Patrick- This is just a meaningless semantic squabble unless there be some sort of consistent definitions established. If religion = faith, and faith = a belief with less than 100% certain knowledge, then you can reach one conclusion. If you use a more usual definition where religion would entail at least three elements of belief- the existence of some supernatural entity[ies]; that said entity[ies] have some regard for humans greater than their general regard for any other similarly sized collection of atoms; and guidelines for human behavior- then you reach a much different conclusion.
It is precisely because of such semantic quibbles that I tend to avoid labelling myself as atheist, agnostic or pantheist. By jiggling definitions any of those labels could apply.
Hardcore- sorry I’m going to have to jump in on Patrick’s side on one small issue, but your analogy isn’t valid. Omniscience is one of the traditional attributes ascribed toGod, not to Superman.
“Atheism is a position on an axiom, that axiom being “God exists”.”
Hey Glitch, ‘statement of fact’ looks a lot like an opinion. I agree that Atheism is only a position on the axiom, “God exists”…but it is an unprovable axiom based on opinion or “statement of fact”, or if you will, belief.
I guess the question is then, do you need a belief structure to qualify something as a religion? Or can a religion just be one belief. Since a belief structure seems to be what religion means…yeah, Glitch is right. Atheism is just a word.
You could hold this, but it would slip through your fingers pretty quickly. My SO is intelligent, rational, and spiritual. And she believes in God. There’ one example right there.
Getting back to the OP - isn’t religion simply a belief system? So if you believe that there is no God, is that not another religion?
Well, I certainly don’t think so. But then, I hold to what the dictionary tells me and I’ve been told repeatedly that I shouldn’t do that. So, as always, YMMV.
Semantic quibbles aside, some people seem confused by the difference between an opinion based upon evidence and a blind guess. My position on sunrises is that one wil happen tomorrow. I have no way to prove that, but it is an opinion based upon a preponderence of evidence. My postion on God’s non-existence is also based upon the preponderence of evidence. More specifically, it is based upon the complete lack of supporting evidence coupled with a great deal of evidence which contradicts the nature of the universe posited by most religions.
statement:
One or more metaphysical beings exist that are concerned with human behavior and act upon those concerns in a way which affects human life or afterlife.
Positions:
true
false
indeterminant
If you answer 1 you have a religion. If you answer 2 or 3 you do not. It makes no sense to say that 2 is a religion because it represents a position on the question, but 3 is not. They all represent positions. If they all thus represent religions, then every possible position is a religion and the term is meaningless as a distinction.
It has been my experience that theists who try to argue that atheism is a religion often feel threatened by the rational defense of atheism. they seem to feel it is necessary to “weaken” the rationality of atheism in order to feel more secure in their own belief. I make no assertions about the particular posters on this thread, though zi would be interested if they choose to share their own individual reasons for wanting to view atheism as a religion.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Fact:
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality.
Note, that this isn’t saying it has objective reality, simply presented as such.
“God exists”
No question marks, or anything. It is presented as being true and real. The actual stating “God exists” is the “statement of fact”.
An opinion, on the other hand, is the position held about the fact portion in the statement of fact.
Opinion
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
An axiom is by definition accepted as being true without proof. That is what an axiom is.
Axiom
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
Technically, yes a religion can have a single belief.
Relgion:
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Note the singular for the first two. However, does it makes sense to speak in these terms in practice? If so then we all are members of MANY religions, because every principle you believe can technically be considered a religion, technically.
Patrick: With regards to your latest question, yes. For my views please see the thread “Could you believe?” on Great Debates and start at about page 4 or 5. There is too much material presented by me there to repost here in one simple post.
I don’t like the word atheist, because it implies that I have a positive opinion on the subject. My real opinion on the subject is ‘huh?’. I simply don’t know what you are talking about when you start babbling about your omniscient (impossible) omnipotent (meaningless) omnipresent (impossible) magic god-thing.
Now, there are religions other than christianity, judaism, islam, mormonism, scientology, wicca, buddhism, and hinduism which may make claims that are not logically impossible, self-contradictory, incoherent and meaningless. I do not know enough about these other religions to form an opinion on their value - so what does this make me? I reject every religion I know about on the grounds that they are all stupid. This however does not amount to an assertion that god does not exist. I am also however, not undecided on the question. Perhaps its best to say I don’t understand the question - I’ve never heard a description of god that is coherent.
Incidentally, I do not think that a rational person can believe in any of the religions I’ve mentioned. All are deeply, fundamentally flawed in conception. If you say your wife is intelligent, brilliant, whatever, thats fine. But if she believes in one of these religions, she is not rational. Its not a rational idea.
Cooper: I have to disagree with you. There are a number of religious people in the world, and many who post on these boards, for whom their religion does not contradict the evidence of their senses. I won’t speak for them, but I’ve become convinced they are both rational and religious.
Additionally, there are many who have claimed an epiphany, a direct sensory experience of God. Unfortunately, since this sort of experience is not repeatable, it can’t serve as scientific evidence.
There are quite a few people who deny or contradict the evidence of their senses, and the empirical evidence of science because of your religion. Yes, such people are, in my considered opinion, fools.
In short the set of religious fools is a proper subset of the set of all religious people.
Singledad - invariably the people that you speak of are not subscribing to the dogma of any of the religions I’ve mentioned. Especially in America it seems to be common for people to start with Christianity, and modify it in ways that make sense to them. Sort of a build-your-own religion approach. What you end up with is something that you have rationalized, and perhaps something you can even defend against the most obvious logical assaults. However, the process by which you acquired this belief system is flawed, because it has its start in a system that is indefensible.
As far as the personal mystical experience is concerned, I do not doubt that such things happen. The problem is the interpretation. The experience is almost always vague, and a religion is sought as an explanation for it. Perhaps the experience occurs shortly after speaking to a Catholic priest, so you decide to become a catholic. You’ve just committed a common logical fallacy.
now that everyone’s beyond the “statement of fact” thing…I will submit my opinionious answer to the original question. I don’t believe that atheism is a religion. Atheism is the absence of religion. Not believing in a higher power. If anything, I myself actually consider science to be my religion. IMHO
“How do you know that my dimwitted inexperience isn’t merely a subtle form of manipulation used to lower peoples’ expectations, thereby enhancing my ability to effectively manuver within any given situation?”
Dewey—“Scream 2”
No, I asked you first. Your answer is too ambiguous. Some people have miraculous health cures; some think statues weeping tears or blood are. You have no criteria?
My criteria for not believing will be dying. If I am dead, and there is no God, I won’t know about it anyway.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
I disagree with the statement in the OP that defines atheism as the belief there (is/are) no god(s). Having a belief presupposes the possibility of opposition. One can believe a particular ethic or ethos is right or wrong. Yes, I mean morals are precisely that which give morals credence. Events occur. Things are. Essentially, there are no moral implications which can be ascribed to events and things. It is only a construct which permits leniency in perspective.
To elaborate, one cannot hold the belief that light travels at approximately three hundred million meters per second. Light simply travels at that speed (there are experiments which have been conducted in which light was slowed down to seventeen meters per second; however, the speed is a relative property and, for the sake of not derailing the topic, I will refrain from a thorough explanation of the physics which permits both speeds to constant and equal). Belief applies to things and actions which are subjective in nature. It does not apply to the objective: a value of false cannot be ascribed to the statement, “light travels at approximately three hundred million meters per second.”
From the atheistic perspective, there is no question pertaining to the existence of (a/any) god(s). In fact, a statement denying the existence of (a/any) god(s) is superfluous insofar as actively addressing the topic is an exercise futility. It would be analogous to defining “nonisness.” The term “god” cannot logically be correlated to anything which has “isness.” The statement, “‘God’ is equivalent to ‘nonisness’,” is both redundant and needless. The issue is only forcibly addressed. If any atheist is confronted with the statement, “God is,” the atheist may correct the speaker with the statement, “God is not,” much as one would do for an individual incorrectly stating the value of the speed of light. To the atheist, the statement is not a belief.
Beliefs are that which constitute religious doctrine. The atheist does not ascribe to beliefs as a theist ascribes to a belief which is dictated by his/her religion. In fact, the atheist is not an atheist insofar as declaring oneself an atheist is unnecessary (recall: The statement, “‘God’ is equivalent to ‘nonisness’,” is both redundant and needless). The very fact that an atheist does hold such tenets implies atheism is not a religion. If one wishes to state that an atheist has beliefs then all beliefs are a subset or the entirety of a religion and the term religion becomes useless to describe anything.
In response to the question regarding evidence to “change the atheist’s mind,” so to speak, no evidence can be offered – “isness” can not be offered to prove “nonisness” unless one assumes that the very existence of “isness” is proof of the nonexistence of “nonisness.”
::sheepishly:: Previous post, second to last paragraph, second to last line should read “does not hold such tenets”, not “does hold such tenets.” I hope that sounds a little less contradictory.
Nen, I agree that the question is meaningless. However, I’m not sure your response (or mine for that matter) will satisfy anyone. Denying that the concept of ‘God’ is meaningful or possible will not hold sway with someone who thinks they understand what ‘God’ is. And of course there are many who think that God cannot be understood, that this is a chief feature of his godness, yet this is no reason not to believe in him.
Your proof is much like the one that goes:
Since God is the ultimate in perfection, he must exist, because if he did not exist, he would not be perfect.
That is, it is completely circular and based on assumptions which are questionable. However, I think both proofs point to a fundamental disconnect between the thinking of atheists and theists, and I’m not sure the gap can be bridged - no matter which words we use.
