Atheism

[Koensayr]

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. The difference is sublte, but it is there.

Your definition of atheism is quite broad and in some instances lingers on the boarders of agnosticism. As such many people try to subdivide atheism into implicit or explicit, positive or negative atheism to differentiate the variety of people who call themselves "atheists."

When I hear the term atheism I generally think of those people for whom the statements "I don't believe in God," "the existence of God is impossible" and "the concept of God is absurd" define their worldview. For those people who don't care about the supernatural or haven't thought about it and so perhaps aren't "against it" (a contenious point IMO), at best one could describe them as "de facto atheists." This distinction is all the more important in the context of this thread.

In a sense it's like comparing apples and oranges - sure, they're both fruit (i.e. both call themselves "atheists") but they vary in key differences.

 

[awitch]

Since there is no empirical evidence, how do you support the assertion that no dieties exist?

I do believe in deities.
Did you mean to ask how I support the assertion that deities DO exist without empirical evidence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

Atheism is not a religion just as "theism" is not a religion. Both are abstract categories into which philosophies or religions may fit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted byKoensayr

It depends on how you define "religion" I guess. I typically believe religion is just a series of beliefs about the supernatural and since atheism is a series of beliefs about the supernatural, namely, that they don't exist, then it is a religion - just not a god-based religion like Christianity or Islam.

That seems reasonable.

As an aside, out of curiosity I Googled the phrase "Is atheism a religion?" and it seems that many atheists are abhorrent of such a claim and defend atheism as not being a religion as though their lives depended on it. IMHO, atheism requires just as much faith - if not more - than the god-based religions.

I totally agree with your assessment. Only if atheist would realize that they are not somehow above the same issues that they have with theist. When I look at creation, I cannot fathom that this all happened by some nonliving material becoming life and evolving into such complexity without there being a designer and authority over it. Even from a logical perspective, I find atheism requiring lots of faith in such a contrary position.

From my observation and reading, a common and often repeated theme for atheists is that there is no empirical evidence for God. Well, God can't be tested by scientific evidence and can't be proved by human reasoning alone. What they don't acknowledge is that there is more to creation than just the natural, physical world. They don't consider that there is also a hidden world of a metaphysical and a spiritual nature that also plays a part in reality. It is practically impossible to gather empirical evidence for invisible things including God. I think that is there major flaw and downfall of their position.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What they don't acknowledge is that there is more to creation than just the natural, physical world. They don't consider that there is also a hidden world of a metaphysical and a spiritual nature that also plays a part in reality.

They don't acknowledge an addition to the natural, physical world because there is no good reason to conclude that there is such an addition.

You are mistaken to say that atheists don't "consider" that there is a "hidden world". They generally do consider this issue very carefully, and reject it as unsupported.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Anon Sequitur]

originally posted byKoensayr


I totally agree with your assessment. Only if atheist would realize that they are not somehow above the same issues that they have with theist. When I look at creation, I cannot fathom that this all happened by some nonliving material becoming life and evolving into such complexity without there being a designer and authority over it. Even from a logical perspective, I find atheism requiring lots of faith in such a contrary position.

I see. So you can't understand how something happened, therefore, God exists? Arguements from Increduility only show your ignorance...

originally posted byKoensayr

What they don't acknowledge is that there is more to creation than just the natural, physical world. They don't consider that there is also a hidden world of a metaphysical and a spiritual nature that also plays a part in reality. It is practically impossible to gather empirical evidence for invisible things including God. I think that is there major flaw and downfall of their position.

I have an invisible, intangible imp on my shoulder right now who is secretly laughing at you and later will follow you around and cause many accidents to happen around you. It is impossible to gather empirical evidence of this imp, because he lives in a hidden metaphysical world that you haven't considered, and even though he is spiritual, he plays a part in reality.

originally posted byKoensayr
From my observation and reading, a common and often repeated theme for atheists is that there is no empirical evidence for God. Well, God can't be tested by scientific evidence and can't be proved by human reasoning alone.

Well then what's the bloody point?

 

[Anon Sequitur]

Originally Posted by awitch

Atheism is not a religion. It is the assertion that no deities exist, which I suspect is due to the lack of any empirical evidence. Other than that, atheists, as I understand them, do not have any official "atheistic ideology" to which they all subscribe.
​

Since there is no empirical evidence, how do you support the assertion that no dieties exist?

"Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence"-Carl Sagan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do believe in deities.
Did you mean to ask how I support the assertion that deities DO exist without empirical evidence?

If you look at your original post, you claim atheism is defined as: "the assertion that no dieties exist". Do you deny this? Why or why not?

The point I made was that your definition of atheism is wrong. If atheism is defined as the assertion that no dieties exist, the burden of proof would be on the "atheist" to support his claim. How can he support his claim when there is no empirical evidence of the non-existence of said dieties?

He can't. Therefore, the belief that no God(s) exist is illogical. I, as an atheist, fully recognize this. Do you? Why or why not?

Now before you get on your high horse and say "[[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] atheism is illogical!!!one11shift!!!eleven1", please consider that atheism is not the assertion that God does not exist. It is the lack of belief, or absence of belief in God. Does that make sense? Why or why not?

 

[peaceful soul]

Atheism is not a religion just as "theism" is not a religion. Both are abstract categories into which philosophies or religions may fit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I can see your point; regardless, a set of beliefs are used to live out one's life; so, the atheist does apply a religion to his life. The religion is a system not based upon God, but with just as much faith to carry out as one who does believe in God.

So, I agree with you that atheism is not a religion, but atheist do practice religion, even if they are not deliberately setting out to do so. Their religion is a product of whatever they do in the absence of God.

 

[Anon Sequitur]

I can see your point; regardless, a set of beliefs are used to live out one's life; so, the atheist does apply a religion to his life. The religion is a system not based upon God, but with just as much faith to carry out as one who does believe in God.

So, I agree with you that atheism is not a religion, but atheist do practice religion, even if they are not deliberately setting out to do so. Their religion is a product of whatever they do in the absence of God.

Atheists do not practice religion as a "product of whatever they do in the absence of God". If this were true, then you would be practicing religion as a product of whatever you do in the absence of Thor. Or Zeus. Or Ra, or any other of the 1000s of the Gods that man has made. Do you agree? Why or why not?

 

[peaceful soul]

They don't acknowledge an addition to the natural, physical world because there is no good reason to conclude that there is such an addition.

Which means that they don't believe in the supernatural because it is not readily visible like seeing the trees and being able to verify its existence by touch, smell, etc. In other words, if they can't see it or can't experience it in some overt manner, it must not be real or highly possible.

You are mistaken to say that atheists don't "consider" that there is a "hidden world". They generally do consider this issue very carefully, and reject it as unsupported.


eudaimonia,

Mark

They may consider, but they don't believe, which goes back to the loop of dismissing things that they can't account for in the visible realm. They are hung up in the physical realm to explain everything, which is part of my observation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

I would say more of a "movement"

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can see your point; regardless, a set of beliefs are used to live out one's life; so, the atheist does apply a religion to his life.

I think this is based on an overly broad definition of the word "religion".

Atheists may be ethical or philosophical, but calling them religious is a stretch.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Anon Sequitur

Atheists do not practice religion as a "product of whatever they do in the absence of God".

Let me define what I mean by religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam Webster online).

What I am trying to relay to you is that you are still employing the basics to living your life similar to a theist. You equally employ faith in your beliefs, just without God. You don't have to purposely practice like you would see a theist do by attending a service or group meeting and having to follow a prescribed set of rules based upon a book. Your religiosity is defined differently. It is more passive and changeable to your own desires. You don't have to be held accountable to others. You just take principles and philosophies and form your system and then live it out. It is not organized; rather, it is individualistic. It is self made instead of organizationally mandated or developed. There is no strict compliance like you will find in many theistic settings. Whatever you chose to put your faith in with regards to your life is your religious setting. Even if you don't have a formal set of philosophies, you still employ some. Do you see what I mean?

Your religion is what you do to live out your life, whether it is an individual thing or a group thing. You use your faith that there is no god to practice your beliefs. That, to me, is a religion although not conventional to theists who are more organized and normally follow a set of books. Just because you don't have any books to follow or don't have a group that you belong to doesn't make you not participating in some type of religious activity. Your religion comes in large part from carrying out your philosophical outlook on life. You believe A, B, and C and put your faith in A, B, and C; therefore, you employ a system of beliefs for yourself based upon A, B, and C. Your moral code, for example, forms part of your religion. Those things that you value most in shaping your life are part of your religion. Instead of them coming from a religious book or an organization, they come from you or others that may influence you. You are still carrying out a religion. Your god is yourself and/or something not based upon a deity. Everyone of us is serving something in our lives. it is either with God or without god.

If this were true, then you would be practicing religion as a product of whatever you do in the absence of Thor. Or Zeus. Or Ra, or any other of the 1000s of the Gods that man has made. Do you agree? Why or why not?

The difference here is that I do believe in a god--just not Thor. I would have a religion regardless of Thor. Not to believe in all possible gods does not change anything. I don't have to presume that all gods that people believe in are actually true. I can choose one and follow. That is different than what you do. You say there is no god and then proceed to base your beliefs upon that in carrying out your daily activities. The main things that are different between you and me is that you have no god and you don't have any organization like a church; yet you do practice your life upon a set of principles and beliefs that constitute you having a religion. You are religious even if you don't set out to create a ritualistic, ordered approach like many theists. The point would be that you have a set of beliefs about your existence that you practice whether you believe in God or not. Your life is still principled upon something which I call your religion.

Now if you want to use a more strict definition that requires god as as requirement, then you can say that you aren't religious or don't have a religion. I will repeat that atheism is not a religion, but those that are atheist do have a religion--normally individualistic and unordered. It is personal rather than organizational. You have a religion unless you are living here with no purpose but to just exist with no motivation to achieve anything. If you have a philosophy, then you have a religion.

I repeated a few things to hopefully help you to see what I am saying.

 

[peaceful soul]

I think this is based on an overly broad definition of the word "religion".

Atheists may be ethical or philosophical, but calling them religious is a stretch.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not conventionally speaking. You don't go to church or to a group. An atheistic system only depends upon personal conviction and his or her own thoughts, philosophies, etc. They put their faith in them and base their life upon them just as a theist does with his god-based approach to life. The point is that you are doing the same thing that a theist does, just without God being the principal influencer in how you carry out life. This definition of religion sums up what I am saying: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam Webster online).

In short, I am not saying that an atheist is religious in the sense that a Christian is. That is, that they don't conform themselves to authority from a deity, but they still conform to the authority of a non deity, whether it be philosophy or something else intertwined with philosophy. All of us place our faith in something that serves as our guide to life. That is my definition of religion.

 

[Anon Sequitur]

originally posted by Anon Sequitur



Let me define what I mean by religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam Webster online).

I will accept this definition.

What I am trying to relay to you is that you are still employing the basics to living your life similar to a theist. You equally employ faith in your beliefs, just without God. You don't have to purposely practice like you would see a theist do by attending a service or group meeting and having to follow a prescribed set of rules based upon a book. Your religiosity is defined differently.

Wait, the definition of religion changed? Besides, how did we get from religion to God? You certainly like to beg the question....

It is more passive and changeable to your own desires. You don't have to be held accountable to others.

Yes you do, you are held accountable by your own integrity and by other men(presumably the Government). In fact, you are more accountable than any theist will ever be, for instead of blaming your mistakes, shortcomings and errors on "sin", and the ficticous Devil, you take responsiblity for your actions.

You just take principles and philosophies and form your system and then live it out. It is not organized; rather, it is individualistic. It is self made instead of organizationally mandated or developed.

So what's wrong with that?

There is no strict compliance like you will find in many theistic settings. Whatever you chose to put your faith in with regards to your life is your religious setting. Even if you don't have a formal set of philosophies, you still employ some. Do you see what I mean?

What faith is this you speak of? And incidently, philosphy=/= religion.

Your religion is what you do to live out your life, whether it is an individual thing or a group thing.

Ahh so that's the definition of religion you're using! How wonderfully convenient, as it excludes no one.

You use your faith that there is no god to practice your beliefs.

Weak atheists, as I already explained, do not believe God does not exist. Once again, you presuppose much.

That, to me, is a religion although not conventional to theists who are more organized and normally follow a set of books. Just because you don't have any books to follow or don't have a group that you belong to doesn't make you not participating in some type of religious activity. Your religion comes in large part from carrying out your philosophical outlook on life.

Once again, applying your new definition of religion I see...

You believe A, B, and C and put your faith in A, B, and C; therefore, you employ a system of beliefs for yourself based upon A, B, and C.

And what exactly is this A,B, and C that atheists put their faith in?

Your moral code, for example, forms part of your religion. Those things that you value most in shaping your life are part of your religion. Instead of them coming from a religious book or an organization, they come from you or others that may influence you. You are still carrying out a religion. Your god is yourself and/or something not based upon a deity. Everyone of us is serving something in our lives. it is either with God or without god.

Would you care to support the assertion that I believe I am God? And while you're at it, the part about how "everyone is serving something in our lives"? They seem extremely weak. Your last sentence assumes that your God exists, when actually, many Gods could exist. Like Thor. Or Zeus.

The difference here is that I do believe in a god--just not Thor. I would have a religion regardless of Thor. Not to believe in all possible gods does not change anything. I don't have to presume that all gods that people believe in are actually true. I can choose one and follow. That is different than what you do. You say there is no god and then proceed to base your beliefs upon that in carrying out your daily activities.

Wrong. I do not assert that there is no God. The difference here is that you deny thousands of Gods; I just take it a step farther and deny yours.

The main things that are different between you and me is that you have no god and you don't have any organization like a church; yet you do practice your life upon a set of principles and beliefs that constitute you having a religion. You are religious even if you don't set out to create a ritualistic, ordered approach like many theists. The point would be that you have a set of beliefs about your existence that you practice whether you believe in God or not. Your life is still principled upon something which I call your religion.

What is it exaclty that I beleive then, that I principle my life upon?? You can call it religion if it makes you happy and helps you sleep at night knowing the atheists are religious. But that doesn't make it true.

Now if you want to use a more strict definition that requires god as as requirement, then you can say that you aren't religious or don't have a religion. I will repeat that atheism is not a religion, but those that are atheist do have a religion--normally individualistic and unordered. It is personal rather than organizational. You have a religion unless you are living here with no purpose but to just exist with no motivation to achieve anything. If you have a philosophy, then you have a religion.

What happens when you don't have a philosophy?

 

[Im_A]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

no.

religion has historically been defined as having beliefs in some sort of god. i disbelieve in any god that mankind has ever thought up. and my moral views do not come from religion. i believe religion borrows from humanity's morals. so i would say no, atheism is not a religion.

let's remember, atheism is simply, denying that gods exist. no reason for anyone to read more into it.

 

[Bombila]

I think for a very large number of theists, their own belief in a deity and concomitant rituals, services, practices, is so entirely routine and natural to them, and likely will have been part of their worldview since childhood, that they really cannot conceive of being without religion. So in trying to understand people who are atheists, they use the analogies most familiar to them, as peaceful soul has done, and this is why we have this endless conversation on whether atheism is a religion or not.

Not every philosophy ends in religion or in faith.

If you cannot understand that atheism is not a religion or a faith, then please just accept that the vast majority of atheists are not lieing to you when they tell you it isn't. How would you feel if someone insisted that you were something you know you are not?

 

[peaceful soul]

no.

religion has historically been defined as having beliefs in some sort of god. i disbelieve in any god that mankind has ever thought up. and my moral views do not come from religion. i believe religion borrows from humanity's morals. so i would say no, atheism is not a religion.

let's remember, atheism is simply, denying that gods exist. no reason for anyone to read more into it.

I am in agreement with the historical understanding. The only thing that I am trying to point out to some people here is that there is a religious aspect to everyone's life regardless of whether they believe in a deity or not. Atheist practice some kind of faith in order to live each day as do those who believe in God. An atheist is not organized in his or her beliefs in the same way that Christians do, but they still formulate a system to live by. With that definition, we are all religious. I say it this way to remove the idea that one must have a book to follow and an organization to belong to in order to be religious. In the broad sense, we all follow some system of beliefs that we have place our faith in--religion. Atheist just don't treat their beliefs in the systematic way that Christians do, for example. For Christians, our boundaries are influenced by God and an atheist is formed by things other than God.

 

[Im_A]

I am in agreement with the historical understanding. The only thing that I am trying to point out to some people here is that there is a religious aspect to everyone's life regardless of whether they believe in a deity or not. Atheist practice some kind of faith in order to live each day as do those who believe in God. An atheist is not organized in his or her beliefs in the same way that Christians do, but they still formulate a system to live by. With that definition, we are all religious. I say it this way to remove the idea that one must have a book to follow and an organization to belong to in order to be religious. In the broad sense, we all follow some system of beliefs that we have place our faith in--religion. Atheist just don't treat their beliefs in the systematic way that Christians do, for example. For Christians, our boundaries are influenced by God and an atheist is formed by things other than God.

systems to live by are not always religious. there are philosophical systems that are not religious nor have a religious origin. when an atheist disbelieves in every concept of god, disbelieves in all religions, where is the religiousness at for an atheist? we live our lives without religion. we live a godless, non-religious life. you could think of it as, disbelieving in something and then you begin a new life free of what you used to believe in.

what do us atheist put faith into? faith automatically assumes that we believe in something blindly. atheists do not believe in things blindly. what we believe with science has been tested, proven and has passes test after test. our views on god are based on the lack of evidence for such a being to exist, and might i even add, the failure of every argument that supports the idea of a god. so blind faith by the very nature that many atheists seek to find truth is incompatible with not only science, but as well as atheism. if we accepted things by blind faith, we would not be an atheist.

 

[awitch]

If you look at your original post, you claim atheism is defined as: "the assertion that no dieties exist". Do you deny this? Why or why not?

That *is* the definition of being an atheist, whether I believe in deities or not does not change the definition. As I mentioned, I do believe in deities.

The point I made was that your definition of atheism is wrong. If atheism is defined as the assertion that no dieties exist, the burden of proof would be on the "atheist" to support his claim. How can he support his claim when there is no empirical evidence of the non-existence of said dieties?

Incorrect. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive assertion (in other words, the one who believes in deity must prove its existence). It is a logical fallacy to prove a negative. For example, prove to me the flying purple unicorn from Uranus does not exist. Just because you can't prove it exists does not mean that it does.

Now before you get on your high horse and say "[[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] atheism is illogical!!!one11shift!!!eleven1", please consider that atheism is not the assertion that God does not exist. It is the lack of belief, or absence of belief in God. Does that make sense? Why or why not?

Atheism seems pretty logical to me - why believe in something without [convincing] evidence? Do you believe in the flying purple unicorn from Uranus? why or why not?