Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[vektor]

I took a religious studies class in University as a fluff class. One thing that was resoundingly clear was that atheism is not a religion. A religion has unified beliefs/traditions and there is almost always some form of ceremony. Saying atheism is a religion is akin to saying someone who participates in no sports competes in the sport of non-athletic. Atheism is the presence of a negative, there are no unified ceremonies and traditions because there are no ideologies that are worshipped.

Atheism is as simple as the name suggests, you do not belief in any spiritual deities. Many people on this earth don't believe in hunting for sport, that doesn't mean they belong to the brotherhood of anti-hunters. Attributing the beliefs of one atheist to another is profoundly insulting and ignorant. I myself am an atheist, but I attend church with my mom every once in a while to make her happy and I support everyone's right to believe in whatever nonsense you want because I believe in quantum mechanics and string theory and who knows how far off the mark they are, maybe god does exist and quantum mechanics is a misinterpretation of reality.

On a more interesting note I once saw a Masonic ceremony take place in a lodge, there's a religion if I've ever seen one. The fact that there are millions of people taking place in ceremonies clearly derived from other religious ceremonial practices without acknowledging it is a little scary.

[Dion]

This gal is one brick short of a load

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Atheism is a religion like abstinance is a sexual position.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

No, agnosticism is a position on knowledge, athesim is a position on belief.

You say that like it's an un-controvertible fact. That's one way of defining those two terms, but only one.

Most sources cited on Wikipedia for Atheism and Agnosticism agree that the common usages of the terms agree with my explanation, and, IMO, do a better job of encapsulating and distinguishing the respective ideas.

It's unnecessarily bookish and doctrinal to insist that Atheism only means X, particularly when doing so just forces you to come up with subcategories of atheism which then need explaining in order to provide the important differentiation that the common usages provide.

[vektor]

The whole atheism is a religion thing is a giant misunderstanding. Neither theism nor atheism are are religions. One can be theistic without belonging to any religion, one can believe in Jesus and Mohammad as spiritual deities, follow their touchings yet maintain affiliations to no religion. I think this thread is 10 people all agreeing about the same thing though.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

You say that like it's an un-controvertible fact. That's one way of defining those two terms, but only one.

Most sources cited on Wikipedia for Atheism and Agnosticism agree that the common usages of the terms agree with my explanation, and, IMO, do a better job of encapsulating and distinguishing the respective ideas.

What you quoted from Wikipedia agrees with my definitions, that's why I bolded the words from your Wiki quote:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."

Unknown or unknowable, a position about knowledge, not belief.

Further it says: "In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge)."

Again the differentiation between knowledge and belief.

For Atheism: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"

The only people who use a different definition that I know of are the people who don't know the words and simply use agnostic to indicate "I don't know."

Originally Posted by Mike F

It's unnecessarily bookish and doctrinal to insist that Atheism only means X, particularly when doing so just forces you to come up with subcategories of atheism which then need explaining in order to provide the important differentiation that the common usages provide.

I using clearer definitions for words facilitates communication, rather than being unnecessarily bookish. These are the definitions used on forums targeted towards such discussions.

The subcategories for atheism are necessary, because there are subcategories of atheists, and lumping them all together doesn't make things clearer, it makes it more obscure (as this thread demonstrates).

Subcategories of agnosticism are also necessary, because there are weak agnostics (the god question is not known because of insufficient information, but could be known) or strong agnostics (the god question is inherently unknowable no matter what, there can never be sufficient information).

The common usage doesn't provide enough because it doesn't cover all four possibilities.. one might believe but not know, one might believe and claim they know, one might not believe and not know, and one might not believe and claim they know.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well thats more than a lot of "religious" people do. I mean there is a large portion of people who would check a religous box on the census but the extent of their practice is to go to church on christmas and easter. So the amount you practice should not be a differentiator.

That's because to a lot of people, the cultural aspect outweighs the spiritual importance. Religion can't be defined simply by belief in a god and dogma. There is a whole cultural aspect that is completely separable from the spiritual aspect.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

The only people who use a different definition that I know of are the people who don't know the words and simply use agnostic to indicate "I don't know."

You might want to tell that to Richard Dawkins, who included a chapter called "The Poverty of Agnosticism" in his book "The God Delusion". And no, he wasn't talking about the shortcoming of a "view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist".

As for Wikipedia:

Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas an atheist and a theist believe and disbelieve, respectfully.

Yes, it goes on to cite the "strict" definition, but at least it recognizes the fact that it is used in multiple ways

^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415073103. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

Again, multiple interpretations, not Atheism means X and only X

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

You might want to tell that to Richard Dawkins, who included a chapter called "The Poverty of Agnosticism" in his book "The God Delusion". And no, he wasn't talking about the shortcoming of a "view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist".

If I ever meet him I will. There's a lot Dawkins says that I don't really agree with.

Originally Posted by Mike F

As for Wikipedia:

Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas an atheist and a theist believe and disbelieve, respectfully.

Yes, it goes on to cite the "strict" definition, but at least it recognizes the fact that it is used in multiple ways

Right, "In the popular sense". But like I also mentioned about the different scientific things you listed, the popular use of the word theory is different than the scientific use of the word. Neither are wrong per se, but they can obfuscate or be wildly misleading in certain contexts.

"Evolution is just a theory" being the common refrain among the 6000 year old earth crowd, trying to discredit something and deceive the less informed simply by choosing the less appropriate definition.

In a thread about atheism being a religion it just seemed appropriate to use the more informative definitions, but I am somewhat pedantic.

Originally Posted by Mike F

^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415073103. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

Again, multiple interpretations, not Atheism means X and only X

Fair enough, though the more encompassing definition seems like the only reasonable one (otherwise a whole group of people who lack belief are left out of the definition).

That all still talked about belief, which supports my statement that a/theism is a statement about belief, not knowledge.

[afc wimbledon]

All atheists are agnostics in practise, were God to show himself atheists would belive as much as agnostics.

It does beg the question though, if God turned up what would the religeous do? as whatever God may be I doubt he/she has a thing to do with our puny conception of it.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

All atheists are agnostics in practise, were God to show himself atheists would belive as much as agnostics.

This doesn't make any sense.

If there were any actual evidence of a god, atheists wouldn't likely be atheists at all. An atheist's disbelief is because of a lack of proof.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

This doesn't make any sense.

If there were any actual evidence of a god, atheists wouldn't likely be atheists at all. An atheist's disbelief is because of a lack of proof.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make, where there proof they would believe, which is essentially agnostic.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That was kind of the point I was trying to make, where there proof they would believe, which is essentially agnostic.

Agnostic concerns knowledge. Atheism is a lack of belief. Both positions are compatible with each other.

If there was proof, you wouldn't be agnostic, because you would know that evidence existed for determining the existence of a deity, making the answer to existence knowable. And you wouldn't be an atheist because you would believe in the existence of a deity once you had satisfactory evidence.

So I still don't understand how proof makes an atheist into an agnostic.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by vektor

The whole atheism is a religion thing is a giant misunderstanding. Neither theism nor atheism are are religions. One can be theistic without belonging to any religion, one can believe in Jesus and Mohammad as spiritual deities, follow their touchings yet maintain affiliations to no religion. I think this thread is 10 people all agreeing about the same thing though.

Quoted because it should be said again . . .

The lack of absolute language is probably the most difficult part of discussing religion. It all basically just boils down to a bunch of murky words and concepts thrown about with people agreeing without knowing it, or disagreeing about something without knowing they are entirely separate things. The importance of correct terminology when it comes to religion can not be overstated.

In turn, this makes the question "Do you believe in God?" one of the worst questions someone can possibly ask. What does it mean? Only God knows! Really. Without defining God, it can basically mean anything and everything.

[photon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It does beg the question though, if God turned up what would the religeous do? as whatever God may be I doubt he/she has a thing to do with our puny conception of it.

Depends.. if the god that shows up fits with my definition of god, then rejoice because I'm right.

If the god that shows up doesn't fit my definition, then rejoice because I'm wise enough to discern a spirit of darkness masquerading as a spirit of light.

[Kipperriffic]

Please take a look at a Dictionary to know the definition of a Religion. You will find that Atheism is not one.
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism's intention was not to provide advice and laws that govern a society's culture and politics.

[sworkhard]

Atheism and Theism are both beliefs as it's impossible to demonstrate that a supreme being does or does not exist. A single belief does not make a religion though. While a belief is a big part of religion, belief or faith that something does or does not exist is not a religion on it's own.

[Pacem]

Athiesm in its truest form is definitely not a religion.

I have a lot of problems with religions for various reasons. I don't understand the whole concept. If I don't believe I don't get in. And if someone does believe they can do whatever they want, beg for forgiveness and they get in. I'm a very honest and true person, and knowing that I wont get in because I don't have blind faith troubles me. Why "create" me as a logical person who needs proof and then have me live an honest and true life then deny me?

In any event. There is a sect of Athiesim that makes sense to me. I forget the exact name of it, but basically, prove it and i'll believe.

I believe the values in a lot of religions are great. I don't have children yet, but have every intent on taking them to church and giving them the choice. I'll play along when they are young. I feel that when they are older I'll explain what I believe if I haven't changed my beliefs.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

it's impossible to demonstrate that a supreme being does or does not exist

not yet at least. maybe we'll one day find a god particle that shows the only way the matter in the universe can possibly exist is because of divine intervention. Or maybe we create a mathematical formula that shows the infinite possibilities of matter and energy one of which our universe belongs to, something akin to a mandelbrot set with infinitely repeating geometry. Education in particle physics shows how little we actually know about the way the universe works. Study up on advanced quantum mechanics and you'll learn how anything could be possible.

[Pacem]

Oh and I should ad....

Humans are a very curious species. And we absolutely need an answer to everything. One of the answers that we do not have is what happens in the after life. One of, if not the only species that is conscience and aware that we will die. Due to that great knowledge, religion is a perfect solution to meet our desire of knowing.