My evolving view on “is atheism a religion?”

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EasternShadow

If we go past that. Then couldn’t the .01% of athiests who claim to know there is no god, be fairly called a religion???


Which I can’t even think of any, since most public athiests are in the 1/trillion chance column..

Is this 0.1% of most public atheist include Buddhism? Buddhism reject deity/ies. But they have set of principles and practise equally of religion traditions and laws, such as vowing celibacy, living an ascetic life and holding eight or ten precepts.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

As far I am aware religion is defined by a set of beliefs.

I think presently we consider those “who think there is no evidence for a god” as atheists, but wouldn’t that really be agnostic????

Yes, people tend to ignore what the actual term "atheist" means. It means "without God". Since there is no actual evidence for the existence of God, both "theists" and "atheists" are belief systems. The "theists believe in God while the "atheists" do not believe in God. Agnostics are defined as those who do not know if there is a God or not.

I normally would scoff at someone saying atheism is a religion, because how can the lack of a belief be a religion?!?!

No need to scoff. Atheism is a religion and they have a church.

“The First Church of Atheism is formed around the belief that the mysteries of life can be explained through science and reason. We aim to provide a place for atheists to become ordained, for free, as well as a hub for atheists to find ministers to perform their ceremonies. This is our doctrine:

“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.””

Once you get ordained you will be able to perform the following :

You will be able to perform the following services:
-Weddings
-Funerals
-Commitment ceremonies
-Many others

Source



Peace

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Perhaps it's time for you to stop falling for the phony definition for atheism as "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" as given by those who like to call themselves "new atheists" (like you indicated, an agnostic person is also someone with a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" most of the time, so you can't use it exclusively for "atheism", it doesn't define atheism, or at least it doesn't define it very well). It's like their phony definitions for "nothing", science", "information", "design", "evolution", "absolute", "truth", "certainty", "know", "knowledge", "belief/faith (or believing/having faith in)", etc. Even the google dictionary, Merriam-Webster dictionary and other dictionaries are helping them get away with it.

They like giving the wrong impression as to what a word means to support their way of arguing. When they do this and dictionaries are going along with it, just go back to studying the history of a word (etymology):

atheist | Origin and meaning of atheist by Online Etymology Dictionary

1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due,"...

That's what it meant and should still mean. The convenient change to "a lack of belief" is to avoid the so-called "burden of proof" (dumb phrase in my opinion, I generally don't use it or I generally don't claim that someone has the "burden of proof" unless I'm talking about a court case*) and to help in debates about that subject, or when ridiculing any sort of belief while denying the existence of their own beliefs/views/opinions/ideas.

*: I still often ask people for their reason why they are making certain claims to understand their reasoning though, their reason for believing something even when they deny any sort of belief. I'm not fooled by the claim of someone who says they don't believe anything, but "accept", or "know" or think something is the most plausible scenario or model (a belief/opinion/idea/view).

Between brackets is mine:

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828. [ooh look at that, a scientific magazine using the term "evolutionists", just like the term can be found all over the scientific databases with peer reviewed articles]

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
...
Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion[/beliefs] among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
...
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
...

Source besides the ones already listed: Evolution: Reasoning

A little more about those mutations:
Ticker Tape Machine & Information Processing in Living Cells (short version)

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But only if that belief is absolute..

Which I see countless people who claim atheist who do not claim an absolute belief.

That's because there is no absolute "belief," just an absolute lack of belief within atheists.

I don't understand why people waver on that reality, or simply can't comprehend it (you are obviously the former, not the later, if I'm reading the OP correctly).

Of course, if we want to get philosophical about things, there are no absolutes in life, only things "known" and "not known," I suppose. We knew that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it, until we knew differently based on discoveries that can prove the new knowledge.

We "knew" that natural disasters were punishments from unseen gods for the actions of mankind, until we knew differently.

And until we know differently based on discoveries that can prove a new knowledge, religion and god(s) are just concepts created by man that sound so good to so many people that they choose to believe the concepts and the structures (religions) formed around the concepts.

Claiming that choosing not to believe something based on available evidence (or a lack of evidence, in this case) does not need to be an absolute--someone can be an atheist based on current evidence, but if suddenly a god hovered down out of the sky and made a bald atheist's hair regrow with a snap of its fingers and brought his dead family member back from the grave as their younger self, that evidence might create a belief where, before, a belief was lacking.

I hope that I'm making sense, but even if I'm not, this really is something that is a subjective discussion, and there is no absolute either way.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I think presently we consider those “who think there is no evidence for a god”...

Using synonyms, you can also phrase that as:

I believe we consider those "who believe there is no evidence for a god"...

Think Synonyms, Think Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

believe

Guess what...what you just described is not a "lack of belief". You have expressed a belief and you were talking about other people who believe something, something pretty stubbornly irrational and ostrich-like at that (sticking one's head in the sand regarding the evidence).

But perhaps you already realized human beings have many beliefs/opinions/views/ideas about lots of subjects. Still leaves the interesting subject of those who make fun of any sort of belief though and attempt to define* all belief/faith as blind faith/belief. *: and propagate the notion that, sell the notion/view that all belief/faith is blind faith/belief.

Just to finish the definition of atheist from the link earlier (I was trying to keep it short and I was out of space):

from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" ... + theos "a god"

And with that in mind, let's see what EasternShadow said:

Buddhism reject deity/ies.

From quora.com:

Although you will find gods mentioned in some of the Buddhist scripture, they are not “supreme beings,”...

So the Buddhist texts are not "without gods" (or "a god", if you describe and claim the existence of multiple gods, you have claimed the existence of at least 1 god, "a god"). I can't describe it as Buddhism rejects or denies deities either, i.e. "denying the gods" (with the understanding that that would be referring to denying the existence of gods/deities). Buddhists do not seem to qualify as "atheists". Which sounds like I'm stating the obvious but apparently it wasn't that obvious to EasternShadow cause he asked:

Is this 0.1% of most public atheist include Buddhism?

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: JoshuaCox

um...belief in a god or that there is no god does not constitute religion.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

One can believe that there is no god and go about their daily business... no religion required.

If you believe something then you have a "belief". It seems that the synonyms you quoted are rather confusing or misleading (the 2 I bolded, I'm almost inclined to say that these are not synonyms for "religion", but perhaps I'm overlooking some peculiar situations in which they can be used as such). I would not say that just because someone believes anything that they have a religion. How about this definition for "religion":

A form of worship. It includes a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization. Usually religion involves belief in God or in a number of gods; or it treats humans, objects, desires, or forces as objects of worship. Much religion is based on human study of nature; there is also revealed religion. There is true religion and false.

Source: Religion: Reasoning

No need to respond to the last sentence, I think I already have a good feeling how you feel about that phrase. Long live agnosticism and Pontius Pilate's version of the philosophy of vagueness! .... on second thought, maybe not. Some clarity may be nice for a change and someone willing to stick their neck out and say "it is the truth!"

Isaiah 43:8,9

8 Bring out a people who are blind, though they have eyes,

And who are deaf, though they have ears.

9 Let all the nations assemble in one place,

And let the peoples be gathered together.

Who among them can tell this?

Or can they cause us to hear the first things?* [Possibly referring to the first things to come in the future.]

Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,

Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”

“Every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4)

Molecular Machinery of Life

So, is it true that "there is no evidence for God"? Checkout the playlist above to help form a more educated opinion before making more dogmatic assertions like those who have used that phrase and stated it as if it was factual/certain (by the usage of the word "is", without adding agnostically motivated caveats).

Between brackets is mine:

Put information to the test: “Beloved ones,” said John, a first-century Christian teacher, “do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions.” (1 John 4:1) Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions[/beliefs]. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts[/certainties/realities/truths], on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Source: article in my signature

a reply to: whereislogic
Some of the stuff I skipped earlier regarding the question:

What does the fossil record actually show?
...
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Then isn’t that agnostic.. not atheist??

You just did it with the labeling too.

Most people don't like admitting they don't know.

originally posted by: whereislogic
From quora.com:

Although you will find gods mentioned in some of the Buddhist scripture, they are not “supreme beings,”...

Exactly. To Buddhist, god(s) is/are not "supreme beings" which defy what commonly attributed to god(s). So either Buddhist do not understand what is commonly define as god(s), or they choose to ignore worshipping god(s). It's likely the former.

Here is a quick glance to Buddhism:

Buddhists seek to reach a state of nirvana, following the path of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who went on a quest for Enlightenment around the sixth century BC. There is no belief in a personal god.

www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: whereislogic
Buddhists do not seem to qualify as "atheists".

Philosophy that based on denying "supreme beings" or labelling god(s) as not "supreme beings" or "no belief in personal god" or any phrases to twist the meaning "no god", is equally atheist.

The difference is that Buddhist do have their own practise and traditions, just like any other religion, as oppose to Joshua's probability of 0.1% most common atheist.

In short, just as I have posted earlier, set of belief does not constitue "religion" but it's the laws, traditions and practise that define religion. Believe in unicorn does not create unicorn-theist, nor believe in ghost does not create ghost-theist. But if such believes create set of doctrines, traditions and practises, then they too become occult or religion. Just like Satanist.

a reply to: Sly1one

The rejection is itself a counter-cliam.

If I say that there are thousands of rainbow colored unicorns orbiting Saturn, riding in its rings, and you reject that claim, does that mean you have a (dis) belief system around that claim now?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I normally would scoff at someone saying atheism is a religion, because how can the lack of a belief be a religion?!?!
But atheism is kinda making a claim.. a claim to KNOW there is no god. Something that is also unknowable..

I had to force myself past this part to read the rest of your post. But what you've said here is just inconsistent gibberish. This is like saying we know Jesus was not really the son of God. But if you think about it, Jesus really is the son of God. You can't say one thing, and then claim the very same thing is saying the opposite.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Atheism is not the absolute conviction God does not exist. The reason why atheists do not believe in God is because there is no objective evidence for God's existence. The only evidence for God's existence is subjective. Many people have claim all of existence is proof of God's existence. But this claim is purely subjective.

No one denies the existence of apples. I can hold one in my hand and we can both look at it and say "apple". You simply cannot not do the same thing with God. No two people for all of time have ever agreed on exactly what God is and what God isn't. I think God only exists in our imaginations and use of language. God does not exist in reality if I choose to believe the only real things that exist are things I have experienced in reality.

Claiming atheism is a religion is like saying the number zero is real. Division by zero is undefined and so is saying atheist claim to know there is no God. Saying atheists claim to know God does not exist is just undefined gibberish.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It seems like everyone has their own definition of atheism and by slightly altering this, we can come up with all sorts of contradicting conclusions. I always saw it as the conviction God does not exist. Lack of belief in God would be agnosticism or maybe apostasy. You seem to believe the opposite.

a reply to: Seed76

“Do not believe in” is not really equal to “I know there isn’t one..”

I don’t believe in unicorns, but I don’t know there is not some planet or alternate dimension where unicorns do exist..

That would broaden the definition of atheist to include all agnostics too.


The atheist church’s are just poking fun at the organized religions and forming their own social club..


That would be equivalent to calling a satire the original..

Or better yet.. that would be like calling “scary movie” a horror flick when it is obviously a comedy that never scared anyone..

a reply to: dfnj2015

A) No what I am saying is, “shouldn’t those who think there is zero evidence for a god, and in fact the majority of evidence is against a god, still be classified as agnostic because they are leaving room for one. No matter how unlikely.. ”


If those are agnostics because of leaving even a 1 in a billion , billion chance.


Then wouldn’t an atheist be defined as being sure there is no god. Something almost as ridiculous as saying you know there is a god for sure...


B) agnostics don’t believe in a god either.. they believe it is possible.. even if highly unlikely.

Which is exactly what you will get if you ask most people who claim to be an atheist..

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The makeup of the rings of Saturn are knowable by today’s technology.



A fair analogy would if you asked that about a planet not close enough to check..

In which case then no good scientists would be willing to guarantee anything 100%.

a reply to: EasternShadow
So the Buddhist texts are not "without gods" (or "a god", if you describe and claim the existence of multiple gods, you have claimed the existence of at least 1 god, "a god", regardless how you define "god"). I can't describe it as Buddhism rejects or denies deities either (regardless how you define "god"), i.e. "denying the gods" (with the understanding that that would be referring to denying the existence of gods/deities). Buddhists do not seem to qualify as "atheists" (regardless how you define "god" or "gods"). Which sounds like I'm stating the obvious but apparently it still isn't to you.

Your description of what defines an or classifies as "atheist" is all over the place (pardon the expression if it rubs you the wrong way):

Philosophy that based on denying "supreme beings" or labelling god(s) as not "supreme beings" or "no belief in personal god" or any phrases to twist the meaning "no god", is equally atheist.

I can fit a deist into "no belief in personal god". I hope you're not trying to count all sorts of people as atheists just because you feel you need to 'defend' your earlier comment (if you can call it that). A lack of belief or no belief in a personal god or gods is still not a defining factor for atheism, it's more of an effect of atheism, but also an effect of some other viewpoints (note the definition I used, it doesn't include anything like it, it uses "denying" and "without God" or gods or "a god", i.e. "godless", the latter as a more literal limited succinct* definition than the one that uses "denying". *: and therefore more general and more inclusive, see definition and my commentary in between further below

Polytheism, is just like Monotheism and Pantheism, still theism and not atheism. Buddhism has elements of Polytheism, Pantheism and Deism in it (both in its historical origin as well as current forms). And if Deists describe the impersonal creative principle they believe in as "God", then they are also espousing just another form of theism.

atheist | Origin and meaning of atheist by Online Etymology Dictionary

1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," [whereislogic:, but the older literal meaning is more general and includes more:] from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" ... + theos "a god" [whereislogic: a "personal" or "supreme" God is not a requirement in its most basic meaning]

Btw, the word "supreme" is more commonly followed by something in the singular, cause the bolded definitions indicate there is only 1 of whatever noun follows:

1. highest in rank or authority.

2. very great or the greatest.

Source: google dictionary

Only the "very great" part of those 2 alternate definitions fits in the phrase "supreme beings", and if the Brahmin that penned down the Buddhist texts and mentioned, described and claimed the existence of various gods/deities thought these weren't all that great, why the need to mention and describe them at all? Note: I feel pretty confident that the definition that I used that uses "supreme" is not referring to just "very great" (it's either referring to "highest in rank or authority" and "greatest" or both). Anyway, they don't need to be "supreme" in order to be classified as "gods" which is how they are referred to.

In its most basic sense the word "gods" is referring to "mighty ones" if you look at the Hebrew term for it and its meaning (so as the term is used in the bible, which is just a side point, as is the info below, don't try to connect it to what I mentioned above).

God: Insight, Volume 1

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.​—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: dfnj2015

It seems like everyone has their own definition of atheism and by slightly altering this, we can come up with all sorts of contradicting conclusions. I always saw it as the conviction God does not exist. Lack of belief in God would be agnosticism or maybe apostasy. You seem to believe the opposite.

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. Here is the accepted definition of atheism:

www.atheists.org...

Notice the part in bold! It is up to atheists, not theists, to define what it means to be an atheist!

a reply to: whereislogic

Maybe in 18whatever evolution was based off fossils and physical diversity amongst animal populations..

However science then it has been verified by EVERYTHING ELSE...

The entire medical industry, dna, genetics, genealogy, , anthropology, exc, exc, exc..


Evolution in science didn’t stop with Darwin and fossils... it exploded across every other branch of biological science..


Besides , where is the centuries old profit in faking evolution????


People orcastrate vast convoluted conspiracies fir profit.. not for fun... notfor some vague ennuendo about control..

They do it for very specific reasons , with short obtainable goals..


“Why did he pay a hit man and orcastrate an air tight alibi?”

“To have his wife killed for insurance money, or to keep her from getting child custody
“

People don’t spend billions of dollars orcastrating a hoax for vague nonesense out comes..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A) Most atheists are probably much smarter than you. Most smart people know you cannot prove a negative. So the essence of your argument is completely wrong. Atheist do not deny the existence of one God. The most common atheist position by most atheists is they do not believe in Gods because there is no evidence to support the belief. It has nothing to do with knowability which is what it means to be agnostic.

B) I disagree. Most people are atheists not agnostic. People who are agnostic are just being nice not to be offensive with theists a holes.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The makeup of the rings of Saturn are knowable by today’s technology.



A fair analogy would if you asked that about a planet not close enough to check..

In which case then no good scientists would be willing to guarantee anything 100%.

They are really TINY unicorns, that our sophisticated technology has not yet detected. But, they're there!