Should Atheism be a thing????

Should atheism be considered a separate group???

Here is what I mean..


With everything else in the world except religion, we assign a group OR “ism” for people who believe in something without evidence OR refuse to believe in something with abundant evidence..


Such as flat earthers.. there is no designation for those who believe in a round earth..

So why should atheists be considered a specific group for not believing in any of the worlds religions..


They have no doctrine, they have no specific rules they follow they have no unifying concept period..

Unless that unifying concept is expecting evidence for outlandish claims, and that fits EVERYONE the vast majority of the time.

So shouldn’t expecting evidence for what you believe in, be the base line, not labeled as a “movement”?!?!

It just oxymoronic and maybe even propagandic..

It is kinda a way to assign an equality to the religious mind set. As if “either could equally be true “..

Well and that “either” might not be the correct term, since that ignores the countless variations in countless different religions.


Just a thought..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wouldn't a unifying aspect of Atheism be the lack of belief in gods/God?

Their doctrine is... "prove your beliefs"

And no one can prove God to another

a reply to: JoshuaCox

All people that call themselves atheist are saying is they don't share the same beliefs as the worlds organized religions.
But they don't have their own club, cult or church, do they? Its probably not a good idea to require them to wear badges , so we know who they are , either.

The germans did that to the jews, making them wear patches on their clothing. Of course, everyone nowadays is filed and monitored on some level, anyway.

Saying I just donnabeleive the way you do is still a right of expression, mostly.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
If you want to talk about a group of people. for any reason, it is useful to have a label for them. The idea that atheism is the default status has never been true in practice- the self-avowed atheist has tended to be a minority group.
"Gods don't exist" may not be a "belief", but it is still an opinion which may be consciously held by the mind. If people are conscious of holding that opinion, then the "-ism" suffix isn't inappropriate.

a reply to: DISRAELI

"Gods don't exist" may not be a "belief", but it is still an opinion which may be consciously held by the mind.

But thats not what atheists say. They say, "I don't believe in your God" (the way you describe he, it, they).

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DISRAELI

"Gods don't exist" may not be a "belief", but it is still an opinion which may be consciously held by the mind.

But thats not what atheists say. They say, "I don't believe in your God" (the way you describe he, it, they).

That would be more agnostic then atheistic...

the Atheist doesn't differentiate between one god and the next... they all land in the same catagory

Make believe... non-existent

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DISRAELI

"Gods don't exist" may not be a "belief", but it is still an opinion which may be consciously held by the mind.

But thats not what atheists say. They say, "I don't believe in your God" (the way you describe he, it, they).

That would be more agnostic then atheistic...

the Atheist doesn't differentiate between one god and the next... they all land in the same catagory

Make believe... non-existent

Agnostic accept some form of religious belief don't they? Atheists know if they let on to Churchians they have any belief they will be hounded so they just say leave me alone, I' m atheist.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

They have no doctrine, they have no specific rules they follow they have no unifying concept period..

Unless that unifying concept is expecting evidence for outlandish claims, and that fits EVERYONE the vast majority of the time.

the unifying concept is that creation was random. It's implied, like those who believe in a round earth.
But you don't have to call them anything.

a reply to: intrptr

Agnostic accept some form of religious belief don't they?

They would be those that "don't know"... and except the possible existence of what they don't know

Atheists have no belief in gods/God... they want hard facts backed by evidence, something that religion can not provide...

Though, the hardcore religionists take advantage of the fact that everyone has some form of belief system, and call that belief in whatever it may be... religion. Which is just nonsense...

If relgion can be a thing, based on evidence..

Then atheism deserves to be "a thing".

a reply to: intrptr
I've been an atheist in the past, and I remember having an attitude of non-belief towards gods in general.
Anyway, my point was that an opinion held in the mind might reasonably be given an "-ism" suffix, if we need a convenient label for discussing a group of people.
There is no need for a debate about whether or not it constitutes a "belief".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: JoshuaCox
If you want to talk about a group of people. for any reason, it is useful to have a label for them. The idea that atheism is the default status has never been true in practice- the self-avowed atheist has tended to be a minority group.
"Gods don't exist" may not be a "belief", but it is still an opinion which may be consciously held by the mind. If people are conscious of holding that opinion, then the "-ism" suffix isn't inappropriate.

You are making the mistake of stating that atheists think gods don’t exist. Our position is more like we don’t believe it when theists claim that their god does exist. We want a good reason to accept such an odd claim and we wonder why faith is such a compelling need for believers. Compulsion alone seems to be the root of it.

I agree with OP that it seems odd that the term atheist even exists until you realise religion’s irrational grip on the majority of the planets minds.

originally posted by: Jefferton
If relgion can be a thing, based on evidence..

Then atheism deserves to be "a thing".

I agree. As much as i hate “things”. I’m glad that more people are identifying openly as atheist. It’s not like it’s a new thing. There have been atheists around this whole time. There are books by famously atheist writers from every century, especially during the beginnings of the American govt

I refer to the concept of God as "It". I have no other way to describe it. I know absolutely nothing about it, it's motivations, or even how to detect it.

It isn't a matter of faith to me. I do not believe in God as described by religion and tend to take a scientific approach to the notion.

I expect no salvation from It, no guidance, no intervention, no judgment, and no punishment. If It exists at all then it is the creative force of our universe.

That does not mean that It isn't a being of flesh and blood mind you. It could be It is nothing but the guy running the simulation. Until we understand the fundamental nature of our universe we will not have a starting point to look for a creator, if indeed such a being exists.

If there is a God then it is a thing like you and I, albeit a far more powerful and knowledgeable, and we may be able to indirectly or directly observe It. It would have to be as much a part of this universe, or at least its influence measurable, regardless of spiritual explanations.

Hardcore atheists tend to be very short-sighted when it comes to the concept of very powerful beings, but then have no problem talking about the Kardashev Scale and speculating as to what kind of beings would be in the higher echelons of development.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

In kind, any sufficiently advance being is indistinguishable from God.

a reply to: Woodcarver
I can only repeat that I self-identified as an atheist, at the age of seventeen, when I recognised that I did not believe in the existence of God, and understood this to mean gods in general. Christmas Eve it was, at Midnight Mass, in the middle of the sermon. If people can use the word in different ways, it is best not to be too dogmatic about the definition.
I should warn you that the agnostic police are known to patrol this site, and If they see your post they will be down on you like a ton of bricks arguing that you should be calling yourself an agnostic. They can be amazingly persistent (I've had one of those arguments myself, in my atheist days).

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You could argue that most atheist believe in science, and you could also argue, that science is a religion.

To become a scientist, you have to read a lot of books, with answers. Just like a priest have to read THE book, with answers. They both need faith, to believe what the book says, they both trust what OTHERS have wrote, and believe it to be true, even though most of what the books says, they can never prove themself.

So could an Atheist, be a believer of science?

a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

One can not argue that science is a religion...

that is a flawed argument

Religion does not change... it has its adherents who follow their holy books

Science changes according to what is discovered

Which means its not religious in any way, shape, or form

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

One can not argue that science is a religion...

that is a flawed argument

Religion does not change... it has its adherents who follow their holy books

Science changes according to what is discovered

Which means its not religious in any way, shape, or form

If religion does not change, why is there a NEW testament?


ETA: Also, religion is about belief, science is filled with theories, you would have to believe in, for the rest of the science to be true, right?

I thought it was a "thing" already.


If you don't believe, you don't believe. Simple.

That non belief automatically groups them.


Maybe God is dark matter or dark energy. Something really tangible like that.

a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

If religion does not change, why is there a NEW testament?

You may have noticed that from said NEW testament a new religion spawned... one which the people of the OLD testament disagree with...

Also, religion is about belief, science is filled with theories, you would have to believe in, for the rest of the science to be true, right?

said theories are testable, and repeatable... not all of course, but the ones that are not remain theory

Heres the difference....

IF science had a theory, and something new is discovered to be more truth... the ideas change according to the most widely accepted theory

IF Christianity suddenly discovered a new book written by the very hand of Jesus himself...

NOTHING would change... it would be dismissed by all religious "authorities" and branded "heretical"