• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is atheism a religion[W:711:831]

Is atheism a religion


  • Total voters
    119
Re: Is atheism a religion

Neither atheism nor Buddhism have a god, ergo not religions. Philosophies. Perhaps some religions prefer androgenous gods.

It's true that Buddhism doesn't have a god, however it's also true that one of the following statements is correct

- A god/gods exists
- There is no God.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

It's true that Buddhism doesn't have a god, however it's also true that one of the following statements is correct

- A god/gods exists
- There is no God.

True, that's a binary proposition, one must exist, but given the number of gods man has invented for himself to worship and the utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any of them, the chances of just picking the one correct god out of a hat is virtually nil. There's no better reason to think that the Christian God exists than Zeus, Odin or Krishna. However, given that there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them, picking none, at least until someone can prove one is real, seems like a logical option.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

True, that's a binary proposition, one must exist, but given the number of gods man has invented for himself to worship and the utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any of them, the chances of just picking the one correct god out of a hat is virtually nil. There's no better reason to think that the Christian God exists than Zeus, Odin or Krishna. However, given that there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them, picking none, at least until someone can prove one is real, seems like a logical option.

There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.

I am a believer....you, apparently are not. You are well within your rights not to believe as I am to be a believer. I won't try to change your mind and get you to convert to Christianity. Do Christians the same courtesy.

However, I do understand the angst that atheists have towards religion....look at the Middle East, look at Fred Phelps and his Westboro Cronies.....look at the judgmentalism and the attempts to squeeze as much of the Christian Doctrine as they can into our governmental laws.

That's not Christianity....God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

True, that's a binary proposition, one must exist, but given the number of gods man has invented for himself to worship and the utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any of them, the chances of just picking the one correct god out of a hat is virtually nil. There's no better reason to think that the Christian God exists than Zeus, Odin or Krishna. However, given that there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them, picking none, at least until someone can prove one is real, seems like a logical option.

Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.

If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.

Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.


Nope didnt see disbelief in there at all. The key aspect to a religion is that its a collective belief system. That is why Buddhism is a listed as a religion, because its a set of beliefs generally believed by a collective.

But honestly their could be a Atheist religion. That is if a collective adhered to a belief system. But then that would make them fake atheists. So in reality it is impossible for a atheism to be a religion since it would stop being atheism when it became a religion.

But the people claiming that atheism is a religion do so to against a secular government. Its a tactic that asserts that atheism/secularism is a religion so that they can install their own religion (Christianity) into the Government despite the Constitution. So they figured that by listing atheism/secularism they will be one step closer to making everyone good little Christians. And its to the gallows for atheism/secularism.

Of course they will deny all of that severely, but then why must they do what they are doing in such a underhanded dishonest fashion?

1-Anti-god-is-anti-american-600x570.jpg
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.

If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.

Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.

Logic lol. You said the equivalent of 'there is no evidence of nothing, just like there is no evidence of a god'


But you are correct that the conclusion should be that no god exists, in fact that is the default position. (I think I heard that somewhere before?)
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.

I am a believer....you, apparently are not. You are well within your rights not to believe as I am to be a believer. I won't try to change your mind and get you to convert to Christianity. Do Christians the same courtesy.

However, I do understand the angst that atheists have towards religion....look at the Middle East, look at Fred Phelps and his Westboro Cronies.....look at the judgmentalism and the attempts to squeeze as much of the Christian Doctrine as they can into our governmental laws.

That's not Christianity....God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.



You said that you wont try to convert anyone, yet you insisted that you will be able to tell after you die. Talking about something that you couldnt possibly know as if it were known fact. Its a passive form of preaching. You offered a concept that its possible not to die. The hope is that the observer will contemplate the concept of immortality. The established belief is that immortality can only be obtained through the belief in a god. So then 1 + 1 = 2 and there you have it you actually created a subtle way to offer a conversation. At least to those willing to listen. The technique is very old and well established. ANd with that establishment then one doesnt need to say a lot because most people have heard the story of the bible many times.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

You said that you wont try to convert anyone, yet you insisted that you will be able to tell after you die. Talking about something that you couldnt possibly know as if it were known fact. Its a passive form of preaching. You offered a concept that its possible not to die. The hope is that the observer will contemplate the concept of immortality. The established belief is that immortality can only be obtained through the belief in a god. So then 1 + 1 = 2 and there you have it you actually created a subtle way to offer a conversation. At least to those willing to listen. The technique is very old and well established. ANd with that establishment then one doesnt need to say a lot because most people have heard the story of the bible many times.

Really? That's what you got out of my post? That I'm subtly and sneakily trying to convert you by acknowledging your right to NOT believe? Gimme a break.

The truth is....when we die, which we all do....regardless of religious affiliation(or lack thereof) we will know one way or another.

If you're right....I will no longer exist....period. if I'm right, there is a soul and there is something "after" our bodies have died.

That is not proselyting....I simply don't care whether you believe or not. That is your choice.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

I'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about simple propositions (many of which may make up a single concept). The proposition "God exists" is either true or false - and yes, just by knowing it you'll assign some level of belief.

Why resort to something as silly and useless as a belief when you can attempt to gain actual knowledge and reach reasoned conclusions? A belief is just something you want to be true, not something that is true, or is even likely true.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a supreme deity, that is all. Any other opinions and ideologies formed about the society in which we live are derived the same way any religious person's opinions and ideology is derived; by our personal opinion on various issues, personal morality on various issues, and our personal views of right and wrong.

I think atheism also applies to lack of belief in any non-supreme deities, too. Not just the western god, but any other god one might care to suppose. It probably also applies to other supernatural creatures. Atheism would apply just as well to the fair folk. Our culture supposes the question of higher existence around the monotheistic supposition, but I don't think atheism is merely disagreement with that particular theistic assertion. I think it applies to all of them.

There are certainly fanatical atheists who go way to far in their disbelief, but you could say the same for almost anything. Those people do not make atheism a religion.

No one is fanatical about disbelief. The prominent and outspoken atheists you're probably thinking of are those who advocate strongly over the political ramifications of religion. They are often scientists and educators who are incensed about myth being substituted for science in science classrooms, or peace activists who are angry over the wars started over religion, or civil rights activists who do not like the way major religions are so often concerned with trampling the rights of women and oppressing gays. That has nothing to do with being "fanatical about disbelief". That's real causes and protecting people from the abuses of religion.

The whole burden of proof debate is tiresome. Haven't you atheists "evolved" beyond that yet? It's the same thing Richard Dawkins was spitting out 30 years ago.

No, it's still quite relevant. The existence of a specific god as asserted by one religious person or another is not equally likely as that assertion being false. Ancient deities that no one believes in anymore are not equally likely to exist as not exist. Even moreso, deities that have been completely forgotten to history that literally no one believes in anymore. There is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility that those gods exist and someone would have to make a very compelling case for anyone to take that possibility seriously. Why is the western god different merely for being popular right now? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As much as theists like to squirm out of this, their claims are extraordinary and frankly absurd.

There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.

That's silly. Any god could make itself widely known and provide all manner of proof if it wanted to. That none ever has is compelling proof that no such gods exist.

God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.

Again, silly. If you think god is providing people with personal experiences and communicating, or is responsible for the creation of the bible or any other religious items, then god is attempting to influence that choice. The only god that doesn't circumvent free will is the god that we never hear about in the first place.

Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.

If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.

Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.

That's not even a little bit true. There is substantial evidence of a universe operating without intervention by a deity, of prayer having no effect on healing, of no gods revealing themselves, of having faith not actually leading to a person living a happier or more moral life... all compelling evidence that gods do not exist. The proposition of free will automatically precludes any gods, as shown above. That human beings have conjectured so many mutually exclusive views on divine existence shows that none of them can be true, since they are completely interchangeable but purport to be absolute truth. God propositions are astoundingly unlikely and patently ridiculous.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

No one is fanatical about disbelief. The prominent and outspoken atheists you're probably thinking of are those who advocate strongly over the political ramifications of religion. They are often scientists and educators who are incensed about myth being substituted for science in science classrooms, or peace activists who are angry over the wars started over religion, or civil rights activists who do not like the way major religions are so often concerned with trampling the rights of women and oppressing gays. That has nothing to do with being "fanatical about disbelief". That's real causes and protecting people from the abuses of religion.

There are atheists who go too far in the attacking of religion. The scientists and educators you are talking about are definitely not who I was referring to. It's not a large segment, but there are some who are truly fanatical.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

There are atheists who go too far in the attacking of religion. The scientists and educators you are talking about are definitely not who I was referring to. It's not a large segment, but there are some who are truly fanatical.

Well, how about some examples? Honestly, there are only two assertions atheists can make. First, that religion is wrong. Second, that religion is harmful. How exactly does someone go too far in trying to promote truth or in protecting people from an institution that is hurting people? I mean, yes, one could start stripping people of their rights or using violence, but atheists don't do that or even advocate for it.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Well, how about some examples? Honestly, there are only two assertions atheists can make. First, that religion is wrong. Second, that religion is harmful. How exactly does someone go too far in trying to promote truth or in protecting people from an institution that is hurting people? I mean, yes, one could start stripping people of their rights or using violence, but atheists don't do that or even advocate for it.

I' know one who does and he was who I was thinking of when I wrote that post. I imagine there are others out there. I wasn't saying it was some widespread problem but it definitely exists.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

I don't think atheism is a religion, in the sense that part of what defines a religion is a belief in God. That's the simple answer.

The longer, and perhaps better, answer would begin by trying to define what a god is. If a god is defined as something superhuman that creates and controls the universe, then isn't nature itself a god? Isn't the universe a god?

As such, if you bow to the clockwork of nature (science), aren't you in a sense practicing a religion?

However, like I said, that's a bit heady, and knowing how the word is commonly used, atheism is NOT a religion because you don't believe in God. Simple.

Now, that said, it IS a belief system, because "negative" beliefs simply don't exist. It's the pink elephant problem (try to not imagine a pink elephant, and you immediately imagine a pink elephant).

It's just one of those things about the human mind... we can't think in negatives.

Now, you might be able to convince me that the abstract concept of "atheism" can deal with this gray area, but you'll never convince me that atheists, being human beings, are devoid of any beliefs on the subject of the supernatural.

Typically, deities are defined as "supernatural," not "superhuman." All kinds of things are "superhuman." An elephant is "superhuman" in regards to strength.

You still don't understand what disbelief is, dude.

Disbelieve is not a negative belief. It is a LACK of belief.

Right now, I am sure you LACK belief in purple ants from Mars, because you have never heard of any such thing. You cannot tell me for certain they do not exist, but it would be silly to believe they do.

That is my stance of deities.

Do you get it?

Atheists might believe in all kinds of things, or they might not. The one thing none of them believe in is a deities. We are not some kind of homogenous voting block. "Atheist" only describes one single aspect of all the millions of aspects of philosophy.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Really? That's what you got out of my post? That I'm subtly and sneakily trying to convert you by acknowledging your right to NOT believe? Gimme a break.

The truth is....when we die, which we all do....regardless of religious affiliation(or lack thereof) we will know one way or another.

If you're right....I will no longer exist....period. if I'm right, there is a soul and there is something "after" our bodies have died.

That is not proselyting....I simply don't care whether you believe or not. That is your choice.

You would need the ability to observe to be able to recognize proof. So when you offered a final solution after one dies as proof, it could only be proof if it were observed. Dead people cannot observe anything. ANd since the dead cannot make observations then you were entirely offering that the only way that you could think of that offered proof of a afterlife is by assuming that their is a afterlife where events can be observed. Its a circular argument and meaningless.

It is better to analyse what we can while alive and are able to observe. ANd indeed we can do believe whatever we want, but if strong evidence shows that our beliefs are mistaken then it is not rational to continue believing absurdity. I assert that it isnt rational to claim that something can be alive while it is dead. Its true the dead cannot share anything, we know this because the dead lack any ability to do the things that would allow the dead to share something. Essentially the dead are just lifeless matter no more capable of doing any more than a pile of soil. Of course you can believe that there are such thing as souls that go off to a mystical imagined place but that is just imagination and nothing more. We can observe the matter that used to be a human, and observe every state of decay that it goes through. That is reality, the after life isnt reality it is something that humans made up to hide their fear of death.

You can accept that or not its your choice. The difference between you and I is that my claim is backed by evidence yours isnt in any stretch of imagination backed by any evidence. Evidence is relevant among thinking beings. If evidence wasnt relevant then we could just make up any damn thing that we want and tell big yarns about it. Sure you can think what personal thoughts that you want but when those those are presented in a conversation then they need to have relevance. ANd in this exchange between us the relevance is that my claim offers evidence and your offers none.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Logic lol. You said the equivalent of 'there is no evidence of nothing, just like there is no evidence of a god'


But you are correct that the conclusion should be that no god exists, in fact that is the default position. (I think I heard that somewhere before?)

I think you missed the point...
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Is atheism a religion
No.
Not that all religions have gods, but not having a god is not a religion.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

No, it's still quite relevant. The existence of a specific god as asserted by one religious person or another is not equally likely as that assertion being false. Ancient deities that no one believes in anymore are not equally likely to exist as not exist. Even moreso, deities that have been completely forgotten to history that literally no one believes in anymore. There is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility that those gods exist and someone would have to make a very compelling case for anyone to take that possibility seriously. Why is the western god different merely for being popular right now? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As much as theists like to squirm out of this, their claims are extraordinary and frankly absurd.

You're making my argument out to be something it isn't. I never mentioned a specific god, I simply pointed out the truism that either A.) God/gods exist, or B.) He/it/they don't. One or the other statement is true, while the remaining one is false. They can't both be true, and it can't be the case that neither is true.

That said, there is no more evidence to support the notion that no god exists than there is to support the notion that a god does exist.

That's not even a little bit true. There is substantial evidence of a universe operating without intervention by a deity, of prayer having no effect on healing, of no gods revealing themselves, of having faith not actually leading to a person living a happier or more moral life... all compelling evidence that gods do not exist. The proposition of free will automatically precludes any gods, as shown above. That human beings have conjectured so many mutually exclusive views on divine existence shows that none of them can be true, since they are completely interchangeable but purport to be absolute truth. God propositions are astoundingly unlikely and patently ridiculous.

Just so we're straight.... are you claiming that you can prove that God doesn't exist?
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Typically, deities are defined as "supernatural," not "superhuman." All kinds of things are "superhuman." An elephant is "superhuman" in regards to strength.

The question was whether atheism is a religion, and the definition of religion is: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

What in the world is "supernatural" anyway? What a vague and useless word that is. Fun fact... did you know that many ancient people did in fact worship animals for their various superhuman qualities?




You still don't understand what disbelief is, dude.

Disbelieve is not a negative belief. It is a LACK of belief.

And I'm telling you there's no such thing as a lack of belief. Imagine a NOT pink elephant.

Right now, I am sure you LACK belief in purple ants from Mars, because you have never heard of any such thing. You cannot tell me for certain they do not exist, but it would be silly to believe they do.

That is my stance of deities.

Do you get it?

Atheists might believe in all kinds of things, or they might not. The one thing none of them believe in is a deities. We are not some kind of homogenous voting block. "Atheist" only describes one single aspect of all the millions of aspects of philosophy.

I don't think you understand what belief is.... dude.

I believe there are no purple ants on Mars. Just because I believe it doesn't mean I am certain. Belief does not equal certainty. I simply believe there are no purple ants on Mars due to my limited experience and knowledge of Mars.

There isn't a single person on earth who limits his/her beliefs to that which they are certain of. Human beings are not capable of behaving that way.

However, I'm not knocking your stance on God. You feel free to believe what you want, based on your experience of the world around you.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.

It's called withholding assent without evidence. Once you have evidence, you can pick one, but not until.

If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.

Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.

And that's fine, but if you don't know why would you pick one? And if you don't pick one, you're an atheist.

Let's not go round and round on this.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.

That's just a belief, all the evidence we have suggests that when you're dead, you're dead and that's the end of it. Cheap threats about post-death punishments are absurd until proven true. Faith means nothing.

I am a believer....you, apparently are not. You are well within your rights not to believe as I am to be a believer. I won't try to change your mind and get you to convert to Christianity. Do Christians the same courtesy.

It's not about converting, it's about examining reality for what it is. All propositions are either true or false. If they are true, they ought to be accepted by everyone. If they are false, they ought to be rejected by everyone. It's discovering what's actually true and what's actually false that really matters.

However, I do understand the angst that atheists have towards religion....look at the Middle East, look at Fred Phelps and his Westboro Cronies.....look at the judgmentalism and the attempts to squeeze as much of the Christian Doctrine as they can into our governmental laws.

That's not Christianity....God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.

You believe that. You can't prove it's so. Don't make arguments as though it's demonstrable.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

That is not proselyting....I simply don't care whether you believe or not. That is your choice.

You don't care whether people believe, but you sincerely think that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is going to burn forever in a lake of fire and you don't see a problem with that view.

Hmmm...
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

That's the part I disagree with. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, therefore they have picked one.

No, not really. When I made the decision to stop believing in god, I didn't say "I'm changing to atheist", I said "I no longer believe any of this" and I just started being ME. When you go back and try to assign me into a category, I would fall under atheist. That however is not a religion that I picked, it's the exact opposite.

There is no common dogma, rituals or teachings that atheists follow, they're only associated by one simple fact: they reject all religion. You don't make up a word for people who don't eat cheerios.

Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.

If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.

Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.

Well, that's actually what I do believe. I believe it's inherently unknowable whether or not there is a god, but because I believe in the burden of proof, I assume that he isn't there. If evidence pops up later supporting god, I will quickly change my position. The only thing I do know is that the man-made religions here on earth are just that: man-made.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

You don't care whether people believe, but you sincerely think that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is going to burn forever in a lake of fire and you don't see a problem with that view.

Hmmm...

Take a look back and tell me where I believe that. I'll wait.....well, no...I won't.

I don't think of God the same as Orthodox Christians do....especially the Evangelicals.

Here's an issue I take with any religion that claims to be the "one true" religion.

Let's suppose....just for the sake of this scenario....that you were born in India....you were raised a Hindu, or a Muslim. Your entire culture is built upon the religion you were brought up in. You are devout in your beliefs and you are of good character. One day a missionary tries to convert you to Christianity, but because of your lifelong indoctrination and culture, you reject the message from the Christian. I find it hard to believe that an all knowing, all powerful being would force you to suffer in a lake of fire for being the best person you you can be....I think that extends to non-believers too.

And yes...I know what the Bible says. But I have doubts about that too...no one gets to the father except through me....the parable of the talents......pay unto Caesar....we have to remember that when the voting process took place as to what was going to be in the Bible and what wasn't....the Roman Empire was in turmoil between Pagans and Christians. Constantine was trying to Unite the Empire under one religion...under one church.

You can't do that if you don't create exclusivity....you also can't control people, especially the poor and enslaved by saying that your master is not your true master. That's why I brought up the parable of the talents and Pay unto Caesar as examples. Those two examples are all about control...not about love, understanding and compassion.

I guess the truth is....I guess I'm more of a Deist who follows a Christian Path.

No....make no mistake, I don't condemn people....I live my life as I see fit and I let people live theirs.

I do believe in an afterlife...but I have no proof other than testimony from people who have had near death experiences and mediums.....which both are dismissable as chemical reactions in the body as it prepares itself for death, and con artists....I don't believe that is the case for the former and I think that the latter is debatable....yes....there are many who are con artists....but I think some aren't. Either way...it's testimony...not Empirical evidence....which is what you are looking for.
 
Back
Top Bottom