Some atheists have the belief “There is no God.”
All atheists do not have the belief “There is a God.”
One could metaphorically call some atheists’ devotion to atheism “religious”. I don’t think this would be anything more than a metaphore though.
Atheism becomes a religion when it starts relying on symbol and ritual, if I may offer a tentiave acid test. When some atheists start insisting I attend weekly atheist meetings and carry The Holy Big Bang Hand Grenade, then I daresay those atheists are trying to start a religion. I’d choose to stay with just my beliefs, thankyouverymuch.
Concur with BlackKnight; Atheism may not be a religion,but it is pursued by some with religious zeal and unquestioning reliance on dogma (no, not you, but some self-proclaimed atheists are quite happy to parrot analogies of invisible pixies/dragons/unicorns without (IMO) having given them much thought).
It does seem a trifle strange to hear atheists claiming that what they have is an absence of belief, rather than a belief of absence; the former seems reasonable when applied to statements like “I have an absence of belief in luminous flying underpants”, because until I typed that statement, I’d never thought about it before. But I don’t think that any adult in the western world can keep a straight face while saying “God? never heard of him”.
Athiesm is not a religion
Whatever.
No. Again, you seem to think that having no belief in something is the same as actively disbelieving in it.
**
Without wishing to speak for him too much, you missed the entire point of his analogy. He was comparing playing monopoly to believing in whatever. (He never said anything about believing in monopoly or not, that’s why it was an analogy) Thus, just as not playing a game of monopoly is not a game in itself, not believing in any particular variant of a god is not a belief in itself.
**
How about: I have no belief in God\gods\Fairies\Santa he IPU\etc? I am perfectly capable of lacking belief in loads of things without actively making a point of how I disbelieve in them. Some people might indeed actively disbelieve in some or all of those things. Others do not.
Sure, I’ve heard of God. I lack belief in what I’ve heard. Before I heard those stories (this is a lot like your “until I typed that statement” above), it would never have occurred to me that there might be a god.
It’s pretty easy to examine the word. “A” is a prefix meaning “without.” “Theism” means “belief in the existence of a god or gods.” Atheism is simply without belief in gods.
Of course, words take on different meanings according to use. When we say that we watch a TV show or exercise “religiously,” it isn’t the original meaning of the word. It has come to refer to things we do zealously, fervently, or even regularly. It does’t mean we worship the TV show.
Similarly, an atheist can be zealous about atheism, in which case the atheism can become an active belief in the non-existence of God, often called “hard” or “strong” atheism. The atheist can adhere to this belief “religiously,” in the sense that we exercise religiously, but it doesn’t make the atheism a religion.
Just because a word exists to describe a concept (in this case Atheism, it does not necessarily follow that the concept is attainable in reality. Personally, I’d be surprised if anyone could actually internally discern whether they were really experiencing the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there isn’t one (quite aside from how strongly they pursue that belief, or how profoundly they feel the lack.
It seems more of a semantic issue to me, butin any case, I don’t think atheism is naturally a religious position, but it’s also not impossible for an atheist to behave in a way that could be described as ‘religious’.
I think that to define ‘religion’ as merely a position of belief in something is too watery.
Mangetout,
Trust me, its far more than semantics. There is a big difference between no belief in god and belief in no god. But perhaps you need to hold one or the other position to understand the difference.
(says the agnostic, who has belief that god is unknowable, but has no belief in god).
Atheism is not only not a religion, it also cannot be treated as a religion by athiests. Athiesm is the absence of a belief. It means that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a belief, and therefore that belief is not accepted. Some athiests may believe that god does not exist, but this is not part of athiesm, and it is this belief that can be treated religiously. Just because you have heard of religion does not mean that you have to actively disbelieve it if you do not accept it. Personally I think that even if I had never heard of any religion, I would have wondered about where everything came from, and would not have been satisfied with a scientific explanation. I would have come up with some kind of idea about some “god” on my own. Combined with experiences I have had that I could attribute to “god” if I wanted, this makes me believe there could very well be a god, although I have no belief in a specific god. But what if someone was satisfied with a scientific explanation? Certainly they would not believe in god, but they would not disbelieve in god either. They would just be satisfied with their current explanation.
Agnostic: No belief, not satisfied.
Athiest: No belief, satisfied.
Neither one necessarily believes absolutely that god does not exist.
Perhaps you’re right; the ‘atheist’ who behaves in a ‘religious’ manner about his belief that there isn’t a god strays outside of the strict definition of atheism.
I’m happy to concede that atheism is an absence of belief rather than a belief of absence, but I can’t pretend to fully grasp the concept yet; for me, it would seem that being conscious of a hole where other people have belief (in whatever) is as near as equvalent to belief that (whatever) isn’t valid. Of course, examples about my lack of belief in flying luminous underpants, invisible unicorns and gravity pixies are useful, but I think slightly misleading; I never spend any time thinking about those things, whereas I don’t think that most of the atheists here at the SDMB can claim to ‘never spend any time thinking about the idea of a god or gods’ - judging by the number of debates on the subject, anyway.
But anyway; I’m not an atheist, so who am I to define the term?
In real life, few of the non-evangelical atheists I know think or talk about God much at all - outside of defending their lack of belief. And Gaudere doesn’t open up threads on “why I don’t believe” - few of the respected atheists on this board do.
Threads on atheism on this board are opened by newbies, Christians and evangelical atheists (the last two often being a subset of the first). The established atheists posters pop in and cut and paste out what they say every time the topic comes up - in an effort to fight ignorance about their lack of belief.
Nighttime has already expressed it quite well, but to take my stab at clearing this up: all atheists lack belief in god. This itself is not a belief.
Some PEOPLE (whether atheist or theist) have beliefs about the non-existence of some gods.
Atheists are just people. The only thing they have in common is that they lack a certain characteristic (god belief). Otherwise, they have nothing in common, including their beliefs.
Some atheists like to claim that they know what “atheists believe” and it’s this and this and this. But this is just a little more stupid than being a theist and going on about what “theists” believe. The only thing you can say for sure about what a theist believes in is that they believe that there is a god. But even this is so vauge as to be almost meaningless, but “god” is a term without utterly meaning until a specific theist defines what they mean by it.
Nighttime, I do think you go to far by claiming that atheists are “satisfied with some scientific explanation.” I am not satisfied with any explanation I have heard. Some explanations are plausible, but I have no idea where “we” came from. In fact, I don’t even know whether or not that question is relevant: perhaps the universe didn’t “come from” anywhere. I have no idea.
I do know that I do not have a reason to believe the theist conception is the case.
—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.—
By the definitions we have been discussing here, thus you are an agnostic atheist: i.e you do not have knowledge of god (and thus are agnostic in the weak sense) and, lacking reason to believe, you have no belief IN god (are thus an atheist).
“Agnostic” actually has a stronger and more meaningful definition, its original one: that one believes that knowledge of god is impossible. Personally, I do not see the value in that position: how could one know that? Most agnostics I know are of the weak variety. The only strong agnostics I know are theists: they believe in god on faith alone, but also believe that man cannot have knowledge of god.
I’ll just say that when I care about what others think, I usually let them tell me, rather than vice versa. I’m glad to try to understand atheism as not a belief. That is, when I’m not worrying about this beam I’ve got in my eye.
I’ve noticed that. I’ve also noticed that threads on religion on this board are opened by newbies, atheists and evangelical believers (the last two often being a subset of the first). The established religious posters pop in and cut and paste out what they say every time the topic comes up - in an effort to fight ignorance about their belief.
kg m²/s²
True. Just because you do not feel the need to consider god based explanations of the universe does not mean you have already explained it completely through science, or anything else.
Think of it as a trial. To a believer, the evidence has been presented, and the verdict is that a particular god exists. To me the trial has started, some evidence has been presented, but it is impossible to reach any verdict based on such inconclusive evidence. To an athiest there is not enough evidence to even start the trial; the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Not starting a trial is hardly “near as equivalent” to completing a trial and reaching a negative verdict.
—True. Just because you do not feel the need to consider god based explanations of the universe does not mean you have already explained it completely through science, or anything else.—
Many atheists have considered these explanations, but have not found them to be convincing (I am one).
I also have to note that not only do I not find them convincing, I don’t find most of them satisfying either, as in they really don’t seem to hold final answers, anymore than “the universe just exists” does. I know that there may not BE answers to some of those questions, of course: the questions themselves may be false. But I don’t feel that the theist answers really clarify anything about the world around me. I think this sort of thing is going to differ from person to person, and the questions that are important to each person.
I think Cliff Walker, of positiveatheism.com, really clarified things for me, in pointing out that most people don’t even know WHY they believe in a way that they can just lay out. It’s just a part of them, and their lives, their way of thinking about things. It thus just doesn’t make any damn sense to talk about whether someone would be better off with or without a belief, whether its an empirically justified one or not. Who knows?
On some level, belief is just another thing that human beings do, and I think it’s as stupid to fault someone for feeling compelled to believe as it is to fault someone for liking a different sports team, or sport.
I certainly agree that some beliefs can lead to bad actions, and can be dangerous. But outside of really severe cases, trusting in people’s good judgement, I think the only person really qualified to judge what they need to believe is that person themselves.
I think that’s probably because we are constantly confronted with the idea of a god, whether we want to hear about it or not. If theists didn’t talk about it all the time, we wouldn’t either. As an example, I notice that you took the time to talk about flying underpants, invisible unicorns, and pixies, even though you claim never to think about them. You did it because somebody else brought up the subject.
Absolutely my point; since atheists are faced with relentless attention from troublesome theists, they have less opportunity than they otherwise might to simply ‘not believe’; does this not force them (in some cases, at least) to take up a position of belief contrary to that presented by the theists?
In my case, it’s because nobody ever asks me if I believe in Zeus or Horus. The question is usually phrased in terms of whether I believe in God rather than in “a god or gods, other supernatural beings, or indeed in the existence of a higher plane of existence than the one we currently inhabit”. I usually allow this assumption of monotheism to pass unchallenged, as to do otherwise can often result in either a whole other pedantic conversation or in an awkward and potentially unpleasant argument. Sometimes it’s just easier to use the shorthand; nevertheless, this does not mean that I consider other options any more or less feasible.
I have discussed religion with many people who were not monotheists, including at least two who professed belief in, and worship of, the Greek pantheon. For the record, my agnosticism applies in that case as well. (Funnily enough, though, they still didn’t ask me if I believed in Zeus.)
There are certainly cases where my scepticism kicks in harder than others – this especially applies where divinity is ascribed to actual humans, especially in modern times – but in general I try to keep an open mind.
And for the record, I usually differentiate between “a belief in no god(s)” [atheism] and “no belief in god(s)” [agnosticism]. As such, it would be incorrect to call me an atheist, as I don’t specifically belief that God (etc.) doesn’t exist, merely that I’ve yet to be convinced. YMMV, and probably does.
Besides, you get a better view from atop the fence. 
—Mand: Absolutely my point; since atheists are faced with relentless attention from troublesome theists, they have less opportunity than they otherwise might to simply ‘not believe’; does this not force them (in some cases, at least) to take up a position of belief contrary to that presented by the theists?—
To “not believe” is not something that requires opportunity. Only belief requires opportunities. No matter how many times someone demands that I accept that life exists elsewhere in the universe, that never makes me jump to the conclusion that it DOESN’T. I just don’t yet see enough evidence to convince myself that it does.
—jr8: And for the record, I usually differentiate between “a belief in no god(s)” [atheism] and “no belief in god(s)” [agnosticism]. As such, it would be incorrect to call me an atheist, as I don’t specifically belief that God (etc.) doesn’t exist, merely that I’ve yet to be convinced.—
In the end, definitions are just tools. Over the years, theists have done a godo job spreading the definition of “Atheism” that it means a belief in no gods. And actually, many agnostics, trying to carve out a special place for themselves, have aided and abetted.
But the problem is that this position requires using the word “agnosticism” in a highly irregular fashion. Agnosticism concerns knowledge of god’s existence. Belief is an entirely different question. Many theists are also agnostics: they do not think that god is or can be known, but they feel compelled to believe anyway. Telling someone that you are an agnostic answers only the question about knowledge: the question of whether one believes remains an open question.
Agnosticism is not, therefore, a fence sitting “middle” position between theism and atheism, even if “atheism” did mean what some claim it means.
Apos,
I think you may be able to define yourself like that, but try defining other people and you’ll get yourself in deep doo doo. The use of agnostic in the sense you claim is highly irregular is not - it is, in fact, a common and accepted usage of the word.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=agnostic
Perhaps not the meaning Huxley intended for the word, but the usage is there.
Hmmm… This thread has been swimming around on the screen for a last couple of days. I didn’t open it and I didn’t really feel compelled to until now, for reasons that are beyond me. Maybe it just floated around long enough to finally make me wonder what the eminent board might have to say on atheism on this wonderful day of May sunshine. Fact is that I am an atheist myself and I couldn’t care less if it’s a religion and hence I rarely find the reason to discuss my belief. I am one of those atheists that just simply does not believe in God.
Even if I am now sitting here and typing away a post on the matter, I find it sort of a non-discussion. The only thing that is interesting about us atheists, might be what we then find comfort in since we have no faith to embrace as a last resort when we hit the inevitable ‘woha, THAT I do not understand”, on our walk towards inevitable demise. Maybe the impact of atheism spreading in the world as we get more and more secularized has value for a debate somewhere, but that we are a religion? Nah, not likely. It’s our relation to religion that counts.
It seems to me that there is another kind of atheist that does not believe in believing in God. A somewhat presumptuous position if you ask me, but then again there are tolerant and intolerant peoples in all sets or subsets of human culture. Along the lines of earlier posts about atheists with zeal; I posit that atheists that do not believe in believing are coming close to religion.
Firstly it is a belief system that involves the nihilistic desire to be an unbeliever. Secondly it is often expressed in dialectic of doubt that questions belief in constant regressive iterations of ‘prove God!’. Personally I don’t get it. This could be applied towards me as well… ‘go ahead disprove God’, but I can’t and I don’t care to. Just as little as a believer in God can and does not care to. All that being said it still is not a religion.
Further on the topic of atheism vs. religion. I’m a Semitic/Christian atheist. I’m slightly different from a Semitic/Muslim atheist and very different from a Buddhist atheist… well I desist, it’s got to do with morals and ethics and customs that I inherited from the culture I grew up in. I mean hellfire and damnation I celebrate Christmas, I get rip roaring drunk every Mardi Gras and have solemn thoughtful Easter dinners and when I visit family and friends in the states I often enough celebrate Thanksgiving. This coming weekend I’ll very much enjoy a Whitsun weekend of Golf and Opera in Salzburg, but I will also for social reasons attend mass. If you think that this is just because it’s nice to have time off, think again. I celebrate all those things and really think about the Christian message, not actively but indirectly.
Christianity impacts me much more than my atheism. Not believing in God is my personal choice while I have no choice but to be immersed in the morals and ethics of the Semitic faiths and especially.
Hence atheism is not a religion and it’s not that interesting to discuss without bringing in other concepts of societal and moral ethical importance, because it’s just the lack of belief, empty, cold, boring old naught.
And to all my atheist friends who think we are so right as to need to convince the believers they are wrong; you’re religious youreslf, and just like everyone else you have no business in what other people believe. If you must, start up the church of unbelievers, just don’t call for converts on my doorstep, I’m a happy Semitic/Christian atheist who doesn’t give a fuck.
Sparc