My evolving view on “is atheism a religion?”

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Believing something based on faith is not religion.

But remember, atheism is not a belief system, because there's nothing in which it believes. It just makes a claim that something others believe has no proof of existence, and uses that lack of proof as a basis for its claim.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But faith in a deity is..

a reply to: intrepid

If the atheist is actually making that claim..


I think most are claiming there is no evidence...

If so, then I am not seeing the difference between that form of atheism and agnosticism..

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I’m not seeing any daylight between “ there is no evidence atheism” and agnostics..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That's not at all what I said--in fact, it's the opposite.

Religion is a belief system, complete with rules and traditions and concepts and rituals.

Someone can have faith that a deity exists without being part of a religion.

Also, I expanded on my comment to which you replied, adding:

But remember, atheism is not a belief system, because there's nothing in which it believes. It just makes a claim that something others believe has no proof of existence, and uses that lack of proof as a basis for its claim.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrepid

If the atheist is actually making that claim..


I think most are claiming there is no evidence...

If so, then I am not seeing the difference between that form of atheism and agnosticism..

Agnostics are like Missourians. "Show me." If they had proof either to a deity or that one doesn't exist they'll go for it. Atheists will continue to not believe in a god. Ever.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Religion is a belief system, complete with rules and traditions and concepts and rituals.

Someone can have faith that a deity exists without being part of a religion.

Christianity doesn't teach religion of itself, outside communion and baptism I can't think of any rituals or laws, just love God

Eternal Salvation or Triple your money back!
The Church of the Subgenius is accepting of all...so long as you aren't an asshole.
Praise Bob!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm not sure I did..

Actually, I just used a standard and "official" definition.

And, yes, hard core poker players can certainly treat it exactly the same, behaviorally, as any typically defined religion. Same goes for hard core car enthusiasts. The key is using the term could rather than would. The same goes for a belief in God(s); that individual could be religious, but it isn't absolute since they might not behave religiously in any way.

The target of focus is different, as well as the religious "artifacts," but the behavioral set is consistent from group to group.

I feel that the behavioral set of the "religious" is common throughout our species and not at all specific to a given group. In that, "broadening the definition" leads to accuracy even if it does imply that the general behavior, outlook, and habits are not specific to one type of social group.

"If atheism is considered as a religion, not collecting stamps should be considered a hobby."

- Penn Jillette

a reply to: Sanitarium79

You should probably have read the OP..

a reply to: Serdgiam

Religions involve faith in a deity..

If you were 100% there was no god. You would have to have faith to believe that. Since at our present tech level that is unprovable.

That still requires faith.


More than anything I don’t see any day light between a “there is no evidence “ atheist and an agnostic.

Leading me to think that they are really the same group..

So we would need to either change the definition of one or the other to separate the two.

Either atheist are those who are sure there is no god in concept, or agnostics being those who do believe to some degree.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think an interesting aspect to this is: can we actually have a lack of belief, or is it simply a different belief?

Probably seems like semantics at first glance, but does our neurology allow for "voids" in our thinking? And, if it does, would we be able to consciously identify and communicate that void without creating the very neurological structures that would constitute a belief?

I'm not sure we can ever have a true lack of belief, unless its something we have never processed through our brains in any way, shape, or form.

Yet, can you ever honestly state you do, or don't, "believe" in my God(s)? Or, is it all based on the established neurology in your brain, incapable of having any actual familiarity with the structures in my neurology? Meaning, in that sense, there can never be anything but a lack of belief.

Philosophical wankery, I guess, but pretty interesting in my opinion.

I'm of the mind we can only have a genuine lack of belief on subjects we have never been exposed to at all. The topics we are exposed to create actual, physical structures (never a "void," or "lack") for processing that information based on individual neurology and the spectrum defined by our Cultural Story.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Serdgiam

Religions involve faith in a deity..

Religions can involve faith in a deity, but at least according to common, general understanding.. that is not a rule.

So, what drives you to discard the other standard definitions of the concept of "religion?"

To be clear, there is no actual consensus on this. The closest we have are things like dictionary definitions which, among others, define religion as "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group."

From what foundation do you eliminate this? If its just personal opinion, that's certainly fine, but I'd be interested if there is something more behind it.

originally posted by: Sanitarium79
"If atheism is considered as a religion, not collecting stamps should be considered a hobby."

- Penn Jillette

I've always thought this statement was so incredibly silly!

How many people who don't collect stamps constantly seek out conversations, debates, and arguments with those that do? And, in those circumstances, could it be considered a hobby? I think the answer is "yes."

Its only equivocal if we are talking about an atheist that never, or close to never, speaks of their atheism. Never, or close to never, gets involved in any discussions on the topic at all. And certainly never actively seeks out interaction on the topic.

That conflict between the typical atheist/theist can inspire brilliance, to be sure, but I never understood how that quote gained so much popularity.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yea I wanna call myself atheist but every time I have any type of conversation about religion or possiblity of a God I get preached at like a creationist.

I avoid these labels and atheism is not a "religion" though they act like it.

People are over thinking this. just pay attention to the words, and to the syntax:

1. atheism: a = No. theism = God, i.e.: "I believe there is no God."

2. theism = god, i.e.: "I believe there is a God."

3. agnosticism = I dunno one way or another, i.e.: I do not believe there is a God

Both a theist and an atheist profess a belief. The agnostic does not. Many people mistake Number 3 for number 1, but they are not the same. The agnostic DOES NOT BELIEVE; the other two do. If you look in any philosophy textbook that addresses the issue, you will find this distinction. Now, the next issue is, does "belief" alone constitute a religion? If I say, "I believe there is no God." are you claiming "atheism" is my religion? How about if I say, "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow." Does that mean the sun is my religion? Further, does my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow mean it really will? No. There is a slim chance it will not. Belief by itself is by its nature uncertain. Belief does not equal truth. Now, how about religion?

Religion = a system of shared worship and belief. It's more than just belief alone. Roman Catholicism is a religion. It's an organized group with its own rituals and liturgy, it's own history and writings. The Greek Orthodox Church is another similar religion, but with a different liturgy and differing beliefs, though the core beliefs are the same. A member of the Greek Orthodox Church is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and vice versa.

To claim that a single belief constitutes a "religion" is a mistake. An atheist may say, "I believe there is no God," though he will likely mistakenly say, "I don't believe in God," because it's easier and he would consider the distinction pedantic, but that's where it ends. He doesn't attend a church of atheism. He does not partake of some communal atheist liturgy. He doesn't pay attention to the workings of religion at all. Oh, yes, there are a few "active atheists" who push themselves around a bit, and for these people I suppose you could say atheism is their religion, but most atheists don't take it that far.

The point is that it really does not need to be complicated. Arguing this is much like arguing how any angels fit on the head of a pin. It misses the point altogether.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
But atheism is kinda making a claim.. a claim to KNOW there is no god. Something that is also unknowable..

This is where you went wrong. I'm not an atheist because I know there is no God. I am an atheist because there is no reason to believe in a God as there is no evidence for one. It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. The argument is for the most part just an inconsequential semantic argument brought up often by religious people to try to make atheists feel like they aren't any better than that which they are perceived to scoff at.

I think the real question is why do so many believe in atheism when it is based on NOTHING factual.

it is believed totally by faith and yet people are still gullible enough to actually believe it.

This reason alone is what convinced me that militant Atheism is just one of many fundamentalist mind control tools being used against us.

How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion...

Atheism as a Stealth Religion

Ironically, most atheists are disgusted with Christianity because atheists claim Christianity requires “blind faith” or “blind trust.” But by the very definition of the name they carry, atheists in fact are the ones who have based their beliefs on the absence of evidence.

Atheists are a people “without a belief in theism” not because they have disproved the existence of God with evidence, but rather because they claim there is an absence of evidence for God. They believe there is no God because they cannot see any evidence of God. Atheists trust there is no God not because of what they see, but because of what they cannot see. Their conviction stems from things not seen.

The Blind Faith of Atheism

originally posted by: Murgatroid
it is believed totally by faith and yet people are still gullible enough to actually believe it.

Unsound reasoning. You are claiming atheists are gullible because it is on faith. So is religion. You are claiming everyone is gullible with nothing substantial to back it up. It is not gullible to doubt things that have no evidence. If that is your measure of gullibility than I am equally gullible for not believing in fairies and djinn. I am equally gullible for not believing a whole host of unproven things.

I think the real question is why do so many believe in atheism when it is based on NOTHING factual.

You're almost right. It is based on the fact that there is nothing factual to the contrary.