Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Valjean]

No. I am explaining to you that if I put the term atheism in proper case, I'm referring to it as a religion. I follow the same convention with the word "paganism," where by in lower case I am not referring to religious practices and in proper case I am. It is grammatical convention to put religions in proper case.

How can it be a religion if it has no doctrine, system of ethics or beliefs of any kind?

It isn't. A conviction needs to be deeply held for me to call it "religious." Or, as @Windwalker puts it, something of ultimate concern for that person... something that is an anchor or axis of their worldview or way of life. One can be "religious" about sports fandoms, taking care of one's children, etc.

But atheists have no convictions. Atheism is a lack of conviction.

I'm not one of them. I simply find the word accurate to use in at least some cases. Atheists who are particularly devoted to their atheism and make it a big deal in their life are certainly religious about their atheism. If atheists are disturbed by being called religious, I'd suggest they might re-examine what the word "religious" means and why they respond to it so negatively. "Religious" is not a dirty word. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I don't think you're talking about your average atheist. I think you're talking about a small coterie of militant, strong atheists.

 

[Acim]

Frankly, I tend to disregard the people who say "God is love." I don't think they're actually equating God and love.

I am one of these people.

Instead, I think they're doing one of a few things:

- repeating something nice-sounding from their scriptures without putting much thought into it.

Not true in my case.

- expressing a belief that their God - a literal entity that can do physical things - is the ultimate source of all love, and that loving act by people are in line with God's will.

Not accurate with me in on the first part (can do physical things), though debatable. Ultimate source of love is accurate from my perspective. Loving act by people is debatable.

- using a tactic to avoid being challenged on the real-world claims that they or their religion makes.

I don't shy away from such challenges, so not really accurate in my case.

So the middle one is perhaps accurate (though debatable), but thus far I don't see a viable challenge (from you, or anyone) to have me conclude otherwise.

 

[Acim]

No.

Atheists have an extremely wide range of perspectives and philosophies.

The only thing they all have in common is that they reject the claim that a god or gods exist (mostly based on lack of evidence).

How the rejection appears, does at least some of the time, appear as a matter of faith. IOW, they trust the evidence as they identify it. Since we have lots of other debate threads on this, we can hash that out there, or here, but I'd stand by the idea that it is a matter of faith.

 

[Acim]

How can it be a religion if it has no doctrine, system of ethics or beliefs of any kind?

Beliefs of atheists:
- there are no gods
- there is no evidence for gods

If there are gods and/or evidence for gods, atheists via their beliefs, can still maintain their atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I am explaining to you that if I put the term atheism in proper case, I'm referring to it as a religion. I follow the same convention with the word "paganism," where by in lower case I am not referring to religious practices and in proper case I am. It is grammatical convention to put religions in proper case.

It's grammatical convention to capitalize proper nouns in general, from names of religious groups to movie titles to the names of political movements.

What makes "Atheism" a religion? What are the tenets of the religion called "Atheism"? How does "Atheism" differ from "atheism"?

It isn't. A conviction needs to be deeply held for me to call it "religious." Or, as @Windwalker puts it, something of ultimate concern for that person... something that is an anchor or axis of their worldview or way of life. One can be "religious" about sports fandoms, taking care of one's children, etc.

I have Windwalker on ignore, so I don't see things that he posts unless someone else quotes him without the header info.

Regardless, I've heard that definition before from others; I reject it. If someone goes to his Baptist church every Sunday, sincerely believes in its teachings and tries to follow them, etc., that's his religion... even if he cares about the Green Bay Packers more than his church.

It's a backwards way of looking at things. Just because someone feels their religion is very important to them doesn't mean that what's important to everyone else is their religion.

I'm not one of them. I simply find the word accurate to use in at least some cases. Atheists who are particularly devoted to their atheism and make it a big deal in their life are certainly religious about their atheism. If atheists are disturbed by being called religious, I'd suggest they might re-examine what the word "religious" means and why they respond to it so negatively. "Religious" is not a dirty word. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I think we may disagree on what "religion" means. I would say that it means something along the lines of "a community of shared belief, practice, and worship."

IOW, if there's no community, it isn't a religion. If there's no worship, it isn't a religion.

A religion isn't just any cause that someone feels strongly about.

No, it does not, and I didn't say that it did. But it does make one religious about that thing. Religious =/= religion. Granted, the things one is religious about are typically the underpinnings of one's religion.

"Religious" means "relating to or believing in a religion." It implies a religion. No religion, no "religious".

What? How on earth did you get that from what I said? I don't think that at all!

You argued that the reasons why theists and atheists do similar things is that atheists act in a religious way. I'm saying that both atheists and theists act in a human way.

Frankly, I could not tell you what "live like a theist" or "live like an atheist" even looks like. That sounds like nonsense. "Live like a Catholic" or "live like a geologist or "live like a gamer" are things that compute.

It varies depending on the beliefs of the theist, but for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of theists I've ever encountered live as if the god they believe in might as well not exist. If they ended up atheists, the only difference in their behaviour would be where they spend their Sunday mornings (or other worship times) and which charities they support.

Generally, people who say they trust in God, rely on God, trust in Heaven, etc. don't actually act as would be expected if they really did trust and rely on these things.

 

[Willamena]

But atheists have no convictions. Atheism is a lack of conviction.

That's not so. Atheism is not believing in gods, and for some of us it is a strong conviction.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If a series of dispersed yet recurrent claims by Muslims is to be believed, all human beings are supposedly believers in the God of the Qur'an literally from birth and the only reasons why not everyone are Muslims are the lack of awareness of the message of the Qur'an and some sort of misguidance from their social environments.

Oh, and of course there are those remarkably ill-defined kafir (plural kuffar) who have the nerve to say out aloud that they disbelieve the Qur'an.

There is not too much of a consensus on whether that is caused by ignorance, stubborness, mental illness or just plain wickedness, apparently because the Qur'an itself dedicates a lot of space to the matter with a not-quite-coherent message.

That is probably why some people will say that only outright liars (people who know the Qur'an to be true but deny it anyway) qualify as kuffar, while others say that all non-Muslims are kuffar: there is not a lot of effort to acknowledge a distinction between the two groups, and what little there is is very much at odds with itself.

For much the same reasons, it is almost by definition impossible for any critics of Islam not to be automatically branded as "hate speechers". Islam presumes wickedness of anyone who is not willing to embrace it.

I don't want everyone to think like me, but there are lots of basic tenants of decency I wish were universally adopted.

However I long ago gave up thinking I could control how others think and act. So here I am, trying to do what I think is right, married to a woman of much the same mind, doing our best to raise 2 kids with those qualities.

What little influence I have stops at those doors. People believe what they've been convinced to believe I guess. I do find belief without honest self reflection grating though.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

How the rejection appears, does at least some of the time, appear as a matter of faith. IOW, they trust the evidence as they identify it. Since we have lots of other debate threads on this, we can hash that out there, or here, but I'd stand by the idea that it is a matter of faith.

Trust is a tricky word.

The whole idea of skepticism is not that you only trust naturalistic explainations, or that you only mistrust any potential supernatural explainations.

It only means that you want your understanding of reality to conform as closely as possible to actual reality.

If I am given a supernatural claim, but no evidence to explain it, and no demonstrable way to replicate the phenomena, then I have no warrant to accept that claim as likely.

On the ther hand, there are many other naturalistic claims that I accept as probably true, because there is enough evidence to give me warrant to accept the claim.

Can you give me an example of a common rejection of a supernatural claim where you believe the rejection is faith based?

Maybe we can go from there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They have faith in doubt. Right? Please

Regards

Where does faith apply when atheism is just a response to theism?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But atheists have no convictions. Atheism is a lack of conviction.

I actually liked your post, but I have a nit-pick. Sorry, just a bug bear of mine...

Atheists have convictions. All sorts of convictions. Atheism not so much.

 

[Quintessence]

How can it be a religion if it has no doctrine, system of ethics or beliefs of any kind?

But atheists have no convictions. Atheism is a lack of conviction.

I don't think you're talking about your average atheist. I think you're talking about a small coterie of militant, strong atheists

Please read what I said earlier and feel free to ask if you have questions (I added some extra emphasis to the original wording):

Putting it in proper case like that would mean discussing atheism as religion for the subset of atheists that applies to. Essentially a religious conviction that there are no gods, along with a set of other ideas that can be simplistically characterized as materialistic scientism. Behaviorally, there are parallels to Evangelical Christians in that such folks can be well... basically atheist versions of corner-side preachers.

 

[Quintessence]

What makes "Atheism" a religion? What are the tenets of the religion called "Atheism"? How does "Atheism" differ from "atheism"?

See my response to Valjean that references a post I made earlier.

IOW, if there's no community, it isn't a religion. If there's no worship, it isn't a religion.

What is "worship" to you?

"Religious" means "relating to or believing in a religion." It implies a religion. No religion, no "religious".

That is one usage of the term "religious." There are several others. I was using one of the others. Hopefully that clarifies.

You argued that the reasons why theists and atheists do similar things is that atheists act in a religious way. I'm saying that both atheists and theists act in a human way.

No, that is not what I mean, and not what I said. Ultimately, labeling a behavior as "religious" or not is attributive. Any and all behaviors can be described as "religious" or can be acts of devotion or worship in a particular religion. It is part of why I don't see these divides that you do. I notice this a lot because I am part of a religious minority of my country. Most folks stuck in the Abrahamic classical monotheist morass would call something like planting trees "not religious," or call studying natural sciences "not religious," or call wearing a necklace of planet earth "not religious." Well, for me, it is "religious" - and in the sense that you mentioned earlier of "relating to religion." It is all religion, to somebody. And it is all irreligion, to someone else. So I do not see this divide.

It varies depending on the beliefs of the theist, but for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of theists I've ever encountered live as if the god they believe in might as well not exist. If they ended up atheists, the only difference in their behaviour would be where they spend their Sunday mornings (or other worship times) and which charities they support.

Generally, people who say they trust in God, rely on God, trust in Heaven, etc. don't actually act as would be expected if they really did trust and rely on these things.

Fair observation. There've been times I've considered a thread topic relating to things like this. This touches on a truth that any discipline done right takes a lot of work and time investment. Few are willing to make such investments, especially in a culture that makes it more difficult than it should be.

 

[Valjean]

That's not so. Atheism is not believing in gods, and for some of us it is a strong conviction.

That may be true for you, but there are many atheists without convictions.

Where does faith apply when atheism is just a response to theism?

Why does atheism have to be a 'response' to anything? There are atheists here and there unfamiliar with any theistic religion. I'd expect someone who was never taught about Gods to be atheist, unless he was a very imaginative sort.

 

[psychoslice]

No they have faith that your wrong if you cannot prove what you believe, they use their intelligence, not their emotions.

 

[Willamena]

Let me simplify this.

"But atheists have no convictions. Atheism is a lack of conviction."

That may be true for you, but there are many atheists whose atheism is their conviction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why does atheism have to be a 'response' to anything? There are atheists here and there unfamiliar with any theistic religion. I'd expect someone who was never taught about Gods to be atheist, unless he was a very imaginative sort.

If there were no theists. Athiesm wouldn't. even exist as a term.

 

[Valjean]

Please read what I said earlier and feel free to ask if you have questions (I added some extra emphasis to the original wording): ...Essentially a religious conviction that there are no gods, along with a set of other ideas that can be simplistically characterized as materialistic

Understood, but I'm taking the "conviction there are no Gods" part. Strong atheists may have this conviction, but the sine qua non of atheism is simply a lack of belief.

[QUOTE="Willamena.
Let me simplify this.
That may be true for you, but there are many atheists whose atheism is their conviction.

LOL -- OK, point taken, but you're speaking of a subset of strong atheists.

 

[psychoslice]

If there were no theists. Athiesm wouldn't. even exist as a term.

Yes, someone has to keep them honest lol.

 

[Willamena]

... but you're speaking of a subset of strong atheists.

In one opinion. But atheists nonetheless.

 

[Desert Snake]

They have faith in doubt. Right? Please

Regards

Yes, you can use the word that way. I would personally not call atheism a ''faith'', though..
I did reference to it as a religion in another thread addressing such, though. I have now revised my position, to such, that although atheism is faith based, it is not a ''religion''