Is atheism a religion?

[ecco]

All philosophical positions are rational and practical to those who hold them. And as such, they should be logically defensible. That's what philosophy is all about: logically defending an asserted position on the truth.

Correction...
phi·los·o·phy
/fəˈläsəfē/
noun

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

 

[ecco]

That's right, so that when an atheist claims there are no gods (proposes this view of truth/reality), the burden of defending such an assertion becomes his. Just as to assert that 'God X' does exist, would likewise then demand that the persons asserting this be able to defend their assertion.

"Proof" is a burden that's only relevant to the individual doing the assessing, as the criteria for such is entirely subjective.

Proof is for mathematics. I pretty sure you know that.

I'm pretty sure gravity is a real thing but I can't prove it. Maybe the God who created everything Last Thursday is making sure that everything that goes up comes down.

 

[ecco]

Yes, the purpose of which is to excuse oneself from having to defend their assertions while demanding that everyone else must do so.

Who does that? Oh yeah, Creationists, Anti-evolutionists, Theists, etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sure that took a lot less thoughtful consideration than a meaning response would have. Are you afraid to address the questions lest it would make you think?

Addressed the questions as meaningfully as possible. I have made my views as clear and specific as possible. Your fishing around with stuff that reflects your agenda instead of questions that may be subject to a constructive response.

 

[`mud]

Mathematics.... `Proofs` are beyond the infinite lines of invisible chalk.

 

[shunyadragon]

You haven't addressed it in the past. You haven't addressed it in the above.



It is relevant to your inability to address the issues presented.

Phffffftttt! Plop! Plop!

 

[ecco]

Nonsense. There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Do you believe in the Golden Plates? Do you think that Ogun is a real god or that Ogun is the creation of man's imaginings? How about Zeus? Then, using your logical brain, extend that to Jesus and Allah and the God Who Created Everything Last Thursday.

Addressed the questions as meaningfully as possible. I have made my views as clear and specific as possible. Your fishing around with stuff that reflects your agenda instead of questions that may be subject to a constructive response.

Integrity Check.
I stated that "There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings."

I wanted to determine if you agreed or disagreed. I posed some questions...

Do you believe in the Golden Plates?​

You did not respond with an answer.

Do you think that Ogun is a real god or that Ogun is the creation of man's imaginings?​

You did not respond with an answer.

How about Zeus?​

You did not respond with an answer.

Your assertion that you "Addressed the questions as meaningfully as possible." is untrue because you did not address them at all.

Your accusation that I'm "fishing around with stuff that reflects [my] agenda" is baseless. I was eliciting your views.

My questions do deserve a constructive response. You have not and will not answer them because, as I wrote, then those answers would have to be extended to Jesus and Allah.

 

[shunyadragon]

Integrity Check.
I stated that "There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings."

There is no objective verifiable evidence to support this 'belief.'

I wanted to determine if you agreed or disagreed. I posed some questions...

Do you believe in the Golden Plates?​

I do not believe that that the golden plates ever existed, but I have no evidence to confirm that they did not exist.

​

You did not respond with an answer.

Do you think that Ogun is a real god or that Ogun is the creation of man's imaginings?​

You did not respond with an answer.

How about Zeus?​

You did not respond with an answer.

I do not have any objective verifiable evidence that Ogun nor Zeus exist or not. Any conclusions I would make is based on 'belief.'

Your assertion that you "Addressed the questions as meaningfully as possible." is untrue because you did not address them at all.

Your accusation that I'm "fishing around with stuff that reflects [my] agenda" is baseless. I was eliciting your views.

My questions do deserve a constructive response. You have not and will not answer them because, as I wrote, then those answers would have to be extended to Jesus and Allah.

Likewise I have no objective verifiable evidence either way, and any conclusions I make are based on belief, Your conclusions would also be based on 'belief' and not the evidence.

This reflects the view I gave that there is no objective verifiable evidence for nor against the existence of Gods.

Yes as stated above. This is the most meaningful response already repeated a number of times. The questions have been answered.

There is an issue here that you are OFF TOPIC. I am not in this thread to address OFF TOPIC issues, nonetheless I gave a general response that applies to all of the above. Basing your conclusions as factual, proved or demonstrated is an 'argument from ignorance.'

 

[lukethethird]

Their philosophy simply is the belief that Gods do not exist.

Wow, that's some philosophy. Does it come with a degree?

 

[lukethethird]

That's right, so that when an atheist claims there are no gods (proposes this view of truth/reality), the burden of defending such an assertion becomes his. Just as to assert that 'God X' does exist, would likewise then demand that the persons asserting this be able to defend their assertion.

"Proof" is a burden that's only relevant to the individual doing the assessing, as the criteria for such is entirely subjective.

It works both ways, when a theist claims those other gods don't exist we don't see anyone putting the burden of proof on them, but that could be because we all know darn well those other gods don't exist.

 

[PureX]

Correction...
phi·los·o·phy
/fəˈläsəfē/
noun

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

I don't see how this is a "correction" of anything I posted.

 

[PureX]

Proof is for mathematics. I pretty sure you know that.

Mathematics is an ideology that acts like language. It's doesn't "prove" anything but that it's conceptually ideal: like justice, perfection, and infinity.

I'm pretty sure gravity is a real thing but I can't prove it.

The real question is why anyone would think they should need to.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow, that's some philosophy. Does it come with a degree?

No. It is actually a simpler less complex belief than the ancient religions like Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Milton Platt]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

 

[Milton Platt]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

I have no objections to a God that does not manifest in any way whatsoever. It would be the same as if he didn't exist............
I don't see how if someone is emotional or angry or urgent about a topic, that makes the person religious.

To your point, I would think it would be better if everyone could stick to being rational instead of emotional. But we will all die waiting for that.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheism is not a religion, but it can become a kind of anti-religious religion for some people, in that it becomes a collection of ideals, rules, rituals, dogmas, etc., that they engage in to help them live by their theological position; that no gods exist.

To posit and maintain that no gods exist, is a theological position. And religions are collections of ideals and practices that humans use to help them live according to their chosen theological positions.

Do these atheists you speak of have to keep reminding themselves that no gods exist? Are there people wondering around reminding themselves that Santa Claus doesn't exist? I just can't imagine what that would be like.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Classical athiesm is simply making the claim that no god exists. New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods.

To believe something is to claim it.

So now Atheism is a "psychological state", which by definition is a mental condition. Where in the new definition of Atheism is the mental condition of "lacking belief of God" included? What would be the cure, blind obedience? Pious servitude? Belief based only on faith? Social/cultural conformity? Mind numbing drugs or brainwashing indoctrinations? Or, just the abandonment of common sense and reason? What are the symptoms of this malaise or malady? I'm afraid that the only cure for this "psychological state" is objective verifiable evidence. You wouldn't have any of that, would you?

There is no difference between the definition of new Atheism or classical Atheism. Both state a disbelief in God based on the total lack of evidence. There is however a difference between the classical Atheists and the new Atheists. The classic Atheists usually keep their disbelief in God to themselves, whereas the new Atheists do not. The new Atheists feel that some people may be afraid to critically think for themselves, and question the nature of their beliefs.They also feel that by promoting education, reason, and critical thinking, they may protect others from the spread of this insidious intellectual erosion. As long as religious beliefs and practices do not encroach on my freedom FROM religion, I couldn't care less what supernatural security blankets grown men want to wrap themselves up in.

So, it is a lie that the New Atheism is a "psychological state"(mental condition), of "lacking belief of God. Atheism is NOT a belief that NO GODS EXISTS. There may be Gods in another Universe or in another dimension, no one knows this. So stop trying to make this claim to fit your invalid narrative. Atheist are not convinced due to the total lack of evidence, that A GOD exist. This is the God that the people on this planet believe does exist. I can't make this any clearer without crayons, pictures, and larger letters.

I guess David Hannum(not P. T. Barnum) was correct, "there's a sucker born every minute". Do you know what the crowd, in ancient Egypt did to the person that exposed to them that they were being conned? They stoned him to death. It is truly a psychological state to defend a lie, than to embrace the truth. I'm always reminded of the simian parody on religion in the planet of the apes. It still gives me a laugh.

 

[Curious George]

So now Atheism is a "psychological state", which by definition is a mental condition. Where in the new definition of Atheism is the mental condition of "lacking belief of God" included? What would be the cure, blind obedience? Pious servitude? Belief based only on faith? Social/cultural conformity? Mind numbing drugs or brainwashing indoctrinations? Or, just the abandonment of common sense and reason? What are the symptoms of this malaise or malady? I'm afraid that the only cure for this "psychological state" is objective verifiable evidence. You wouldn't have any of that, would you?

There is no difference between the definition of new Atheism or classical Atheism. Both state a disbelief in God based on the total lack of evidence. There is however a difference between the classical Atheists and the new Atheists. The classic Atheists usually keep their disbelief in God to themselves, whereas the new Atheists do not. The new Atheists feel that some people may be afraid to critically think for themselves, and question the nature of their beliefs.They also feel that by promoting education, reason, and critical thinking, they may protect others from the spread of this insidious intellectual erosion. As long as religious beliefs and practices do not encroach on my freedom FROM religion, I couldn't care less what supernatural security blankets grown men want to wrap themselves up in.

So, it is a lie that the New Atheism is a "psychological state"(mental condition), of "lacking belief of God. Atheism is NOT a belief that NO GODS EXISTS. There may be Gods in another Universe or in another dimension, no one knows this. So stop trying to make this claim to fit your invalid narrative. Atheist are not convinced due to the total lack of evidence, that A GOD exist. This is the God that the people on this planet believe does exist. I can't make this any clearer without crayons, pictures, and larger letters.

I guess David Hannum(not P. T. Barnum) was correct, "there's a sucker born every minute". Do you know what the crowd, in ancient Egypt did to the person that exposed to them that they were being conned? They stoned him to death. It is truly a psychological state to defend a lie, than to embrace the truth. I'm always reminded of the simian parody on religion in the planet of the apes. It still gives me a laugh.

Lol, wow.

That is quite the rant.

Anyhow, new atheism is the psychological state of lacking belief. It describes a state of mind as opposed to making a philosophical claim.

I am not sure why you think there shpuld be a "cure" for this psychological state.

Let me repeat: lacking a belief in god is a description of a psychological state.

Belief that no god exists is a philosophical claim.

There should be no issue here. This is a plain fact to see.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

All philosophical positions are rational and practical to those who hold them. And as such, they should be logically defensible. That's what philosophy is all about: logically defending an asserted position on the truth.
Of course there is, which is why so many people choose to believe in some ideal of "God". Just as there is rational evidence to support to proposition that no gods exist at all. Which is why atheist believe this to be so.
Everyone is "philosophical" to some degree. Anytime we defend our positions regarding the truth of reality, using logic and/or reason, we are engaging in philosophical debate.
That's right, so that when an atheist claims there are no gods (proposes this view of truth/reality), the burden of defending such an assertion becomes his. Just as to assert that 'God X' does exist, would likewise then demand that the persons asserting this be able to defend their assertion.

"Proof" is a burden that's only relevant to the individual doing the assessing, as the criteria for such is entirely subjective.

For the last time. I can't speak for all Atheists and free thinkers, but I don't claim that NO GODS EXISTS. That would be a silly claim. Even more sillier than A GOD EXISTS. I am claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that a GOD EXISTS. I can easily point out Godly paradoxes; the question of evil, suffering, and diseases, and cruelty in the world; the non-answering of prayers; no violations of physical laws ever; no evidence for resurrections and miracles; and no evidence for the existence of anything that is supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual. These truths trump your bandwagon fallacy. So spare me your philosophical gymnastics and pseudo-sophistry. We are not talking about proof, we are talking about degrees of certainty. By your silly logic Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny can be dining in Brooklyn. What is the rational and philosophical evidence needed to disprove this absurd proposition? Hint: you can't prove a negative. So stop misrepresenting what Atheism is.

I have presented rational and philosophical evidence and reasons that supports my lack of belief. What is the rational and philosophical evidence and reason that supports your belief, that God does exist? Never mind, like all the rest, I don't expect a rational answer. One uses science, and the other uses faith.

Of course there is, which is why so many people choose to believe in some ideal of "God". Just as there is rational evidence to support to proposition that no gods exist at all. Which is why atheist believe this to be so.

Using the "bandwagon"(argument ad populum), fallacy as objective evidence, is intellectually flawed and dishonest. It makes the assumption that whatever is the majority belief, is also a valid belief. You remember like, flat earth, Zeus, Leprechauns, the sun revolving around the planets, religious creations, to name a few of the majority beliefs. Therefore, not very credible logic.

You also seem to forget that Atheist are not making the claim that a God exists, believers are. It is an extraordinary claim, therefore, it requires extraordinary evidence. Since there is no evidence, the claim is based entirely on faith. Therefore the claim is logically invalid. This is also why believers are reduced to attacking claims made by science. Rather than accept the idea that they are nothing more than sheep following thousands of different shepherds to feel good about themselves, they attack science to avoid facing the true mirrored reflection of themselves. When you consider man's potential, it is truly a waste of mental resources.

Another thing believers fail to understand, is that their evidence must stand alone and should be religion-specific. Throughout history, it is science that has disproved religious beliefs. Name any event in history where religions beliefs have disproved science(not influenced science)? What religious methodology was used? If all of science was proven wrong tomorrow, you would still have to deposit some objective evidence to support any religious claims for the existence of a God. So stop clinging to the curtains of faith and un-falsifiability, and trying to take us all back to the Dark Ages, just because you refuse to keep up with change.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Lol, wow.

That is quite the rant.

Anyhow, new atheism is the psychological state of lacking belief. It describes a state of mind as opposed to making a philosophical claim.

I am not sure why you think there shpuld be a "cure" for this psychological state.

Let me repeat: lacking a belief in god is a description of a psychological state.

Belief that no god exists is a philosophical claim.

There should be no issue here. This is a plain fact to see.

Anyhow, new atheism is the psychological state of lacking belief.

Before you stated, that "New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods". My question was where is this stated in New Atheism? A simple question, based on your truth assertion. so back it up. Now your revised comment is just a psychological state lacking belief, period. More shell games. I say that both are the same, Atheism is the position or BELIEF that God does not exist, because no evidence of any kind can suggest that a God does exist. Since Atheism IS a psychological state of believing, by your own definition it cannot also be a psychological state of a lack of belief.

The definition of a psychological state includes defining it as a mental condition. Most people describe a mental condition as requiring some kind of treatment. If I said that many people like you have a mental condition, what do you think most people would think I meant? So why are you asking me why I would think a mental state would NOT need treatment. Clearly, you are inferring that Atheism is a mental condition, and not a philosophical position. Unless there is such a thing as a philosophical state, as well? Is it also a psychological state to ignore the total absence of evidence that produces the lowest possible degree of certainty? The only proven psychological state of disbelieving in a God or in anything spiritual, IS AFTER A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY. This is also a plain fact to see.

As I have stated before(and ignored), it is not my claim that NO GOD(S) exists. That is a nonsense claim. I claim there is no evidence to support a belief that A GOD EXISTS. Please learn the difference. I also hope that the change in font size will eventually remind you, every time you attempt to misrepresent Atheism, to fit your false equivocations and presuppositional biases.

Let me repeat: lacking a belief in god is a description of a psychological state.

Does this mean that the converse is true(all psychological states lack a belief)? How about the inverse(if a person has a belief in God, he does not have a psychological state)? All you have proven is how well you can manipulate philosophical truths and ideas, although both premises fail. Here's another philosophical truth used by Aristotle, that also fails. He stated that all things in reality either existed inside of the mind, or outside of the mind. He claimed since God was far to complicated to be comprehended inside the mind of man, therefore He must exist both inside and outside of the mind. Therefore, God must exist. This is also a philosophical claim. And, is the same intellectually dishonesty, as the pseudo-sophistry you're trying to peddle.

So either show that the two definitions of Atheism are different, and that a non-belief in anything is a clinical psychological state, or move on.