Religion and Atheism

[Salvador]

Atheism is the logical sensible presumption that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural deity really doesn't exist, unless proven otherwise. Atheism is contrary to theism, the belief of theists, who make the nonsensical presumption that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural deity actually exists, unless proven otherwise.

 

[usfan]

I think it's important to keep religion and philosophy distinct. Over the centuries, many religious folk have attempted to use their religion to infringe on other domains, e.g. philosophy, spirituality, politics. I would agree that a common theme in religion is to try to answer philosophical questions. But philosophy should remain distinct in our minds. Same with spirituality and politics. We should keep them distinct from religion.

IMO, that is impossible. Humans NEVER differentiate between their beliefs, and blur facts, opinions, and indoctrination easily between every category..

Politics? Science? Worldview? Religion?

Those are all jumbled together in a primordial soup of beliefs, into a worldview, ideology, or religion. Pick your term. It describes the same thing.

 

[Altfish]

Non belief in something is still a belief. Why the fear of a term?

I don't fear the term; in fact in many countries to have atheism termed as a religion would bring many tax benefits.

I just continue to fail to understand how it can be termed a religion as a religion carries so much more baggage.

I have no belief in atheism. Doesn't that make me a non-believer in the atheistic belief?

Again, this is a nonsensical statement to me because I am (say) a non christian - but I still acknowledge that there is christian belief

 

[usfan]

I don't see why you can't see a nuanced view of such a complex concept. A big part of the problem is that religion is that, fundamentally, religion is about even more vague concepts. Even more poorly defined things, like gods and afterlives and spirits and supernatural(unknowable) things like that. So,
Tom

Ok, so 'religion', means 'anything connected to a belief in deities'. Buddhists are excluded, as well as most atheists. So only theists can be 'religious'. It is a synonym for 'theist', and means the same thing.

The 'freedom of religion' clause is just for legal purposes, and implies atheistic belief.

But 'religion' is only for theists. Is that how atheists prefer to see the term?

Are Buddhists non-religious, then? An organized 'Church of Atheism' is not religious, either? Only theists can be (and are, by definition), religious?

Why are there so many atheists, strongly presenting their beliefs, in a forum titled, 'Religious Forums?' Would that not be inappropriate, to camp in a theistic based forum?

 

[usfan]

Again, this is a nonsensical statement to me because I am (say) a non christian - but I still acknowledge that there is christian belief

..and i acknowledge the atheistic belief. What is the difference?

 

[icehorse]

IMO, that is impossible. Humans NEVER differentiate between their beliefs, and blur facts, opinions, and indoctrination easily between every category..

Politics? Science? Worldview? Religion?

Those are all jumbled together in a primordial soup of beliefs, into a worldview, ideology, or religion. Pick your term. It describes the same thing.

This whole thread is a discussion of the definitions of terms, correct? Are you now making a more general case that we should just succumb to conflations?

 

[Altfish]

..and i acknowledge the atheistic belief. What is the difference?

One is a positive belief, one is a rejection of that positive belief.

Anyway, you'll never convince me that it is a religion based on normal, accepted definitions.

 

[usfan]

Atheism is the logical sensible presumption that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural deity really doesn't exist, unless proven otherwise. Atheism is contrary to theism, the belief of theists, who make the nonsensical presumption that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural deity actually exists, unless proven otherwise.

Terminological bias. Yes, words can frame one philosophical belief as 'wise and sensible!', while demeaning the competition. ..A common religious practice.

But it is simpler, on the surface:

Atheism: belief in no God
Theism: belief in God

Both still beliefs. Both still religious opinions, that can kill each other for those opinions.

 

[Salvador]

1. God is undefined.

2. Do you agree/disagree with the following: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity does not possibly exist in a universe where children suffer.

 

[lukethethird]

Is atheism a religion?

If atheism is a religion then I want nothing to do with it.

 

[usfan]

1. God is undefined.

2. Do you agree/disagree with the following: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity does not possibly exist in a universe where children suffer.

1. Of course 'God' is undefined, and generic, to fit in the general 'theistic' descriptor (or 'religious', if you prefer).
2. Beliefs about suffering are a deflection, and have no bearing on the possibility of 'God/no God'.

Suffering is not the cause of God, nor proof of His nonexistence.

 

[ecco]

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists?

I've often wondered why religious folk, especially Christian Conservatives, are so keen on trying to equate atheism with religion. Do they (you) think that because we find your beliefs in all things supernatural to be silly, we should also find our own disbeliefs in all things supernatural to be silly?

It's almost like they know their ideas are ridiculous and want need to drag us down to their level are (ir)rationality.

 

[ecco]

I have no belief in atheism.

If what you say is true, you are calling me a liar when I say I am an atheist.

Perhaps what you mean is that you do not share any religious beliefs with atheists.

 

[Salvador]

1. Of course 'God' is undefined, and generic, to fit in the general 'theistic' descriptor (or 'religious', if you prefer).
2. Beliefs about suffering are a deflection, and have no bearing on the possibility of 'God/no God'.

Suffering is not the cause of God, nor proof of His nonexistence.

A highly powerful, knowing, caring theistic being would indeed neither allow children to get rapped nor suffer from disease; hence, this suffering of children is indicative of the non-existence of said highly powerful, knowing, caring theistic being.

If you disagree with this, then please explain why?

 

[usfan]

I've often wondered why religious folk, especially Christian Conservatives, are so keen on trying to equate atheism with religion. Do they (you) think that because we find your beliefs in all things supernatural to be silly, we should also find our own disbeliefs in all things supernatural to be silly?

It's almost like they know their ideas are ridiculous and want need to drag us down to their level are (ir)rationality.

Hi ecco.. our paths cross again, it seems.

Not me. I want to embrace my fellow wanderers and seekers of truth on this lonely planet. We are in this together, and i am inclusive in seeing my atheist brethren as fellow human beings, groping alone in the dark, looking for answers for our existence.

Maybe its all for naught, and we'll all die in a meaningless , godless universe, with no soul, no purpose, and no hope.

But maybe there is a spark of Awareness.. a glimmer of sight in a world of blindness.

We're all blind men groping for the elephant. Perhaps each of our perspectives will bring Enlightenment.

 

[ecco]

One is a positive belief, one is a rejection of that positive belief.

I consider atheism to be a positive belief.

It is a belief in the knowledge that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. It is no different, in essence, then belief in the knowledge that Spiderman is the creation of a man's imaginings.

 

[usfan]

If what you say is true, you are calling me a liar when I say I am an atheist.

Perhaps what you mean is that you do not share any religious beliefs with atheists.

Now, now.. let's be civil and real, here. I implied nor said anything of the sort..

A highly powerful, knowing, caring theistic being would indeed neither allow children to get rapped nor suffer from disease; hence, this suffering of children is indicative of the non-existence of said highly powerful, knowing, caring theistic being.

If you disagree with this, then please explain why?

You want me to delve into the Question of Suffering with a one liner?

Shirley, you jest.

 

[viole]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

Is lack of belief in sirens and cyclops a mythology?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

I consider atheism to be a positive belief.

It is a belief in the knowledge that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. It is no different, in essence, then belief in the knowledge that Spiderman is the creation of a man's imaginings.

OK, where do I get my tax benefits?

 

[columbus]

Suffering is not the cause of God, nor proof of His nonexistence.

It is, however, proof(compelling evidence) that the omnimax, benevolent, sentient being described by Abrahamic religion is irrational and logically incoherent.

Doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Tom