• 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!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

if the extent of your philosophical review ends at the dictionary then we have little to discuss.

Otherwise you might want to explain the substantial difference between;

1) I disbelieve in the existence of God.
2) I believe God does not exist.

As I said early these are nothing more than semantic word games.

Words have definitions. It's how language works. If you're going to dismiss that then we're going to have resume communicating by wiggling our fingers at our monitors.
 
Ok, good. Atheism is a religion. Now what? Why is this important to you?

If I remember right is has something to do with relegating science to faith, so we don't have to accept ideas like evolution or anthropogenic global warming.
 
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.

penn.jpg

Of course, nutcase conspiracy theorists have a religion, it all fits: inane belief in made up baloney, faith against overwhelming evidence, inability to answer simple questions, etc, etc.
 
While you have noted that of the majority, there are still plenty of religious people in the world today who have pantheons still. Not every religious person describes their deity as omniscient and/or omnipotent...

...And omnipresent. Yes not all attribute unlimited power to their Gods. I think Buddha was less then the God with those three attributions.

Science can show cause/effect and help to proves which events are actual causation and which are merely correlation. This principle, however cannot be applied when dealing with deities, at least not at this stage of human and scientific development. Deities can be neither proven nor disproved, thus any stance one has on them is purely based upon belief and faith.

Why should one believe something that has no actual empirical data of existence?
 
'checked it out. It is a religion. Synonym: belief.

belief runs a wider gamut because it covers both epistemological and temporal arenas
 
Why should one believe something that has no actual empirical data of existence?

pure mathematics has no empirical existence.

we can add 1 + 1 to get 2 without any objects in hand for instance.
 
I believe iced tea is pretty tasty, while coke is pretty nasty. This governs my actions. I act upon this belief and choose iced tea instead of coke at the soda machine.

Am I part of the iced tea religion yet?
 
Why should one believe something that has no actual empirical data of existence?

Depends on how you want to classify that empirical evidence. Would you classify your observations of an event as empirical evidence?
 
if the extent of your philosophical review ends at the dictionary then we have little to discuss.

Otherwise you might want to explain the substantial difference between;

1) I disbelieve in the existence of God.
2) I believe God does not exist.

As I said early these are nothing more than semantic word games.

Atheism is disbelief of theistic claims about god(s). Period.

Your examples are of things some atheists will claim but don't mix that with atheism. If an atheist wants to make such a claim, they will have to defend that claim. I.E. it is their problem.
The big problem for you is that atheism does not say that. What atheism says is : PROVE IT!

You are are playing words games that you think allows you to classify atheism as a religion. Which, theoretically, would allow you to attack atheism like any other religion. As William Lane Craig always says: If atheism were true..... He always treats a positive claim made by some atheists as the actual definition of atheism. Even PhD can be stupid, I guess. Or should I say blind to their presuppositions?
In any event, as was stated later in this thread, atheism is a religion just like theism is a religion. In other words they are not religions.

Religions are a set of rules, actions, observances that define how one believes in the supernatural. Atheism (and theism as well) has no rules, no dogma, no liturgy or anything else one would associate with a religion.
Atheism/theism are completely separate from religion. Stop mixing them together.

There are religious atheists like Buddhists or Jainists.
There are non religious theists like some of the Founding Fathers, i.e. deists.
 
Last edited:
Anything you conceive and mentally process creates a belief, if you act upon that belief it is properly classified as your religion...

I believe that wiping front to back will keep **** off of my nuts. I act on this belief by wiping front to back in order to keep **** off of my nuts. By your completely nonsensical definition of "religion", "wiping front to back" is properly classified as my religion.
 
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.

Edit: just noticed this is in the Church and State forum, so meh political motives.
 
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Very simply, it doesn't take a god to determine one doesn't exist. It only takes others believing in a god, for one to determine it doesn't exist. For example, if a neighbor is absolutely convinced there are fairies in her backyard pulling up the carrots every night. I don't have to believe in fairies to know it's not fairies, it's likely rodents, rabbits, or the like.
 
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.

That was a lot of wishful thinking but it wasnt even logical. Do you live in Washington or Colorado?

Here how it works: You claim that a god exists. I just reject that notion. rejecting your belief in a god is no different than you rejecting someone elses belief in a god.

If we use your logic then everything that we dont reject means that we built a religion around that rejection. I reject that the Earth is flat, so therefor my religion is the rejection of a flat Earth. Nope just no logic in your entire post. So I reject your claim, damn it now I am in another religion!

Not everyone believes in something, if you believe that everyone must believe in something then you need to know that is your biased point of view only.
 
Depends on how you want to classify that empirical evidence. Would you classify your observations of an event as empirical evidence?

No, that would be anecdotal evidence. What needs to be done is my observation should be tested and seen how widespread it is shared with others at present and continuously thereafter. The moment it is found that an insignificant number of people of the world share that observation and that the observation no longer holds true (i.e., does not appears in tests) a statement/theory or other logical communications tied with it drop due to critical questionings.
 
No, that would be anecdotal evidence. What needs to be done is my observation should be tested and seen how widespread it is shared with others at present and continuously thereafter. The moment it is found that an insignificant number of people of the world share that observation and that the observation no longer holds true (i.e., does not appears in tests) a statement/theory or other logical communications tied with it drop due to critical questionings.

And yet history is practically nothing but anecdotal evidence. Lincoln's assassination, Washington crossing the Delaware, Edison's words when the first telephone worked, etc. Individual events are unique and singular. They are not repeatable, at least not in the sense that they can be duplicated scientifically. A walk in the woods by yourself and spotting a buck with a unheard of number of tines (is that the correct word?). How do you repeat that? You can never guarantee that such an event can be repeated and yet that buck's existence is reality.
 
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.

In that sense, what we call atheism is but the other side of the same coin, a necessary reaction to 'theism'.
 
belief runs a wider gamut because it covers both epistemological and temporal arenas

I don't think that argument will work. You might want to argue that religion needs more formality or structure than atheism. There you might have a point, though, even that I would tend to disagree with. The strongest argument is that atheists hate to be told that they are as religious as anyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom