Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I am not sure if this thread belongs in this category, but I picked the one that came the closest to the topic IMO.

I'm curious to read the opinions of posters in regards to the title of the thread.

Atheists have no belief in a god or religion, and they rely on evolutionary science for their arguments in most cases (specifically anything in which theology comes up), so, could it not be said that Atheists actually place their faith in evolutionary science and the people involved in it in order to form their basis for existence? Thus making Atheism in effect, the religion of evolutionary science?

I'm not trying to start a religion-based flame war here, I really am curious. I just find it interesting that an Atheist can say that they have no religion or faith, but they cling almost fanatically to evolutionary science during discussions, much like a christian will cling to the Bible, or a Muslim to the Quran.

Isn't that essentially the same kind of behavior?



+4 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Yes it could.
Atheists "believe" there is no god.
Atheists have "faith" that they are right.
Since god can never be proven, then this is just another kind of religion.


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


I'm actually amused at the idea that the combination of the lack of a belief in a deity and common scientific viewpoints would constitute a religion. Opponents of atheism love to think that atheists are hypocritically practicing a religion of their own, not that I understand why.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] Show IPA noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.


So, I would say yes. It is a religion of sorts. As is "Darwinism".



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


Well you get a star and a flag from me. Atheism is freedom of choice. What it fails to see is, that feedom of choice, would not be theirs, if the empirical evidences they so claim to vie did exist according to scientific protocols. They won't look for one second or even entertain the thought. That the protocols of science were imposed on science and limit it's ability to do that which it's main purpose should have been in the first place. To find the Creator.

V_y_ger

edit on 2-12-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EllaMarina
 


The idea has occurred to me many times over the years, but I've never gotten into a conversation with an Atheist from that angle.

I wouldn't say that it's thinking of them as hypocritical as much as kind of amusing, since, their beliefs are simply that; beliefs. Which in a sense indicates a faith, be that in a school of thought or the people actively contributing to it. Thus, it seems like a religion.
edit on 12/2/2012 by ProfessorChaos because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I'd love to see someone claim that atheism is "not a religion, but a faith."

Well, no one seems to complain when adherents to one of the world's most elaborate organized religions say that. If atheism is technically a religion, then all faith systems are. Hands down.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
religion is belief in something, and technically so is the belief that there isnt a God, so i supposed it could be considered the same thing in a way



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EllaMarina
 


I agree with you on the faith vs. religion issue. I have a faith, that faith indicates my religion. I generally don't care how it's referred to, it is what it is.

People that make a big deal out of their beliefs being called a faith or a religion are being over-sensitive in my estimation.


+19 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Given the fact that atheists do not worship a giant bearded person in the sky, do not have a hierarchy who wear silly clothes and do not practice elaborate but ultimately pointless rituals then I'd say that no, atheism is not a religion.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Atheists don't like their faith being called a religion. They are experiencing serious denial issues. Maybe a little prozac for them might help them understand they belong to a religion. Religion does not have to have anything to do with god. Belief in science is also technically a religion.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Its called "science"


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


A lot of self proclaimed religious people also believe the science of evolution to be true, but still believe in a divine creator. An atheist doesn't see the need to add a god concept into the mix.

Religion supposes a god, an atheist doesn't suppose its true.

If we could all agree on one definition of "god" and agree upon its nature, then we might be able to create a bridge between religion and science. But when the waters of this definition gets muddy with resurrection of the dead, blood sacrifice to appease an angry god and atone for sins, talking snakes, stoning rebellious children etc., etc., the atheist's rejection is understandable.

Is there an atheist creationist? Never. Is there an atheist out there that rejects evolution? Undoubtedly. Are there atheists who believe in ghosts and/or reincarnation? Yep. Not all atheist believe the same things about life, but all atheists reject bible stories as proof of a god.
edit on 2-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Short answer. No.

Also, there isn't like a manual that comes with the lack of belief. Evolutionary Science and lack of God belief have nothing to do with one another.
I swear, religious folks are some of the most intellectually dishonest people on the planet. See what I did there? I just generalized religious people like you generalized atheists. It isn't cool, is it?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Absolutely a religion and a fanatical one at that. They spend literally billions promoting it and tearing down other religions to further their religious beliefs.


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


Atheism is not a religion, it is a statement of belief on a certain subject. If I don't believe in unicorns, do I belong to the religion of non unicorn believers? If that is the case then all beliefs no matter how rational would be considered part of a religious system. I do not know if gods or a god exists, therefore you could consider me an agnostic, however I do not believe there is a god or gods therefore I'm an atheist as well. My atheism is not based on faith, while I have no physical evidence to prove my position I do not need to provide any, because I'm not the one claiming there is a god or gods, I'm simply claiming that I do not believe in one or any. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

My atheism is supported by logic, reason and the failure of the "evidence" presented by the claimant.

Being an atheist is not dependent on any other belief, you could be an atheist who does not believe in evolution and believes we were created by aliens, you could be an atheist who believes we are all just part of some computer program. There is no dogma, no ritual, and no tenants of being an atheist.



edit on 2-12-2012 by Openeye because: Grammar, been up to long

edit on 2-12-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
It's not a religion. Only morons call it so.

oh and only morons don't believe in god. And only morons follow organized religion.

edit on 2-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was so mean to use those nasty things called 'facts'.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Yes it is 100% YES IT IS!!!!!

Believing there is no god is JUST as arrogant and ignorant as believing there is a god. I say Ignorant because by thinking you know one way or the other. You shut your mind to the possibility of other options. Which is ignorance at it's finest.

Thinking you some how know the unknowable is ridiculous. There is absolutely ZERO evidence backing either argument.

I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there is not a god.

They (yes THEY can be generalized) always come back to "Well derp de derp science proves he/she/it doesn't exist." NO IT FREAKING DOES NOT. If anything science proves there is plenty of room for god outside of our three dimensional understanding of the universe.

No man will ever prove or disprove the existence of "God". Atheists bug me on the same level the Jehovah witnesses, Christian fundamentalists, Islamist extremists, Scientologists, and __________ (fill in the blank with belief system of choice) do!

It is growingly popular with the youth of today for the same reason all the other religions are. CAUSE PEOPLE ARE FOOKING SHEEP.

There I have said my piece.

Don't be ignorant to possibilities you can't understand. DON'T BE A MORON.

*Takes a deep breath*
edit on 2-12-2012 by PassiveObserver because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2012 by PassiveObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
No. Its not a religion.

There is no evidence for god. Therefore there is no reason to believe in god.

No religion required.

Religion only comes into it when somebody presumes the presence of something there is no evidence for, or denies the presence of something that there is evidence for.

There wont be a resolution to this thread though as its two fundamentally different mind sets at work.





top topics
 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join