• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Atheism a belief system? A religion?

ttwtt78640 said:
To end the, otherwise endless, need to explain why. When a parent wishes to train (direct) a child, at some point, it becomes necessary to say because I said so. ;)

If a leader can assert that they represent absolute right then they gain power.
Click to expand...


This is indeed what happens when the state gets religion. But it ignores the personal question: Where do I come from?
 
Cable said:
Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Atheism

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

rejection of belief in God or gods
Click to expand...


In the above, definition 1 is different from definition 2. "Rejection of belief in God or gods" is a more active form of 2. The distinction is important.

For atheists who fit the definition of 1, it is a belief system. For atheists for whom 1 does not fit, theirs is not a belief system, but rather a simple non-belief. The distinction is difficult for religious people to grasp. I think that one reason it is difficult is that to understand it is to truly understand the skeptical mind, and causes doubt to creep into all types of faith. Another reason it is difficult to understand is that the believer does not wish to. As long as the believer holds that 1 is the only real definition, they believe they can hold that atheism is taken on faith, and they believe this justifies their own faith. But, even if this were true, they would only have established that atheists are as silly as they themselves are, not that neither of them is silly. This distinction has been argued over endlessly, and unless it is settled in the mind of a believer, s/he will never understand how atheism is often NOT a belief.

Nevertheless, I will try once again to illustrate the difference.

If I say to you right now, I have a 560 carat finished diamond held tight in my two hands, but you can't see it, do you believe me? You might say "I don't know", but that would also mean that you do not yet believe me, which is disbelief. If I said "Give me 50 dollars, and I will give it to you", your disbelief would come into sharp relief, even though you could still say that you "don't know". It is only when I open my hands that you "Know" anything at all. At that point the skeptic can say "I do not believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I will not give you 50 dollars." or "I do believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I'll give you 50 dollars for it".

Now, the person who has withheld belief in the 560 carat diamond, and refused to yield 50 dollars, does not engage in faith. They merely withhold belief. However, yet another skeptic might have the knowledge that the largest diamond in the world was cut into a several finished diamonds, one having the size ~545 carats. This person would actively believe I do not have a 560 carat diamond in my hands, and this person would not be guilty of 'going on faith'. Some atheists believe that god is a logical impossibility, and as such is shown not to exist. They hold that their belief that god does not exist is therefore not based on faith, but still does not rise to the level of religion because it is more like philosophy or science.

Hopefully this clears a few things up.

Myself, I generally prefer to avoid the arguments about whether god does not exist, and let it suffice that I disbelieve in the existence of god(s).
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry but I don't buy the whole "Atheists are selfish" just because they don't believe in some God. And there is no set moral code or practice of atheism, therefore it isn't a religion. A belief yes, a religion no.
Click to expand...

All people are selfish by nature. A belief leads one to moral conclusions. These become laws or practices. This is religion. It's that simple.
 
TheNextEra said:
So if I believe there are no pink unicorns you are saying it is now a religion? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Is belief in pink unicorns a religious belief?

And there is debate whether Taoism is a religion or just a philosophy. There are atheists that practice Taosim, so it isn't necessarily a religion.
Click to expand...

And it appears there's a debate about whether atheism is a religion or not, as well.
 
Last edited:
John Hancock said:
Of course, everyone wants an answer to unsolved questions. God of the gaps I believe is the term. But when you're first born, you neither believe in a god, nor supplement it with anything else, it's as if you're at a fork in the road (or however many paths) and you haven't decided which to go down yet. The spiritualists, monotheists, and polytheists who came before many of the scientific answers had only one path to choose from.






Ohhhhh, Darwin!
Click to expand...


Again, some reading of the philosophers is required rather than reductitivism; it is not a simple matter of answers to questions, but a searching for a soul.

If you want a discussion on the content of this thinking, I would be pleased to do so, but it's kind of pointless to try to discuss such thinking without having read it.

One of the defining aspects of atheists is to entirely reject one of the world's oldest disciplines without ever having attention one course in it, and cite the Bible out of context, never having read it.


Why do atheists use "Jesus" as a swear word?
 
Cable said:
If you walk outside and see the sun, that is not a pre-existing belief. It is observable evidence. Fact if you will. Seeing it every day is what leads you to believe it will rise again tomorrow. So the evidence, the observation of fact, brings you to the belief in a new sunrise tomorrow. You have reached a conclusion about the sun rising tomorrow based on facts observed in the past. Not based on beliefs from the past.
Click to expand...

Yet these observed facts led to the pre-existing belief.....did they not?
 
A-theism, not athe-ism. Everything you need to know is in the etymology.
 
Cable said:
This is indeed what happens when the state gets religion. But it ignores the personal question: Where do I come from?
Click to expand...

The leaders (whether religious or gov't) have little interest in allowing you to explore "personal questions" and are less able to get you do do as they please if you are free to waste time exploring "personal questions". ;)
 
Dezaad said:
In the above, definition 1 is different from definition 2. "Rejection of belief in God or gods" is a more active form of 2. The distinction is important.

For atheists who fit the definition of 1, it is a belief system. For atheists for whom 1 does not fit, theirs is not a belief system, but rather a simple non-belief. The distinction is difficult for religious people to grasp. I think that one reason it is difficult is that to understand it is to truly understand the skeptical mind, and causes doubt to creep into all types of faith. Another reason it is difficult to understand is that the believer does not wish to. As long as the believer holds that 1 is the only real definition, they believe they can hold that atheism is taken on faith, and they believe this justifies their own faith. But, even if this were true, they would only have established that atheists are as silly as they themselves are, not that neither of them is silly. This distinction has been argued over endlessly, and unless it is settled in the mind of a believer, s/he will never understand how atheism is often NOT a belief.

Nevertheless, I will try once again to illustrate the difference.

If I say to you right now, I have a 560 carat finished diamond held tight in my two hands, but you can't see it, do you believe me? You might say "I don't know", but that would also mean that you do not yet believe me, which is disbelief. If I said "Give me 50 dollars, and I will give it to you", your disbelief would come into sharp relief, even though you could still say that you "don't know". It is only when I open my hands that you "Know" anything at all. At that point the skeptic can say "I do not believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I will not give you 50 dollars." or "I do believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I'll give you 50 dollars for it".

Now, the person who has withheld belief in the 560 carat diamond, and refused to yield 50 dollars, does not engage in faith. They merely withhold belief. However, yet another skeptic might have the knowledge that the largest diamond in the world was cut into a several finished diamonds, one having the size ~545 carats. This person would actively believe I do not have a 560 carat diamond in my hands, and this person would not be guilty of 'going on faith'. Some atheists believe that god is a logical impossibility, and as such is shown not to exist. They hold that their belief that god does not exist is therefore not based on faith, but still does not rise to the level of religion because it is more like philosophy or science.

Hopefully this clears a few things up.

Myself, I generally prefer to avoid the arguments about whether god does not exist, and let it suffice that I disbelieve in the existence of god(s).
Click to expand...

Your analogy is flawed in that diamonds are discovered every day, so one can not know with any certainty whether a newer bigger diamond has been found. However, if someone offered me such a diamond for 50 bucks I could easily conclude it was a lie based on value alone. ;)

Belief God does not exist is by definition faith, as there is no obervable fact to show otherwise. Call it science or philosophy, it is none the less based on belief. Belief being arrived at by reason, based on observed evidence. The question must remain scientifically inconclusive, so belief is the appropriate term, and the following religious practices based on that belief are a given.

There is certainly a distinction between definitions 1 and 2. But both lead one to disregard God. From this stems the religions of disbelief (in God).
In the first paragraph you say "atheism is NOT a belief" and then in the third paragraph you state "their belief that god does not exists..."
It can't be both can it?
 
tecoyah said:
Yet these observed facts led to the pre-existing belief.....did they not?
Click to expand...

The belief did not exist prior to the conviction based on observed facts. Once the facts were observed and the conclusion arrived at, the belief began to exist. Right?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The leaders (whether religious or gov't) have little interest in allowing you to explore "personal questions" and are less able to get you do do as they please if you are free to waste time exploring "personal questions". ;)
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you, such is the nature of those who seek power over others. Christ would be the exception, and a notable one at that.
 
Cable said:
Your analogy is flawed in that diamonds are discovered every day, so one can not know with any certainty whether a newer bigger diamond has been found. However, if someone offered me such a diamond for 50 bucks I could easily conclude it was a lie based on value alone. ;)

Belief God does not exist is by definition faith, as there is no obervable fact to show otherwise. Call it science or philosophy, it is none the less based on belief. Belief being arrived at by reason, based on observed evidence. The question must remain scientifically inconclusive, so belief is the appropriate term, and the following religious practices based on that belief are a given.

There is certainly a distinction between definitions 1 and 2. But both lead one to disregard God. From this stems the religions of disbelief (in God).
In the first paragraph you say "atheism is NOT a belief" and then in the third paragraph you state "their belief that god does not exists..."
It can't be both can it?
Click to expand...

Like most believers, you have just ignored the main thrust, and the most relevant portion, of my arguments. Since I know this usually is done by believers, I am usually much better at whittling down my essays to the main issue. The following is a revision that does so:



In the above, definition 1 is different from definition 2. "Rejection of belief in God or gods" is a more active form of 2. The distinction is important.

For atheists who fit the definition of 1, it is a belief system. For atheists for whom 1 does not fit, theirs is not a belief system, but rather a simple non-belief. The distinction is difficult for religious people to grasp. I think that one reason it is difficult is that to understand it is to truly understand the skeptical mind, and causes doubt to creep into all types of faith. Another reason it is difficult to understand is that the believer does not wish to. As long as the believer holds that 1 is the only real definition, they believe they can hold that atheism is taken on faith, and they believe this justifies their own faith.

Nevertheless, I will try once again to illustrate the difference.

If I say to you right now, I have a 560 carat finished diamond held tight in my two hands, but you can't see it, do you believe me? You might say "I don't know", but that would also mean that you do not yet believe me, which is disbelief. If I said "Give me 50 dollars, and I will give it to you", your disbelief would come into sharp relief, even though you could still say that you "don't know". It is only when I open my hands that you "Know" anything at all. At that point the skeptic can say "I do not believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I will not give you 50 dollars." or "I do believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I'll give you 50 dollars for it".

Now, the person who has withheld belief in the 560 carat diamond, and refused to yield 50 dollars, does not engage in faith. It is disbelief, not belief. Disbelief does not equal Belief.

Hopefully this clears a few things up.

Myself, I generally prefer to avoid the arguments about whether god does not exist, and let it suffice that I disbelieve in the existence of god(s).
 
Cable said:
The belief did not exist prior to the conviction based on observed facts. Once the facts were observed and the conclusion arrived at, the belief began to exist. Right?
Click to expand...

I'm getting dizzy....let's just agree to disagree.
 
Paschendale said:
A-theism, not athe-ism. Everything you need to know is in the etymology.
Click to expand...

It really is that simple.

I have found through my many discussions with believers that the concept of not believing is so completely alien to them, they can't ever quite grasp what it really means. So they try to make sense of something absurdly simple by attaching familiar concepts to it, like religion or belief system, or moral codes. Conflating morality with religion or some form of higher power.

I've pretty much given up trying to explain to them that atheism is just that, a-theism. I've come to the conclusion that there is no way for the believer's mind to understand non-belief. Just like there's probably no way I will ever understand their need or ability to have religious faith.
 
Dezaad said:
Like most believers, you have just ignored the main thrust, and the most relevant portion, of my arguments. Since I know this usually is done by believers, I am usually much better at whittling down my essays to the main issue. The following is a revision that does so:
In the above, definition 1 is different from definition 2. "Rejection of belief in God or gods" is a more active form of 2. The distinction is important.

For atheists who fit the definition of 1, it is a belief system. For atheists for whom 1 does not fit, theirs is not a belief system, but rather a simple non-belief. The distinction is difficult for religious people to grasp. I think that one reason it is difficult is that to understand it is to truly understand the skeptical mind, and causes doubt to creep into all types of faith. Another reason it is difficult to understand is that the believer does not wish to. As long as the believer holds that 1 is the only real definition, they believe they can hold that atheism is taken on faith, and they believe this justifies their own faith.

Nevertheless, I will try once again to illustrate the difference.

If I say to you right now, I have a 560 carat finished diamond held tight in my two hands, but you can't see it, do you believe me? You might say "I don't know", but that would also mean that you do not yet believe me, which is disbelief. If I said "Give me 50 dollars, and I will give it to you", your disbelief would come into sharp relief, even though you could still say that you "don't know". It is only when I open my hands that you "Know" anything at all. At that point the skeptic can say "I do not believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I will not give you 50 dollars." or "I do believe that you have a 560 carat diamond in your hands, I'll give you 50 dollars for it".

Now, the person who has withheld belief in the 560 carat diamond, and refused to yield 50 dollars, does not engage in faith. It is disbelief, not belief. Disbelief does not equal Belief.

Hopefully this clears a few things up.

Myself, I generally prefer to avoid the arguments about whether god does not exist, and let it suffice that I disbelieve in the existence of god(s).
Click to expand...

I don't wish to ignore your primary argument. You are presupposing that "believers are under some willingness to ignore the truth or facts or reason. This is a mistake on your part. If it is true of some then you are right that far. But to whitewash all believers with this is a very simple way for one to dismiss disagreement as folly out of hand. If this is the case, then you are the one who won't accept reason.

You seem both by your analogy and your other statement on a certain type of atheist, that they have some knowledge of fact that there is no God, nor can there be a God. (For some reason those are the parts you edited out).
But you don't say what that factual knowledge is. Just that they have it and hence theirs is not a belief, but a factually observed conclusion.
What are those facts? If you can't present them then it must remain a belief. If you can present them, who wouldn't believe them?

Regarding the distinction between the two definitions, one active, one passive. I ask again, when the rubber meets the road, what is the difference? Both believe there is no God. Both will live their lives as if there were no God.
What light does your distinction shed on the religions or lack thereof that spring from any unbelief in God? Does definition 2 know something definition 1 does not? Does definition 2 somehow remain unaffected in any capacity by virtue of this particular distinction?
 
Arcana XV said:
It really is that simple.

I have found through my many discussions with believers that the concept of not believing is so completely alien to them, they can't ever quite grasp what it really means. So they try to make sense of something absurdly simple by attaching familiar concepts to it, like religion or belief system, or moral codes. Conflating morality with religion or some form of higher power.

I've pretty much given up trying to explain to them that atheism is just that, a-theism. I've come to the conclusion that there is no way for the believer's mind to understand non-belief. Just like there's probably no way I will ever understand their need or ability to have religious faith.
Click to expand...

Do we not all have a moral code of some sort? Is not a moral code a religion?
 
Religions require three things. Believing Behaving and Belonging.

1. A shared belief....it can have many manifestations but it would have to have some foundational beliefs. Judaism's "One God" Christianity "Jesus was God in human form" Islam "One God and Mohammad is His Prophet". These beliefs of course lead to others, but they are a base. The beliefs are often written in texts that are considered holy or infused with holiness.

2. Behavior is ritual, practice. A religion must have a way of expressing itself. Shared rituals, Seders, Mass, Communal prayer, would fit in but also things like kindness to others, giving money to those in need, working to create a better world. All rituals that can be seen as derived from the beliefs above.

3. Belonging....this is the connection part. One person can't be a religion. A religion needs to be a social thing, shared ideals and practices that create community. Religion is about joining something that focuses us beyond ourselves.


Atheism barely hits one of these and only if non-belief is a belief.

Some atheists say there is no God. Emphatically. But most just don't believe in God...or any god. It isn't that they think they have the answer, they simply don't think about it.

Atheists tend not to have ritual or communal activities that are inspired by their non-belief.

And while atheists might join groups....like humanist groups...it is far more likely they don't.


Now some religions like Judaism that are also a people or culture or as Kaplan said "a civilization" will have Jewish practice and connection without God and the belief piece is about a belief in the story but not the deity. (not that they say the Bible for example is true but that it is inspiring without God). Them I don't have an answer for and would argue they are a religion. But that is unique to religions that also are a people.
 
Cable said:
I don't wish to ignore your primary argument. You are presupposing that "believers are under some willingness to ignore the truth or facts or reason. This is a mistake on your part. If it is true of some then you are right that far. But to whitewash all believers with this is a very simple way for one to dismiss disagreement as folly out of hand. If this is the case, then you are the one who won't accept reason.
Click to expand...

But you did exactly the thing that is so common, and yet I didn't dismiss your disagreement. I pointed it out to you, to attempt to shake you into paying attention, but I didn't dismiss it. If I had dismissed your disagreement, I wouldn't have done you the courtesy of my pared down explanation, and would have left the criticism as my only response. In a very real sense, you hadn't yet disagreed with me at all because you hadn't yet addressed my actual point. In the rest of your response below, you do address my actual point, after a fashion. With your current response, we can now determine that we disagree on the nature of knowledge and perhaps still need to straighten out some semantical issues. Strictly speaking, this doesn't really address my actual point, but we can't get there if we don't agree on what it means to know something.

You seem both by your analogy and your other statement on a certain type of atheist, that they have some knowledge of fact that there is no God, nor can there be a God. (For some reason those are the parts you edited out).
But you don't say what that factual knowledge is. Just that they have it and hence theirs is not a belief, but a factually observed conclusion.
What are those facts? If you can't present them then it must remain a belief. If you can present them, who wouldn't believe them?

Regarding the distinction between the two definitions, one active, one passive. I ask again, when the rubber meets the road, what is the difference? Both believe there is no God. Both will live their lives as if there were no God.
What light does your distinction shed on the religions or lack thereof that spring from any unbelief in God? Does definition 2 know something definition 1 does not? Does definition 2 somehow remain unaffected in any capacity by virtue of this particular distinction?
Click to expand...

No, that is the point. One definition does not say there is no god. They may both live their lives as though there is no god, yes, but that is not the same thing. Just like the person who doesn't know whether I have a 460 carat diamond, but refuses to give me 50 dollars for it. That person 'lives' as though he believes there is no diamond, but doesn't believe there is no diamond. He doesn't know, but disbelieves.

I do not believe there is no god. However, I disbelieve there are any. I do not engage in faith, even though my lack of belief has the same practical result as believing god does not exist.
 
Cable said:
So we simply disagree. A moral discipline in my mind is a religion based on the definition of religion, or at least one of it's definitions.
Click to expand...

In my experience, religions tend to be much more rigid and static in their dogma, whereas an individual's moral code, when divorced from religious influence, tends to vary greatly throughout that individual's life.
 
Cable said:
Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Atheism

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

rejection of belief in God or gods
[C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Atheism is the denial of the existence of God or gods (deity). As it is impossible to prove God does not exist, there is no supporting evidence that He does not exist.
If one then establishes for themselves a conviction that God does not exist, it must be a belief.
One can then go about attempting to give the reasons behind this personal decision, but these are ultimately subjective conclusions based on what one has observed.

I believe Atheism to be a secularist religion, in that it is a belief system with it's own customs, practices, and moral code.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

Religion

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.

Idioms
9.get religion, Informal.
a.to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
Click to expand...

I just don't believe there is a god per the many different human versions of the 'god concept'.

I don't read books about it, I don't have a theory that other people share, I don't challenge people's religious beliefs in court, I don't have a formal declaration or any sort of 'showing out' of my view, I don't seek out other atheists and chit chat about big-bad religions. None of that. There is no formality or unity behind it - I just don't believe that humans 'figured god out'.

So, I actually get really irritated when start declaring atheism as a religion - because I am not going to be boxed into the concept of a religion because of my absence of belief.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I just don't believe there is a god per the many different human versions of the 'god concept'.

I don't read books about it, I don't have a theory that other people share, I don't challenge people's religious beliefs in court, I don't have a formal declaration or any sort of 'showing out' of my view, I don't seek out other atheists and chit chat about big-bad religions. None of that. There is no formality or unity behind it - I just don't believe that humans 'figured god out'.

So, I actually get really irritated when start declaring atheism as a religion - because I am not going to be boxed into the concept of a religion because of my absence of belief.
Click to expand...

I'd say that it really depends upon how a person conceptualizes "atheism" in their day-to-day life.

It doesn't have to be a religion, and often times, it's not. However, if taken to rigid extremes, atheism can be very similar to religion.

Many more radical and aggressive "anti-theists" flirt with the line between the two on a regular basis.
 
Cable said:
Can you explain what you mean by "Whatever supplements God..."
Science isn't a de facto replacement for God. Science in essence is just the study of Observable Fact. Many atheists claim to believe in science over God, but science neither proves nor disproves God. It is not by nature a replacement for God.
If science is then one's "belief system" would not the resulting customs and practices one employs as part of that belief system meet the definition of religion?
Click to expand...



Does it really matter? It's not like pointing this out is going to change anyone's mind about anything.
 
No, it is not a belief system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom