Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour.....

If I don't collect stamps, do I have a hobby not collecting them?

Its the lack of a belief, nothing more, nothing less

A- (without) theism belief in god/s

Why do so many people get this wrong?

Because.....

If there is a group of people who are bald,
and go around arguing with people that have hair
Claiming they are evil for having it,
trying to get others to also be against hair,
and help get hairy people out of the society

or

If some people do not collect stamps,
but harrass those that do,
claiming they are evil for collecting them,
Trying to get others to join in wiping out the evil stamp collectors of the world....

Etcetera.... you get it.

This makes some people start to see a sort of parallel between the two!
(that saying comes to mind "Don't argue with a jackass, people won't be able to tell the difference anymore..." or something like that?

I have nothing against the extreme anti-theist (or whatever term one wishes to use ) but I find it highly disingenuous when they deny the very obvious similtudes there when they are brought up. Especially since they usually are types that make claim to objective and rational perceptions and thought!

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
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?

Using logic isn't the same as having faith in logic. Faith means you don't know any better in your mind, but you believe with your heart anyway. Logic doesn't require faith to have belief, it is believed because it makes sense.

When you believe in something that doesn't make sense, that's called faith.

To believe in cold hard facts doesn't require faith, or a heart, just a rational thinking mind. Therefore, no, atheism is not a religion in the sense you're talking about. It is simply logical, without the need for faith, for everything is explained in easy to understand facts. Faith is only required when you don't know something for sure so you cling on to it blindly out of fear. I rest my case.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour.....

If I don't collect stamps, do I have a hobby not collecting them?

Its the lack of a belief, nothing more, nothing less

A- (without) theism belief in god/s

Why do so many people get this wrong?

Because.....

If there is a group of people who are bald,
and go around arguing with people that have hair
Claiming they are evil for having it,
trying to get others to also be against hair,
and help get hairy people out of the society

or

If some people do not collect stamps,
but harrass those that do,
claiming they are evil for collecting them,
Trying to get others to join in wiping out the evil stamp collectors of the world....

Etcetera.... you get it.

This makes some people start to see a sort of parallel between the two!
(that saying comes to mind "Don't argue with a jackass, people won't be able to tell the difference anymore..." or something like that?

I have nothing against the extreme anti-theist (or whatever term one wishes to use ) but I find it highly disingenuous when they deny the very obvious similtudes there when they are brought up. Especially since they usually are types that make claim to objective and rational perceptions and thought!

edit on 3-12-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Please don't get confused and start comparing science with religion. No they're not the same, one is based on bogey tales, the other is taken from direct observation. You can't have faith in something that you've directly observed because it's there. Faith is only required when you can't observe something but choose to believe it anyway.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


Yes, Atheism is another religion.

As long as you believe in something. Even if you worship "science" instead of "god", you still worship something greater than man, key figures, etc. I study those things. As for me I believe in absolutely nothing - neither big areas in religion, neither big areas in science. I am one of the rare people who only has knowledge, like a computer, and no crystallization into one direction - I have to be that way to properly investigate conspiracy theories and psychological profiles.

I am Atheist and I do not have faith in that I believe there is no god. I think if you worship something then it would become religious. Worship & Prayer and Faith defines religion for me and I do not worship something that does not exist.

Its a no for me on Atheist's are religious because they don't believe in god/creator.

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
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?

How could atheism possibly be a religion? It's the complete opposite of the term. Everything that religion IS, Atheism ISN'T.

Atheism isn't "faith" that there is no God. It is simply disbelief in a divine creator. I don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny either. I don't "believe" that God doesn't exist. I simply lend the idea no credence. "God exists" is just another invalid statement.

Aside from the basic concept being incompatible with the definition of a religion, there is no dogma, no doctrines, no consistency of thoughts and ideas from one atheist to the next. Atheism isn't pragmatic in nature.

here's some thoughts that i think helps to not define atheism as a religion. im sure some have been said but anyway.

-going about the business of your life without even considering a god. which i'm pretty sure there are religious people who can go for days without considering god.

- an atheist may have a philosophy about life but it doesnt mean they are adhering to an organized religion. you have a philosophy, you are not the philosophy. religious people who don't gather with others in a ritualistic manner to worship their god should just consider themselves to have a philosophy. if you dont, who cares. its up to you.

- attending a seminar or college classes with scientific principles and no mention of god is not akin to attending a religious service. they are only to gain knowledge and not to relate to others. can you feel like that? yes but thats not the goal. even getting together to talk crap about religion still does not constitute a religious gathering. EVERYONE talks crap about anything and everything with people who agree.

-talking with like-minded people about science has nothing to do with trying to plot to destroy your belief in god. im pretty sure you dont even come up in the conversation.

-when hit with the limits of knowledge or frustration at what seems a no win situation, you don't surrender yourself to supplication of a higher mystical power. you can either look for a solution, accept the parameters or maybe not at all and succumb to depression. im pretty sure there are a lot of theists who would do the same even not bringing god into the fray.

- no religion has ever invented a computer, designed a bridge, or any other technological advance based on scientific principles or mathematics. has religion inspired architecture related to god worship? yes, but the building methods werent divinely attained. it was through the trail and error (or the scientific method) of intelligent people working on the knowledge and experiences of people before them.

i'm sure i can go on.

What does an atheist believe in, once he doesn't believe in God anymore? Sciences. What is science? The study of a concept higher than man. Just as God is.

Originally posted by swan001
What does an atheist believe in, once he doesn't believe in God anymore? Sciences. What is science? The study of a concept higher than man. Just as God is.

edit on 3-12-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

altruism and caring for others is an inherent quality in man to help us cooperate so we can survive long enough to pass on our genes.

science is not the study of the "higher than man". its about unraveling the unseen world to manipulate and use to our advantage. its finding solutions to problems and perfecting them.

is curiosity a purely religious activity to get closer to god? no. yes, some do it with almost a religious fervor but that doesnt mean thats the point. there are people who are obsessive about the most mundane things with no thought of god.

It depends on the type of Atheist, just like there is so many religions, their are different types of Atheists.
It doesn't seem like a religion to me, but one thing they to do have is absolute faith in science, faith in theories, and in some very unproven idea's like Abiogenesis. What is interesting is that they stake there very lives on their belief system just as much as a religious person. The "what if I am wrong" thought process usually never even enters the discussion.

Too me it's a mindset more than a religion, at least with religion, spirituality is linked to it in some way.
Atheists are not spiritual people, and if they are spiritual, then they are not atheistic but more agnostic.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


there is a big difference between having faith in an untestable celestial entity and having confidence is a demonstrable theory (and there is an important difference between hypothesis and theory as well, if anyone is unaware of it, i suggest learning it before they continue to look like idiots)

the very way this op was phrased makes me think that actually trying to explain these things would be like showing card tricks to a dog

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


some ideas are based on clues that say this might be the case but thats why they are pursued. should we just say nah f it? how times in your life do you just accept something and dont even try to get past it or learn more abiut it?

and why are people "staking their life on it"? are you saying that its a life threaning situation to propose a scientific hypothesis?

Atheism makes a claim that there is no god, which is implicitly the same argument as "there is a god." This puts them on the same level as two sides of the same coin. Religion doesn't need to be ritualistic, it's just a shared belief among many people.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe ...
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects ...
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices ...

A lack of belief is still a belief (deal with it), and since we relate "religion" to "theism," atheism falls under that banner. Religion at it's core does not need to have an object of worship, or a set of rules that must be followed, otherwise Buddhism, Taoism, and even Hinduism (when concerned with self-discovery/spirituality), among others, wouldn't be religions. Atheism simply approaches things differently; it's like a debate over apples and oranges: both are still ultimately fruits.

Both sides seek to understand the nature of reality, humanity, and the cosmos by observation and/or experience (be it inwardly or outwardly) but go about them in different ways.

Originally posted by swan001
What does an atheist believe in, once he doesn't believe in God anymore? Sciences. What is science? The study of a concept higher than man. Just as God is.

edit on 3-12-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

I don't believe in science. I study scientific findings. The difference between science and religion is remarkably vast. A religion doesn't test its ideas. Religions don't update their beliefs based on new information (and when they do it's presumably because the idea being replaced or rewritten is so blatantly archaic and incompatible with modern knowledge, that it's changed to retain membership levels with regards to financial security correlating to donations and tithing).

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
Atheism makes a claim that there is no god, which is implicitly the same argument as "there is a god." This puts them on the same level as two sides of the same coin.

It's not the same. Ever heard of Russell's teapot?

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The burden of proof lies upon the person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

can we just define something here?

when people down talk science they're mostly talking about physics, cosmology, evolutionary studies, genetic studies, archeology ?

anything that by default brings into question you views on life? science isnt about offending, its about questioning and i guess thats a bad thing.

one thing i do know is theists sure are enjoying the fruits of science.

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

I strongly agree.

Originally posted by homeskillet
science isnt about offending, its about questioning and i guess thats a bad thing.

People today don't even question science anymore. That's the problem. Science IS becoming the new religion. I keep making questions about science, deep questions, and all I see is people being afraid to question science, as if science is some sort of a god.

I asked a simple questions about Global Warming: everybody got defensive ("Al Gore said it was true!").

I asked a simple question about space dilatation between galaxies: everybody got defensive ("You're wrong, but I can't tell you how exactly").

I asked a simple question about triaxial galactic movement influence over anomalistic redshift: everybody got defensive ("I'm sure the God of Galaxies, Hubble, already has though of this in the 50s, although no data or records can confirm that Hubble saw this").

Originally posted by Kody27
To believe in cold hard facts doesn't require faith, or a heart, just a rational thinking mind. Therefore, no, atheism is not a religion in the sense you're talking about. It is simply logical, without the need for faith, for everything is explained in easy to understand facts. Faith is only required when you don't know something for sure so you cling on to it blindly out of fear. I rest my case.

If you depend on logic as your system of explanation for the universe and think it is beyond reproach, you have failed to understand what logic really is. Anyone familiar with skepticism can clearly demonstrate to you that all logic is circular. Facts are based on other facts and so on until all facts are based on an assumption. There is no such thing as the "primordial fact." Read DesCartes, Kant, Hume or any other founder of the scientific/empirical movement, and this should become obvious.

"Cold, hard facts" are a result of a closed, self-referencing system just like any other belief system. This is not to say that science and empiricism are useless; obviously it has contributed to society, but so have other belief systems...


To answer the OP, here is my breakdown

Theism is belief that there is a God.
Atheism is belief that there is no God.

Both of these stances are dogmatic (religious).

Agnosticism is admitting that you really don't know if there is a God. As a former atheist, IMO agnosticism is the most "logical" stance to take.