Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[ChristineM]

You have a great point. I don’t think we disagree here.
But to come to a meeting of the minds, we would need to know what we are talking about. So, what is the definition of god?
Once, we agree on that definition, we could move the conversation towards a meeting of minds.

If a definition of god could reach consensus then i think pigs would fly.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

If a definition of god could reach consensus then i think pigs would fly.

Isn’t that the truth.

And even better, peace on earth.

 

[ChristineM]

Isn’t that the truth.

And even better, peace on earth.

Well... more peaceful than at the moment one would think, unfortunately, those deciding what god is are human

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Well... more peaceful than at the moment one would think, unfortunately, those deciding what god is are human

Wow, I have to completely agree again. This is getting scary.

 

[We Never Know]

Many self-labeled atheists are liars. They claim that they have "no beliefs regarding the existence of gods when it's very clear that they believe gods do not exist because they have not been given, (or if they looked, could not find) any proof. This is not "no belief". This is believing that if gods did/do exist we humans would be able to know it, and to prove it. They call their belief "unbelief" to avoid having to explain or defend it, and to try and put the onus back on the theists.
Philosophically speaking, what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. It's what you assert that defines your position. You assert that no gods exist, and you base that assertion on your own determined 'lack of convincing evidence'. And so does pretty much every other atheist I've ever come across. If you assert nothing, but "believe" whatever, then no one knows or cares.

For some it isn't about believing a God doesn't exist. I'm not asserting a God doesn't exist, I'm not saying I believe a God's doesn't exist, I'm saying I accept there is no evidence showing a God does exist, so why should I think otherwise.

 

[We Never Know]

Well... more peaceful than at the moment one would think, unfortunately, those deciding what god is are human

Unfortunatley who decides what a God is, or what anything is are humans. There is nothing else to make those decisions.

 

[Tiberius]

Atheism is not "the lack of religion". Atheism is the philosophical proposition that no gods exist unless they can be proven to exist by we humans. And this proposition can be held and expressed "religiously", depending on how we define religion.

I would say that you can only define atheism as a religious belief like that if you define religious belief as a belief that is sincerely and strongly held.

Atheism is not a religion as there is no supernatural aspect, no codified system of beliefs (apart from the lack of belief in a deity), no structure of holy people, no holy texts, no rites, no ceremonies, no churches, no traditions...

Can you provide a source that shows that defining atheism as a lack of belief is incorrect?

There is a distinct difference between lacking a belief in something and actively believing the opposite of that thing.

For example, I do not believe there is a cat in my kitchen, since I do not own a cat and my house is closed, doors closed and windows closed. I have seen no evidence of a cat in my house, and my house is entirely consistent with a house that has no cat - no meowing, now sounds of cat footsteps running up and down the hall, no tinkle of the bell on a collar, no signs of fur, etc. Yet I can't say that I am 100% certain that there is no cat - my girlfriend left not too long ago and it is possible that a cat snuck in the front door as she left. True, the chances are extremely small, but they are still non-zero. So I lack a belief that there is a cat in my house, but I do not have the belief that there can't possibly be a cat in my house. I must be open to the possibility that there could be a cat in my house, even though the chances of that are very small.

Likewise, as an atheist, I lack a belief in God. However, I am open to the possibility that God could exist, and I do not believe that God could not possibly exist.

 

[ChristineM]

Unfortunatley who decides what a God is, or what anything is are humans. There is nothing else to make those decisions.

Correct, quite a catch 22 situation really

 

[We Never Know]

I would say that you can only define atheism as a religious belief like that if you define religious belief as a belief that is sincerely and strongly held.

Atheism is not a religion as there is no supernatural aspect, no codified system of beliefs (apart from the lack of belief in a deity), no structure of holy people, no holy texts, no rites, no ceremonies, no churches, no traditions...

Can you provide a source that shows that defining atheism as a lack of belief is incorrect?

There is a distinct difference between lacking a belief in something and actively believing the opposite of that thing.

For example, I do not believe there is a cat in my kitchen, since I do not own a cat and my house is closed, doors closed and windows closed. I have seen no evidence of a cat in my house, and my house is entirely consistent with a house that has no cat - no meowing, now sounds of cat footsteps running up and down the hall, no tinkle of the bell on a collar, no signs of fur, etc. Yet I can't say that I am 100% certain that there is no cat - my girlfriend left not too long ago and it is possible that a cat snuck in the front door as she left. True, the chances are extremely small, but they are still non-zero. So I lack a belief that there is a cat in my house, but I do not have the belief that there can't possibly be a cat in my house. I must be open to the possibility that there could be a cat in my house, even though the chances of that are very small.

Likewise, as an atheist, I lack a belief in God. However, I am open to the possibility that God could exist, and I do not believe that God could not possibly exist.

There are atheist creeds, atheist churches, atheist scholarships, atheist conventions, atheist groups, etc.
Atheist groups have pecking order structure as presidents, vice-presidents, directors, field organizers, program directors and assistance's, etc.

That doesn't make them a religion but some see them as a religion based on those things as well as others.

Edit.
IMO, if the Bible that speaks/teaches of God didn't exist, there would be no atheist or christians. We would be just people.

 

[lukethethird]

Non-religion is also a religion, just so ya know.

 

[MJFlores]

What you have there is your opinion about
your chosen "god", and, your chosen interpretation
of a book.

There are about as many different inerrant readings
of scripture as there are people to read it.

Others do not happen to choose to see it as
you do.

I would be slightly more inclined to think you
got something right if it did not require either
ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty on your part.

The depth of your understanding of the science
you choose to deny is well illustrated by your
lame strawman about monkeys. Even
the most benighted creos tend to know better
than that one.

At a guess, you probably think there
really-really was a world wide flood, Noah
and all the animals, and all that.

Anyway, I expect you are out there somewhere
past the orbit of Pluto, certainly beyond the call
of reason. So I wont attempt anything with you
more than a request that you apply at least
enough honesty to state your "facts" as what
they are, your chosen opinions.

You said:
"At a guess, you probably think there
really-really was a world wide flood, Noah
and all the animals, and all that."



Is that an impossible event?
I have no doubt it happened.

Genesis 1:6-8 New International Version (NIV)
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

According to the scientists: "At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water, in the invisible vapor phase. This is enough water to cover the entire surface of the Earth (land and ocean) with one inch of rain" How much water is in the atmosphere?

a vault between the waters to separate water from water

Come on, this is the first book of the Bible and science just discovered it last 2014.

Proverbs 3:13 New International Version (NIV)
Blessed are those who find wisdom,
those who gain understanding,

Yep, knew my Lord God from the Books which we call the Bible.

Romans 10:2 New International Version (NIV)
For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

Other people find their gods by carving a tree or from a stone.

Why the books? Because it contains knowledge, we learn from it. It is like going to school and learning something. Imagine studying accounting and you haven't read any accounting book - what kind of accountant would you be? Same is true with having the right knowledge of God - learn from the book. Oh by the way, self study won't lead you no where - find the approved people of God like finding a school approved by the Department of Education.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 New International Version (NIV)
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Knowledge of the truth - yeah!

 

[MJFlores]

I understand you have a belief and faith.
I disagree that not believing in something is faith/religion. For example I don't believe in the Easter bunny and I would think you don't either. Now the question is do we have a faith/religion that the Easter bunny doesn't exist?
Of course we don't but by your logic, not believing is a faith/religion which means you not believing in the Easter bunny shows you have more than one faith/religion which you shouldn't have. Do you understand?

I don't also believe in the Easter Bunny and similar things like that.
Why?
Because the term Easter isn't even in the Bible.

Googled the word religion and this came up:

/rəˈlijən/

noun

noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:

faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation

"the right to freedom of religion"

o a particular system of faith and worship.

plural noun: religions

"the world's great religions"

o a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

"consumerism is the new religion"


If Atheism is a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, well betcha my golly wow, it must be a religion.

You know what they say...if it looks like a duck?

 

[JChnsc19]

Non-religion is also a religion, just so ya know.

Like not being able to ice skate makes me an ice skater?

 

[PureX]

You chose to associate atheism with 'scientism', an inaccurate and abusive cheap shot that diminishes you while changing nothing about atheism.

Nor have you offered, here or in the past, any reasoned case to show that materialism / physicalism is 'foolish' in any way.

That's the context of this particular discussion.

That's because this is not the designated thread for doing so. And I feel quite certain you would not even try to understand my point if I bother to elaborate. "Scientism" is the foolish belief that science is the only possible pathway to truth, because the truth is being defined by physicality, alone (materialism). This is a position that a significant number of self-proclaimed atheists hold, and some express with 'religious' devotion and enthusiasm. It is foolish because as any scientist will tell us, science does not pursue "truth". It pursues only the mechanics of physical function. And as any philosophical debate will reveal, reality is not defined by the mechanisms of physical function, it is defined by our cognitive conceptual experience of those physical functions.

 

[PureX]

For some it isn't about believing a God doesn't exist. I'm not asserting a God doesn't exist, I'm not saying I believe a God's doesn't exist, I'm saying I accept there is no evidence showing a God does exist, so why should I think otherwise.

The answer to that question is that there is positive value to be gained from assuming the existence of "God", even though we lack proof for it's existence. And keep in mind that there IS EVIDENCE for of a divine existence, just not enough enough to convince you. And that is your choice. It is likely because you are demanding physical evidence for a non-physical proposition. Thus guaranteeing that you will never obtain it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The answer to that question is that there is positive value to be gained from assuming the existence of "God"...

Such as?

And keep in mind that there IS EVIDENCE for of a divine existence...

Such as?

 

[PureX]

I would say that you can only define atheism as a religious belief like that if you define religious belief as a belief that is sincerely and strongly held.

I don't think religion is based on the strength and sincerity of belief, but on a desire to live/act in accordance with whatever degree of belief one holds. Religions are about the process of expressing one's belief. Not necessarily the intensity of that belief.

Atheism is not a religion as there is no supernatural aspect, no codified system of beliefs (acessarypart from the lack of belief in a deity), no structure of holy people, no holy texts, no rites, no ceremonies, no churches, no traditions...

These can be developed and expressed individually, and for some atheists, they are. I have seen atheists run from website to website, and thread to thread, spreading their atheist ideology by any means possible, just like the most ardent "god-believer". They tout and express their dogma, ritual, sacred ideals and texts just as surely as any ardent follower of religion.

Can you provide a source that shows that defining atheism as a lack of belief is incorrect?

Having common sense and an ability to reason, logically, I don't need any external sources to tell me that touting what one does NOT believe as an assertion that they are loudly and determinedly NOT making is disingenuous nonsense.

There is a distinct difference between lacking a belief in something and actively believing the opposite of that thing.

It is twice irrelevant to assert what one does not believe and is not willing to assert publicly. I would expect one to be embarrassed to be making such statements. And yet there they are, atheist after atheist, proclaiming their irrelevance to all the world with religious abandon.

 

[blü 2]

I feel quite certain you would not even try to understand my point if I bother to elaborate.

I've tried to understand your previous posts on the subject and responded to them.

"Scientism" is the foolish belief that science is the only possible pathway to truth, because the truth is being defined by physicality, alone (materialism).

What else is there that isn't imaginary? As ever, I stand ready to be persuaded by evidence and reason.

any scientist will tell us, science does not pursue "truth".

That depends on how you defined truth. I hold with the 'correspondence' definition ─ a statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / corresponds to / accurately describes objective reality. This has the great advantage of an objective test, and it allows you and me and science to make statements that are true. Of course, truth isn't absolute. It changes as we learn more. It was once true that the world is flat, and now it isn't. It was once true that the Higgs boson was hypothetical but now it's real.

What definition of 'truth' do you use?

It pursues only the mechanics of physical function. And as any philosophical debate will reveal, reality is not defined by the mechanisms of physical function, it is defined by our cognitive conceptual experience of those physical functions.

It remains the case that you and I agree that a world exists external to the self and that our senses are capable of informing us of it. That's the realm of the physical sciences, that's nature, reality, the place where things with objective existence are found.

And the alternative to real is 'imaginary'. The unicorn is imaginary because we have the concept of it but that concept has no objective counterpart. 'God', if not imaginary, nonetheless has no definition appropriate for an entity with objective existence, meaning that we find many concepts of an imaginary god, but none which has an objective counterpart. That seems very odd considering 'God' is regularly claimed to be real.

So please explain it to me.

 

[PureX]

Such as?

Hope, when it would otherwise be unavailable. A means of determining a personal ideal when that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to achieve. A 'model' for emulating those ideals in one's self and recognizing them in others. A way of connecting with our humanity that we would not otherwise have had. And so on.

Such as?

All of the above. That existence is complex and apparently intentional. That we are alive, and conscious of our being alive. That existence is aware of itself, through us, and possibly through a myriad of other forms of consciousness. That we perceive 'spirit' within physical reality. That existence clearly exhibits an ability to 'transcend' itself. And so on.

 

[ratiocinator]

Hope, when it would otherwise be unavailable. A means of determining a personal ideal when that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to achieve. A 'model' for emulating those ideals in one's self and recognizing them in others. A way of connecting with our humanity that we would not otherwise have had. And so on.

But this would all fall under the heading of self-deception if the idea of god that you have does not correspond to a reality (even if there is a god it might not be what you think it is). You are also neglecting the negatives that theistic beliefs can cause: prejudice, conflict, and so on.

That existence is complex and apparently intentional.

How is intention in any way apparent?

That we are alive, and conscious of our being alive. That existence is aware of itself, through us, and possibly through a myriad of other forms of consciousness.

So, why is any of that evidence for any god(s)?

That we perceive 'spirit' within physical reality.

What's 'spirit' and how is it evidence for any god(s)?

That existence clearly exhibits an ability to 'transcend' itself.

What does this mean and how is it evidence for any god(s)?