Is Atheism is a Religion?

[EgonSpengler]

Y'know, thinking about it, I'm not sure that I've ever met someone who was certain there was no god. I only ever hear about such people from religious people and the occasional hardcore agnostic. Maybe the subject just never comes up between me and them (it is, understandably, the religious people who care about other peoples' opinions on god).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes, but a different infinite number. The point remains that infinity is a reality =/= nothing is impossible.

If an infinity is a reality in some sense its likely not limited to just one field of knowledge or form of existence and if infinite consciousness exist then nothing is impossible.

 

[timtofly]

a common result for a meaning of atheist

there is no plainly known claim involved, just a simple 'no belief that a god exists' if you want to believe in a god ''fair enough'' just leave us alone to get on with life with our disbelief or lack of belief in god without trying to categorize us as a blinking religion with all their baggage, we have no dogma only a view that something is not true
stop with the " they are still looking'', we keep telling you we are not. it would be easier to find a particular grain of sand at the beach
an atheist does not need to qualify their lack of belief with one of your 3 categories

And no belief is not plainly saying there is no God? I have heard it plenty of times here in CFC, that there is no God. No belief required at all to say it. If there is a lack of belief, and a lack of knowledge, what is the point in even stating that there is no God?

I have no issue at all if they say it. That is their perception of reality. What else would they say? If no one needs to qualify, that is fine with me, it is their choice not to defend that statement. My only defence that people accept, is that it is just part of my belief system. It is more than that; it is my whole identity and everything that I know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Are you denying that religion is not secularized in most areas of the world?

Given that "secular" is defined as "not connected with religious or spiritual matters.", then the concept of "secularised religion" is oxymoronic.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I am not replying because my name is here, nor signaling this post out. There is nothing about atheism that is odd or even that unordinary. Even not having a belief is not that unheard of. It has been over 100 years since the brand of Marxist atheism has been set in motion as an endeavor to erase God from the human thought process.

It's been theorized (by atheists and agnostics - I don't know if any clergy have weighed in) that the "deism" practiced by the American Founding Fathers and others of their era was simply a kind of agnosticism dressed in socially-acceptable clothing. That is, they didn't believe in God, but it was socially awkward (or dangerous) to say so and that particular argument wasn't worth having when they were trying to form a republic and work on things like biology and chemistry (today even we American brutes recognize European names like Fahrenheit, Celsius, and Cassini, even if we can't remember what they did).

Science is just a secularized version of a particular religion.

Islam?

 

[Old Hippy]

And no belief is not plainly saying there is no God? I have heard it plenty of times here in CFC, that there is no God. No belief required at all to say it. If there is a lack of belief, and a lack of knowledge, what is the point in even stating that there is no God?

what is the point of saying their is a God it is just a personal reflection of what a person believes to be true so it is no different from some one saying they don't believe gods exist

of course saying that atheist don't believe in god is saying their is no god from their point of view
I have no issue at all if they say it. That is their perception of reality. What else would they say? If no one needs to qualify, that is fine with me, it is their choice not to defend that statement. My only defence that people accept, is that it is just part of my belief system. It is more than that; it is my whole identity and everything that I know.

its telling that you need a defence for your beliefs...
I have no issue with people saying they believe in God I still follow the teachings of Jesus but I just don't believe that God exists that is not my whole identity and every thing I know but you don't accept that because you go further and imply atheists lack of belief is due to athiests lack of knowledge you don't accept another persons point of view as their own but imply its due to their ignorance...their lack of knowledge apart from saying their lack of belief that's telling too
atheists are not Believers in waiting if only they knew the truth and were just plain out smarter and not lacking belief
they just don't believe, in gods its a simple statement that requires no further explanation their can have lots of knowledge and may other beliefs and even faith too in many things

They have other ways of seeing the world that's what they would say and why for heavens sake would it be seen that they should defend their stance I don't expect Buddhist to defend their beliefs I accept them as their beliefs and I also accept that they don't believe everything I believe in, its just their perception of reality

 

[timtofly]

Given that "secular" is defined as "not connected with religious or spiritual matters.", then the concept of "secularised religion" is oxymoronic.

Using the term oxymoron does not change the fact. If a religion is just a human concept, how much deity is involved? That is the point of being secular.

what is the point of saying their is a God it is just a personal reflection of what a person believes to be true so it is no different from some one saying they don't believe gods exist

its telling that you need a defence for your beliefs...
I have no issue with people saying they believe in God I still follow the teachings of Jesus but I just don't believe that God exists that is not my whole identity and every thing I know but you don't accept that because you go further and imply atheists lack of belief is due to athiests lack of knowledge you don't accept another persons point of view as their own but imply its due to their ignorance...their lack of knowledge apart from saying their lack of belief that's telling too
atheists are not Believers in waiting if only they knew the truth and were just plain out smarter and not lacking belief
they just don't believe, in gods its a simple statement that requires no further explanation their can have lots of knowledge and may other beliefs and even faith too in many things

They have other ways of seeing the world that's what they would say and why for heavens sake would it be seen that they should defend their stance I don't expect Buddhist to defend their beliefs I accept them as their beliefs and I also accept that they don't believe everything I believe in, its just their perception of reality

What stance am I defending? How much value do you place on this alleged ignorance you mentioned?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Using the term oxymoron does not change the fact. If a religion is just a human concept, how much deity is involved? That is the point of being secular.

As an atheist I obviously don't think deities are involved in anything at all. That's got nothing to do with anything though. If secular means "not related to religion" then you can't have a secular religion by definition. You don't even need to know what "religion" means to show that.

 

[timtofly]

As an atheist I obviously don't think deities are involved in anything at all. That's got nothing to do with anything though. If secular means "not related to religion" then you can't have a secular religion by definition. You don't even need to know what "religion" means to show that.

Then you agree religion is meaningless? That is my point. You seem to claim that religion was never religion, on the mere point it is man made. The definition has no meaning, even if it is common knowledge. If religion is fully secular, it is just culture. What is religion if there is no deity involved?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Then you agree religion is meaningless?

No I don't at all. When did I say that? I just said that you don't need to know what religion is to know that a "non-religious religion" is not a thing. If flarg means "unlike or unrelated to a smurg" then you can't have a flargy smurg. That doesn't mean that "smurg" can't have some deeply important meaning in its own right.

You seem to claim that religion was never religion, on the mere point it is man made. The definition has no meaning, even if it is common knowledge. If religion is fully secular, it is just culture. What is religion if there is no deity involved?

Man made things are still things. I recognise religion as a concept that has meaning. I recognise deities as a concept that has meaning. Just because I don't believe in the actual literal existence of deities doesn't mean that I don't understand that other people do, or that things called "religions" can develop around them.

Edit: also, as has already been mentioned somewhere I think, deities aren't even a necessary component of a religion to begin with.

 

[onejayhawk]

What is religion if there is no deity involved?

Hinduism? Instead of no deity, everything is a deity.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hinduism? Instead of no deity, everything is a deity.

J

And everything is Deity. Even the gods are an illusion.

 

[onejayhawk]

And everything is Deity. Even the gods are an illusion.

Did I not just say that, at least for Hindus?

For me, deity is a level of difficulty in Civ.

J

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Y'know, thinking about it, I'm not sure that I've ever met someone who was certain there was no god. I only ever hear about such people from religious people and the occasional hardcore agnostic. Maybe the subject just never comes up between me and them (it is, understandably, the religious people who care about other peoples' opinions on god).

What's the point in arguing certainty over a claim where great care is taken to make sure it's unfalsifiable, to the point of moving the goalposts if necessary?

God, we're all a simulation, magic governing physical law, you can pick whatever explanation you feel like and claim it exists outside reality as we can observe it and therefore can't be detected. You get nothing to measure, nothing to show a reason to favor one explanation w/o evidence over a truly enormous sea of other possible explanations that can't be tested.

 

[Old Hippy]

What stance am I defending? How much value do you place on this alleged ignorance you mentioned?

My only defence that people accept, is that it is just part of my belief system. It is more than that; it is my whole identity and everything that I know

how much value do I place on your statement that as an atheist I lack belief and lack knowledge none at all but it is still a statement made about people and seems telling that you can accept your belief as important but dismiss other views with 'the atheists lack knowledge and lack belief'
they do have knowledge and beliefs they just don't have your belief that a gods exist
is it your lack of knowledge that you probably don't worship 'Pastafarianism' of the great spaghetti space monster or is it actually that its your belief and knowledge that forms your views rather than any lack of it
remember this is a thread about non believers in gods not people who believe nothing ....
you and others trying to define atheist dogma despite atheists continually saying that is as ridiculous as asking atheists to define what theist belief and knowledge are
you would not accept an athiest saying it is your lack of knowledge that makes you hold your views
its just a 'different' knowledge and belief you have and that's OK

 

[timtofly]

how much value do I place on your statement that as an atheist I lack belief and lack knowledge none at all but it is still a statement made about people and seems telling that you can accept your belief as important but dismiss other views with 'the atheists lack knowledge and lack belief'
they do have knowledge and beliefs they just don't have your belief that a gods exist
is it your lack of knowledge that you probably don't worship 'Pastafarianism' of the great spaghetti space monster or is it actually that its your belief and knowledge that forms your views rather than any lack of it
remember this is a thread about non believers in gods not people who believe nothing ....
you and others trying to define atheist dogma despite atheists continually saying that is as ridiculous as asking atheists to define what theist belief and knowledge are
you would not accept an athiest saying it is your lack of knowledge that makes you hold your views
its just a 'different' knowledge and belief you have and that's OK

So far from this thread, the atheist dogma I am seeing is that religion cannot be changed. It is a constant just like the belief in the great spaghetti space monster, and the belief there is no God.

As for me saying what people know and don't know comes from the definition of agnosticism, and the accepted fact/belief that either one does not know, nor cannot know.

And I am not afraid of having a lack of knowledge. I understand that there are a lot of things I do not know, one being this great spaghetti space monster. As for worship, that seems optional for any human as they see fit to carry out their individual beliefs in whatever fashion suits them.

 

[Old Hippy]

So far from this thread, the atheist dogma I am seeing is that religion cannot be changed. It is a constant just like the belief in the great spaghetti space monster, and the belief there is no God.

As for me saying what people know and don't know comes from the definition of agnosticism, and the accepted fact/belief that either one does not know, nor cannot know.

And I am not afraid of having a lack of knowledge. I understand that there are a lot of things I do not know, one being this great spaghetti space monster. As for worship, that seems optional for any human as they see fit to carry out their individual beliefs in whatever fashion suits them.

then a thread 'is agnosticism a religion' should be started, there's a point about agnosticism its not atheistism as you have stated its basically core to your being and identity when it comes to your beliefs arguing the point that ''and the accepted fact/belief that either one does not know, nor cannot know'' is rather moot a '' my view is valid because its my view'
I respect you view and faith as I respect other views about gods in general.
but having set such high standard it does not follow that people can not have a view that the Hindu gods don't exist on lesser evidence than ''they feel their view is right even if it can not be shown as right''

and I agree people should just be able to have their own individual views, beliefs and 'Truths', atheists just don't have a view that gods exist they have many other views and many other things they have not decided on but an atheist has decided gods are mythical or they would say they are agnostic not atheist
you don't have to believe them....

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Believing in chance isnt a knowledge of what is really going to happen. As long as you deal with chance and not certainty you are dealing with belief. Also you have also lived long enough to notice that many lives have been ruined quite unexpectadly.

I'm talking about what is not going to happen. I suggest that you grant me the courtesy of accepting that I know more about my own life than you do, and that I know what is and is not going to happen regarding certain specific issues. All the prayer in the universe won't fix what is impossible to fix.

Another example of your belief. If infinity is a reality then nothing is impossible.

Where did I mention "infinity"? It's a fact that stars don't live forever, and current theory says our Sun will expand into a red giant a few billion years from now. Before that happens Earth will have become uninhabitable.

I am not necessarily talking of any specific religious faith. J. Ceasar wasnt particulary religious but had a great faith in himself and his destiny. Faith here doesnt mean mere mental belief but a psychic strenght from ones centre of consciousness to brave immense odds.

And then we have reality-TV cast members who go into "thankyoujesus" mode if they win a race or solve a puzzle. Since they're playing for a million dollars (Survivor) or $500 thousand (Big Brother), somehow I doubt that Jesus (if he existed and knew about this) would be impressed.

Its just a recognition of play of forces which are gigantic in comparision to any organised human effort under present condition; its plane ascertainment of the nature of reality. I mean you cant even control your hearbeat you are totaly dependent on it.
But you need both faith in achieving more potent state of existence and dayily persistence and effort.

I'm talking about a line in an anthem that makes us out to seem weak and lazy, lacking in self-esteem that we can get the job done ourselves, and need supernatural help.

And no belief is not plainly saying there is no God? I have heard it plenty of times here in CFC, that there is no God. No belief required at all to say it. If there is a lack of belief, and a lack of knowledge, what is the point in even stating that there is no God?

The point is the lack of evidence that this entity exists that you want people to believe in.

So far from this thread, the atheist dogma I am seeing is that religion cannot be changed. It is a constant just like the belief in the great spaghetti space monster, and the belief there is no God.

There is no "atheist dogma" and religions can change if they want to. The problem is that they don't want to, and so there is the issue of people professing to believe ridiculous things that may have made sense thousands of years ago, but which are plainly and obviously wrong (or at least hypocritical) in the modern era when the scientific method, archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. have refuted many of those ancient claims.

And I am not afraid of having a lack of knowledge. I understand that there are a lot of things I do not know, one being this great spaghetti space monster.

Apparently some people are attracted to this faith because it means they are legally allowed to wear a colander on their head for IDs such as drivers' licenses. I have yet to hear if any Pastafarian has been ticketed by the cops for not wearing a colander if they're pulled over for a traffic violation or Check Stop.

 

[Old Hippy]

Apparently some people are attracted to this faith because it means they are legally allowed to wear a colander on their head for IDs such as drivers' licenses. I have yet to hear if any Pastafarian has been ticketed by the cops for not wearing a colander if they're pulled over for a traffic violation or Check Stop.

I got a ticket for not wearing my bike helmet recently as it has lots of holes and slots like a colander so I can definitely state the cops ticket you for not wearing a colander on your head even if your not a 'Pastafarian' which leads me to believe that the cops are themselves 'Pastafarian'

 

[timtofly]

The point is the lack of evidence that this entity exists that you want people to believe in.

Lack of evidence is a big problem for 100% of people. Even those of faith, and it is called doubt.

There is no "atheist dogma" and religions can change if they want to. The problem is that they don't want to, and so there is the issue of people professing to believe ridiculous things that may have made sense thousands of years ago, but which are plainly and obviously wrong (or at least hypocritical) in the modern era when the scientific method, archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc. have refuted many of those ancient claims..

All things change, it is called evolution. There are groups of people that resist change, that is why people kill people via genocide. They cannot accept change and will go to great lengths to keep things the same. The prime example of change that killed off resistance would be Marxism via Lenin's communism. As for what made sense thousands of years ago will never make sense to day, and that is because of change. Religions on a whole do change, even if people resist such change. If one claims that religions do not change because of people's whims, they are being dogmatic about it.

Apparently some people are attracted to this faith because it means they are legally allowed to wear a colander on their head for IDs such as drivers' licenses. I have yet to hear if any Pastafarian has been ticketed by the cops for not wearing a colander if they're pulled over for a traffic violation or Check Stop.

I would be ticketed because I resist change. Not because it is my belief system, it is that I do things out of habit, and when I started riding a bicycle helmets were a luxury item, not a required one.