Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[PureX]

That's a pretty big departure from the generally accepted definition of "religion."

And it sounds rather circular too. Religions are things people use in order to be religious.

And it seems wrong anyway. As an atheist, I use science and reason to live my life. I never ask myself, "What does the Big Book or Atheism tell me about what foods I can eat, or how to wash myself?" I use other things like common sense, tools which even believers use.

But if you disagree, please give me a list of a few of these "tools" that an atheist might use to live an atheistic life. What ideals, rituals, practices, objects, texts, etc., would they use?

I've already posted, several times, that it is not common for atheists to be 'religious' about their atheism. I've only posted is that it's logically possible, and why I think so.

 

[MJFlores]

Clearly because of how the English language has evolved, "taking a dump" can be interpreted as a religious pursuit. But for those that want to remain intellectually honest, and actually know the difference between general intent and the specific intent of the definition, the absence of a belief in God, is not a belief in God by default. Except for fundamentalists, presuppositionalists, and those insecure with their own worldview. Is Atheism a pursuit? NO! How does one pursue Atheism(reification fallacy, false analogy, equivocation fallacy, and faulty inductive and deductive reasoning)? Is Atheism an interest? NO! It is the only rational position based on rational information(same fallacies). Do you consider Atheism the(?) supreme importance? NO!. This would require some method of worship, or some form of religiosity. The practices, rituals, ceremonies, divine artifacts, symbols and idols, are objectively designed to foster and maintain the belief in some kind of supernatural deity. None of these things exist in Atheism. It has nothing to do with the practices and rituals in religions. Atheism is simply a disbelief in a God(s) as worshipped in all Religions. Ask an Atheist WHY he/she disbelieves in the existence of God, and he/she will tell you, there is no practical, observable, logical, objective, provable, or reliable evidence to support a rational belief. If He/she will also ask you to demonstrate why your belief is right and the others are wrong, the answer will be avoided. Why can't believers posit any evidence to end Atheism(not science), instead of positing excuses why they can't?

Believers all fail to answer questions such as the above. So, they are forced to conflate Atheism and Theism as just another opposing religion. Simply because the word "God" is mentioned in both definitions. They go so far as saying that Atheists churches also exist, to advance their claim. Why do most believers justify the logic behind their beliefs, on an ancient compiled book of ancient verses and stories for children? They have no idea who the authors of the books in the Bible were, or that the Biblical(not historical) Christ?Jesus even existed. They have no idea of the nature of a God(s), or a Christ, or the divine nature of any Books, practices, or rituals. They can't even demonstrate if theirs is the right religion, and why all the others are false. Maybe you are correct. God seems to reward blind obedience, collectivism, ignorance, and blind faith, with a free pass into an imaginary afterlife. Evidence for this reward is only optional. Maybe this is all just an expression of our herding instincts, as part of the human condition. Or, maybe its something even deeper.



Well unbelievers will certainly not be alone. Their percentage will pale in comparison to the number of believers tormenting in the lake of burning sulfur. I suppose being conscious and aware of suffering, would be a big step-up from being clinically dead and rotting. But we have all experienced death for billions of years before life. So it is no stranger to me. No pearly gates, no 72 virgins promised by Allah(female suicide bombers), no eternal bliss, no being re-united with love ones, and no conscious sense of awareness. No NOTHING! Enjoy life now. Stop planning for an afterlife later. Surely you must instinctively know just how silly this sounds? Just because there is no absolute evidence to disprove any silly claims, doesn't mean we should abandon our common sense and intuition?


​

That was really long.....
There are too many points of here that I couldn't focus on one.

Anyways, the periods of having a false god [1970-85] and having no God [1993-2009] were over for me. During the time I was irreligious, I just drank booze, enjoy life with friends, work day in and day out. But it came to me that sooner or later everything would hit the fan because of what my sweet Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24. The seals have long been opened and the trumpets are about to be blown.

I think the world is not getting better, soon it will pop. The Lord God is my refuge when this happens while the rest of mankind will be thrown into chaos.

Why do I believe in the Lord God? Let me enumerate some of the reasons:

• To continue the life serving the Lord God without major problems amidst the turmoil in the world

Ecclesiastes 12:13 New International Version (NIV)
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.

• To die and enjoy the first resurrection when the last trumpet sounds or

1 Thessalonians 4:16 New International Version (NIV)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

• To be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ when the appointed hour comes.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 New International Version (NIV)
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

I believe in the Almighty God because i want to fulfill the duty given to all humans. A fish, animal, insect, plant or bacteria does not have this duty. The rest of the world is non compliant with this God given duty.

I believe in the Father Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ because I want to be saved on the last day.

There is no planning involved, no brainstorming, and I do not follow blindly.

My knowledge about God is from the bible because following without knowing is fanaticism which isn't the right thing to do and devoid of the truth.

 

[lukethethird]

No, I am referring to the application of a theological position in one's active life. Religions are collections of 'tools' (ideals, rituals, practices, objects, texts, etc.,) that people use to help them live according to their theological positions/beliefs. And since atheism is a theological position/belief, it is possible for an atheist to develop a set of such 'tools' intended to help him live accordingly, and it would not be unreasonable to call these tools and their usage, a 'religion'.

An atheist can be just as superstitious as any religious person and adopt such 'tools' as you suggest, such an atheist would merely hold one less superstition, a belief in god/s, that's all, one's so called theological position as it concerns god/s would otherwise have nothing to do with it, and proof of that is that there are atheists that are not superstitious at all.

 

[Tiberius]

I've already posted, several times, that it is not common for atheists to be 'religious' about their atheism. I've only posted is that it's logically possible, and why I think so.

That doesn't actually answer my question.

It seems you are merely trying to say that you shouldn't have to answer it because it's not common.

Please answer my question.

 

[MJFlores]

Um okay.

Could you address the content of my post now?

This must be your previous post:

Who cares if it's in the Bible?
I do care.

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny or not?
No I do not in Easter and its bunnies or its eggs.

And if you do not, are you then practicing a religion?
Yes I do. I do go to church twice a week and I have a church duty as a member of the Finance Department.


If you're going with that, then you're turning all kinds of non-religious things into religions.

It can make stamp collecting into a religion.
It can make skiing into a religion.
It can make reading into a religion.
It can make cooking into a religion.
It can make singing into a religion.

It would seem to make the word "religion" into something people don't actually mean when they use the word "religion," as well as making it rather meaningless.

Explained it that the word "religion" could be used metaphorically.
What is a metaphor?

met·a·phor
Dictionary result for metaphor
/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
noun
noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors

1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
   "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
   synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
   literaryconceit
   • a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
     "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"

 

[Tiberius]

So when you say "religion", you don't actually mean "religion."

You just mean something that is participated in with great fervour.

Yeah, that doesn't mean that atheists are religious in the same way that believers are...

 

[PureX]

An atheist can be just as superstitious as any religious person and adopt such 'tools' as you suggest, such an atheist would merely hold one less superstition, a belief in god/s, that's all, one's so called theological position as it concerns god/s would otherwise have nothing to do with it, and proof of that is that there are atheists that are not superstitious at all.

There are theists that are not superstitious, as well. Superstition is not a requirement for religion, nor for a theistic position. A theological position is "so called" because that's what it is: a position held in regard to the nature and existence of gods. The position that gods do not exist unless and until they can be proven to exist to the satisfaction of the atheist is a theological position held by that atheist.

 

[PureX]

That doesn't actually answer my question.

It seems you are merely trying to say that you shouldn't have to answer it because it's not common.

Please answer my question.

As I have also already posted, above, an atheist might employ such religious tools as the ideology of "scientism" (the belief that only science can provide humanity with 'the truth' of existence), and the practice of repeatedly arguing for and proselytizing their theological position whenever they perceive disagreement. These are both common aspects of religious theism, and both can be and are also employed 'religiously' by some atheists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This must be your previous post:

I do care.

What I'm asking is why should others care when you quote it to them?
Do you care if someone quotes say, the Quran to you?

No I do not in Easter and its bunnies or its eggs.

Okay, so you don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Do you think your lack of belief surrounding the existence of the Easter Bunny is a religion?

And if you do not, are you then practicing a religion?
Yes I do. I do go to church twice a week and I have a church duty as a member of the Finance Department.

Do you worship the non-existence of the Easter Bunny? Does it take faith to lack a belief in the existence of the Easter Bunny? Because that's what we're talking about. Try to stay on point here.

If you're going with that, then you're turning all kinds of non-religious things into religions.

It can make stamp collecting into a religion.
It can make skiing into a religion.
It can make reading into a religion.
It can make cooking into a religion.
It can make singing into a religion.

It would seem to make the word "religion" into something people don't actually mean when they use the word "religion," as well as making it rather meaningless.

Explained it that the word "religion" could be used metaphorically.
What is a metaphor?

met·a·phor
Dictionary result for metaphor
/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
noun
noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors

1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
   "her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
   synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
   literaryconceit
   • a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
     "the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"

View attachment 27200

Uh, so you're just using a literary tool when claiming that atheism is a religion? What good does that do?

You've made the word meaningless and useless. Congrats, I guess.

 

[lukethethird]

There are theists that are not superstitious, as well. Superstition is not a requirement for religion, nor for a theistic position. A theological position is "so called" because that's what it is: a position held in regard to the nature and existence of gods. The position that gods do not exist unless and until they can be proven to exist to the satisfaction of the atheist is a theological position held by that atheist.

All theists are superstitious by definition; they believe in supernatural causes. If an atheist held a theological position that atheist would be a theist. Atheists don't even know of the gods that they don't share beliefs in with the theist because it is left up to theists to describe these so called gods, it is not necessarily a pass time of atheists to describe gods. The theist's position is based on a superstitious way of thinking involving the supernatural, many atheists don't think that way and therefor do not hold a theological position.

 

[PureX]

All theists are superstitious by definition; they believe in supernatural causes.

I am a theist and I do not presume any "supernatural" causes.

If an atheist held a theological position that atheist would be a theist.

Please explain how you justify presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not a theological position regarding the nature and existence of gods.

Atheists don't even know of the gods that they don't share beliefs in with the theist because it is left up to theists to describe these so called gods, it is not necessarily a pass time of atheists to describe gods.

Atheists are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what the term "God" means both to themselves, and to the various theists they encounter. And, in fact, it is their presumed meaning of the term that they are asserting does not exist unless and until it can be proven to exist to their satisfaction.

The theist's position is based on some supernatural, superstitious way of thinking,...

Some are and some are not. Superstition is not a requirement of theism.

... many atheists don't think that way and therefor do not hold a theological position.

Atheism is a theological position, by definition, as it is the antithetical position to theism.

 

[lukethethird]

I am a theist and I do not presume any "supernatural" causes.

God is a supernatural entity by definition so I have know idea how you get around that one.

Please explain how you justify presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not a theological position regarding the nature and existence of gods.

Atheists can hold a worldview based on physics wherein supernatural entities and therefore superstitions of any sort do not play a role, they are just not mentioned, therefore the atheist's so called position is based on physics rather than a theological position.

Atheists are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what the term "God" means both to themselves, and to the various theists they encounter.

All an atheist needs to know is that gods are supernatural entities by definition, beyond that it is left up to the theists for details as to what their gods are capable of.

And, in fact, it is their presumed meaning of the term that they are asserting does not exist unless and until it can be proven to exist to their satisfaction.

Like I stated, physics adequately describes our experiences, no need to invoke the supernatural.

Some are and some are not. Superstition is not a requirement of theism.

Actually it is. Superstition is a prerequisite for theism

Atheism is a theological position, by definition, as it is the antithetical position to theism.

Atheism is a position based on physics wherein theology does not even get so much as a mention.

 

[ratiocinator]

Please explain how you justify presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not a theological position regarding the nature and existence of gods.

Presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not atheism. I asked you before for any reference to this as a definition of atheism and you couldn't provide one. Atheism is not believing in any gods. I have never even knowingly met anybody, either online or in real life, that takes that position. It most certainly isn't my position, and I regard myself as an atheist.

 

[Tiberius]

As I have also already posted, above, an atheist might employ such religious tools as the ideology of "scientism" (the belief that only science can provide humanity with 'the truth' of existence), and the practice of repeatedly arguing for and proselytizing their theological position whenever they perceive disagreement. These are both common aspects of religious theism, and both can be and are also employed 'religiously' by some atheists.

I'd hardly say that the opinion that science is the best tool we have for finding out how the universe works is a belief comparable to religious belief. We have actual results from science to back it up. Science has done more to advance our knowledge of the universe than religion ever has. And science can be checked.

 

[Tiberius]

Metaphor.

Yes, I know what a metaphor is.

Doesn't change my point.

Atheism is not a religion.

 

[PureX]

God is a supernatural entity by definition so I have know idea how you get around that one.

Easy, I don't know what God is, and I don't know what the limits of nature are, so I can determine what is or is not "supernatural". But I see no reason to presume that God and nature are mutually exclusive. I define God as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. As do many other theists. And that requires no superstition.

Atheists can hold a worldview based on physics wherein supernatural entities and therefore superstitions of any sort do not play a role, they are just not mentioned, therefore the atheist's so called position is based on physics rather than a theological position.
All an atheist needs to know is that gods are supernatural entities by definition, beyond that it is left up to the theists for details as to what their gods are capable of. Like I stated, physics adequately describes our experiences, no need to invoke the supernatural.
Actually it is. Superstition is a prerequisite for theism. Atheism is a position based on physics wherein theology does not even get so much as a mention.

Looks to me like your atheism is entirely dependent upon a false definition of theism: theism = superstition. Thus, I suspect you will refuse to stand corrected, or you'll have to rethink your whole premise. We'll see.

 

[PureX]

Presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not atheism.

It is the position of pretty much every atheist I've ever met. Though I admit many of them try to pretend it's not their position by claiming only "unbelief" (which by itself is not atheism, but agnosticism). But when queried, they all proclaim loudly and with great surety that their "unbelief" is based on there being "no evidence whatever" to cause them to believe in gods. Which is, in fact, a back-handed way of stating that they do not believe that gods exist because they have not been given, nor have they found (if they've ever looked), any evidence to support their believing in the existence of any gods. Thus, they are presuming that if gods did exist, humans could experience and recognize the evidence of it, and to the degree that it would convince even the atheist "to believe".

Please explain where I'm getting this wrong.

Other self-proclaimed atheists, here: please explain how I've gotten this wrong.

 

[PureX]

I'd hardly say that the opinion that science is the best tool we have for finding out how the universe works is a belief comparable to religious belief.

Neither would I. But believing that it's the ONLY possible method of gaining truth, is. Just consider how many theists would say the exact same thing about 'divine revelation'. And yet there are a significant number of atheists that believe this, and quite adamantly, too. They blindly presume that "how the universe works" is the sum total of the truth of existence. Just as some theists believe that their God is the sum total of the 'truth of existence'.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is the position of pretty much every atheist I've ever met.

I suspect it's more what you want to think atheists believe because it's easier to criticise.

Though I admit many of them try to pretend it's not their position by claiming only "unbelief" (which by itself is not atheism, but agnosticism).

Lacking a belief in god(s) is actually a perfectly normal, everyday definition of atheism (unlike yours): atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

But when queried, they all proclaim loudly and with great surety that their "unbelief" is based on there being "no evidence whatever" to cause them to believe in gods. Which is, in fact, a back-handed way of stating that they do not believe that gods exist because they have not been given, nor have they found (if they've ever looked), any evidence to support their believing in the existence of any gods.

All of which is perfectly rational.

Thus, they are presuming that if gods did exist, humans could experience and recognize the evidence of it, and to the degree that it would convince even the atheist "to believe".

That doesn't follow at all.

Look, if, before the formulation and testing of general relativity, somebody had suggested that space and time were aspects of the same thing and that space-time could curve, it would have been perfectly rational to disbelieve it on the basis that there was no evidence that this was the case. Later, when both a rational argument and evidence was available, it was rational to accept it.

God(s) may exit despite the lack of evidence or reasoning to suggest that it/they do. Nevertheless, the total lack of evidence (that I have so far encountered) is sufficient reason to not believe that they/it do, until and unless evidence or reasoning is forthcoming.

This isn't complicated and is exactly the same approach I (and many others) take to all sorts of other things, like ghosts, vampires, alien abductions, and so on.

Edited for typos.

 

[lukethethird]

Easy, I don't know what God is, and I don't know what the limits of nature are, so I can determine what is or is not "supernatural". But I see no reason to presume that God and nature are mutually exclusive. I define God as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. As do many other theists. And that requires no superstition.
Looks to me like your atheism is entirely dependent upon a false definition of theism: theism = superstition. Thus, I suspect you will refuse to stand corrected, or you'll have to rethink your whole premise. We'll see.

Atheism very narrowly defines belief systems that are based on physics. A much broader definition of such a belief system would be skeptic, which incidentally happens to include the rejection of theism along with many beliefs that people hold such as the belief in ghosts, chem trails, a flat earth, astrology, and, well, the list is virtually endless. A non belief in theism is merely incidental and insignificant to all the things skeptics reject for the very same reasons, that is why atheism is far too narrow a definition for the belief system of a skeptic.

Your belief in God and meaning is personal and has nothing to do with objective reality, it is meaningless to describe reality on those terms to anyone else.