choice.
Atheism is a religion like nudity is a fashion style.
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.
Atheism is a religion like off is a radio station and silence a song playing on it.

Yes, I no longer think that "Atheism is a religion" is reasonable

However I do maintain that it is a religious position

See this post

 

[Soandso]

Yes, I no longer think that "Atheism is a religion" is reasonable

However I do maintain that it is a religious position

See this post

Is it, though? What about the guy who when asked about god just says "Don't know, don't care"

 

[Eddi]

Is it, though? What about the guy who when asked about god just says "Don't know, don't care"

I'd say that is a religious opinion

But yes, it makes more sense to think of it as a lack of religion

I'd say this would be an instance of a person who has a religious position which leads to him avoiding religions, and such things as God

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You know, all theisms aren't religions either. Monotheism isn't a religion. Polytheism isn't a religion. There are religions that are monotheistic or polytheistic, however any type of theism, whether it is arguing for or against the existence of a God or Gods, aren't religions. Religions are spiritual traditions that encapsulate more than just basic theology. And there are atheist religions out there like Buddhism. But basic theological ideas do not cover enough ground by themselves to make them warranted an actual spiritual tradition, or religion. But you are correct that atheism is a religious position, as such as any theology is a religious position.

 

[Revoltingest]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

Philosophically, I agree with you that it's not.
But interestingly, atheism is a religion under our law.
This helps curb discrimination.

My "god concept".
1) Other people believe in such things.
2) I don't.

 

[HonestJoe]

For fun

I know it is something Atheists (on the whole) don't agree with so wanted to debate it a bit

For fun

Fair enough I guess. It's just that the whole idea of lumping atheists together as a singular group is almost exclusively done for the purpose of condemning, attacking or dismissing them all (much as when people talk about "the religious", "immigrants" or "teenagers").

The very fact that atheists can have such a wide and diverse set of opinions on the question should be a big clue to the answer in the first place though.

 

[PureX]

My position is defensible, and it's not that one. I'm an agnostic atheist - a position you either can't understand or refuse to believe can exist.

One can be both, but not based on any knowledge possessed, or on the expectation of gaining it. So the agnostic/atheist's atheism has to be based on something else. And that's the point where most atheists try to run and hide. They have not thought it through and so cannot express why they are atheists in a way that is not based on the expectation or presumption of knowledge.

If you are agnostic, then you neither have nor expect to gain the knowledge sufficient to determine if God exists or not. Yet if you are choosing to presume that God does not exist because you lack any knowledge of such an existence then this is a logically incoherent position. As your proclaimed agnosticism eliminates any expectation of God-knowledge. Yet here you are claiming the lack of it as the basis for your refusal to accept the proposed existence of God.

If you had some other reason besides the lack of knowledge for choosing not to accept the proposed existence of God, then your 'agnostic/atheist' position would not be incongruous. But so long as you keep insisting that you be given some means of knowing that God exists or you will continue to deny that assertion, you can't logically then also claim to be agnostic. Agnosticism results in the position, "I don't/can't know". Not in the position that no gods exist unless and until someone can somehow make me know otherwise.

But as always, you will refuse to acknowledge this glaring discrepancy. And you'll accuse me, instead. As does nearly every atheist I've encountered in the last 10 years.

It's you who needs to do a bit more thinking. Why would anybody take advice from somebody who can't understand this simple idea and who can never learn what the agnostic atheist believes?

Blah, blah, blah ...

 

[SalixIncendium]

Edit: and what goes for stamp collecting goes for believing in God

I was drawing an analogy.

 

[Heyo]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

What about Agnosticism? It's all about not having a god concept.

 

[PureX]

Eh. What's so logically indefensible about just not being convinced by the god concepts that have been presented or seen so far?

Well for one thing, they are other people's conceptions of God. So demanding that someone else's concept of God should convince you that God exists would be a very weird, and very unlikely thing to expect. Also, what does your or anyone's being 'convinced' that God exists have to do with God existing? People can become convinced of all kinds of things that may or may not be true. So God may exist whether you or I or anyone are convinced of it, or not. So I don't see why you're looking to be 'convinced' in the first place. As that has nothing to do with the answer to the question of God's existence.

It's an issue that we all have to work out for ourselves. No one else can tell us what God is, or if God exists. Those are questions that we have to ask and answer for ourselves. Others can tell us what they think God is, and if they think that God exists. But they don't actually know any more about God than we do. So I don't see much value in asking and debating them except perhaps if it's to help us develop our own concept of God. But if all we're looking for is to either be convinced by, or dismiss theirs, then that's just a waste of our time and energy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the agnostic/atheist's atheism has to be based on something else

It's the only logical position possible, since there is no sound argument that ends either, "therefore a god" or "therefore no god," and no other position is possible if both of those are unjustified beliefs.

And that's the point where most atheists try to run and hide.

You just can avoid expressing your atheophobic contempt. You imagine yourself as having something to run and hide from when all you have is your own inability to understand what you are told

They have not thought it through and so cannot express why they are atheists in a way that is not based on the expectation or presumption of knowledge.

You're expressing your intellectual limitations here, not that of the uncountable number of atheist who have all told you the same thing that you still don't understand.

if you are choosing to presume that God does not exist because you lack any knowledge of such an existence then this is a logically incoherent position.

You're still talking to yourself, aren't you?

But so long as you keep insisting that you be given some means of knowing that God exists or you will continue to deny that assertion, you can't logically then also claim to be agnostic. Agnosticism results in the position, "I don't/can't know". Not in the position that no gods exist unless and until someone can somehow make me know otherwise.

Still oblivious to what I and others have been telling you.

But as always, you will refuse to acknowledge this glaring discrepancy. And you'll accuse me, instead. As does nearly every atheist I've encountered in the last 10 years.

Almost every atheist in ten years has refused to agree with a claim of yours, and you can only think of one explanation for that - they're all intellectually deficient or lying to you.

Blah, blah, blah

I might as well have posted that for all the good what I did post did, which was " Why would anybody take advice from somebody who can't understand this simple idea and who can never learn what the agnostic atheist believes?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry if you cannot make sense of what I said

From your tone I get the impression you are not at all interested, but I'm going to clarify in case anyone else reading didn't get what I said.....

I believe that a "religion" and a "religious position" are not synonymous

Atheism is not a religion in that it doesn't have such things as a central authoritative text (Quran, Tanakh, Gospels), a formal membership structure, a clergy, worship rituals, holy buildings - etc.

It is however a religious position as it can inform what people say and think about religious and ethical issues, as well as about the nature of God

And I think that religions and religious positions are similar in that they can both be ways of relating to (or not relating to) God

All religions are also religious positions but not all religious positions are religions

The thing is, if Atheism is a religious position (which I think it is) then that would mean that Atheists do religion, when they do Atheism - even if they do not constitute a religion

Here's the context of what you quoted me as saying:

I initially set out to argue that atheism is a religion, but that didn't really work so I changed to arguing that it is a religious position

I no longer believe in the title of this thread so I made a clarification in big letters

Come to think of it, once I have posted this message I think I shall go and change the title, if that is possible....

I hope this helps?

And I'm sorry is you cannot make sense of what you said, but perhaps we can each take comfort in the fact that, according to one faith tradition, God himself was less than pleased with the tower of babble.

 

[Eddi]

What about Agnosticism? It's all about not having a god concept.

I'd say that Agnostics are unsure about which God Concept makes sense, and don't want to commit to one

 

[Altfish]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

 

[Heyo]

I'd say that Agnostics are unsure about which God Concept makes sense, and don't want to commit to one

So, I don't have a god concept because I'm (primarily and by choice) an Agnostic. But I'm also, by definition an atheist. What now?

 

[Eddi]

So, I don't have a god concept because I'm (primarily and by choice) an Agnostic. But I'm also, by definition an atheist. What now?

I'd say you are in a state of confusion and have not settled on any one God Concept

 

[Eddi]

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

It's a relationship to collecting stamps which is such that it makes one a non-stamp collector, which is a category of person

 

[Twilight Hue]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

No. Atheism is a response to theism whom started the whole thing in the first place.

It's a statement, not a religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How about this:

All humans have a God Concept?

I think they do

And I don't think it is much of a leap to say that one's God Concept influences how one lives one's life and what world view one has - for instance whether or not one goes to church, or whether or not one believes in evolution through natural selection, etc.


Yes, and all humans have a God Concept regardless of whether they are theists or atheists, or some other thing

I would venture to claim that all people have heard of the divine in one way or another (be it spirits, polytheism, monotheism) and hence hold some form of God Concept

As to what you are: whatever you say you are!

That comes across as being pretty desperate.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I lack belief in leprechauns, so much so i only ever think of them when someone make the silly statement that atheism is a religion.