NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

In religion you need a material part, and spiritual...atheists don't belive such things...
I almost feel insulted when people consider Atheism a religion.
Atheism = lack of religion

Probably should be considered a religion... maybe...

I don't think just religion requires faith, but life in general. Without a certain amount of faith we can not function, seeing as nothing is 100% certain. Well that's my idea.

seeing as atheism literally means "no religion", i'd say no.

No.

No!

The only way it stands alongside Christianity, Judaism, etc., is that it is a viewpoint torward the subject of religion. That in itself does not make it a religion.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?


Not to get back into that whole religion is stupid, science is stupid flame war thing... but I respectifully disagree with the idea that physics, math, and science are based on faith.

If we argue that they are based on faith, they are based on faith of an entirely different and more observable level than religion. The 'faith' which we put in our senses, of observable phenomina, which is good enough to convince us that things exist and are real. That level of 'faith' (as its being called) is much more intimate and observable than the level of 'faith' needed to beleive in the existence of a higher being, etc.

I would be inclined to think that Atheism is a philosophy.

As such I think you could loosely call it a faith but not a religion. To me faith and religion are two completely seperate things. Religion is a structured organisation such as the catholic church or the anglican church etc... Your faith as a christian and how much faith you have in the tenets of those religions defines how ardent a "insert church name here" you are.

Well... it is certainly a religious belief - not a belief that there is no religion, but that there is/are no G/god(s). Only true agnostics hold no religious beliefs. If this is in relation to the establishment clause, I do think that it should be considered a religion. It is as much a belief as Judaism or Christianity or Islam or anything, and it is in regard to religion, and therefore a religious belief. So maybe we should not attempt to define atheism, but rather religion.

No.

It only takes faith to believe in something like a god, a concept that requires a person to wholeheartedly believe in something they cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste but that they are willing to allow to dictate how they live their every day life.

Athiests are just people who, for a number of reasons, cannot make a leap of faith and prefer to rely on things that they can actually experience, like humanity, love, kindness, hate, compassion etc.
Myself, an athiest, cannot bring myself to believe in an omnipotent being who is supposed to be all good.
I cannot fathom how people can believe in a god who's very omnipresence should tell them that if he/it really exsisted would prove his/it's malovolence towards humanity as a whole.

Christians will chant the "free will" mantra to absolve their god of all and any blame for mans inhumanity to man but that's a cop out of a grand nature, if there was a god who knows all, knew all and could forsee all (onmipotence) then free will would have been the last thing he would have given man.
So either god is the creator of all things and is sitting back having a huge laugh at our expense, or he doesn't exsist.
I believe he doesn't, and has never exsisted and that religion is as man made an invention as the wheel.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's realism.

I'd classify myself as a 'weak atheist' (or agnostic, depending on your definition): I don't believe in a god but will concede the possibility that I might be wrong, though I think it so unlikely that I don't tax my poor neurons by thinking much about it. That doesn't require any meaningful sort of faith on my part.

If I met you in the street I'd assume that you were human. Hey, perhaps you're really from Alpha Centuri, but you're probably not; again, it's not worth devoting too much effort to the various possibilities. Similarly, I might actually be some sort of raspberry blancmange dreaming that I'm a human. Until I find some evidence to that effect, though, it's sensible to assume that I'm not.

I don't see any demonstration of faith here. I suppose that you could get tiresomely anal and claim that I'm displaying faith in my assumption that the sun is going to rise in the morning, but that hardly equates to faith in the religious sense of the word.

Surely this just the old debate what constitutes as a belief, a faith, or a religious conviction? I’d call atheism a belief, because it’s something that a person – or people - accepts as a universal truth...but can that definition be extended into terms of spirituality? No, I don’t think so. The whole basis of religion is faith, and what is atheism but the absence of faith?

My two cents.

seeing as atheism literally means "no religion", i'd say no.

Well, atheism literally means "without god". It comes from Greek. The prefix "a" means "without" or "none" or "no" etc. Then Greek's "theos" (the "theist" part of the word) means god(s). So atheist literally means "without gods." Kind of like how polytheist means belief in many gods, as opposed to belief in many religions.

Not to get back into that whole religion is stupid, science is stupid flame war thing... but I respectifully disagree with the idea that physics, math, and science are based on faith.

If we argue that they are based on faith, they are based on faith of an entirely different and more observable level than religion. The 'faith' which we put in our senses, of observable phenomina, which is good enough to convince us that things exist and are real. That level of 'faith' (as its being called) is much more intimate and observable than the level of 'faith' needed to beleive in the existence of a higher being, etc.

I agree entirely. faith on the religious sense is "faith in things unseen/unexplainable". Science and math are things that are explainable. and they serve to explain some things. However there are somethigns that science will never be able to explan without leaving the realm of science and heading straight for a nose dive into theology. And faith is only one aspect of a religion. if you want to discuss atheism as a religion, get me more aspects of a religion. Faith is the only one anyone has yet spoken of, and faith in the religious sense if "beleif in things unseen". Faith is a huge part of religion, and atheism neglects to provide even that.

I think agnosticism is more scientific than atheism. Science, for example, doesn't say that there isn't a 3 headed dragon, but only that none have been found, leaving open the possibility. Atheism is the beleif that we actually know for a fact there isn't an accurate religion of any kind. It may very well be true, and it's what agnosticism suggests, from given information available. But suggesting that lack of proof for a god is proof that god does't exist, is a stretch, like saying 'this rock keeps elephants away'.

atheism is a religion because in a religion, the people all believe the same thing, and atheists all believe there is no God, so therefore it should be considered a religion.

No, atheism is not a religion.

Religions are spiritual and philosophical belief systems practiced by groups who bond through churches, priests, holy books and history, and of course faith in the same deity.

But any examples you could find of churches, priests or holy books of atheism are (eccentric) subsets who don't and cannot represent the whole set of atheism.

The only thing 'bonding' or unifying atheists is a lack of belief in god. That's it. If that's a religion, you may as well consider "not voting Republican" a religion or "lack of belief in Cthulhu" a religion or "enjoys cheese sandwiches" a religion.

I hate it when religious people try to say that non-religion is a religion in order to make themselves feel better about the fact that they are religious in an world where religion is being antiquated by the growth of human knowledge.

I hate it when religious people try to say that non-religion is a religion in order to make themselves feel better about the fact that they are religious in an world where religion is being antiquated by the growth of human knowledge.

You put that very, very well.

Not to get back into that whole religion is stupid, science is stupid flame war thing... but I respectifully disagree with the idea that physics, math, and science are based on faith.

If we argue that they are based on faith, they are based on faith of an entirely different and more observable level than religion. The 'faith' which we put in our senses, of observable phenomina, which is good enough to convince us that things exist and are real. That level of 'faith' (as its being called) is much more intimate and observable than the level of 'faith' needed to beleive in the existence of a higher being, etc.

I understand what your saying, basically that the difference is that the claims of sciences can be tested against what we consider is reality. And this is an interesting counter-point because you're saying that the difference between science-beliefs and religious-beliefs is the amount of testibility. However, science beliefs still rely on untestable assumptions, such as that experiements are consistent, and that the findings of a finite amount of experiements can be applied to an infinite amount of situations. And so the faith that our sciences work is based partly on the fact that we don't know of a contradiction, and based partly on the hope that our sciences do indeed work.

I would be inclined to think that Atheism is a philosophy.

As such I think you could loosely call it a faith but not a religion. To me faith and religion are two completely seperate things. Religion is a structured organisation such as the catholic church or the anglican church etc... Your faith as a christian and how much faith you have in the tenets of those religions defines how ardent a "insert church name here" you are.

Would conconsider then, that non-denominational chirstians have no religion? Or is their common belief in Jesus being the Messiah enough organization to call them "organized"?

Isn't a religion a faith or something that has you believe in god,or "gods"? :confused: because like buddhaism belives in thier "gods",
Islam believes in one divine God,Christanity believes in Jesus and Judaism believes in Jehova,(I'm not really sure... :confused: ) and etc...So no I don't think it should be a religion because I think it's blasphemy (not sure if I spelt it right) because there really is God...

I understand what your saying, basically that the difference is that the claims of sciences can be tested against what we consider is reality. And this is an interesting counter-point because you're saying that the difference between science-beliefs and religious-beliefs is the amount of testibility. However, science beliefs still rely on untestable assumptions, such as that experiements are consistent, and that the findings of a finite amount of experiements can be applied to an infinite amount of situations. And so the faith that our sciences work is based partly on the fact that we don't know of a contradiction, and based partly on the hope that our sciences do indeed work.

I have to argue that consistency in experiments is a fair assumption, as normally new discoveries (such as when we created man-made elements) are not accepted on the first successful experiment, but after the logic and process has been thoroughly reviewed, and the experiment repeated.

I agree strongly that experiments aren't absolute truth, they merely suggest assumptions to us, that we make the leap of beleiving after we challenge it to whatever degree it is that satisfies us.

And our being able to challenge ideas is the only tool we really have to 'validate' them... or bring them to a point of challenging where it seems convincing enough for us to beleive it. A very good realization on your part, and it's a thought that could serve usefull for many people who haven't considered it enough.

But ultimately, I have to argue that this gap between what we can challenge in existing fields of knowledge (such as the previously mentioned math, science, physics, etc..) and what we can challenge in religion is really large gap. I think that that is the main thing distancing the 'faith' of religion from the 'faith' of science.

However, science beliefs still rely on untestable assumptions, such as that experiements are consistent, and that the findings of a finite amount of experiements can be applied to an infinite amount of situations. And so the faith that our sciences work is based partly on the fact that we don't know of a contradiction, and based partly on the hope that our sciences do indeed work.
To exist in the world you need to take certain fundamental things for granted. For instance, I assume that when I attempt to take a breath there will indeed be some air floating around for me to inhale. I also assume that gravity won't suddenly reverse itself and send me plummeting away from the ground. Continually questioning these assumptions would render one entirely incapable of functioning in society.

Do you classify this series of assumptions in the same category as the religious faith of a theist?

No.

It only takes faith to believe in something like a god, a concept that requires a person to wholeheartedly believe in something they cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste but that they are willing to allow to dictate how they live their every day life.

Athiests are just people who, for a number of reasons, cannot make a leap of faith and prefer to rely on things that they can actually experience, like humanity, love, kindness, hate, compassion etc.
Myself, an athiest, cannot bring myself to believe in an omnipotent being who is supposed to be all good.
I cannot fathom how people can believe in a god who's very omnipresence should tell them that if he/it really exsisted would prove his/it's malovolence towards humanity as a whole.

Christians will chant the "free will" mantra to absolve their god of all and any blame for mans inhumanity to man but that's a cop out of a grand nature, if there was a god who knows all, knew all and could forsee all (onmipotence) then free will would have been the last thing he would have given man.
So either god is the creator of all things and is sitting back having a huge laugh at our expense, or he doesn't exsist.
I believe he doesn't, and has never exsisted and that religion is as man made an invention as the wheel.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's realism.
Not to disagree, but this is defining atheism only in relation to religions of the book. Why should God be benevolent? Especially according to human preconceptions of benevolence.

I think most people would agree that religion and beliefs are two different things. I mean religion obviously has a belief system butbelifs don't need religin. I'm a socialist, i believe in socialist type things, that doesn't mean that those beliefs can be summed up into a religion.

I still dont understand why people can't put religion and science together. The Gnostics did it!

To exist in the world you need to take certain fundamental things for granted. For instance, I assume that when I attempt to take a breath there will indeed be some air floating around for me to inhale. I also assume that gravity won't suddenly reverse itself and send me plummeting away from the ground. Continually questioning these assumptions would render one entirely incapable of functioning in society.

Do you classify this series of assumptions in the same category as the religious faith of a theist?

Well that is the question that needs to be argued in this thread.

I think most people would agree that religion and beliefs are two different things. I mean religion obviously has a belief system butbelifs don't need religin. I'm a socialist, i believe in socialist type things, that doesn't mean that those beliefs can be summed up into a religion.

I still dont understand why people can't put religion and science together. The Gnostics did it!
Check out process theology, it's a contemporary recognition of the dipolar nature of God and the physical universe. It seems to have echoes of both gnostic thought and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Atheism is the complete opposite of religion.

I have to argue that consistency in experiments is a fair assumption, as normally new discoveries (such as when we created man-made elements) are not accepted on the first successful experiment, but after the logic and process has been thoroughly reviewed, and the experiment repeated.

I agree strongly that experiments aren't absolute truth, they merely suggest assumptions to us, that we make the leap of beleiving after we challenge it to whatever degree it is that satisfies us.

And our being able to challenge ideas is the only tool we really have to 'validate' them... or bring them to a point of challenging where it seems convincing enough for us to beleive it. A very good realization on your part, and it's a thought that could serve usefull for many people who haven't considered it enough.

But ultimately, I have to argue that this gap between what we can challenge in existing fields of knowledge (such as the previously mentioned math, science, physics, etc..) and what we can challenge in religion is really large gap. I think that that is the main thing distancing the 'faith' of religion from the 'faith' of science.

These are all good points, which must be agreed if, and only if, we do not want to go into an infinite helix of what assumptions are. And so I suppose this eleviates agnostics, and only pure agnostics (being those agnostics that leave the possibility of an experiment of god's existence eventually being invented, as opposed to agnostics who assume that we can never know either way), of being in a religion. But alas, these arguements follow to a conclusion that any beliefs making an actual statement about something we cannot yet test constitute a religion. This leaves atheists, who believe there is no god, as a religion.

Well as a Christian, I see aethism as a religion (even though the dictionary stats otherwise).

If you actually look in the bible, moses was angry with his people as they started worshipping a golden calf. Idolism was considered a religion because the people loved and worshipped something earthly.

You just need to talk to aethists and they tend to be obsessed with something. That is their religion. Some worship Legolas, some worship the DVD's (one of my friends do), others worship Harry Potter, some worship OC, others Star Wars or Star Trek...

If aethists aren't like the people above, they are their own religion, converting people to be like them, thus you have people walking around thinking they own the world.

If people also believe in evolution or the big bang theory, they also believe in the scientific religion aethism.

So to have people who believe in no God, actually is a religion (in my opinion).

From an extreme point of you (and yes, what I'm about to say is touchy), for the people who worship wordly icons, that can be regarded as worshipping the devil (from a Christians perspective). Satan owns the world. And if you follow and believe in what the world tells you to do, you are falling unto Satans religion that there is no God. He has won. He has made you believe that there is no God- thats spiritual because the people who are obsessed with wordly idols and posessions are destined to go to hell.

Now what I just wrote was from a different perspective. I'm sorry if that offends anyone I'm just offering a different perspective.

Well as a Christian, I see aethism as a religion (even though the dictionary stats otherwise).

If you actually look in the bible, moses was angry with his people as they started worshipping a golden calf. Idolism was considered a religion because the people loved and worshipped something earthly.

You just need to talk to aethists and they tend to be obsessed with something. That is their religion. Some worship Legolas, some worship the DVD, others worship Harry Potter, others Star Wars or Star Trek...
How is an obsession the same thing as a religion? If the two can somehow be magically equated, those DVD-obsessed Christians are going have to face some tricky questions...

I would say from a logical point of view, you have to say that Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity. It takes faith to believe in nothing, and you cannot prove it with material things or mathematics/science, just like religion. Personally, I do not see it as being a particularly GOOD religion as it's core implies that there is nothing after death, no rules of morality and absolutely no hope. It's like nothing matters 24/7.

But I digress. The point of this forum is to see if Atheism should be considered a religion or not, and I would say it must be added in as it requires faith in things unproved by man's work.

-R. S. of UC

These are all good points, which must be agreed if, and only if, we do not want to go into an infinite helix of what assumptions are. And so I suppose this eleviates agnostics, and only pure agnostics (being those agnostics that leave the possibility of an experiment of god's existence eventually being invented, as opposed to agnostics who assume that we can never know either way), of being in a religion. But alas, these arguements follow to a conclusion that any beliefs making an actual statement about something we cannot yet test constitute a religion. This leaves atheists, who believe there is no god, as a religion.
For the purposes of this thread (and the quoted comment in particular), how are you defining 'religion'?

Regarding assumptions and faith: can we agree, as a working definition, that faith is something believed absolutely, without allowing the possibility of error?

For instance: while I assume that the world exists, I will acknowledge the theoretical possibility (small as it might be) that it does not, and it is all a dream or an elaborate deception on the part of a mad scientist somewhere. My religious friends, on the other hand, would not accept that their God does not exist. To me, this displays a clear distinction between their faith and my assumption.

Atheism and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Atheism is just the opposite of theism. You can be part of a religion and not believe in a God. As far as I know Buddhists are like that (buddha was just a chap who reached supreme enlightenment, but wasn't a god right? correct me if im wrong heh).

welll i didn't read all the responses except for the first one, but i agree with the first post- thats very true! :)

No way, it isn't. It doesn't have that honor.

These are all good points, which must be agreed if, and only if, we do not want to go into an infinite helix of what assumptions are. And so I suppose this eleviates agnostics, and only pure agnostics (being those agnostics that leave the possibility of an experiment of god's existence eventually being invented, as opposed to agnostics who assume that we can never know either way), of being in a religion. But alas, these arguements follow to a conclusion that any beliefs making an actual statement about something we cannot yet test constitute a religion. This leaves atheists, who believe there is no god, as a religion.
There are a number of different ways of defining a religion - a common belief or belief system, organised worship, rites, practices &c &c. But for the term to have any meaning there must be a recognition of a transcendent or spiritual being. To argue that anyone with a belief about such spiritual matters, including that they do not exist, is religion (and on such a basis, why exclude agnostics from the ranks of the religious?) is just another way of saying, "look, we're all people, right?" It may be so, but it doesn't advance anything.

As a thought experiment, since religion is such a subjective issue, consider applying self-definitions to this question, and asking people, "are you religious?"

Christian/Hindu &c: "Yes"
(Buddhist: "Depends on what you mean by religion")
Atheist: "No."

Very difficult to imagine an atheist answering any other way.

On a point of information, agnostics can (simplisticly) be classified as either 'don't knows' or 'can't knows'. Theogically, the latter are the 'pure' agnostics.

Atheism and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Atheism is just the opposite of theism. You can be part of a religion and not believe in a God. As far as I know Buddhists are like that (buddha was just a chap who reached supreme enlightenment, but wasn't a god right? correct me if im wrong heh).
I had this from the general secretary of the British Buddhist Society a while ago. I pointed out that the society was due some tax breaks by virtue of being a religious society, he started arguing that Buddhism was not a religion in that it had no god, I pointed out he was in danger of arguing the society out of some real money, and we agreed Buddhism was close enough to a religion for practical purposes and that abstract philisophical arguments had little place in tax planning.

Well as a Christian, I see aethism as a religion (even though the dictionary stats otherwise).

If you actually look in the bible, moses was angry with his people as they started worshipping a golden calf. Idolism was considered a religion because the people loved and worshipped something earthly.

You just need to talk to aethists and they tend to be obsessed with something. That is their religion. Some worship Legolas, some worship the DVD's (one of my friends do), others worship Harry Potter, some worship OC, others Star Wars or Star Trek...

If aethists aren't like the people above, they are their own religion, converting people to be like them, thus you have people walking around thinking they own the world.

If people also believe in evolution or the big bang theory, they also believe in the scientific religion aethism.

So to have people who believe in no God, actually is a religion (in my opinion).

This post is moronic. Veladora, I recommend you go look up the words "worship", "atheist", and "religion" in a dictionary. The dictionary is right. If you don't agree with it, at least in general semantics, then you are wrong.

While you're there, try looking up "generalisation" too.

My two cents...

I don't think there's a clear enough understanding of exactly what beliefs an atheist may or may not have. Since I'm a CS major, let me try:

!(believe in God) != (believe in !(God))

As an atheist, I don't hold faith that there is no god, because that would require a step from a base assumption that there is a god - if that makes sense. Rather, I logically reject the notion that there is a god - a position that requires neither belief nor disbelief in a religious sense. Therefore, atheism is not a religion - it is, in fact, the diametric opposite of religion.

This is hard to phrase, and I have a hangover. :(

NO! I do not wish to be likened to thoes religious people!

:p But seriously, Athiesm is the lack of spirituality, so calling it a religion is pointless.

Regarding assumptions and faith: can we agree, as a working definition, that faith is something believed absolutely, without allowing the possibility of error?That's not how I would define it. To me, faith is simply believing something that one cannot prove. For instance, I have faith that my friends and family won't abandon me if I need them in the future. I can't prove that (until I need them in the future). It is simply my belief. I can only go on how they have acted in the past. They could betray my faith by not being there for me when I need them.

To all those who feel that atheism is not a religion, would it then be all right, constitutionally, to ban it? The
first amendment (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html) (in the US) prevents laws prohibiting religion. By your argument, atheism is not a religion, so it is not protected in the first amendment. Therefore, it should be legal to ban atheism.

My view is somewhat broader. In my opinion, belief (not faith) is the key. Therefore, the first amendment is protecting freedom of belief, expression, and assembly. The atheist is protected by it as much as the theist (of whatever stripe). Further, one does not need an organized religious apparatus (popes, bishops, priests, etc.) to be protected.

I do not believe that science or obsession rise to the level of religion. To me, science is about having proof for things. It is rarely a matter of faith. Obsession is about having an intense interest in something. Someone can be obsessed with religion, but one does not need to be obsessed to be religious.

How is an obsession the same thing as a religion? If the two can somehow be magically equated, those DVD-obsessed Christians are going have to face some tricky questions...

they would be called immature, juvenile or practicing christians.

Atheism is not religion for one unequivocal and explicit reason:

Religion refers to belief *in* god, not belief 'regarding the possiblity of the existence of a god.'

"religious" as an adjective can be used to describe something pursued with zeal.

This usage of 'religious' is the same as using the word 'feline' to describe a slender and elegent woman.

The implication is not that the woman has cat's whiskers and walks around on four legs waving about her tail, but rather that she has charactaristics which remind an observer of a cat.

The use of the word 'religious' to describe things which are not religion is analagous, it refers to the similarity between zealous belief and the zealotry of belief which often characterizes religion.

It is also important to note that the word "irreligious" has long meant the same thing that 'atheist' does now.

This is further evidence that 'religion' is a word which specifically refers to the belief that there is a god.

No.

Why does it even matter? Whether or not atheism is a religion doesn't change what atheists believe.

I think everything requires at least some faith. Ultimately, why should we believe anyone but ourselves even exists other than faith and moral reasons?

Well, Atheism still depends on an act of "Faith". They have faith that there is no God, in that they cannot prove that there is no God. :D

Simply saying that their belief systems is not a belief because the counter argument can not be proven, that an all powerful ethereal God exists is not enough. They would have to emphatically prove the nonexistence of God.

In order to prove that an infinite all powerful God does not exist would require you to be a infinite all powerful skeptic, which would mean you would be God. Well that would be a bit of a theoretical blind alley for an Atheist.

That's why I think Atheist should be open for the same tax exemptions that religions receive.

There are a number of different ways of defining a religion - a common belief or belief system, organised worship, rites, practices &c &c. But for the term to have any meaning there must be a recognition of a transcendent or spiritual being. To argue that anyone with a belief about such spiritual matters, including that they do not exist, is religion (and on such a basis, why exclude agnostics from the ranks of the religious?) is just another way of saying, "look, we're all people, right?" It may be so, but it doesn't advance anything.

As a thought experiment, since religion is such a subjective issue, consider applying self-definitions to this question, and asking people, "are you religious?"

Christian/Hindu &c: "Yes"
(Buddhist: "Depends on what you mean by religion")
Atheist: "No."

Very difficult to imagine an atheist answering any other way.

On a point of information, agnostics can (simplisticly) be classified as either 'don't knows' or 'can't knows'. Theogically, the latter are the 'pure' agnostics.

It really does depend on what you mean by religion. Your definition has alot of assumptions in it. A rule of thumb is that you always want to assume as little as possible. What cannot the definition of religion simply be: "A belief in a statement that we do not have the ability to test with an experiment."?

No and I hate you for even considering it, atheism is a lack of faith. What one believes in, however; can still apply, like secular humanism.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

Most people share a common belief that humans are not be controlled by invisible sentient powder-blue marshmallow bunnies who use psi powers to control all natural phenomena including human thought. As it is impossible to prove that these invisible sentient powder-blue marshmallow bunnies with psi powers do not exist, it takes an act of "faith" to not believe in these bunnies. Therefore the majority of humanity shares a common religion by not believing in the bunnies.

That makes just as much sense as atheism being a religion.

A religion would entail doctrine, behaviors based around belief (not enacted because of lack of belief), etc.

Why does it even matter? Whether or not atheism is a religion doesn't change what atheists believe.

Certain fundies have tried to redefine words and thus call atheism a religion in an attempt to claim that the non-mention of god/s in certain settings like classrooms constitutes teaching a religion.

The fallacy of that is of course, that unless it is explicity mentioned that there are no god/s the lack of mention is a null set into which a person may project a personal belief of either the presence or lack of god/s. The only way not to have a null set would be to specifically mention diety (either in the positive or negative) and that would establish a belief concerning diety.

No.

No and I hate you for even considering it, atheism is a lack of faith. What one believes in, however; can still apply, like secular humanism.

But to be an Atheist you have to have faith that there is no God, because they can't prove the non existence of God. Being an Atheist is an act of faith not a product of a lack of faith. People who have a lack of faith are just bad Christians. :D

Most people share a common belief that humans are not be controlled by invisible sentient powder-blue marshmallow bunnies who use psi powers to control all natural phenomena including human thought. As it is impossible to prove that these invisible sentient powder-blue marshmallow bunnies with psi powers do not exist, it takes an act of "faith" to not believe in these bunnies. Therefore the majority of humanity shares a common religion by not believing in the bunnies.

That makes just as much sense as atheism being a religion.

*snip*


You have no reason not to believe in these bunnies. There are three types of people in this world: Those who say your bunnies exist, those who say your bunnies don't exist, and those who say they don't know. The first two are convictions that we are not able to test with an experiment, so they belong to religion. Those who say your bunnies don't exist are religious because they already have a conviction on it that can't be tested with an experiment. Those convictions may come from Christian beliefs, Atheistic beliefs, Islamic beliefes, etc. but are still part of faith thsat cannot be tested with an experiment. Those who say your bunnies exist may be Bunnyists, or an unsual denomination of Christianity, Atheism, Islam, etc. Again we aren't able to test those convictions with an experiment. Those who say they do not know are the only ones not holding a religious view on the issue.

But to be an Atheist you have to have faith that there is no God, because they can't prove the non existence of God. Being an Atheist is an act of faith not a product of a lack of faith. People who have a lack of faith are just bad Christians. :D

Atheists have no need to prove the "non existance of god", the simple fact that they do not believe in god means that those who do, and would like to prove that they are right (i.e.Christians) have the burden of proof on them.

If you want to prove an athiest wrong then you have to prove the existance of god, not the other way around. I don't believe in green goblins either but I don't need to prove their non existance to hold that view.

My two cents...

I don't think there's a clear enough understanding of exactly what beliefs an atheist may or may not have. Since I'm a CS major, let me try:

!(believe in God) != (believe in !(God))

As an atheist, I don't hold faith that there is no god, because that would require a step from a base assumption that there is a god - if that makes sense. Rather, I logically reject the notion that there is a god - a position that requires neither belief nor disbelief in a religious sense. Therefore, atheism is not a religion - it is, in fact, the diametric opposite of religion.

This is hard to phrase, and I have a hangover. :(
I agree but atheism in general is usually centered more towards

Belief in!(god) then the other tends to umbrella over agnosticism to soft atheism ( very blurred line)


Personally think that hard atheism (belief in !(god)) should be a religion rather then soft to agnosticism (! Belief in god)

It requires faith to believe there is nothing rather then being in the grey middle where they are just searching for truth or just cant push themselves to believe he either exists or not

You have no reason not to believe in these bunnies. There are three types of people in this world: Those who say your bunnies exist, those who say your bunnies don't exist, and those who say they don't know. The first two are convictions that we are not able to test with an experiment, so they belong to religion. Those who say your bunnies don't exist are religious because they already have a conviction on it that can't be tested with an experiment. Those convictions may come from Christian beliefs, Atheistic beliefs, Islamic beliefes, etc. but are still part of faith thsat cannot be tested with an experiment. Those who say your bunnies exist may be Bunnyists, or an unsual denomination of Christianity, Atheism, Islam, etc. Again we aren't able to test those convictions with an experiment. Those who say they do not know are the only ones not holding a religious view on the issue.

But the Bunnyists would do things like decorate their homes with peeps, enact the bunny hop on a weekly basis, and avoid wearing rabbit fur as it would be a sin (or they would at least feel twinges of guilt or whatnot for not folling bunnyist doctrine).

Those who neither hold to Bunnyist doctrine nor deny it may occasionally ponder the implictions of never doing the bunny hop, and the philosophical implications thereof, but not follow the doctrine as there is no way of knowing whether or not the Bunnies exist.

People who don't believe in the Bunnyist ways will go about life following their own moral code without ever considering what the Blue-Bunnies may or may or may not want people to do. They may go for days, months, or even years without even thinking of the Bunnies unless someone brings up the topic in conversation. The lack of existence of the Bunnies is a total non-issue.

But the Bunnyists would do things like decorate their homes with peeps, enact the bunny hop on a weekly basis, and avoid wearing rabbit fur as it would be a sin (or they would at least feel twinges of guilt or whatnot for not folling bunnyist doctrine).

Those who neither hold to Bunnyist doctrine nor deny it may occasionally ponder the implictions of never doing the bunny hop, and the philosophical implications thereof, but not follow the doctrine as there is no way of knowing whether or not the Bunnies exist.

People who don't believe in the Bunnyist ways will go about life following their own moral code without ever considering what the Blue-Bunnies may or may or may not want people to do. They may go for days, months, or even years without even thinking of the Bunnies unless someone brings up the topic in conversation. The lack of existence of the Bunnies is a total non-issue.

Well Bunnyists don't logically need ornate themselves. So... you're agreeing that atheism is a religion right?

Seems to me that atheism should be counted as a religion since it is attempting to answer the same questions. As for it being organized, there are many religions, especially in Asia, which have very little if any organization and plenty of followers. Like Toaism.

In religion you need a material part, and spiritual...atheists don't belive such things...
I almost feel insulted when people consider Atheism a religion.
Atheism = lack of religion

No, it doesn't. Most Buddhists are atheists, for example.

No.

There are many systems of beliefs out there. However, just because people share the same beliefs or have faith in the same things does not make that a religion.

Dictionary.com defines "religion" as the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" and "a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." Atheists have no belief in (nor reverence, for that matter) for a supernatural power. Also, they do not have practices. The only thing they share is a common disbelief in a god or gods. Even if they did have a common belief in no god (hard atheism, as the way to which it was referred earlier), there is still no higher being nor are there common practices.

The problem with the question "Is atheism a religion" is this: There are many, many ways of being an atheist.

IF an atheist went to atheist meetings with like minded, and the same atheist would spend much of his/her time debating the absence of God, then it would smack of religion.

But atheism is more than just saying "there is no supenatural force". You can doubt the existance of a God. You can even believe there are a god or gods, you just chose not to follow them.

I, for instance, am not sure weather or not there is a God (in the christian sense), but if He existed I wouldn't follow him, because then he would be a big bully. Read the bible. It's all "If you don't worship me I'll smite your family and possibly any innocents that get in the way. Oh, and if you don't follow my rules to the point, there is torment everlasting in wait for you!" Who can like such a guy?

fucking...

athiesm is NOT a religion, its the anti-religion, thats all there is to it! look it up! its not a religion! religion= belief system. athiesm is a non-belief system, but rather purley fact! there is no athiest "god!"

It all depends on what viewpoint you see Atheism.

It can be seen as a religion when you feel that there is no gods, but an afterlife.
It can be seen as a philosophy when you feel that its a way of seeing the world where a divine entity isn't needed.
It can be a lifestyle, if its the way you live it. Finding new answers in your life without the need of a booked religion.
It can be a religion if you have built up your own beliefs, proofs, and logics around the idea that there is no god.

I would say its more of a Faith, then a Religion.

A faith being something that can neither be proven or disproven, has deeper implications other then an arguement about false positives and such, and exsists in both logical and non-logic thinking.

To say that Atheism is the lacking of any faith or religion would seem to be false because it seems that its just a counter view upon it, but has is still built around the same questions.

Is there a god/s?
Is there life after death?
Can it be proved to others? to yourself?
Do you have any personal ideas on it?
Do I have a soul?
etc etc etc

.....

I, for instance, am not sure weather or not there is a G-d (in the christian sense), but if He existed I wouldn't follow him, because then he would be a big bully. Read the bible. It's all "If you don't worship me I'll smite your family and possibly any innocents that get in the way. Oh, and if you don't follow my rules to the point, there is torment everlasting in wait for you!" Who can like such a guy?
Well, I understood the first part of you statement, about the multiple outlooks of an atheist, but it was this last part that caught my attention.

I do believe in the bible there are plenty of stories of non-followers that were spared, very often. It was those that would basically flip off G-d and be like, screw you, I worship me, not that which made me, even if you are right. Even more so in the New Testament, many times a person would come to Jesus in the masses, even if they weren't hebrew or worshiped another god, and He didn't turn them away, instead he enlightened them, and they were healed.
And that part about eternal punishment, it doesn't really exsist, if you read the bible. The only part of eternal punishment is about those people that even after knowing the full truth, know that G-d is there and wants to bring them into the perfect kingdom, they turn their backs and kill the Saints, then the burning Lake comes into play. The other eternal punishment could be the Banishing of The Adversary aka Satan to the bottomless pit guarded by Abbaddon.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

Atheism is defined as the denial that there is a god.

I, as an Atheist, don't belive in anything (in most cases). Anything which is proven, I know to be so, you don't need to belive in it. [The Big Bang theory, although not proven, I belive in, and it's oneof the few things I have a belief about. It's not irrational, see. The majority or astronomers belive it and the Big Bang has a record in the Guinness Book Of World Records (for largest explosion), so it's pretty concrete in the first place] Science, Physics, Maths are all PROVEN. We don't need to belive in anything proven by them as it's proven. Although it's very likely that you're not an alien, I can't be sure, can I?

No, atheism is not a religion. For the simple reason that theism is not a religion either. I posted this in another thread, but here it is again to make things clearer:

belief = a concept one holds about the validity of a statement
faith = a belief one holds independent of justification
religion = a system of normative (ie one should/should not x) beliefs built upon a core faith or faiths

Theism and atheism are both beliefs. For some these are also taken as faiths, thus they would continue to hold them no matter what. Relgions then emerge from these faiths. So Anabaptism, Sikhism, Deism etc. are religions based upon certain theistic faiths. Of course you can also have atheistic religions such as Buddism or Daoism. You could even have a non-spiritual atheistic religion, if a core faith in atheism was taken as justification for normative beliefs. That doesn't change the fact, though, that atheism is not neccesarily either a religion or a faith.

Atheism is defined as the denial that there is a god.

I, as an Atheist, don't belive in anything (in most cases). Anything which is proven, I know to be so, you don't need to belive in it.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. Belief is a requirement for knowledge. Knowledge is usually defined as a belief that also corresponds to reality (ie it's true) and is justified in some way. You cannot know something without believing in it.

phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.



re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.




Religion calls for a certain amount of faith. Faith in something that cannot be seen, nor heard, nor felt in any way. It is an idea on life, a belief system for how to live. Like any morality system there are incentives and consequences for your actions.

Atheism offers no such moral code; it is the lack of faith in a superior being. There is no spirituality to speak of, and therefore not a religion.

If anything, I'd say there are both just philosophies.

I do believe in the bible there are plenty of stories of non-followers that were spared, very often. It was those that would basically flip off G-d and be like, screw you, I worship me, not that which made me, even if you are right. Even more so in the New Testament, many times a person would come to Jesus in the masses, even if they weren't hebrew or worshiped another god, and He didn't turn them away, instead he enlightened them, and they were healed.

So God is also inconsistant?

Lets talk about a fictional person here, let's call him Joe Human. Joe is basically a good guy, if you are in his gang that is.. But if he gets mad, he kills people. Ok, sometimes he doesn't kill them, even if they are mean to him, but he has been known to do really nasty stuff, like slaugtering innocent children, letting his gang rape girls, telling his gang to kill people, etc, etc...

Now, my question is this: Would you like to be in Joe's gang?

fucking...

athiesm is NOT a religion, its the anti-religion, thats all there is to it! look it up! its not a religion! religion= belief system. athiesm is a non-belief system, but rather purley fact! there is no athiest "god!"

Wow. Please give a pure fact.

if physics or history can be considered a religion then atheism is a religion

after all ive never SEEN an atom but i have faith that they exist

i believe the history books that tell me details about the roman empire. i have faith that they are telling me the truth.

i have never personally verified the tenets of physics or history. i take them both on faith. utter faith.

does anyone really want to claim them as religions?

i am an atheist because god does not exist. all stories and beliefs about god or gods are patently absurd. they make no logical sense. i can see no reason to pretend that such things are true just because it would be "easier" to have someone else tell me what is and is not moral.

if physics or history can be considered a religion then atheism is a religion

after all ive never SEEN an atom but i have faith that they exist

i believe the history books that tell me details about the roman empire. i have faith that they are telling me the truth.

i have never personally verified the tenets of physics or history. i take them both on faith. utter faith.

does anyone really want to claim them as religions?

i am an atheist because god does not exist. all stories and beliefs about god or gods are patently absurd. they make no logical sense. i can see no reason to pretend that such things are true just because it would be "easier" to have someone else tell me what is and is not moral.

I agree with Asmoria on parts of this.
I understand 'religion' as a system of beliefs, and 'Athiesm' as 'Denial in the existance of god/s'

First of all.. facts, those little things we tend to call the truth.. do NOT exist... there are no facts, there is no truth, there is only what we assume.
Without knowing EVERYTHING there could ever possibly be to know, we cannot form anything more than an educated guess.
Science is a system of beliefs. Scientists believe that atoms are made up of electrons protons and neutrons, to my knowledge, no one has ever seen these.
More recently, scientists have invented 'dark matter' (I don't fully understand the theories myself, so it would be better if you read up on it).
This is a theortical 'substance' which helps to explain some of the universes many mysteries. There is no evidence AT ALL, that this substance exists, but it is widely believed that *something* is out there which affects the universe the way things do... so voila... instant theory which provides a solution.

Religion (aka belief) is a VERY similar thing.
Think back to before modern times. What could possibly explain bad weather, or nighttime? what else than the gods were angry with the people, or the sun had gone.
This was the belief which explained why things happened.

Unless there is proof that deity/s don't exist, to many they DO exist.
This is religion.
Athiests believe that deity/s DONT exist, so to them, they DONT exist. This is as valid a system of beliefs as the Pro-Deity camp

(BTW: I am Wiccan, if you really wanted to know, incase you felt like strapping me to the 'Religious = christian' stereotype)

I have faith my gods, to me they are as real as the Earth (which technically we believe exists.. its possible that it's a simulation and we're all plugged into a computer, sitting in a spaceship in space or something.. this is also a valid belief)
Yet, I know that many others don't believe in my gods, some even deny their existance all together, but being of a peaceable sort, I accept these and refuse to force my beliefs onto them. To me, their beliefs are as valid as my own.
Their belief that deitys don't exist, to me.. is their religon
Any 'religion' which dosent have a diety as a figurehead is an athiest religon.

Personally... I've never met anyone without faith. They either believe that the world will not end tomorrow, that gravity is responcible for making things fall to the ground, that gods exist, that they even exist! (For all you know, I could be a figment of my imagination!)

So all of you who say that you don't believe in anything...what dull lives you must lead, not having any view of life, the world, the entire universe....

Also...C'mon people... please... pick up a dictionary sometime in your life.
Athiesm DOES NOT mean anti-religon, it is the denial in the existance of deitys.
(Sorry for the long posts... I get bored and trail off :\)

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

Atheism doesn't require 'belief' that math or science don't 'just fall apart'.

Atheism is the scientific approach, if you will - since it only allows what can be observed, what can be recorded.

The fact that math or science don't just fall apart, is nothing to do with any kind of belief.... it is just what 'happens', and Atheism 'observes' that, and 'records' that, but necessitates no 'belief' in it.

You are also misunderstanding what an atheist DOES believe... they don't believe there is NO GOD, they do NOT believe there IS a god... subtle change of perspective, but it makes all the difference.

Down here in my neck of the woods, Atheists are assumed devil worshippers. :rolleyes: Of course I'm smack dab in the middle of the southern Bible Belt too.

Down here in my neck of the woods, Atheists are assumed devil worshippers. :rolleyes: Of course I'm smack dab in the middle of the southern Bible Belt too.
Is a bible belt like a texas belt? *thinks of giant texas shaped belt buckle morphing into bible shaped belt buckle*

Science is a system of beliefs. Scientists believe that atoms are made up of electrons protons and neutrons, to my knowledge, no one has ever seen these.


I don't know where you got that from, that's grade school science. Scientist theorise that an atom is likely made up of much smaller units, with varying charges - and some very low level microscopy seems to show evidence to support that claim.

It isn't a matter of belief... it's a matter of theory and observation. You observe something, you construct a theoretical mosel to explain it... then you continue observing to see whether that model can be falsified, at which point you can refine your model.


More recently, scientists have invented 'dark matter'


Scientists haven't 'invented' dark matter - it is one popular theory which might explain certain phenomena... and not ALL scientists accept that model.


Athiests believe that deity/s DONT exist, so to them, they DONT exist. This is as valid a system of beliefs as the Pro-Deity camp


No - Atheists DON'T believe that gods exist - there's a difference.


Personally... I've never met anyone without faith. They either believe that the world will not end tomorrow, that gravity is responcible for making things fall to the ground, that gods exist, that they even exist!


You have now. The world probably won't end tomorrow... not as a statement of belief, but because there is no evidence that it will, and observed history suggests an ongoing trend towards non-destruction.

Also - gravity is a theory... it is a construct used to explain WHY things fall towards things. If a thing does NOT fall towards a thing, then the gravitic model needs to account for that.

So all of you who say that you don't believe in anything...what dull lives you must lead, not having any view of life, the world, the entire universe....

Down here in my neck of the woods, Atheists are assumed devil worshippers. :rolleyes: Of course I'm smack dab in the middle of the southern Bible Belt too.

Be vewy, vewy, quiet... I'm hunting Peechland...

:fluffle:

:)

Why would anyone what to be an atheist, think about it.

If you believe in god and there is no God you lose nothing, but if you don't believe in God and he is real you lose everthing.

So why not just believe in him to be safe.

Be vewy, vewy, quiet... I'm hunting Peechland...

:fluffle:

:)
ohhh its a walk by fluffling! :fluffle:

ohhh its a walk by fluffling! :fluffle:

Pretty damn smooth, huh..

She just came sneaking by...

G'day, UT.... :fluffle:

Be vewy, vewy, quiet... I'm hunting Peechland...

:fluffle:

:)

LOL.....Idle Fudd...how is my favorite Atheist? :fluffle:

Why would anyone what to be an atheist, think about it.

If you believe in god and there is no God you lose nothing, but if you don't believe in God and he is real you lose everthing.

So why not just believe in him to be safe.

Hindu is the most followed religion. If you're going to place a bet on number of followers, monotheism is not the best bet.

Well, atheism is a belief isn't it? an international belief at that so in a way it could be considered in the same category as religion but not the same exact thing.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

According to these definitions (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Areligion&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official), treating atheism as a religion makes a mockery of both the concept of religion and the concept of atheism. Put away the crack pipe.

LOL.....Idle Fudd...how is my favorite Atheist? :fluffle:
Lol the whole fluffle trio is here ... to make sillyness! its great!

LOL.....Idle Fudd...how is my favorite Atheist? :fluffle:

Now, now... I prefer the term Godless Heathen...

Sorry about the Elmer-ism... I'm just not sure what the correct form IS for stalking Georgians through an atheism thread... :)

Hi-hi sweetness... I'm good, how about you?

:D

I think most people would agree that religion and beliefs are two different things. I mean religion obviously has a belief system butbelifs don't need religin. I'm a socialist, i believe in socialist type things, that doesn't mean that those beliefs can be summed up into a religion.

I still dont understand why people can't put religion and science together. The Gnostics did it!


Boy do I agree with this. Science by itself is materialism run amok. Religion without science is simiply superstition. Those who believe in only what they can touch or see forget that at in times of sadness they have a heavy heart. Can they eat happiness, love? Those who only believe in the literal interpations of Holy Books take from God the Creator the ability to use metaphor, simile to teach the creatures.

LOL Gravy.....youre too much. :fluffle:



and yes UT- the trio is here! :fluffle: What a combo- an Atheist(Godless Heathen I mean), an Agnostic and Baptist......sounds like the intro of a good joke.

" An Atheist, an Agnostic and a Baptist walk into a bar....."

Why would anyone what to be an atheist, think about it.

If you believe in god and there is no God you lose nothing, but if you don't believe in God and he is real you lose everthing.

So why not just believe in him to be safe.

1) How can you choose what to believe? "Today...hmm...I think I'll be an Orthodox Jew until lunch, then a Satanist for the afternoon, and finish the day as a Jehova's Witness".

2) Which God(s) are you going to believe in? What happens if you pick the wrong one?

3) Do you think that any God would approve of this sort of "belief strategy"?

Given that Pascal was an intelligent man, it seems likely that he was having a bit of a joke with this one.

LOL Gravy.....youre too much. :fluffle:



and yes UT- the trio is here! :fluffle: What a combo- an Atheist(Godless Heathen I mean), an Agnostic and Baptist......sounds like the intro of a good joke.

" An Atheist, an Agnostic and a Baptist walk into a bar....."
:) why yes it does ... good old variation of the "blond brunett and redhead" theme

LOL Gravy.....youre too much. :fluffle:



and yes UT- the trio is here! :fluffle: What a combo- an Atheist(Godless Heathen I mean), an Agnostic and Baptist......sounds like the intro of a good joke.

" An Atheist, an Agnostic and a Baptist walk into a bar....."

Ah, yes... an interesting combination... of course, our agnostic is very balanced, and understands both sides, our godless heathen is very tolerant of (and educated about) religion, and our Baptist acts like a normal person, rather than one of those wack-job fundamentalists that seem to be all Gawja has to offer down my way...

Less of a clique, more of an example of How to Live... perhaps?

Ah, yes... an interesting combination... of course, our agnostic is very balanced, and understands both sides, our godless heathen is very tolerant of (and educated about) religion, and our Baptist acts like a normal person, rather than one of those wack-job fundamentalists that seem to be all Gawja has to offer down my way...

Less of a clique, more of an example of How to Live... perhaps?
It would be so nice if more people could just get a long!

But you know- I must confess, I dont attend services, so I'm not a practicing Baptist. I said Baptist because thats where I was dragged.....I mean , taken on Sunday mornings when I was younger. I dont know what I am to be honest. I think I have Agnostic tendencies. There are so many questions I have when it comes to religion and so many things that I dont understand. I better not even get started discussing where I am with religion...... :confused:

:) why yes it does ... good old variation of the "blond brunett and redhead" theme

Which one of us is the redhead???

How about: A Minessotan, a Georgian and an Englishman walk into a bar...

But you know- I must confess, I dont attend services, so I'm not a practicing Baptist. I said Baptist because thats where I was dragged.....I mean , taken on Sunday mornings when I was younger. I dont know what I am to be honest. I think I have Agnostic tendencies. There are so many questions I have when it comes to religion and so many things that I dont understand. I better not even get started discussing where I am with religion...... :confused:
Same thing roman catholic who has decided I am agnostic ... (within the last 5-6 months I just finaly relized it is what I actualy believe)

But you know- I must confess, I dont attend services, so I'm not a practicing Baptist. I said Baptist because thats where I was dragged.....I mean , taken on Sunday mornings when I was younger. I dont know what I am to be honest. I think I have Agnostic tendencies. There are so many questions I have when it comes to religion and so many things that I dont understand. I better not even get started discussing where I am with religion...... :confused:

Or... you could start a thread about it, I could go get another coke, and you, UT and I can put all the world's problems to rights... :)

Which one of us is the redhead???

How about: A Minessotan, a Georgian and an Englishman walk into a bar...
How about a "blue stater ... red stater ... and a non american walk into a bar"
(how ever you look at it we are wierd combo lol)

Or... you could start a thread about it, I could go get another coke, and you, UT and I can put all the world's problems to rights... :)


word up daddio.....get me a coke while youre at it.

Same thing roman catholic who has decided I am agnostic ... (within the last 5-6 months I just finaly relized it is what I actualy believe)

You have to go back 20 years to find me still being a relatively 'believing' Anglican... then I really started READING the Book... and it all went 'downhill' from there. :)

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. If atheism a religion then there are a helluvalot of non-belief religions: "the church of non-belief in Leprechauns", "the temple of no-belief in the Easter Bunny", etc. It must put xians in a quandary ‘cause now they don’t have just one religion but a whole bunch of others based on what they don’t believe in.

How about a "blue stater ... red stater ... and a non american walk into a bar"
(how ever you look at it we are wierd combo lol)

Yeah... but still, somehow, it just all seems to work...

Unless, of course, one of you likes Celine Dion.... :0

uhh...nooo.....it's the rejection of religion :rolleyes:

You have to go back 20 years to find me still being a relatively 'believing' Anglican... then I really started READING the Book... and it all went 'downhill' from there. :)
Same … though I can remember from age 12 (specific volunteer incident) my eyes opening to the hypocrisy in so many of its members … and from a glimpse at that I started actually questioning things rather then just assuming that what I was told was the truth.

That went into recognizing the fallibility of humans in both the preaching and interpreting of what “god” was.

Now my agnosticism more falls in to the general not understanding … I think there COULD be a deity but if so fairly sure he/she is not to be found in organized religion rather through a personal understanding (that is at all … logic overrides my “Want” to believe in something) ehhh I don’t need a deity to give meaning to existence … not for me anyways so whatever it works out

(sheesh starting to get heavy in here) :fluffle:

Yeah... but still, somehow, it just all seems to work...

Unless, of course, one of you likes Celine Dion.... :0
Oh god no!

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. If atheism a religion then there are a helluvalot of non-belief religions: "the church of non-belief in Leprechauns", "the temple of no-belief in the Easter Bunny", etc. It must put xians in a quandary ‘cause now they don’t have just one religion but a whole bunch of others based on what they don’t believe in.

Exactly... if atheism is a religion, then all christians are actually "Muslim-Atheists", "Hindu-Atheists", etc..

So - anyone subscribing to one religion, is actually now a member of hundreds or thousands of other anti-religion-religions...

Which means Anti-religion-religion is the most dominant religion in the world?

Yeah... but still, somehow, it just all seems to work...

Unless, of course, one of you likes Celine Dion.... :0


*whistles innocently while looking at her shoe*

oh of course I dont like her either!

seeing as atheism literally means "no religion", i'd say no.


I concur.

*whistles innocently while looking at her shoe*

oh of course I dont like her either!
Ohhh peachy say it is not so :fluffle: :fluffle:

athiest means:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

while religion means:

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


but could athiestism tie in with the number 4 on the religion list? and why must they give themself a name? why must they create themself a organization?

why dont they just say they dont believe in anything.

the word atheism today seems to have devoloped into a more built thing, its not so much as saying im athiest i dont believe in God or any kind of gods..

its now a large group of people who pretty much have a icon on them.

Ohhh peachy say it is not so :fluffle: :fluffle:

If she really did.... I think it would be forgivable, since she's such a sweety, and all.

:D

Atheists have faith in there being no god as they believe there is enough evdience to show that just as Christians have faith in a God because they think theres enough evidence to show it. Trust is a better translation of faith because faith implies blind faith which Christians wouldnt claim to have.

Additionally an atheist has faith that a Christian is wrong and faith that he isnt going to hell just as a Christian has faith that the atheist is wrong.

agnostic is as close as you get to no religion because its easy and its lazy they dont know and sometimes dont care.

athiest means:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

while religion means:

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


but could athiestism tie in with the number 4 on the religion list? and why must they give themself a name? why must they create themself a organization?

why dont they just say they dont believe in anything.

the word atheism today seems to have devoloped into a more built thing, its not so much as saying im athiest i dont believe in God or any kind of gods..

its now a large group of people who pretty much have a icon on them.

They do say they don't believe in any gods... that's what atheism means.

You notice, there isn't a Church of Atheism?

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

I think this is another "Is Zero a number?" question. To put it simply, atheism is simply the lack of religion. No religion, no belief. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Atheists have faith in there being no god as they believe there is enough evdience to show that just as Christians have faith in a God because they think theres enough evidence to show it. Trust is a better translation of faith because faith implies blind faith which Christians wouldnt claim to have.

Additionally an atheist has faith that a Christian is wrong and faith that he isnt going to hell just as a Christian has faith that the atheist is wrong.

agnostic is as close as you get to no religion because its easy and its lazy they dont know and sometimes dont care.

Not true, my firend.

As an atheist, I can tell you I don'ty have 'faith' in there being no god. I don't have an active belief in god-less-ness... it is a default position, since there is NO EVIDENCE to make me believe in a god.

Similarly, I don't 'believe' all Christians are wrong. They think differently to me, and I observe that difference... and I am sure that their religion is very real, FOR THEM, but for me, it is an irrelevence.

Finally - I don't have 'faith' that I am not going to Hell... I simply do not believe in hell... do you have 'faith' that helicopter-submarines are not going to sail out of your ears? No - you have no reason to think such a thing, because it is unbased in reality.

Same for atheists.

Atheists have faith in there being no god as they believe there is enough evdience to show that just as Christians have faith in a God because they think theres enough evidence to show it. Trust is a better translation of faith because faith implies blind faith which Christians wouldnt claim to have.

Additionally an atheist has faith that a Christian is wrong and faith that he isnt going to hell just as a Christian has faith that the atheist is wrong.

agnostic is as close as you get to no religion because its easy and its lazy they dont know and sometimes dont care.
Oh yeah being agnostic is lazy :P

Right ... not so much lazy as logical and skeptical of everything

Is Atheism a religion?

No, no and double NO!

Oh, for any one who says "it's still a belief" I say to them, I also believe my dishwasher will wash my dishes when I turn it on, it's not a religion either!

agnostic is as close as you get to no religion because its easy and its lazy they dont know and sometimes dont care.
Don't be absurd. Agnosticism is achieved (by some people) by taking the time and effort to consider the question of God and arriving at a logical conclusion. Furthermore, agnosticism denies the certainty of unending bliss after death.

And you make the bizarre claim that agnosticism is somehow less demanding and less difficult than theism?

Well... If 0 (zero) can be considered a number, it could be said atheism is the zero of religion.

Ok. A law is a theory which has been proven (scientifically speaking). If I theorize that the sun will rise tomorrow. And it does. Again and again. My theory is now a law. It's not a belief, but a fact. Not faith, but trust that's never been compromised.

Faith is trust without evidence. It's a theory that cannot be proven nor disproven, because it sets its criterion outside a measurable parameter.

Faith is quantum mechanics.

Agnotism is probably the safest bet, because it's the only one that says "I don't know and I'm not playing this game."

Atheism says "Definitely no bearded man spying on me from the clouds."

Christianity says "Not only is there a freaky dude spying on me from the clouds, but he's letting his son watch, too... and I like it."

Judaism says "No thanks. I'd rather not have two men watch me shower. One will suffice."

Buddhism says "How about we just play nice until we figure it all out?"

Atheism is the theory that there is not a omnipresent, omniscient being with our fates in its hands. I wouldn't categorize it as a religion. I'll let the United States Government have a hand in defining whether or not it's a religion by pointing out this. Christian churches, Jewish synagogue, Muslim temples... these are allowed tax exempt statuses from the U.S. Government. I've yet to see an atheist get out of paying sales tax.

Okay there does seem to be a distinction in atheism that needs to be made. THe strong atheists say "I believe there is no god." Where as the weak atheists say "I don't believe there is a god."

There seem to be two distinct uses of belief in each declaration. The strong atheist's belief is a conviction. The weak atheist's belief is an educated guess.

Now the strong atheist's conviction is belief without testibility. The weak atheist's educated guess is just a guess and not a conviction either way.

Thus, we should agree that strong atheism is a religious, while weak atheism is not.

Okay there does seem to be a distinction in atheism that needs to be made. THe strong atheists say "I believe there is no god." Where as the weak atheists say "I don't believe there is a god."

There seem to be two distinct uses of belief in each declaration. The strong atheist's belief is a conviction. The weak atheist's belief is an educated guess.

Now the strong atheist's conviction is belief without testibility. The weak atheist's educated guess is just a guess and not a conviction either way.

Thus, we should agree that strong atheism is a religious, while weak atheism is not.

Closer, perhaps... but I still don't agree...

The Strong Atheist has based his/her opinion on the lack of evidence for god. If he/she never sees ANY evidence for god, and yet still is surrounded by theories about the nature of god... he/she may well arrive at the conclusion that there IS NO GOD. It's a conclusion based on evidence.

That's the thing ALL atheists would probably become religious, if a single shred of evidence EVER appeared for ANY religion.

There is none - and, among atheists, some take that as a more sure sign.

I think it's basically been agreed that atheism is not a religion. Cased closed, stop trying to change the definitions of words to mean what you want.

Sorry for the OMGHUGE text but, it seemed necessary since this is one of the few times these arguments seem to have a clear conclusion... random wishful-thinkers here and there aside...

I think it's basically been agreed that atheism is not a religion. Cased closed, stop trying to change the definitions of words to mean what you want.

Sorry for the OMGHUGE text but, it seemed necessary since this is one of the few times these arguments seem to have a clear conclusion... random wishful-thinkers here and there aside...

I would like to say that I don't have a hidden agenda, and that the only conclusion I'm looking for is an agreeable one.

Closer, perhaps... but I still don't agree...

The Strong Atheist has based his/her opinion on the lack of evidence for god. If he/she never sees ANY evidence for god, and yet still is surrounded by theories about the nature of god... he/she may well arrive at the conclusion that there IS NO GOD. It's a conclusion based on evidence.

That's the thing ALL atheists would probably become religious, if a single shred of evidence EVER appeared for ANY religion.

There is none - and, among atheists, some take that as a more sure sign.

Hmm, okay, this is progressively getting logically better, and I appreciate how we have taken it this far.

So there is a better distinction now. There are strong atheists, that believe there is no god, and then there seem to be "relative" atheists. The "relative" atheist comes out only when compared to certain definition(s) of god(s).

So I would still hold that strong atheists hold a religious belief, and that the belief of relative atheists is debatable, which I do hope to discuss later on.

Hmm, okay, this is progressively getting logically better, and I appreciate how we have taken it this far.

So there is a better distinction now. There are strong atheists, that believe there is no god, and then there seem to be "relative" atheists. The "relative" atheist comes out only when compared to certain definition(s) of god(s).

So I would still hold that strong atheists hold a religious belief, and that the belief of relative atheists is debatable, which I do hope to discuss later on.

How about an example... Adam says he has a frog in his backpack.

Beth says she doesn't believe him... she sees no evidence to support it, so she sees no reason to imagine there might be a frog in the back pack.

Carl says that Adam is a liar... he is pretty sure he checked all the backpacks... and there were no frogs. Besides he DID check all the backpacks yesterday... and there were no frogs, then.

Dawn says she doesn't know if there is a frog, and she doesn't care.

Earl says Adam doesn't have a frog, he has a tadpole. Earl says HE has the REAL frog...

Adam is (for the sake of argument) our christian.

Beth is a Weak Atheist... she just doesn't believe that story, without evidence.

Carl is a Strong Atheist... everything he has seen so far leads him to the conclusion there will be no frog... it's not really a faith... it's a matter of observation.

Dawn is our Agnostic... she doesn't have enough evidence to decide either way... and she's made that her 'position'.

Earl is (for the sake of argument, again) our Moslem.


In our example... since only Adam and Earl assert the existence of 'frogs', they are the two religions... Beth, Carl and Dawn doubt or dispute the existence of frogs (in various degrees), so they are not religions.

atheism isnt a default position, agnosticism is closer to being a default position ie cant be proved either way. Wanting the position to be no god until prven otherwise is simply an assumption thats conveniant for the atheist, there is no reason why a theist cannot equally say that there is a god until proven otherwise. All atheists have faith that Christians are wrong, they have to, if they didnt they would be Christians. They simply have to disgaree with a Christian or indeed any theist and they are putting faith in that disagreement, faith in their position. Everyone has faith, I am sorry if you thought you had found a way of avoiding it but its not possible unless you know every single fact ever about everything including knowledge about the future and past. I am sorry if you find this dissapointing but its true, if you want to avoid as much faith as possible then become an agnostic, they still have faith but not in quite the same way.

I also want to apologise to those agnostics out there for my comment above, I didnt in any way mean to imply that all agnostics were lazy or didnt care just that some of them were.

Also I might want to add that even in the most 'liberal' or 'civilised' or 'western' or whatever term you use countries, belief in a God usually hovers at a minimum of about 70-80% (I cant back that up but I am confident in it being well over 50% and I am sure that someone here knows a more exact figure). Atheism is unknown in most third world countries. Atheism is really a very small minority of people usually confined to people with a lot of time to think and plenty of material things or that have suffered something major and blame God for it (ie God cant possibly exist). This group often includes many 'victims' and philosophers.

How about an example... Adam says he has a frog in his backpack.

Beth says she doesn't believe him... she sees no evidence to support it, so she sees no reason to imagine there might be a frog in the back pack.

Carl says that Adam is a liar... he is pretty sure he checked all the backpacks... and there were no frogs. Besides he DID check all the backpacks yesterday... and there were no frogs, then.

Dawn says she doesn't know if there is a frog, and she doesn't care.

Earl says Adam doesn't have a frog, he has a tadpole. Earl says HE has the REAL frog...

Adam is (for the sake of argument) our christian.

Beth is a Weak Atheist... she just doesn't believe that story, without evidence.

Carl is a Strong Atheist... everything he has seen so far leads him to the conclusion there will be no frog... it's not really a faith... it's a matter of observation.

Dawn is our Agnostic... she doesn't have enough evidence to decide either way... and she's made that her 'position'.

Earl is (for the sake of argument, again) our Moslem.


In our example... since only Adam and Earl assert the existence of 'frogs', they are the two religions... Beth, Carl and Dawn doubt or dispute the existence of frogs (in various degrees), so they are not religions.

The fault is with Carl. First, he is a bad example because here there are a finite number of backpacks to check. IN reality there would be an infinite amount of backpacks to check. Second, Carl can only fairly claim relative atheism because he has only checked one person's claim of whats in their backpack. He never checked Fred's backback, which Fred claims has an all-knowing pencil.

Also I might want to add that even in the most 'liberal' or 'civilised' or 'western' or whatever term you use countries, belief in a God usually hovers at a minimum of about 70-80% (I cant back that up but I am confident in it being well over 50% and I am sure that someone here knows a more exact figure). Atheism is unknown in most third world countries. Atheism is really a very small minority of people usually confined to people with a lot of time to think and plenty of material things or that have suffered something major and blame God for it (ie God cant possibly exist). This group often includes many 'victims' and philosophers.
Wow way to stereotype lol good job at having no facts and your definitions incorrect too

atheism isnt a default position, agnosticism is closer to being a default position ie cant be proved either way. Wanting the position to be no god until prven otherwise is simply an assumption thats conveniant for the atheist, there is no reason why a theist cannot equally say that there is a god until proven otherwise. All atheists have faith that Christians are wrong, they have to, if they didnt they would be Christians. They simply have to disgaree with a Christian or indeed any theist and they are putting faith in that disagreement, faith in their position. Everyone has faith, I am sorry if you thought you had found a way of avoiding it but its not possible unless you know every single fact ever about everything including knowledge about the future and past. I am sorry if you find this dissapointing but its true, if you want to avoid as much faith as possible then become an agnostic, they still have faith but not in quite the same way.

I also want to apologise to those agnostics out there for my comment above, I didnt in any way mean to imply that all agnostics were lazy or didnt care just that some of them were.

On the contrary... agnosticism admits the possibility of a god, but refuses to commit either way, through lack of evidence.

If raised in isolation, nobody would spontaneously say "Hey! I wonder if a god exists... some guy with a big flowing beard, who makes symbols in rocks, then sods off for a few thousand years"...

Nobody is BORN believing in any gods at all, or anything else - we only learn to believe what we are taught.

Thus - since we are born "not believing in gods', Atheism must be the default.

Wow way to stereotype lol good job at having no facts and your definitions incorrect too


word......

i'm no theology major but none of that sounded even close to being right.

On the contrary... agnosticism admits the possibility of a god, but refuses to commit either way, through lack of evidence.

If raised in isolation, nobody would spontaneously say "Hey! I wonder if a god exists... some guy with a big flowing beard, who makes symbols in rocks, then sods off for a few thousand years"...

Nobody is BORN believing in any gods at all, or anything else - we only learn to believe what we are taught.

Thus - since we are born "not believing in gods', Atheism must be the default.
though I have a question

If athiest mis !(believing in god) then what is beliving in!(god)?

I would use your own argument against you. There is not a single isolated tribe in the world that doesnt believe in God. Not one place that atheism has arisen EXCEPT as a rejection of previously held beliefs. On the contrary, belief in God is the default position, it seems that whenever people gather they also want to worship.

EDIT: I dont know for a fact that 100% of tribes believe in some kind of god, all I know is what I have read, researched and found out and what my atheist friends are unable to find.

The fault is with Carl. First, he is a bad example because here there are a finite number of backpacks to check. IN reality there would be an infinite amount of backpacks to check. Second, Carl can only fairly claim relative atheism because he has only checked one person's claim of whats in their backpack. He never checked Fred's backback, which Fred claims has an all-knowing pencil.

But Carl still considers his position valid... since he has based it upon experimental evidence.

Maybe if he had access to more 'evidence' he might acknowledge that there could be a frog... but right now, he sees a devoutly frog-free world.

In our example - Carl HAD checked all the backpacks yesterday... so he was fairly sure that Earl didn't really have a frog... and he's quite happy that Freddy has an empty backpack, too.

But, like you say... Carl is making certain assumptions that are, to a degree, insupportable in a truly logical setup (whoever said Logic applied to Faith...), which is why I'm more inclined to side with Beth...

Let me clarify then and apologise. The statistic of people believeing in God was the only one I have confidence in. The rest is my opinion of how people become atheists. OPINION. I did not state it as fact and I apologise for stereotyping, (I didnt mean to imply that 100% atheists fall into those camps).

I apologise for most of the post really it wasnt well thought out and structured suffice to say there has been miscommunication.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?
Technically, Atheism is not a religion, due to it lacks (a) diet(y/ies). However, I classify it as religion, in the same way anarchy is classified as a form of government.

I would use your own argument against you. There is not a single isolated tribe in the world that doesnt believe in God. Not one place that atheism has arisen EXCEPT as a rejection of previously held beliefs. On the contrary, belief in God is the default position, it seems that whenever people gather they also want to worship.

EDIT: I dont know for a fact that 100% of tribes believe in some kind of god, all I know is what I have read, researched and found out and what my atheist friends are unable to find.

As with your other posts, this one doesn't hold any water.

You can't just 'invent' a number, and use it as proof.

Do you KNOW that there are NO cultures that are godless?

Many civilisations have gone through 'godless' periods... the Celts, for example, who gradually demoted all their archaic gods to 'fairies'.

Sorry, friend... but, since you make the assertion that a civilisation MUST have religion, I would like to see you support that this is TRUE in 100% of cases.

firstly i should just say, i'm a total atheist

but atheism (science/maths) requires faith.
logic is based on i think its 5 assumptions about the world of physical geometrey, eg. parallel lines meet at infinity/never meet same thing, but the point is these can never be proved, therefore mathematics requires a certain amount of belief in unproven facts. therefore it requires faith.

i do not believe atheism is a "religion" as such, but it certainly requires faith, draw your own conclusions about what the word "religion" means.

I dont need to prove that 90% would back up my argument. Even faeries is a belief in a spiritual or supernatural plane, (they certainly werent the same fairys that we talk about and certainly werent all very nice). My point was that when people gather they worship, they believe in God, they dont need to be told its natural. My backup was that in most if not all cases this was true.

1.) One straight line may be drawn from any two points.
2.) Any terminated straight line may be extended indefinitely.
3.) A circle may be drawn with any given center and any given radius.
4.) All right angles are congruent.
5.) If two straight lines lying in a plane are met by another line, and if the sum of he internal angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the straight lines will meet if the extended on the side on which the sum of the angles is less than two right angles

to prove something you need a point of reference
these are mathematics points of reference, but because we use them for reference, it means we cannot by their very nature prove them mathematically without already taking them as fact.
therefore they are mathematically unprovable.
hence mathematics requires faith.

Religion:

System of thought or practice which claims to transcend our natural world and which demands conformity to a creed, bible or savior.


God:

A being who created and/or governs the universe. It is usually defined with personal aspects like intelligence, will, wisdom, love and hatred; and with superhuman aspects like omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. It is most often pictured interacting with humanity, but is sometimes held to be an impersonal "force" or nature itself.


Theism:

Belief in god(s).


Atheism:

Absence of belief in god(s).


Agnosticism:

Refusal to accept the truth of a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence or logical justification. Most agnostics suspend belief in god.


Atheism is not a religion, and as such (or not as the case may be) doesn't require faith, but a lack of it. Athiesm is not a conglomeration of beliefs, but rather a lack of a single belief. Most atheists have wildly varying opinions on many things, but all have one belief in common at least, that being the lack of belief in a god(s).

By the way if anyone is wondering where I got these definitions, check out Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=refute).

;) Only if you don't consider black a color then can you say atheism is not a religion.

Black is the absence of color as atheism is the absence of religion. However this does not stop people from saying black is their favorite color. Life is a technicality and it matters only that your messeage is sent clear enough to allow others to understand you appreciate more the absence of color than color itself, or that you do not believe in any official religion. :fluffle:

My point was that when people gather they worship, they believe in God, they dont need to be told its natural. My backup was that in most if not all cases this was true.

The people worshipping in these gatherings will generally be worshipping the same thing, yes? In other words, they will have adopted a particular religion after being told about it by other people - priests, vicars, teachers, parents, shamans, witchdoctors, or whoever it might be.

I think that you can reasonably say that a civilisation will most likely develop a religion (or several) over time, but that is by no means the same as saying that every human is religious by default.

Is there any way for a strong atheist to prove his view to an agnostic?

Religion:

System of thought or practice which claims to transcend our natural world and which demands conformity to a creed, bible or savior.


God:

A being who created and/or governs the universe. It is usually defined with personal aspects like intelligence, will, wisdom, love and hatred; and with superhuman aspects like omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. It is most often pictured interacting with humanity, but is sometimes held to be an impersonal "force" or nature itself.


Theism:

Belief in god(s).


Atheism:

Absence of belief in god(s).


Agnosticism:

Refusal to accept the truth of a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence or logical justification. Most agnostics suspend belief in god.


Atheism is not a religion, and as such (or not as the case may be) doesn't require faith, but a lack of it. Athiesm is not a conglomeration of beliefs, but rather a lack of a single belief. Most atheists have wildly varying opinions on many things, but all have one belief in common at least, that being the lack of belief in a god(s).

By the way if anyone is wondering where I got these definitions, check out Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=refute).


Again you or grave
if athiestm = (!(belief in god)) then

What is belief in !(god)?

In english if athiesim is no belief in god what is the belief in no god?

Is there any way for a strong atheist to prove his view to an agnostic?
only with proof ... you got that you would convince them

Atheism is not a religion but where your logic fails is that it does require a faith.

Again you or grave

In english if athiesim is no belief in god what is the belief in no god?

Those words can be twisted around to mean whatever you want them to mean. Perhaps a little clarification?

No, in my not-so-humble opinion atheism is not a religion; it is a belief. Belief and religion are not the same thing, and don't necessarily go hand in hand. You can believe in many things and not be the slightest bit religious. Religion in most dictionaries is defined as devotion and/or service to a supernatural force or being. Atheism is the opposite; atheism is the belief that no such supernatural being or force exists. Atheism places its belief in science, logic, and tangible facts.

Faith can have nothing to do with religion in some cases. There are plenty of religious holier-than-thou sons of bitches who haven't the slightest bit of true genuine faith, yet they won't hesitate to enforce acts of religion on other people or themselves. Also, there are some not so pefect people who have true genuine faith in something(such as God) and get along great without religion. You don't need religion to believe in God, in fact you're much better off without it. But I do believe some sort of faith(in my own experiences---note I am a Christian--- faith in God)is good.

Let me clarify then and apologise. The statistic of people believeing in God was the only one I have confidence in. The rest is my opinion of how people become atheists. OPINION. I did not state it as fact and I apologise for stereotyping, (I didnt mean to imply that 100% atheists fall into those camps).

I apologise for most of the post really it wasnt well thought out and structured suffice to say there has been miscommunication.

I have no confidence in your 'statistic' about people beliveing in god, either.

For example, the amount of people in the world that are Catholic, is based directly on the number of people baptised into the Catholic faith... which doesn't necessarily have ANY ebaring upon their belief later in life.

My oldest brother, for example, is nominally a Catholic... since he was so sick just after he was born, that the nurses had him baptised in the hospital chapel.

To my knowledge - if a census were taken that measured such things, he would now be Agnostic or Atheist... but he still counts towards the 'Catholic' total... so the system must be flawed.

Add to that, many people have no 'concrete' belief... when asked if they believed in 'god' they might say "I suppose so", which would then qualify them as Christian (if the bias of the questionaire was Christian).

Those words can be twisted around to mean whatever you want them to mean. Perhaps a little clarification?
I mean atheism is (your definition) the lack of belief in a god …

But what then is belief that there is NO god

They are not the same … similar but not the same … I figure it is the difference between hard and soft atheism but … not sure

I cannot answer that without speculating wildly. Doesn't really sound like an atheist though.

I didnt say most people were Christian I said when asked the majority of people proffessed a belief in some kind of God.

Again you or grave
if athiestm = (!(belief in god)) then

What is belief in !(god)?

In english if athiesim is no belief in god what is the belief in no god?

It's open to some interpretation... there aren't enough 'real' terms, if you like, to cover all the grey areas.

You COULD say that someone who truly BELIEVES there is no god is an Anti-Theist... since that would pretty much mean they were 'in-opposition-to-a-god.'

That is why people use terms like Stong and Weak, or Relative, Atheism - to try to allow for the degrees...

no. The atheists would kill themselves if it were...on second thought then...IT IS IT IS!!! :rolleyes: (im joking not being biggotous. It seems that atheists can make those sort of jokes, but when Christians do it, they are instantly labeled and taken literally)
Anyway of course it isnt. The reason someone turns to atheism is to forsake religion, so...NO.

It's open to some interpretation... there aren't enough 'real' terms, if you like, to cover all the grey areas.

You COULD say that someone who truly BELIEVES there is no god is an Anti-Theist... since that would pretty much mean they were 'in-opposition-to-a-god.'

That is why people use terms like Stong and Weak, or Relative, Atheism - to try to allow for the degrees...
Figured (my second post) with the stron and weak ... but always curious I am

I mean atheism is (your definition) the lack of belief in a god …

But what then is belief that there is NO god

They are not the same … similar but not the same … I figure it is the difference between hard and soft atheism but … not sure

That's it.

The Hard atheist thinks he has enough reason to actively believe there is NO god.

The Soft Atheist perhaps sees the same lack of evidence... and DOESN'T believe that there is a god...

Lack of belief in god = Soft Atheist.

There IS no god = Hard Atheist.

But then... it gets cloudy... because the Hard Atheist doesn't necessarily BELIEVE there is no god... he may just be convinced by observation that there is no god...

The reason someone turns to atheism is to forsake religion, so...NO.

Perhaps to find something he/she couldn't find with religion? I never forsook a religion, and learned about a lot of them.

Figured (my second post) with the stron and weak ... but always curious I am

Curious is good. Our Monkey-Curiousity is what enables us to learn. :)

That's it.

The Hard atheist thinks he has enough reason to actively believe there is NO god.

The Soft Atheist perhaps sees the same lack of evidence... and DOESN'T believe that there is a god...

Lack of belief in god = Soft Atheist.

There IS no god = Hard Atheist.

But then... it gets cloudy... because the Hard Atheist doesn't necessarily BELIEVE there is no god... he may just be convinced by observation that there is no god...


Also the lines betwen soft and agnostic get blured too (at least for me) with both really being based in a lack of evidence sort

firstly i should just say, i'm a total atheist

but atheism (science/maths) requires faith.
logic is based on i think its 5 assumptions about the world of physical geometrey, eg. parallel lines meet at infinity/never meet same thing, but the point is these can never be proved, therefore mathematics requires a certain amount of belief in unproven facts. therefore it requires faith.

i do not believe atheism is a "religion" as such, but it certainly requires faith, draw your own conclusions about what the word "religion" means.

Based on a fallacy, I'm afraid.

You are confusing an assumption with a belief.

I can say that, in the case of an equation, I ASSUME that x=2. Perhaps it IS within the scope of that equation, but that is irrelevent.

I ASSUME x=2, but I don't BELIEVE x=2... it is just a 'model' I am trying in the experiment. If it works in that equation, I may carry that data to my NEXT equation, and again, I will make an ASSUMPTION... but, again, I won't necessarily BELIEVE it.

If x=2 EVERY TIME I put it in an equation, perhaps, after a while, will feel confident to accept it as a general rule... UNTIL evidence occurs to counter that idea.

That is how an ASSUMPTION differs from a BELIEF.

Atheism doesn't actually 'require' faith... it COULD be defined as a lack of faith... since the Atheist rejects anything for which he/she sees NO evidence.

I didnt say most people were Christian I said when asked the majority of people proffessed a belief in some kind of God.
Most people are christians thought. Over two thirds of the world beliefs in jesus...

Atheism isn't a religion because there's no unifying theory which holds together all atheists. There is no consistent set of ideas - after all, we would clearly distinguish a Marxist who believed in dialectical materialism from someone who called themselves atheist because they believed the universe had always existed and hadn't been created at all.

Atheists can be labelled as one group no more than 'theists' - therefore we can see that just as among those who believe in gods there are totally opposing religions, there is no common 'religion' of atheism

Also the lines betwen soft and agnostic get blured too (at least for me) with both really being based in a lack of evidence sort

It's another grey area... the basic difference is... the agnostic says "not enough evidence to decide EITHER way", and the Soft Atheist says "What the hell? No evidence? Sorry, mate - I don't believe your story..."

Based on a fallacy, I'm afraid.

You are confusing an assumption with a belief.

I can say that, in the case of an equation, I ASSUME that x=2. Perhaps it IS within the scope of that equation, but that is irrelevent.

I ASSUME x=2, but I don't BELIEVE x=2... it is just a 'model' I am trying in the experiment. If it works in that equation, I may carry that data to my NEXT equation, and again, I will make an ASSUMPTION... but, again, I won't necessarily BELIEVE it.

If x=2 EVERY TIME I put it in an equation, perhaps, after a while, will feel confident to accept it as a general rule... UNTIL evidence occurs to counter that idea.

That is how an ASSUMPTION differs from a BELIEF.

Atheism doesn't actually 'require' faith... it COULD be defined as a lack of faith... since the Atheist rejects anything for which he/she sees NO evidence.


u have a point, but i was saying that one cannot "prove" anything for certain, therefore an atheist should not believe in anything he sees according to what u just said. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, but not absolute proof.

u have a point, but i was saying that one cannot "prove" anything for certain, therefore an atheist should not believe in anything he sees according to what u just said. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, but not absolute proof.
nope ... its nice being agnostic :)

u have a point, but i was saying that one cannot "prove" anything for certain, therefore an atheist should not believe in anything he sees according to what u just said. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, but not absolute proof.

Nothing is certain, only a very close approximation could ever hope to be reached.

yes. It can be religious for some. :gundge:

u have a point, but i was saying that one cannot "prove" anything for certain, therefore an atheist should not believe in anything he sees according to what u just said. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, but not absolute proof.

It's a matter of observation.

If the sun rises in the east, and heads slowly west, on Monday...

and, the sun rises in the east, and heads slowly west, on Tuesday...

and, the sun rises in the east, and heads slowly west, on Wednesday...

and, the sun rises in the east, and heads slowly west, on Thursday...

The chances are you can make a pretty good guess about what the sun is likely to do on Friday... you can ASSUME that it will rise in the east, and head slowly west.

The Atheist observes no reason to believe in god, day on day, and so doesn't believe in god.

But, why does the Atheist still think the sun will rise? Because he/she has observed a pattern, and has seen no reason to doubt that that pattern continues.

Exactly... if atheism is a religion, then all christians are actually "Muslim-Atheists", "Hindu-Atheists", etc..

So - anyone subscribing to one religion, is actually now a member of hundreds or thousands of other anti-religion-religions...

Which means Anti-religion-religion is the most dominant religion in the world?

I'm also anti-anti-religion-religions. I'm a person with no religion. But if "no religion" is the same as "religion", "no belief" is the same as "belief", then maybe I can get some tax-breaks because everything must be a religion and therefore tax exempt.

I have no confidence in your 'statistic' about people beliveing in god, either.

For example, the amount of people in the world that are Catholic, is based directly on the number of people baptised into the Catholic faith... which doesn't necessarily have ANY ebaring upon their belief later in life.

My oldest brother, for example, is nominally a Catholic... since he was so sick just after he was born, that the nurses had him baptised in the hospital chapel.

To my knowledge - if a census were taken that measured such things, he would now be Agnostic or Atheist... but he still counts towards the 'Catholic' total... so the system must be flawed.

Add to that, many people have no 'concrete' belief... when asked if they believed in 'god' they might say "I suppose so", which would then qualify them as Christian (if the bias of the questionaire was Christian).

The figure for proportion of believers depends critically on definitions, and you're both more-or-less correct.

As you say, if the measurement depends on formal affiliation, churches like the RC church gain because they count all those baptised as being Catholic, whereas the evangelicals lose out because they require adult baptism for affiliaiton. Other religions count affiliation by birth into the community, eg Muslims.

Alternatively, you can count the religious on the basis of active participation in religious activity, eg regular attendence at church. On that basis, countries like the UK have around 10-15% actively religious people, whereas the USA figure is above 50% (I think).

The 70%+ figure is probably based on self-definition, ie responses to a question such as `do you believe in god or some other form of spirituality?'. (That's the definition the UK census uses BTW.) 70-80% is the typical figure for positive responses to this type of question in Western European nations. The equivalent figure for the USA is higher, around 90%; for Eastern Europe and Russia, going down to around 50% in some countries. I can't remember the figures for the rest of the world, but I think it's typically 80-90%.

There's an encyclopedia of world religions you could check out for the figures or www.christian-research.org.uk. The latter is a christian source, but it's run by a kosher statistician and generally acknowledged as unbiased in its reporting by non-christian researchers (including myself).

It really does depend on what you mean by religion. Your definition has alot of assumptions in it. A rule of thumb is that you always want to assume as little as possible. What cannot the definition of religion simply be: "A belief in a statement that we do not have the ability to test with an experiment."?
Sorry to dig this one up, but your third sentance seems to me to be the critical flaw in your logic. (Violet and Kitties picked up your last sentance - better than I could (as always, sigh!))

You're confusing definitions and analytical models. Analytical models do indeed require the parsimony principle, but definitions require just as many assumptions as are needed to make them stand as a useful definition. What defines a religion, in just about every dictionary I've seen, is a belief in god or some other form of transcendant reality. At a glib level, we all believe in things we can't test with an experiment. That does not make us all members of a religion, or the word loses all meaning. (Grave 'n' Idle has developed this argument further - better than I could (as always, sigh!))

Okay there does seem to be a distinction in atheism that needs to be made. THe strong atheists say "I believe there is no god." Where as the weak atheists say "I don't believe there is a god."

There seem to be two distinct uses of belief in each declaration. The strong atheist's belief is a conviction. The weak atheist's belief is an educated guess.

Now the strong atheist's conviction is belief without testibility. The weak atheist's educated guess is just a guess and not a conviction either way.

Thus, we should agree that strong atheism is a religious, while weak atheism is not.

Strong atheism may, but only may, be a faith, but that doesn't make it religious.

I would use your own argument against you. There is not a single isolated tribe in the world that doesnt believe in God. Not one place that atheism has arisen EXCEPT as a rejection of previously held beliefs. On the contrary, belief in God is the default position, it seems that whenever people gather they also want to worship.

Hmm, the Chinese are hardly an isolated tribe and they didn't believe in any gods of any kind until very recently in their history.

Most people are christians thought. Over two thirds of the world beliefs in jesus...

Now I have no stats to hand here, but wouldn't such a figure require sizeable chunks of China and India to be Christian? Do you have a source on this?

I think atheism is a religion it requires more faith then any other religion since they think the universe was made by chance {evolution and the big bang are all wrong} I am a Christian :)

The figure for proportion of believers depends critically on definitions, and you're both more-or-less correct.

As you say, if the measurement depends on formal affiliation, churches like the RC church gain because they count all those baptised as being Catholic, whereas the evangelicals lose out because they require adult baptism for affiliaiton. Other religions count affiliation by birth into the community, eg Muslims.

Alternatively, you can count the religious on the basis of active participation in religious activity, eg regular attendence at church. On that basis, countries like the UK have around 10-15% actively religious people, whereas the USA figure is above 50% (I think).

The 70%+ figure is probably based on self-definition, ie responses to a question such as `do you believe in god or some other form of spirituality?'. (That's the definition the UK census uses BTW.) 70-80% is the typical figure for positive responses to this type of question in Western European nations. The equivalent figure for the USA is higher, around 90%; for Eastern Europe and Russia, going down to around 50% in some countries. I can't remember the figures for the rest of the world, but I think it's typically 80-90%.

There's an encyclopedia of world religions you could check out for the figures or www.christian-research.org.uk. The latter is a christian source, but it's run by a kosher statistician and generally acknowledged as unbiased in its reporting by non-christian researchers (including myself).

I'm an Englishman myself... and I was in the centre of Leicester one day, with a friend, when he was stopped and interviewed for what turned out to be a religious survey.

The questioner asked him if he was religious... he pointed out he was raised a Methodist...

the questioner asked him if he was an active methodist NOW... and he said he hadn't attended in years....

the questioner asked him if he believed that there could be a god... and my friend responded that he imagined there COULD be...

Right, says the interviewer... I'll put that down as 'Christian'...

And that is just part of the reason I don't place ANY faith in those kinds of statistics at all.

Atheism is the theory that there is not a omnipresent, omniscient being with our fates in its hands. I wouldn't categorize it as a religion. I'll let the United States Government have a hand in defining whether or not it's a religion by pointing out this. Christian churches, Jewish synagogue, Muslim temples... these are allowed tax exempt statuses from the U.S. Government. I've yet to see an atheist get out of paying sales tax.

I'm an Englishman myself... and I was in the centre of Leicester one day, with a friend, when he was stopped and interviewed for what turned out to be a religious survey.

The questioner asked him if he was religious... he pointed out he was raised a Methodist...

the questioner asked him if he was an active methodist NOW... and he said he hadn't attended in years....

the questioner asked him if he believed that there could be a god... and my friend responded that he imagined there COULD be...

Right, says the interviewer... I'll put that down as 'Christian'...

And that is just part of the reason I don't place ANY faith in those kinds of statistics at all.

Badly trained interviewer or (very probably) a polling organisation with a hidden agenda to inflate the numbers of christians. Either way, a good example of how not to conduct a religious poll, I agree.

However, the 70% figure for the UK is based on the 2001 Census, with no interviews involved, and includes all those not designating themselves as Christians, eg Muslims, agnostics with some form of religious belief, Jedi Knights &c.

Generally, with religious polls, you can sift out the smaller stuff run by religious organisations, but that still leaves quite a bit of serious social research and census data that's reasonable enough if you pay attention to the definitions and questions used. (General tip, if the question isn't reported alongside the results, ignore it.) It's always a shame to reject useful information just because it can sometimes be associated with less useful stuff.

Though I wouldn't recommend you ever place any faith in statistics of any sort. That would be sort of missing the point. ;)

Atheism is not a religion, as has been said several times here. An online dictionary explains that religion is: Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> 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
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Beyond that, since atheism is the statement of a person choosing to disbelieve that God exists, then to consider atheism as a religion is to say oxygen is non-oxygen. It results from a lack of thought or consideration of truth.

Atheism is as much of a label, path and way of life as any kind of Theism could be. They have decided NOT to believe anything, every bit as firmly as a Christian decides to believe in THEIR god.

Atheism is as much of a label, path and way of life as any kind of Theism could be. They have decided NOT to believe anything, every bit as firmly as a Christian decides to believe in THEIR god.

How silly. When a criteria for a word to exist as something is lacking, that word cannot be used to define something.

To say atheism is a religion is to say rocks are animals. While a person may be able to claim to have a pet rock, the rock does not breathe. The rock does not have a life. It is a rock.

Badly trained interviewer or (very probably) a polling organisation with a hidden agenda to inflate the numbers of christians. Either way, a good example of how not to conduct a religious poll, I agree.

However, the 70% figure for the UK is based on the 2001 Census, with no interviews involved, and includes all those not designating themselves as Christians, eg Muslims, agnostics with some form of religious belief, Jedi Knights &c.

Generally, with religious polls, you can sift out the smaller stuff run by religious organisations, but that still leaves quite a bit of serious social research and census data that's reasonable enough if you pay attention to the definitions and questions used. (General tip, if the question isn't reported alongside the results, ignore it.) It's always a shame to reject useful information just because it can sometimes be associated with less useful stuff.

Though I wouldn't recommend you ever place any faith in statistics of any sort. That would be sort of missing the point. ;)

Oh, I know... part of the reason I was in Leicester at the time, was that was were I went to University... where I was doing Business... one component of which is Market Research... so, I was well acquainted with how corrupt the survey was, with it's leading questions, etc... and well aware how much 'faith' to put in such results.

The MAIN reason I don't have much faith in polls though, is that, even on the national Census - many people just mark 'a box' that seems appropriate, without actually thinking about what they are ticking... "well, I got married at the Methodist church... and I went there for Easter two years ago... I'll put myself down as Methodist"...

The amount of 'nominal' christians far outweighs the amount of PRACTISING, I would imagine.

The person who writes under the moniker of "Irrational Numbers" probably asked the question of whether atheism was a religion because he or she is an atheist. He or she must feel the absence of God in his or her life. In an attempt to have a sense of some belonging to the core of humanity, which believe in God, "Irrational Numbers" wants to have a religion where none exists.

As Christians, we should pray that this person finds the truth and accepts God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Oh, I know... part of the reason I was in Leicester at the time, was that was were I went to University... where I was doing Business... one component of which is Market Research... so, I was well acquainted with how corrupt the survey was, with it's leading questions, etc... and well aware how much 'faith' to put in such results.

The MAIN reason I don't have much faith in polls though, is that, even on the national Census - many people just mark 'a box' that seems appropriate, without actually thinking about what they are ticking... "well, I got married at the Methodist church... and I went there for Easter two years ago... I'll put myself down as Methodist"...

The amount of 'nominal' christians far outweighs the amount of PRACTISING, I would imagine.

The United Methodist Church is a good church. Baptists, Catholics and other Christians are also good Christians. Hooray for Christianity!

Why do I get the feeling I should pat you on the head and send you on your way... and hope that you never get to experience real life, so that you may remain blissfully ignorant? Tell Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny "hello" for me.

The person who writes under the moniker of "Irrational Numbers" probably asked the question of whether atheism was a religion because he or she is an atheist. He or she must feel the absence of God in his or her life. In an attempt to have a sense of some belonging to the core of humanity, which believe in God, "Irrational Numbers" wants to have a religion where none exists.

As Christians, we should pray that this person finds the truth and accepts God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
Funnily enough, I would make precisely the reverse assumption. I've never met an atheist who would describe themselves as religious (outside of special cases such as Buddhists, secular humanists and some quasi-spiritualist atheists). Whereas I've seen plenty of christians who seem to want to change the definition of religion so as to encompass atheists. Why they feel this need is up to them to explain.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

Atheism isn't religion, it won't eat your brains!

Oh, I know... part of the reason I was in Leicester at the time, was that was were I went to University... where I was doing Business... one component of which is Market Research... so, I was well acquainted with how corrupt the survey was, with it's leading questions, etc... and well aware how much 'faith' to put in such results.

The MAIN reason I don't have much faith in polls though, is that, even on the national Census - many people just mark 'a box' that seems appropriate, without actually thinking about what they are ticking... "well, I got married at the Methodist church... and I went there for Easter two years ago... I'll put myself down as Methodist"...

The amount of 'nominal' christians far outweighs the amount of PRACTISING, I would imagine.
I don't disagree witht the substance of your second paragraph, but there is still a legitimate interest in how many people feel a spiritual dimension to their lives, even without formal adherence to religious practices. It's also a more robust definition to use in survey work, since it depend less on detailed definitions.

On your last para, in the UK the ratio is around 5 to 1, depending on how you define practising.

Funnily enough, I would make precisely the reverse assumption. I've never met an atheist who would describe themselves as religious (outside of special cases such as Buddhists, secular humanists and some quasi-spiritualist atheists). Whereas I've seen plenty of christians who seem to want to change the definition of religion so as to encompass atheists. Why they feel this need is up to them to explain.

I think it's to 'tar atheists with the same brush'.

So - if Atheists think it's crazy to believe in god(s), the religious person might want to imply Atheism is a religion, PURELY so they can then turn round and say, "Hah! You're religious, too... You're just as bad!"

Or, words to that effect.

I think it's to 'tar atheists with the same brush'.

So - if Atheists think it's crazy to believe in god(s), the religious person might want to imply Atheism is a religion, PURELY so they can then turn round and say, "Hah! You're religious, too... You're just as bad!"

Or, words to that effect.
Yeah that has been tryed more then a few times

I think it's to 'tar atheists with the same brush'.

So - if Atheists think it's crazy to believe in god(s), the religious person might want to imply Atheism is a religion, PURELY so they can then turn round and say, "Hah! You're religious, too... You're just as bad!"

Or, words to that effect.
My thoughts exactly. I just couldn't think of the right words to use without seeming snide.

Alternatively, it's a post-hoc rationalisation of religion to argue that men without God have a god-shaped hole in their psyche, hence the spontaneous invention of religion by different cultures; therefore there is a God, otherwise why the god-shaped hole?

My thoughts exactly. I just couldn't think of the right words to use without seeming snide.

Alternatively, it's a post-hoc rationalisation of religion to argue that men without God have a god-shaped hole in their psyche, hence the spontaneous invention of religion by different cultures; therefore there is a God, otherwise why the god-shaped hole?

Kind of puts you right back in CS Lewis territory... he was the one who said that people had sex to support the inbuilt god-ordained drive for sex, wasn't he?

How silly. When a criteria for a word to exist as something is lacking, that word cannot be used to define something.

To say atheism is a religion is to say rocks are animals. While a person may be able to claim to have a pet rock, the rock does not breathe. The rock does not have a life. It is a rock.


But don't rocks become rocks by some force of life? So therefore it has been alive one way or another. I think that atheism is a religion. Even though they don't believe in anything whatsoever, that should count as their religion. If the Indians got to have their own gods and religions, why can't we?

Atheism is sure not! a religion. Atheism is the dibelief of a god and is a hethenistic study. If you have no gods or no holy relic you have noting to worship. Religion is something that explains where you came from and how the world will start and what happens when you die. Thus proving that atheism is just a choice not a religion.

But don't rocks become rocks by some force of life?


No.


So therefore it has been alive one way or another. I think that atheism is a religion. Even though they don't believe in anything whatsoever, that should count as their religion. If the Indians got to have their own gods and religions, why can't we?

Because... if we believed in gods... we wouldn't... be... ATHEISTS....?

Kind of puts you right back in CS Lewis territory... he was the one who said that people had sex to support the inbuilt god-ordained drive for sex, wasn't he?
"The young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconciously looking for God" (Bruce Marshall, The World, the Flesh and Father Smith )

Sorry to dig this one up, but your third sentance seems to me to be the critical flaw in your logic. (Violet and Kitties picked up your last sentance - better than I could (as always, sigh!))

You're confusing definitions and analytical models. Analytical models do indeed require the parsimony principle, but definitions require just as many assumptions as are needed to make them stand as a useful definition. What defines a religion, in just about every dictionary I've seen, is a belief in god or some other form of transcendant reality. At a glib level, we all believe in things we can't test with an experiment. That does not make us all members of a religion, or the word loses all meaning. (Grave 'n' Idle has developed this argument further - better than I could (as always, sigh!))

You are right, a definition should have as many assumptions as it needs. But what I was trying to say is that I don't see is why you woiuld put in so many debatable assumptions. When the best arguement works, in the end everyone should agree by their own logic.

The definition of religion I quoted someone else saying in that post described alot of organized religion. But if that is the definition of religion, then there are alot of theists -Christians even- that would be considered not religious.

Not a religon A= without Theism= god or religon Athesim=without god therefore not a religon

Strong atheism may, but only may, be a faith, but that doesn't make it religious.


*snip replys to other posts*

That is only fair if a Catholic may, but only may, be a faith. And that it doesn't make a Catholic religious. Since for all we know, instead of gravity, Jesus may be holding us down to this earth. So I don't see a distinction now between strong atheism and other major religions, besides that some of the major religions buy property on which to talk about their beliefs.

That is only fair if a Catholic may, but only may, be a faith. And that it doesn't make a Catholic religious. Since for all we know, instead of gravity, Jesus may be holding us down to this earth. So I don't see a distinction now between strong atheism and other major religions, besides that some of the major religions buy property on which to talk about their beliefs.

There is NO GRAVITY.

The Whole World just SUCKS.

I personaly get annoyed at atheists who dismis the Christian perspective as being something along the lines of "Stupid" or "Irational" or "Without eveidence" because the fact is that there is also no eveidence to support their ideas. They cannot be certian about what they believe either. Therefore, like Christians they require faith. I wouldnt go so far as to call it a religon, more of a perspecive. To call atheism a religion would be like calling sociology a government policy. Atheism comments on religion and sociology comments on government policys but neither of them are what they comment on.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

No. Atheism just means not having faith in a god, it is irrelevant to all other beliefs.

It is patronising and over-simplistic to call atheism a religion.

Atheism does not comment upon religon except to be seperate from theist religions, all other attuitudes are seperate from what atheism is.

There are atheist religions, i.e. Buddhism.

No. Atheism just means not having faith in a god, it is irrelevant to all other beliefs.

It is patronising and over-simplistic to call atheism a religion.


It may not be a religon (like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zorotrasian etc) but it does require faith (Faith meaning being ceritan of what you do not/can not know for certian)

Not a religon A= without Theism= god or religon Athesim=without god therefore not a religon

Buddhism has no god.

Before you say it Buddha was not a god, he just achieved nirvana and started the religion.

But atheism isn't a religion, it's just a belief.

I personaly get annoyed at atheists who dismis the Christian perspective as being something along the lines of "Stupid" or "Irational" or "Without eveidence" because the fact is that there is also no eveidence to support their ideas. They cannot be certian about what they believe either. Therefore, like Christians they require faith. I wouldnt go so far as to call it a religon, more of a perspecive. To call atheism a religion would be like calling sociology a government policy. Atheism comments on religion and sociology comments on government policys but neither of them are what they comment on.

Hey, Neo... I DON'T BELIEVE in your god...

See that, I DON'T..... BELIEVE...

It's not a matter of an atheist being certain what he/she 'believes'...

They are certain of what they DON'T believe.... that's the key.

Hey, Neo... I DON'T BELIEVE in your god...

See that, I DON'T..... BELIEVE...

It's not a matter of an atheist being certain what he/she 'believes'...

They are certain of what they DON'T believe.... that's the key.

Lets not quibble with cemantics here. Being certian of what you dont believe is the same as being certian of what you do believe. I believe that Jesus was the son of God. I do not beleieve he was just like any other man. A socialist will believe that equality through redistribution of wealth is the right path. Equally they will not believe that equality via power of market forces is a good economic system to use. If you dont believe something, it also states what you do believe.

Lets not quibble with cemantics here. Being certian of what you dont believe is the same as being certian of what you do believe. I believe that Jesus was the son of God. I do not beleieve he was just like any other man. A socialist will believe that equality through redistribution of wealth is the right path. Equally they will not believe that equality via power of market forces is a good economic system to use. If you dont believe something, it also states what you do believe.

No, sir.

You are defining a shape by it's absence.

Do you believe in the Big Pink Unicorn that Lives in the Sky?

Pretty sure you don't... what does that make you?

I don't believe my knees will spontaneously turn into hamsters if I sneeze.

Okay - what group does that put me into?

I don't believe in any gods... that's why I'm an atheist.

You DO believe in (just) one god - that's why you are a christian.

But, I am equally atheistic towards Islam, Hinduism, Jainism... you name it.

Ok Grave, answer this. Will you accpet that Athiesm needs faith (IE being certian of what you cannot/do not know to be true)

No, sir.

You are defining a shape by it's absence.

Do you believe in the Big Pink Unicorn that Lives in the Sky?

Pretty sure you don't... what does that make you?
]
An atheist about that Unicorn?

I don't believe my knees will spontaneously turn into hamsters if I sneeze.

Okay - what group does that put me into?

An atheist about those hamsters

I don't believe in any gods... that's why I'm an atheist.

yes an atheist about gods.

You DO believe in (just) one god - that's why you are a christian.

No that makes him a deist. But also a follower and believer of christ so a Christian.

But, I am equally atheistic towards Islam, Hinduism, Jainism... you name it.
So you are a broad atheist

You are right, a definition should have as many assumptions as it needs. But what I was trying to say is that I don't see is why you woiuld put in so many debatable assumptions. When the best arguement works, in the end everyone should agree by their own logic.

The definition of religion I quoted someone else saying in that post described alot of organized religion. But if that is the definition of religion, then there are alot of theists -Christians even- that would be considered not religious.
But the key clause of the definition of religion is the belief in God or such. Without that it becomes a redundant word. And furthermore, this clause is only being put up for debate in this thread by christians wanting, for reasons of their own, to apply it to atheism. The debate is to do with them, not the definition of the word.

You can make a reasonable argument that atheism is a belief, even that it requires faith (though I would disagree with both) but I can see no reasonable argument for saying it is a religion. There is no overarching organisation, there is no coherent belief system and, crucially, there is no belief in God.

In answer to your final point, all theists satisfy the simple requirement of belief in God, which is the first point in any definition of religion. Even so, very many would cheerfully admit to not practising their religion, and I have indeed heard catholics and jews describe themselves as both catholic or jew (ie born, baptised and/or raised in the faith community), but "not religious ones".

Okay, so this is Semantics, but it important to get a definition right. It has been said before, but ATHEISM means Against God. So you can be against god hamsters, I know I am, the horrible buggers. But you have to be ahamster to be against hamsters. Get it right.

Oh, and it is semantics. Cementics? Beats me....

I am an Athiest: I don't believe in God, but I do believe in other people believing in it, something i consider an important distinction. But atheism isn't a religion: I call a religion a structured set of beliefs. All athiests believe differently. A faith? Maybe.

Okay, so this is Semantics, but it important to get a definition right. It has been said before, but ATHEISM means Against God. So you can be against god hamsters, I know I am, the horrible buggers. But you have to be ahamster to be against hamsters. Get it right.

Oh, and it is semantics. Cementics? Beats me....

I am an Athiest: I don't believe in God, but I do believe in other people believing in it, something i consider an important distinction. But atheism isn't a religion: I call a religion a structured set of beliefs. All athiests believe differently. A faith? Maybe.
No you are structured against the ideal of the belief of god.
Believing others believe in it means little. Anyone can do that.

So you have a structured set of beliefs: You are Reformed Athiesm. You try not to be too over reaching and condemning but you are aethist all the same.
Tell me how all aethist believe differently?
And don't all people who believe different religions believe differently?
Don't all Christians have differening opinions on subjects? Thus your definition means little.

]
No that makes him a deist. But also a follower and believer of christ so a Christian.


Yes - I cheated that one, a little... since I knew that he was a christian, and so skewed deliberately towards that denomination to try to make the point.

Your point is, however, both valid and correct.

Ok Grave, answer this. Will you accpet that Athiesm needs faith (IE being certian of what you cannot/do not know to be true)

No.

Since I haven't got a checklist of Things I don't believe, that I actively Don't Believe...

Why do I say I'm an atheist? In response to a stimulus... someone mentions it, or mentions religion, and that calls up the question to me... "What is my opinion?" I examine the facts, I weigh up the evidence, and I (seem to) decide (over and over again) that I just don't 'buy' any of that 'god' stuff.

It's nothing to me. It's not my 'faith'. It's just the area IN me, that might be filled with a spiritual belief, in someone else...

It's a hardware socket, that will accept the 'god' chip... but, I'm not running a 'god' dependent operating system... no chip, not using that socket.

No.

Since I haven't got a checklist of Things I don't believe, that I actively Don't Believe...

Why do I say I'm an atheist? In response to a stimulus... someone mentions it, or mentions religion, and that calls up the question to me... "What is my opinion?" I examine the facts, I weigh up the evidence, and I (seem to) decide (over and over again) that I just don't 'buy' any of that 'god' stuff.

It's nothing to me. It's not my 'faith'. It's just the area IN me, that might be filled with a spiritual belief, in someone else...

It's a hardware socket, that will accept the 'god' chip... but, I'm not running a 'god' dependent operating system... no chip, not using that socket.


So essentialy !(belief in god) rather then a belief in !(god)

I don't feel like traversing 15 pages of responses. In answer to the original question:

Absolutely not.

A = lack of
Theism = religion/religious beliefs

A lack of religion cannot be described as a religion. It would be the ultimate paradox.

So, all this banter back & forth comes down to one very simple question that you need to ask yourself.

Is every thing you believe or don't believe in a religion? I would answer no.

Is religion not based on "organization" more so than if you believe or don't believe? I would answer yes.

Do people believe in God but take no part in religion? I would answer yes.

Therefore it is very simple. Since there are no real atheist churches or organizations other than those who advocate for the separation of church & state we can conclude using good old fashioned common sense that atheism is in fact not a religion!

So essentialy !(belief in god) rather then a belief in !(god)

That, my friend, is about the size of it. :)

That, my friend, is about the size of it. :)
So soft rather then hard athiest? (just making sure I got it right)

This whole thread is a joke, right? Because if it isn't then you all need to stop smoking pot and graduate from middle school

So soft rather then hard athiest? (just making sure I got it right)

Yessir. If I had to describe the tangibility of my Atheism... I would be a Soft Atheist... I just don't believe in ANY of that stuff... or aliens, ghosts, goblins, the Easter Bunny... well, you get the picture.

This whole thread is a joke, right? Because if it isn't then you all need to stop smoking pot and graduate from middle school

Thanks for your input... if that's what this was.... did this have anything to do with this subject? Did you have an opinion, that you somehow neglected to post?

Yessir. If I had to describe the tangibility of my Atheism... I would be a Soft Atheist... I just don't believe in ANY of that stuff... or aliens, ghosts, goblins, the Easter Bunny... well, you get the picture.

Well, I'm not a atheist and I don't believe in those things either.

I don't feel like traversing 15 pages of responses. In answer to the original question:

Absolutely not.

A = lack of
Theism = religion/religious beliefs

A lack of religion cannot be described as a religion. It would be the ultimate paradox.

If you traveresed a few pages you would have seen your response, and reponses to that response.

Again, atheist, coming from Greek, is "a" which means "without", "no", "none", etc. and "theos" which literally means god(s). You don't say a polytheist has many religions, you say a polytheist has many gods.

So, all this banter back & forth comes down to one very simple question that you need to ask yourself.

Is every thing you believe or don't believe in a religion? I would answer no.

Is religion not based on "organization" more so than if you believe or don't believe? I would answer yes.

Do people believe in God but take no part in religion? I would answer yes.

Therefore it is very simple. Since there are no real atheist churches or organizations other than those who advocate for the separation of church & state we can conclude using good old fashioned common sense that atheism is in fact not a religion!

By your definition, yes. Keep in mind that that you only consider organized religion actual religion, and thus are discounting many people in every faith.

*bump*

By your definition, yes. Keep in mind that that you only consider organized religion actual religion, and thus are discounting many people in every faith.

A belief in god does not necessarily equate to religion. Believing in "god" and "religion" are two very different things. They are not mutually exclusive. Religion does not have the market cornered on the believer and the non-believer and that is where most people make their mistake, is in thinking it does.

It depends mostly on how one defines "religion".

If you consider it to mean "a set of beliefs concerning the nature of reality, as regards to the supernatural / numinal"... Then it's a religion. Now, it's not a very complex one - it has only the one tennant "there are no gods".

Mind you, an adequate definition of religion is still being debated in those academic circles that relate to it.

On a technical note - one could be an atheist and believe in ghosts, faerie folk, demons, elementals, green martians, the Dao, ancestral spirits, the Loa etc. Just as long as you don't believe in the existance of any gods. Depending, of course, on how one defines the word "god" - because there's not really a very good definition of that one either.

It depends mostly on how one defines "religion".

If you consider it to mean "a set of beliefs concerning the nature of reality, as regards to the supernatural / numinal"... Then it's a religion. Now, it's not a very complex one - it has only the one tennant "there are no gods".

Well if we only mark religion by having "a set of beliefs" then we must include all of us who believe the sun will rise tomorrow, the night will fall, my dishwasher will in fact clean my dishes, because I do have faith in that. Religion is not a belief in god. Religion is man made. God is apparently not. Although some of us would argue that..lol.

Well if we only mark religion by having "a set of beliefs" then we must include all of us who believe the sun will rise tomorrow, the night will fall, my dishwasher will in fact clean my dishes, because I do have faith in that. Religion is not a belief in god. Religion is man made. God is apparently not. Although some of us would argue that..lol.

Hense the rest of my definition, which precludes most people from considering things like "there's a sink in my kitchen" as a religion. (Unless of course, you believe that your kitchen sink happens to be a god, spirit or whatever.)

Hense the rest of my definition, which precludes most people from considering things like "there's a sink in my kitchen" as a religion. (Unless of course, you believe that your kitchen sink happens to be a god, spirit or whatever.)

Which is why it's more than safe to say that atheism is not a religion. You won't find too many atheists who say it is.. I mean one must also ponder where the whole title came from.. did it come from people who didn't believe in god? Or did it in fact come from people who do to classify them? It's some thing I don't think any one has touched on.

Which is why it's more than safe to say that atheism is not a religion. You won't find too many atheists who say it is.. I mean one must also ponder where the whole title came from.. did it come from people who didn't believe in god? Or did it in fact come from people who do to classify them? It's some thing I don't think any one has touched on.

Actually, it started in philosophy. When you're doing metaphysics, whether or not god(s) exist in any form is a big deal, and the most basic division is between those who believe in the existance of god(s), and those who don't.

Theism does not necesarily involve the worshop of said being(s), merely the belief that he/she/it/they exist.

And, actually, many athiests do consider themselves to be part of a religion. There are several forms of buddhism, for example, that are devoutly atheistic in nature. Philosophical Daoism is considered by many of it's followers a religion, and there's quite specificly no gods there.

These variations are obviously fairly differant from one another, and from the more typical example of atheism... But if you compare, say, catholicism to hinduism, you've got some fairly huge gaps too.

Like I said, ultimately, it depends on the specific definition you are using when you talk about religion. The one I used, I used for a reason - it's one of the few ones that includes pretty much everything that is generally consdiered a religion. It also just happens to include atheism, in all it's forms.

The main reasons why an atheist would object to this is that either 1: they are using a differant definition of religion, or 2: they don't like the word because it has unpleasent connotations to them.

Also, alot of people don't really get what "atheist" means.

seeing as atheism literally means "no religion", i'd say no.

Atheism comes from the Greek word atheos meaning "denying the gods, godless, ungodly". Ironically, the Romans labeled christians atheotēs (Atheists) because they renounced the pagan gods.
As for Atheism being a religion- it is not. It is, however, a cult.

cult Audio pronunciation of "cult" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

The principle in this case is the lack of the existence of a godhead. Atheists can be just as fanatical in their beliefs as fundamental christians.

That's the main reason why I consider myself more Agnostic than Atheist. Atheists are too worked up trying to disprove the unprovable. I have my doubts about a god but there is no way to prove or disprove his existance so I don't try.

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Faith is a common tenant of religion, right? Atheists also share a common belief: that there is no god. Faith and common beliefs usually add up to a religion, so what do you guys think?

I don't know you're not an alien... I do believe though, that a religion has to have some spiritual basis and thus athiest is not a religion, it's simply the lack of any religion.

*bump

Should Atheism be considered a religion? I think so. Atheism requires faith that things don't just fall apart. Such as math. Or Physics. Or any Science in general. Most atheists just take it on faith that I'm not an alien, or that they're not aliens. Even if you are assuming nothing, you can only assume that you're assuming nothing.

Atheism is a matter of faith (requiring you to disprove the existance of a higher power in order to 100% validate your position). Religions require faith but faith doesn't require religion.

Athiests have no centralised system of religion, no tenants required to be "Athiestic" other than not having "a god." Yes they use reason but so do theologists.

So my answer is "no."

Atheism is a matter of faith (requiring you to disprove the existance of a higher power in order to 100% validate your position). Religions require faith but faith doesn't require religion.

Athiests have no centralised system of religion, no tenants required to be "Athiestic" other than not having "a god." Yes they use reason but so do theologists.

So my answer is "no."
You pain with too broad of brushes ... there is a wide varity

Soft athesim = !belief in god (just no evidence so they say "we will wait till something shows up"


And Hard atheism = belief in !god
This requires faith as you speek of (not saying religion but really this is the one that takes the faith)

Since there are no real atheist churches or organizations other than those who advocate for the separation of church & state

I don't disagree with your gist but since I'm a pedantic bastard I'm going to bring up Buddhism and Daoism.

Ok, and just one last thing:

Faith does not equal believing something you cannot prove.

It means you would continue to believe something no matter what evidence is presented (ie no disproof will suffice)

That is all.

Ok, and just one last thing:

Faith does not equal believing something you cannot prove.

It means you would continue to believe something no matter what evidence is presented (ie no disproof will suffice)

That is all.
Not really

Here

faith Audio pronunciation of "faith" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

My thoughts exactly. I just couldn't think of the right words to use without seeming snide.

Alternatively, it's a post-hoc rationalisation of religion to argue that men without God have a god-shaped hole in their psyche, hence the spontaneous invention of religion by different cultures; therefore there is a God, otherwise why the god-shaped hole?
we dont have a god-shaped hole, we have a brain that creates explanations and connections. so you look at a cloud and see an elephant in the sky. you glance at a bush and see a killer in wait. its what let us survive on the ancient savannahs (well my cat has the same kind of brain, why else would she keep attacking leaves even after they are proven to not be a mouse?)

Not really

Here

You and your 'facts'... lol

You and your 'facts'... lol
Well he was trying to define faith

Best place I could think of a word deffinition was ... go figure a dictionary :p

Originally Posted by The White Hats
My thoughts exactly. I just couldn't think of the right words to use without seeming snide.

Alternatively, it's a post-hoc rationalisation of religion to argue that men without God have a god-shaped hole in their psyche, hence the spontaneous invention of religion by different cultures; therefore there is a God, otherwise why the god-shaped hole?we dont have a god-shaped hole, we have a brain that creates explanations and connections. so you look at a cloud and see an elephant in the sky. you glance at a bush and see a killer in wait. its what let us survive on the ancient savannahs (well my cat has the same kind of brain, why else would she keep attacking leaves even after they are proven to not be a mouse?)
You are talking about the same things, but using different language.

Not really

Here
Do yourself (and us) a favour and scroll down past the American Heritage dictionary defintion at dictionary.com to get a more full sense of the English word:
...faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith...
In the fuller sense, faith would include a belief that what you have faith in is the absolute truth, usually of immaterial things such as ideals, and so one would cling to these dispite evidence to the contrary.

Do yourself (and us) a favour and scroll down past the American Heritage dictionary defintion at dictionary.com to get a more full sense of the English word:

In the fuller sense, faith would include a belief that what you have faith in is the absolute truth, usually of immaterial things such as ideals, and so one would cling to these dispite evidence to the contrary.
Um was not arguing that … rather arguing his/her seemingly “complete” definition of the word (which was incorrect)

Sorry was not using it to support a point of view rather correct a misinterpretation

Um was not arguing that … rather arguing his/her seemingly “complete” definition of the word (which was incorrect)

Sorry was not using it to support a point of view rather correct a misinterpretation

His.

I was simplifying it. I could, yes, have gone through all the definitions but they simply aren't relevant to the issue at hand. But if you insist:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Too general to be useful in this particular debate. Also, doesn't correspond to what the theist believes when they say "I have faith in x"

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

As above.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

Not really relevant in this context.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

It would be a bit of a cop-out for the atheist if we took this definition.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

This is the one I was referring to.


It's also worth noting that none of these refer to belief in something you cannot prove, which is what some were alleging faith was. And I never offered my definition as complete, I assumed those who read my post would understand it was meant to be read within the context of the debate. Sorry if I wasn't clearer.

If atheism is a religion, then so is Jedi.

I'm not kidding, there are at least half a million people around the world who have (at least tried) registered their official religion as Jedi. I don't have a source, but if someone could help that'd be appreciated.

The name itself states that it is the lack of religion. So my answer would be no. Though it is similar in many respects, it is not a religion.