[Gunhaver]

What are the people that keep insisting that atheism is a religion trying to prove? Are they trying to bring us down to their level or bring themselves up to ours?

Is the case that religion is something that people can't escape no matter what they believe? To ever have even thought about it and formed an opinion one way or another is religion? If atheism isn't non-religion then what is?

This argument is so silly I can't believe it's gone on for so many pages. It's like saying that people who don't care about football are still football fans because they're fans of not caring about football. It's almost as if someone were so wrapped up in football that they can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't care at all about it at all.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

What are the people that keep insisting that atheism is a religion trying to prove? Are they trying to bring us down to their level or bring themselves up to ours?

Is the case that religion is something that people can't escape no matter what they believe? To ever have even thought about it and formed an opinion one way or another is religion? If atheism isn't non-religion then what is?

This argument is so silly I can't believe it's gone on for so many pages. It's like saying that people who don't care about football are still football fans because they're fans of not caring about football. It's almost as if someone were so wrapped up in football that they can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't care at all about it at all.

Not sure. If we go with wiki's definition of religion--

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I don't see how spirituality comes into play for an atheist.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Roering

Not sure. If we go with wiki's definition of religion--

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I don't see how spirituality comes into play for an atheist.

It doesn't come into play for a atheist because atheism is not a religion.

[Geko45]

If I used the term areligious instead of atheistic, would that make things clearer?

[Woofie]

It really depends on what kind of atheist you are.

If you're a member of the United Atheist League then it is not a religion.

The League of United Atheists, however, are a bunch of religious wackos.

[English]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I've been having a discussion with a fellow about his religion. He is an atheist, or at least he claims to be.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthre...1#post16262611

He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

So, when it is pointed out that he has "Faith" that he is right, and that his view of the universe is right. As devout as any other religious fellow that I've run across.


Just to make sure I am being clear about my own beliefs, I am unsure, I'm an agnostic. I see evidence in nature and in man that both makes me believe that there may be a God, and there may not be one, or at least it may be difficult to know which one is the right one.

I have had this discussion with you before and it made no progress then.

In essence, a lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in some other thing simply because the same word is used for both.

All religions, in which I include socialism and communism, have many points in common. They demand that their followers believe certain fundamentals common to that particular faith. They demand that belief is maintained regardless of doubts, evidence or high probability that the faith is mistaken in its beliefs. That is, they are all irrational and demand that faith over rides rationality. They all have hierarchies of power and knowledge of the faith and if followers disagree with the hierarchy's interpretation of the faith they have no recourse but to leave and create a schismatic faith. That is, all religions are prone to schism but some assasinate those who try to leave.

If you don't like this characterisation of faith and religion please find one where those main characteristics are not true.

In comparrison atheism has no set of beliefs imposed by a hierarchy and does not even have a hierarchy. It does not have schisms since there is nothing to disagree about. It exists because atheists value rationality and evidence above unsuported and unsuportable belief. This value is made greater because there are inumerable irrational beliefs.

So then we come to the crux of the issue. Atheists believe that it is better to act rationally than to act rationally and atheists believe that the concept of a God existing is so improbable that the only sensible course of life is to act as though there is no God. Those beliefs are not comparable to the multitude of ideas that must be believed without evidence to be a member of any religion. Except when it is in conflict with their religious belief, religious people, just like atheist, believe that it is better to act rationally on evidence and probability. Many religious people believe that the world will be brought to an end and that believers will be taken up into the arms of God and unbelievers will be cast into everlasting torment but only a very small few act as though it is really going to happen in much the same way that atheists believe that the existence of God, of whatever kind, is extremely unlikley in any realistic framework.

If nothing else, the widespread concept within many religions of the End of Times should convince us that the idea of a God is ludicrous. What kind of god would it be who offered no kind of evidence for his existence to condemn those who did not believe in him to everlasting torment? The answer is quite simple. It is an individual mentally akin to a deranged and vicious child of maybe six or seven.

There is solid evidence for the way in which religions split or throw off related but independent groups, all of which believe they have the only right answer. There is solid evidence for the way in which core beliefs within such groups change over the centuries. When, in comparrison, there is no evidence for the existence of a god why is it not clear that the nature of religion is an inner need of many people which is satisfied by fairy stories and whose true nature is demonstrated over thousands of years of history by its leaders' struggles for power and the domination of the minds of others?

For religions it is not enough to make followers do what the leaders want - there is the deep need to make them believe what the leaders want them to believe. Religion is an order of magnitude worse than simple dictatorship! How could atheism possibly be compared to that?

English

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Roering

Not sure. If we go with wiki's definition of religion--

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I don't see how spirituality comes into play for an atheist.

Wiki? Well ok. Atheists have an opinion that relate humanity to spirituality, mainly that there is no relationship.

Calling atheism a religion is not an insult, it's just an observation. Both theists and atheists have chosen to believe a particular way on whether a deity or deities have ever existed. There is no absolute proof one way or the other. From an agnostic point of view, it's interesting to see the two sides argue that only they can be correct, when neither side has any solid proof. It's an exercise that shows they have faith that they are right, and so it simply must be.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by English

I have had this discussion with you before and it made no progress then.

In essence, a lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in some other thing simply because the same word is used for both.

All religions, in which I include socialism and communism, have many points in common. They demand that their followers believe certain fundamentals common to that particular faith. They demand that belief is maintained regardless of doubts, evidence or high probability that the faith is mistaken in its beliefs. That is, they are all irrational and demand that faith over rides rationality. They all have hierarchies of power and knowledge of the faith and if followers disagree with the hierarchy's interpretation of the faith they have no recourse but to leave and create a schismatic faith. That is, all religions are prone to schism but some assasinate those who try to leave.

If you don't like this characterisation of faith and religion please find one where those main characteristics are not true.

In comparrison atheism has no set of beliefs imposed by a hierarchy and does not even have a hierarchy. It does not have schisms since there is nothing to disagree about. It exists because atheists value rationality and evidence above unsuported and unsuportable belief. This value is made greater because there are inumerable irrational beliefs.

So then we come to the crux of the issue. Atheists believe that it is better to act rationally than to act rationally and atheists believe that the concept of a God existing is so improbable that the only sensible course of life is to act as though there is no God. Those beliefs are not comparable to the multitude of ideas that must be believed without evidence to be a member of any religion. Except when it is in conflict with their religious belief, religious people, just like atheist, believe that it is better to act rationally on evidence and probability. Many religious people believe that the world will be brought to an end and that believers will be taken up into the arms of God and unbelievers will be cast into everlasting torment but only a very small few act as though it is really going to happen in much the same way that atheists believe that the existence of God, of whatever kind, is extremely unlikley in any realistic framework.

If nothing else, the widespread concept within many religions of the End of Times should convince us that the idea of a God is ludicrous. What kind of god would it be who offered no kind of evidence for his existence to condemn those who did not believe in him to everlasting torment? The answer is quite simple. It is an individual mentally akin to a deranged and vicious child of maybe six or seven.

There is solid evidence for the way in which religions split or throw off related but independent groups, all of which believe they have the only right answer. There is solid evidence for the way in which core beliefs within such groups change over the centuries. When, in comparrison, there is no evidence for the existence of a god why is it not clear that the nature of religion is an inner need of many people which is satisfied by fairy stories and whose true nature is demonstrated over thousands of years of history by its leaders' struggles for power and the domination of the minds of others?

For religions it is not enough to make followers do what the leaders want - there is the deep need to make them believe what the leaders want them to believe. Religion is an order of magnitude worse than simple dictatorship! How could atheism possibly be compared to that?

English

Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities. Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists. Other than atheism, other religions do not have structured earthly rulers.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

If I used the term areligious instead of atheistic, would that make things clearer?

It depends, if you were trying to describe agnosticism, it makes sense. That is the most a religious philosophy I can think of.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities. Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists. Other than atheism, other religions do not have structured earthly rulers.

That's not what atheism is, though. Atheism does not imply an active belief that a god does not exist. It is only the lack of belief. Big difference there.

Would you call someone who doesn't believe that Jedis are real an Ajedi? Or someone who doesn't believe that aliens exist an Aextraterrestrial? Of course not. But that's essentially what you're doing with atheism.

Now, are there people who are anti theist? Absolutely. There are many examples of atheists who will claim with such fervor that no gods exist, did exist, or can exist, that it is like a religious experience for them. However you can't assume that hating religion and lacking religion are synonymous, because they aren't.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Woofie

That's not what atheism is, though. Atheism does not imply an active belief that a god does not exist. It is only the lack of belief. Big difference there.

Would you call someone who doesn't believe that Jedis are real an Ajedi? Or someone who doesn't believe that aliens exist an Aextraterrestrial? Of course not. But that's essentially what you're doing with atheism.

Now, are there people who are anti theist? Absolutely. There are many examples of atheists who will claim with such fervor that no gods exist, did exist, or can exist, that it is like a religious experience for them. However you can't assume that hating religion and lacking religion are synonymous, because they aren't.

Hey, it's just my opinion. I've thought about it a lot, and at least according to the actual definitions of the words, it fits. It's fine if people disagree. There are a couple hundred dissenting opinions in this thread alone.

I simply don't know how the universe came to be in its present form. I'm cool with that. I have seen a lot of belittling of theists here by atheists, and it struck me that atheists have also made assumptions about creation. And many are devoutly religious about it.


I still think that the correct usage of atheism is more than a lack of belief. It is a belief. Otherwise, how would you differentiate that from agnosticism.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue



I think a lot of people have used the label of atheism to describe agnosticism, which is a true lack of beleif.

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

Wrong. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge, not belief.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities.

Wrong. Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion that deities exist. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists.

Do you understand it is possible to be both? I am an agnostic atheist, or vice versa if you prefer. I reject the assertion that deities exist, but I don't claim to know that they don't exist.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun everybody.

[Geko45]

CavalryDoc's argument aside, atheism still is not a "religion", because it doesn't offer in core tenets. If I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, no body would say that my religion consists of not believing in unicorns and leprechauns.

Atheism means "not theistic" nothing more. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not an atheistic tenet. Evolution is a scientific theory, not an atheistic tenet. Atheist don't attend atheistic services. There is no clergy or canonical book of atheism, etc, etc.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Hey, it's just my opinion.

Then shouldn't the title of this thread be, "Why is it so hard to accept my opinion?"

After 72 pages of hashing it out it hasn't gotten any easier.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Wrong. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge, not belief.


Wrong. Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion that deities exist. Nothing more.



Do you understand it is possible to be both? I am an agnostic atheist, or vice versa if you prefer. I reject the assertion that deities exist, but I don't claim to know that they don't exist.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun everybody.

Sounds like you are an atheistic agnostic.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

CavalryDoc's argument aside, atheism still is not a "religion", because it doesn't offer in core tenents. If I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, no body would say that my religion consists of not believing in unicorns and leprechauns.

Atheism means "not theistic" nothing more. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not an atheistic tenent. Evolution is a scientific theory, not an athietic tenent. Athiest don't attend atheistic services. There is no clergy or canonical book of atheism, etc, etc.

There are several different forms or sects, but the basic tenet is that there are, and have been no such thing as deities.

The unicorn and leprechauns are a red herring, as they have nothing to do with a basic understanding of how the universe came to be and the nature of that universe.

The big bang could have occurred with or without a deity.
Atheists do attend meetings, at least some of them anyway.
Clergy is not required for the definition of religion.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It all fits. It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. Other such words exist, known as autoantonyms.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by Sarge1400

Wrong. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge, not belief.


Wrong. Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion that deities exist. Nothing more.



Do you understand it is possible to be both? I am an agnostic atheist, or vice versa if you prefer. I reject the assertion that deities exist, but I don't claim to know that they don't exist.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun everybody.

No one is ever done with this thread.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Wiki? Well ok. Atheists have an opinion that relate humanity to spirituality, mainly that there is no relationship.

No, atheists have an opinion regarding the claims of the existence of deity.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Calling atheism a religion is not an insult, it's just an observation.

No, it's an attempt to redefine religion into meaninglessness.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Both theists and atheists have chosen to believe a particular way on whether a deity or deities have ever existed.

Do people chose to believe in gravity?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

There is no absolute proof one way or the other.

Then why accept the assertion "deities exist"?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

From an agnostic point of view, it's interesting to see the two sides argue that only they can be correct, when neither side has any solid proof.

Which atheist is arguing only he or she can be correct?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It's an exercise that shows they have faith that they are right, and so it simply must be.

Which atheist makes that argument?

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

There are several different forms or sects, but the basic tenet is that there are, and have been no such thing as deities.

The unicorn and leprechauns are a red herring, as they have nothing to do with a basic understanding of how the universe came to be and the nature of that universe.

Nor does atheism. The problem arises because of theist claims.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

The big bang could have occurred with or without a deity.

Speaking of red herrings, is deity part of the Big Bang Theory?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Atheists do attend meetings, at least some of them anyway.

So do some followers of sporting events, yet you reject that analogy.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Clergy is not required for the definition of religion.

athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

That isn't the sole definition of the term, nor is it the definition atheists apply to themselves, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity.

You're still trying to tell atheists what they believe?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.

How many atheists have disagreed with you about this? Are they all wrong about their beliefs?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in.

What faith is required to say, "I don't accept your assertion of deity"?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

Does it take faith to reject the assertion there's a teapot orbiting Mars?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's good you've emphasized the parts you prefer; that makes the rest go away.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving.

You're being disingenuous again; it's also defined as "mental rejection of something as untrue."

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Looky here:

Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb: to withhold or reject belief

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

Is withholding or rejecting belief "a system of belief"?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

Which explains all the requests for evidence; commitment to disbelief.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Is withholding or rejecting belief "a system of belief"?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It all fits.

Only through tortuous, twisting force.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Only to people who need it to be.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. Other such words exist, known as autoantonyms.

Many things are also their opposite. Right?

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, no, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, no, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists.

Agnostics mistakenly don't believe something about which they don't have knowledge?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Other than atheism, other religions do not have structured earthly rulers.

Atheism has structured earthly rulers?

[Cavalry Doc]

Ks, we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with your state of denial.


Tsalrite.


To all, it's ok. No need to crack the 1800 post count, all that can be said on this subject has been said repetedly.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, I wish you all well.

[Lone Wolf8634]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Ks, we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with your state of denial.


Tsalrite.

And we're ok with your (wrong) opinion.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

And we're ok with your (wrong) opinion.

Calvary Doc is having a hard time accepting the fact that he's an atheist. He just needs time to work through it.

Tsotay.

-ArtificialGrape

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf8634

And we're ok with your (wrong) opinion.

Your problem is with Merriam-Webster and the American English language, not me. I just pointed out the obvious. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable about it

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Calvary Doc is having a hard time accepting the fact that he's an atheist. He just needs time to work through it.

Tsotay.

-ArtificialGrape

Not really. It's all explained in the previous posts.



For a subject you all dislike so much, you sure are giving it a lot of bumps. I know the realization is irritating, but I'm pretty comfortable with myself and my position. Maybe some day you will be comfortable too.