Atheism is not a religion

Great Debates
1

As an extension of the “prove god doenst exist” thread I thought Id start another one.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a belief. If atheism was a religion it would have a strict belief structure that all of its followers claimed to adheir. Atheism is simply the belief in the non-existance of God. It is different for each atheist. Different atheists have different reasons, beliefs, and logic for why they do not believe in god. Furthermore examining the definitions of religion:

religion- (from dictionary.com)

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

Duh

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

Atheism is not an instituitionalized system. Also there is no belief structure. Maybe there are social factors that increase the acceptance of atheism but there is no large organization of atheists that one has to be a member of to be qualified as atheist. Also “such belief and worship” refers to one which clearly specifies the nescesity of a supernatural power.

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

AS mentioned before, there is no institituon.

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

Ok, who? I know atheists, they dont point to anyone.

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

This refers to the adverb/adjective form. Yes someone can be religiosly atheistic, just like someone could be a religious hair dresser or something.

Furthermore. To say it is a religion, would imply that any belief is a religion. This is not so. I can subscribe to the idea of Plato’s forms, maybe believe in it wholeheartedly, but I am not in a religion. I do not have to be a member of some “church of plato” to believe in it. However, some cult that might form beliefs around platonic forms would be considered a religion.

2

I would go further and say that atheism is not even a belief.

In the same way that i cannot believe that pigs don’t fly. There is simply no evidance that they do fly, have ever flown, or will ever develop the ability to fly. Therefore i see it as mearly a fact, pigs don’t fly.

I’m sure there is a large number of people who disagree with this view, but that is the way i see things.

3

Atheism is a belief in the sense that it is a statement made about an ambiguous subject. God’s existance is neither proven nor disproven, and so whether he exists cannot be objectively verified.

Comparing it to pigs flying, or not, is a faulty analogy. We can test pigs, to see if they are capable of powered or unpowered flight. There is no way to prove God’s existance or lack thereof.

I think if one side of that debate (God does exist) can be considered a belief, than the other side (God does not exist) can also be considered such. Even if your atheism is based on evidence that persuades you, it still comes down to your interpretation of the universe as you see it.

For what it’s worth, I consider myself an agnostic, because my ambivalence regarding God’s existance doesn’t, in my mind, deny the validity of those who derive comfort and strength from their relationship with their God.

4

I’m sorry, but atheism is no more a belief than your refusal to believe that Odin exists is a belief. If you want me to play a game of Monopoly with you and I refuse, I have not started a new game called Not-Monopoly, have I. Thus, my refusal to believe is not a belief in and of itself.
A thought-if atheism is not believing in god, then all of us are atheists because surely there are gods that you don’t believe in.

5

But despite all our testing, we can never prove that pigs do not fly while no one is watching due to some yet undiscovered scientific law, or their innate piggy metaphysical powers. That remains unprovable. Therefore I do no think the analogy is as faulty as all that.

6

It sounds to me as though you believe that there’s insufficient reason to believe in God. Is this so?

7

This is pure semantics. A belief that something doesn’t exist is indeed a belief. And the Monopoly analogy is invalid; you still believe the game of Monopoly exists, whether or not you decide to play a game of it.

8

And round this out,
I do believe that Odin doesnt exist, and I do believe that pigs dont fly. They are both beliefs.

Atheism is a belief and some people do make a religion out it, just like some people make a religion out of NA, AA, Amway, being republican or democrat, or anything else someone has strong feelings about.

9

So saying you don’t believe in Santa is an expression of belief? Surely belief is an active process, I don’t believe in the non-existence of every possible thing I do not believe in. (And Czarcasm never said he disbelieved in Monopoly, but that not playing it is not an active process in itself, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby). Like they say, if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair-colour.

10

So, stating that fairies don’t dance around standing stones under the moon is also a belief? It comes down to my interpretation of the universe? Same questions with Odin, the flying pigs, ET abductions, tarot reading, princes changed into frogs, Cosmic Cabbage which created the earth for the cabbages, haunted houses, Santa Claus, Quetzalcoatl, the lost continent of Mu, the elves, etc, etc,etc…(and of course the Invisible Pink Unicorn)

Ambivalence? Are you ambivalent about the existence of the ancestor’s spirits, the Trickster, the sun gods Ra, Appolon and Amerastsu, fairies, vampires and dragons? If not, why? Do you define yourself as agnostic concerning the existence of flying pigs (whose powers unfortunately can’t be proven due to their metaphysical nature, as pointed out by another poster). Is there ** anything** about which you would say : “it doesn’t exist”?

Fine, but any other belief is as valid, in this case.
You see, my issue with agnosticism is that it usually applies only to a very limited subset of the human beliefs. An agnostic is most often agnostic only as long as the christian god (or possibly a limited list of deities) is concerned and suddenly becomes atheist when the existence of Zeus and Horus is considered. The logic used to explain that the existence of YHWH can’t be logically denied is quite never applied to other myths (or flying pigs).

That’s why I tend to consider agnosticism as “Sittingonthefencism” and usually translate “Im agnostic” by “I’m not really sure if the jewish/christian/muslim god exists or not”.

11

Yes, it is the belief that Santa Claus does not exist.

**

Yes, you do. Do you not see that this statement contradicts itself? It makes no sense. You do in fact believe they do not exist; they are some of your beliefs.

I never said Czarcasm doesn’t believe in Monopoly; I said the opposite, that he still believes it. That’s why the analogy is invalid.

I also did not say atheism is a religion. It is a belief, not a religion. Two very different things.

Compare these two statements:
I believe God exists.
I believe that no Gods exist.

Why is only the first one considered a belief? I believe lots of things don’t exist. I believe that. Why are those not beliefs?

12

What I’m seeing here is the inablity to differenciate between a belief and a belief system. I don’t believe that my Cubbies will win the World Series next year, but I do not belong to a belief system called Anti-Cubbie World Seriesism. If it weren’t for the fact that some religious groups feel the need to label everyone they disagree with(rightly or wrongly), I wouldn’t even call myself an atheist.
JThunder, I find insufficient evidence for all invisible beings who claim to have magical powers. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence that such creatures exist.

13

I agree with bdgr. Maybe “religion” is too strong a word, but some people give emotional meaning to their atheism. I do not.

E.g., I have been know to put an American flag or a campaign sticker on my car, because of their emotional meaning to me. However, I wouldn’t dream of putting a Darwin-fish on my car, because the non-existance of God is just something I take for granted.

14

clairobscur: If I were to tell you that I really am not sure if the Christian/Muslim/Judeist God exists or doesn’t, would that surprise you?

I consider myself agnostic because I’m quite honestly not sure. I don’t discount the existance of any higher power, but at the same time, I don’t have any compelling reason to believe in them.

Anything else I’d have to say has already been put better by others.

15

Oh, what was I thinking?

Jewish

Stupid, stupid me.

16

Hmm.

No. There are countless sects of every form of religion. For Christianity, arguing that all Christians all follow the same beliefs is insane. With Buddhism, there are some sects that believe Buddha to be a deity, while others believe there are no deities.

You can be a Christian or a Muslim, but not both(in belief, not birth), since both dictate a belief and behavior about God seperate from the other.

You can be a Chritian or an Atheist, but not both, since both dictate a belief and behavior about God seperate from the other.

Are you saying that everyone who believes in God is a sheep who does so for the exact same reason? My god, Jack Chick is more influential that I ever thought!

This is one set of definitions given by a single source. If you following Dictionary.com’s definition, then maybe what you’re saying is the case. But suppose I pull out some old issue of OED that has as a definition: “Guidelines outlining beliefs towards a God/Gods.” I could argue that Atheism is a religion then. A dictionary is not an argument. When it comes to such a vague term, a dictionary can actually just be an opinion.

Look at my bolding. There’s no structure in lots of Buddhist sects, are you going to say that Buddhism isn’t a religion?

Well, if you asked me, I might say Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, or any other scientist who defied the widely held religious beliefs of their time.

Eh? It’s number 4 under the letter n, so how is it an adjective? The words “Cause,” “Principle,” and “Activity” are nouns. I thought you were saying the dictionary’s words were the ultimate law on all religious matters, don’t go warpin’ 'em around.

How do you reach that idea? Atheism is a belief that relates directly to God. Hairdressing does not. Plato might in some cases, but he’s not a total Theologist.

If you insist on saying that Atheism is just another belief, then I challenge you to present us a Atheist Pope.

17

From what I’ve seen, the debate has changed from whether or not atheism is a religion to what qualifies as a belief. It doesn’t matter whether or not atheism is or isn’t a belief. It still doesn’t qualify as a religion due to its lack of a central belief SYSTEM. It lacks the structure of a religion, therefore is not a religion. Unless of course you would like to say that each person has their own belief structure and that each atheist is a denomiation of one in the religion of atheism, but that is a WHOLE other can of worms.

18

There is a third statement, the meaning a lot of atheists mean when using the word atheist:

I have no belief God exists.

No belief does not equal belief in no God.

19

. . . how about the divinity of Christ? That’s the essential commonality,a nd the only one that most people claim is actually shared by all Christians.

20

I don’t understand the point of this thread. Doesn’t it just come down to how liberal or conservative one’s definitions of the words “belief” and “religion” are?

I’ve always thought belief in general was just a form of abstract shorthand. If a person witnesses a rock falling a few times, they develop the belief that rocks fall. For the rest of their lives, it is not necessary for them to periodically drop a rock to “remind” themselves of what rocks do. That belief can only be challenged if we witness (or hear from an authority) that some rocks don’t fall. I’m sure to children (and some adults), the concept of zero-gravity aboard a spaceship is a troubling one because it contradicts a pretty basic belief.

As another example, I’ve never actually seen the planet Pluto, but I’m willing to believe in its existance because otherwise there’d have to be a huge (astronomical, actually) conspiracy in place. In this and similar cases, I’m willing to accept authority on the issue. My belief is not an “active process” in that I need to read science books to constantly remind myself of Pluto’s existance (or more accurately, to remind myself that authority still believes in Pluto’s existance). Barring an onset of Alzheimer’s or a major shift in authority’s view of the Solar System, I expect to believe in Pluto’s existance for the rest of my life, even if I never bother to look through a telescope.

A person can believe in God, though evidence of God is lacking on a day-to-day basis, because they were told by authority at one point that God existed. That belief gets ingrained pretty deeply in many children and doesn’t lend itself to easy challenge. It’s also constanty reinforced by ritual and symbolism, though not evidence. As in the case of the Pluto example, evidence is not required to create or sustain a belief. Atheism, however one chooses to define it, also doesn’t require constant reminders of the lack of God’s existance in order to function. At least, I’ve never required reminders, and I’m as atheist as they get. Atheism carries many of the characteristics of a “belief”, so it may as well be placed in that category. None of the hair-splitting definitional arguments I’ve read so far compels me to assume otherwise.

So ahteism is a belief and not a religion. … so what? It’s not like we’re asking for extra days off.