Atheism

[Python.]

I got into a debate with my dad on Friday. Honestly, he's kinda stubborn. But the debate was about if atheism was a religion or not. I said it wasn't and he said it was

 

My argument was that it literally meant lack of a religion. It is a title given to people who do not believe in a God. Personally it pisses me off when people say atheism is a religion.

 

His argument was that my religion is my nonbelief, and my God is science. We discussed God was something made to explain the world around us and he brought up that science does just that, hence why it is God for me.

 

Honestly it made no sense, but I Guess it has some validity. Any opinions on if Atheism is a religion? And what about agnosticism (which I'm more lenient about)?

[t0night]

it's not a religion in itself. but there are people out there who basically obsess over the teachings of dawkins or whoever in a way that is quasi-religious.

[Don Quixote]

Depends on your definition of religion. There are many different definitions of religion (Scholars have trouble agreeing on a definition), some in which atheism would be considered a religion.

[AFFIRMATIVE]

By definition atheism means that you do not believe in any deities, not even one.

 

Buddhism is an entirely philosophical religion that also doesn't believe in deities, that could somewhat classify them as atheists, because they believed that any god created ideas was originated from fear.

 

As to whenever Atheism or Agnosticism themselves are religions, people could claim that atheists have their own messiah (charles darwin) or their own prophets like Nietzsche or Dawkings etc. That with materialism and the sorts, could include atheism as a collection of beliefs.

 

That however is based entirely on what the person believes, it could just be statements that you just don't believe in a god or you don't know, you don't have to call it a religion if you do not want to, because there is no right answer to it, its entirely subjective.

[Carnage]

I like to think of this as "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

It is the absence of religion.

[Mengh.]

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

 

A religion doesn't need to believe in a deity. However, I'm not exactly sure whether atheism is a religion as the views that relate to humanity's start would be associated with the big bang. But of course, this would mean that scientology would somewhat been seen as atheism but truly, it isn't the same, I believe.

[puddingkip]

In the strict sense of the word religion it is not. Atheism quite literally means no theism, aka no religion. Furthermore atheism isn't regulated, organised or even remotely the same among different people that call themselves atheist. It is not a religion

[AFFIRMATIVE]

Atheism quite literally means no theism, aka no religion. 

 

Nope, there are religions that are non-theistic (with no god), which again it includes Buddhism.

 

 

Also 

 

We discussed God was something made to explain the world around us and he brought up that science does just that, hence why it is God for me.

 

God is made as a placeholder to the unknown around us that science couldn't explain. As Neil Degrasse Tyson said that  "God is an ever-receiving pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on".

[Professional Map Painter]

His argument was that my religion is my nonbelief, and my God is science. We discussed God was something made to explain the world around us and he brought up that science does just that, hence why it is God for me.

 

 

God = one omnipotent entity

 

Science = the collective findings/research of many individuals that have been reviewed by others

 

Atheism isn't a religion, it's simply based upon evidence (or a lack of in some cases).

[Hyperqube]

@Carnage: bold is indeed not a hair color - but black (the absence of color) is considered a color, and bold (the absence of hair) is considered a hair style

Language is not something created by logic - but by gut feeling.

 

@Puddingkip: trying to argue etymology is kind of unwise, for 2 reasons

1) while used to talk over long distances, a megaphone isn't a telephone; nor is my computer

2) while we can argue about what definition is now, historically, atheism used to mean 'not christian'. Yes, even muslims & jews (who believe in the same God) were considered atheists.

 

 

I have to agree with Don Quixote: it depends on your definition.

 

it sounds stupid, but it's like asking if a dragon is an animal. this will not give you the answer if a dragon actually is an animal or not, but wheter or not people consider ficticious animals, animals.

 

 

@Python from what I can read, you and your father weren't discussing if it was a religion or not (ref to Mengh facepalms's post, concerning one of the definitions of religion) , but if it was a belief in a higher force or not.

 

In that sense, any fom of gnosticism would be considered one, but agnosticism wouldn't.

[Supervise]

People that are atheists are not required to beleive in science. Although most do you can be an atheist and not admit that science is real.

[Apo]

What is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

 

http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

[Supervise]

10/10 copy and paste

[Hyperqube]

APO's post pretty much shows why this is all wrong
 

"Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? "

As though having different defintions of atheism somehow influences what people thikn, what their views are or their character? No - of course not, they fail to adress the issue.
To answer their question, well, I'm sorry, but language IS determend by majority-rule.
In a nutshell, take a simple example: 'AFAIK'. I don't get to determine what the means. not one single person does. Because a majority of people who use it, use it as 'as far as I know' - that's what it means.

In fact, it's very well highlighted in the fact that atheist.org applies their definition and thus consider some forms of buddhism to be atheistic.
Oppsitely, there are many who do not consider do not consider buddhism (including the nonthesistic variants) atheistic. Nontheism, Not to be confused with atheism (to quote wikipedia)

heck - there's a certain level of hypocracy in the logic " Why should others be allowed to define atheism? Only we can do that. Oh, BTW, Buddhist, you're atheists because we say so! "


Bottomline:

• explaining what you mean with a certain term: good
• claiming you get to decide what a term means: bad

[Zapperzz]

My AP Human Geography teacher last year went on a rant about how Athiesm is NOT a religion, which in my opinion it definitely is not.  Like t0night said some people treat athiesm as a religion (which is pretty dumb) so it's kind of up to the beholder.  You could choose to make a random religion practicing the blessing of computer chargers, many people would say it is not a religion, but some people might be crazy and argue that it is... It basically is up to the person on wether they're commited enough to call it a religion (some people base religion on your way of life through the religion), although at the same time the basic definition definitely says that athiesm is NOT a religion.

[Apo]

 

APO's post pretty much shows why this is all wrong

 

"Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? "

As though having different defintions of atheism somehow influences what people thikn, what their views are or their character? No - of course not, they fail to adress the issue.

To answer their question, well, I'm sorry, but language IS determend by majority-rule.

In a nutshell, take a simple example: 'AFAIK'. I don't get to determine what the means. not one single person does. Because a majority of people who use it, use it as 'as far as I know' - that's what it means.

 

In fact, it's very well highlighted in the fact that atheist.org applies their definition and thus consider some forms of buddhism to be atheistic.

Oppsitely, there are many who do not consider do not consider buddhism (including the nonthesistic variants) atheistic. Nontheism, Not to be confused with atheism (to quote wikipedia)

 

heck - there's a certain level of hypocracy in the logic " Why should others be allowed to define atheism? Only we can do that. Oh, BTW, Buddhist, you're atheists because we say so! "

 

 

Bottomline:

• explaining what you mean with a certain term: good
• claiming you get to decide what a term means: bad

 

lol "Oh, BTW, Buddhist, you're atheists because we say so! ""

Atheistic in this sense means similarities.

Certain sects of Buddhism have similarities to atheism. That doesn't make them atheists.

Nice strawman brah.

[Carnage]

@Carnage: bold is indeed not a hair color - but black (the absence of color) is considered a color, and bold (the absence of hair) is considered a hair style

Language is not something created by logic - but by gut feeling.

Bald*

The absence of color is "colorless" or "clear" to most. Black is considered a color because it IS a color.

Hair color =/= hair style. You're overthinking it. It is only a comparison, of which I'm sure you understand the point behind.

[Senpai Absol~]

Just no lol, it isn't a religion, it is the abusent of any kind of god or relgion, it cant be

 

 

(Sorry for spelling errors)

[Hyperqube]

Black is considered a color because it IS a color.

 

yeah .... except

In the visible spectrum, white reflects light and is a presence of all colors, but black absorbs light and is an absence of color. Black can be defined as the visual impression experienced when no visible light reaches the eye.

 

Hair color =/= hair style. You're overthinking it. It is only a comparison, of which I'm sure you understand the point behind.

 

Except, I'm not overthinking it. I'm pointing out the horrible flaw in it. It's a the one liner that tries elude that absence of something is not considered part of that group. Yet there are many examples where that is what's happening (black is considered a color, bald is considered a hair style, ...)

 

Certain sects of Buddhism have similarities to atheism. That doesn't make them atheists.

Nice strawman brah.

oh? really now? Clearly your post says (in fact, the only time it actually tries to answer the question what atheism is, instead of telling what it's not)  "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. "

 

As they don't believe in gods or supernatural beings ... why aren't these buddhist sects atheists?

 

[F CHARLIE]

Here is my (but really, the) definitive answer. It appears as if it is. Not for the reasons uour dad gave tho. We can not prove the existance of God but we can not also disprove the existance of God. To say that there is no God is a belief and this belief has its followers and its leaders (Dawkins as mentioned) when a post like this comes up one can sometimes identify which people are athiest by what they write. People who are athiests will sometimes define themselves by thier opposition to religion. By contrast, an agnostic is purely objective and scientific in saying that they don't know if there is a God which is true. Agnostics don't go around opposing religion or athiests. Agnostics don't have a culture and there are no people who are well known just for being an agnostic and speaking about agnosticism.

[Hyperqube]

there are no people who are well known just for being an agnostic and speaking about agnosticism.

 

Actually, I could refer to Thomas Henry Huxley, who's well known for coining the word agnostic (as to describe himself), and to explain it.

 

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man [a.k.a. to the existance of a soul ]. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter ...

 

and

 

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

 

and

 

In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration

 

In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

 

oh? really now? Clearly your post says (in fact, the only time it actually tries to answer the question what atheism is, instead of telling what it's not)  "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. "

 

As they don't believe in gods or supernatural beings ... why aren't these buddhist sects atheists?

 

Uh dude that's a non sequitur...

 

"All atheists lack belief in god" =/= "all people who lack belief in god are atheists"

 

As for the op question. I don't know why it matters really. Some atheists approach it as an organised belief system, some don't. Not sure what difference it really makes whether it's defined as a religion or not, it's just semantics.

[♠Derpeh♤]

From Neil Tyson who I think puts it best:

 

I find it weird that this term even exists, I dont play golf, is there a word for non-golf players? Am I a nongolfer?

 

[Hyperqube]

Uh dude that's a non sequitur...

 

"All atheists lack belief in god" =/= "all people who lack belief in god are atheists"

 

what you point out indeed is correct

 

all squares are blue =/= all blue objects are squares

 

However, It doesn't say that all atheists lack is the belief in god. it says that that this is the only thing they have in common.

 

person A: the only thing squares have in common is that they're blue

person B: OK, so this blue circle is also a square?

person A: no, because it's round,

person B: then your original statement was wrong, as 'not being round' is something else squares have in common

 

That's why I said: "If if the only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe, why aren't these buddhist sects atheists?"

The answer to that question proves that their claim is wrong, and that atheists share something else - that they lack whatever makes these people not atheist.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I'd say that one thing all religions share is some kind of organised belief system, which buddists do have. Some atheists have this, and some do not, therefore atheism as a whole does not fit into the category of a religion even though it does share things in common with some things that are religions (such as lack of belief in god), and some people approach it and treat it as though it was a religion (such as people who think dawkins is some kind of atheistic prophet.)

 

As as I said before though, this is all just semantics. What difference does it make? Individual atheists don't share beliefs on the majority of things, so broad generalisations aren't really that helpful to anyone.