is atheism religion?

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats really what I'm saying. Many atheists wear their label like a religious person wears theirs, and tend to resemble the religious in their fervour. That doesn't change the meaning of atheism, but it does call in to question the reality of what it becomes to people who label themselves as one.

It doesn't, at all. Atheism doesn't become something else just because atheists can be assertive or fervourent. They are not (necessarily) assertive or fervourent because they lack belief in god and they don't (necessarily) lack belief becuase they are assertive or fervourent. Just like how "vegetarian" just means "don't eat meat" regardless of how many vegetarians join PETA, atheism is simply a lack of belief, regardless of what atheists do or don't as a result of that lack of belief.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I'm not getting into the semantics of the word. I know what it means. I'm only observing the religiosity of atheists. It seems that when people decide to self identify as atheist, there are common traits that go beyond the commonality of non-belief.

Yeah, but that means that there can be more to self labeling as "atheist" than simple lack of belief , not that there is more to atheism than a simple lack of belief, which is what the thread is about.

Atheism is not a religion, it is simply a lack of belief, much like how non stamp collecting is not a hobby. However, non stamp collectors don't have to deal with stamp collector groups in facets of society they have no place being in, so (a) non stamp collectors don't have any reason to even talk to stamp collectors about it, never mind be assertive about non-stamp collecting and (b) they don't even need to self label as "non-stamp collector".

I agree that atheists can be the same as the religious - they can evangelical and fervourent. But that is not simply a result of their atheism. Its because the environment they are in results in them being that way (or because that's simply the type of person they are).

Well, it looks like we have established (as if this was needed) that atheism is not religion, and the fact that some atheists defend their position forcefully, like the way that some adherents of specific religions defend their positions forcefully, doesn't turn atheism into a religion.

In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a talk "Rational Discourse on Islam and Atheism" given by a Muslim speaker who often appears on YouTube, Hamza Tzortzis. Having watched the video in detail, I was struck by the extent to which his arguments in favour of Islam were similar to those put forward by Christians.

Tzortzis tries to establish three propositions using logical arguments:

1. The existence of God
2. The status of the Qur'an as the revelation of God
3. The status of Muhammad as God's final prophet and messenger.

For proposition 1, Tzortzis mobilises the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. The Cosmological Argument takes the form of establishing (or asserting) that the Universe had a beginning, that everything that has a beginning must have had a cause, so the Universe had a cause, and to avoid an infinite regress, there must have been a First Cause, which is identified as God. The Argument from Design focuses on "fine tuning" - the minuscule probability that the central physical constants underpinning and making possible a universe in which human life is viable would have turned out as they are, which is taken to imply, using "inference to the best explanation", that the universe could not have come about through chance, and hence must have been created through divine design. These arguments have been rebutted many times.

Tzortzis defends the status of the Qur'an as revelation by identifying statements made in the Qur'an that are now regarded as scientific or historical fact but that could not have been known at the time of its revelation. There was a long thread on this forum about 18 months ago where this approach was debated in detail.

I was really surprised to find Tzortzis defending Muhammad's prophethood using the old "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument used by many Christian apologists to support claims reported in the New Testament about Jesus. Tzortzis argues that the reported facts of Muhammad's life make it impossible to assert that he was a deliberate liar, and that the emergence, growth and success of Islam as a religion disprove the claim that Muhammad was deluded. So all that is left is the position that he must indeed have been a prophet. But it is hard to use the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to defend the status of Muhammad while at the same time denying the prophethood of, say, Joseph Smith - after all, he was prepared to die for his beliefs and was actually killed for what he believed, and Mormonism has not been without success as a religion.

Tzortzis finished off for good measure by claiming the necessity of God to justify morality.

It's not surprising that Tzortzis's "rational defence of Islam" is so like "rational arguments for Christianity", because leading Christian thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas took many of the standard arguments for the existence of God from Muslim thinkers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes).

I'll continue my search for a distinctive Islamic critique of atheism, so if anyone knows of one, please contribute to the thread.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I talked about Hamza's points in this post, but he mainly sticks to point 1, as you describe it, hivizman, in the debate (ie he was more driving towards the existence of a general monotheistic god, he was light on specific reasons for the muslim god).

Thanks for this - we obviously had a similar reaction to what must have been the same line of argument. From a quick flip through some of Hamza Tzortzis's other YouTube videos, I get the sense that he has done a crash course in arguments for the existence of a monotheistic god and has been largely "preaching to the converted" by going round university Islamic Societies where he is unlikely to face much of a challenge. He could just as easily have been a Christian apologist as a Muslim one.

dead one wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78952980&postcount=827
hence it is proved

Atheism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion... they are also deeply committed to their religious beliefs.. Closing threads--- banning people.. These are clear proof.... It doesn't matter to what extent you may deny... ... Religion is a difficult thing to define... These people seem fail to defend their religious belief and at last.. The protectors and guardians of this religion has no choice except you know what i mean... Every action you do has a reason and I am here to explain all kind of these reason.. i am not a ordinary human.. I can see what you can't see... This is very exact purpose why i had posted this thread here... I knew what would happened in A&A foram..

Yes dead one, that thread was closed because atheism is a religion, nothing to do with the OP of that thread having at least one sock-puppeting account closed or poster after poster logging onto the A&A forum to jump in the thread after 10/15/20 pages of posts, to simply declare atheism a religion all the while ignoring every point in every other post explaining how clearly false a notion that is :rolleyes:.

There isn't a single point on that A&A thread, from those who claimed that atheism is a religion, that isn't debunked by the posts in this thread.

dead one wrote: »

You are making things up and stopping him... Wow... You want propagation of your doctrines/beliefs and stopping others.. Wow..


You hate God not because it doesn't exist... you it because it goes against you belief of "infinite Chance"... The more powerful deity than religious Gods..

Nope. I cannot hate something I don't believe in. To hate something means you acknowledge the existence of such. As I do not acknowledge the God or Gods that people believe in, I cannot hate them.
It's like you saying you hate the Christian God. You don't believe in it, so you cannot hate it.

I may hate the bile and vicious bigoted hatred filled propaganda spewed by some of the believes of (some) sects of religious groups, but not the God they choose to believe in. Again, because I do not believe they exist, therefore cannot hate it.

dead one wrote: »

The thread was locked because of bias... Majority of moderators in A&A are believer of atheism... So there is bias present in their mind... and you know it's natural Muslim moderator will try to defend his Islamic faith... Christian will try defend his faith... and atheist will try defend his faith... That's the reason people were banned, attacked, and thread is being closed.....

dead one wrote: »

You are making things up and stopping him... Wow... You want propagation of your doctrines/beliefs and stopping others.. Wow..

Or HamletOrHecuba is clearly just pulling claims about atheism from thin air with no evidence to back up.

dead one wrote: »

You hate God not because it doesn't exist... you it because it goes against you belief of "infinite Chance"... The more powerful deity than religious Gods..

"Infinite Chance"? More powerful deity that religious Gods? What in the name of all that is chocolaty are you talking about?

dead one wrote: »

The thread was locked because of bias...

Correct. No-one who posted in support of the "atheism is a religion" claim would engage in actual debate with people who contradicted that notion. They just declared their biases repeatedly, ignoring counterpoint after counterpoint. Kind of like you here, still towing the same "atheism is a religion" gibberish despite people on this thread debunking your claims in many different ways.

stuar wrote: »

I would say atheism is more a cult* of God and religion haters.

*cult: a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Dictionary.com

By your own definition you are wrong. Atheism is a group of people who do not believe in god. That's it. There is no inherent veneration of the non belief, or of an individual or group that proposes the non belief. Atheists can venerate people, or the idea itself (just like, say, football supporters can venerate their team, or the idea of football being the greatest sport) but that doesn't mean atheism (football) is itself a cult.

This has been explained in this thread already, did you not read any of the preceding posts before yours?

dead one wrote: »

Ah, Atheists of all stripes call for evidence. One should not believe anything without evidence for the thing. The cry for evidence is the primary premise for Atheism. But when evidence appears they start denying it. I think the call for evidence has become a circular reasoning. As we know, the denial of evidence has become your faith and you very committed to it... You don't want to lose your faith...

Oh look, dead one makes a claim and does not back it up with anything. How unusual. I love how you try and turn the most rational and sensible thing anyone can do into something irrational based on pure assertion. Its hilarious. Calling for evidence is a primary defence against bullsh*t.

dead one wrote: »

Theory of evolution the creation theory for religion of atheism, Infinite chance, Infinite injustice

How can anyone get so much wrong about what is a fairly simple concept? Theory of evolution =/= theory of creation (abiogenesis). They are two entirely different theories, one could happen entirely without the other. There is no "infinite chance" in evolution, because there is no infinite number of actions. And where does injustice come into a naturally occurring phenomena? Is rain injust?

dead one wrote: »

Correct, no-one has done nothing but your (atheist) attitude/bigotry has made it religion.

Again with the lack of conviction in your posts. I explained my post in my response, can you not do the same. You know, your complete inability to back up anything you say beyond asserting it, makes me think you don't really believe any of it at all. But you would hardly keep harping on about something you didn't actually believe in, would you?

hivizman wrote: »

In my moderator's capacity, I feel it necessary to mention that I do not consider it appropriate for a discussion of the actions of moderators on another forum to be debated here. On the other hand, I would be prepared to tolerate a discussion of the general question of whether atheism is a religion, particularly if this is addressed from an Islamic perspective.

I posted the above as long ago as 15 February 2012. Unfortunately, we seem to have gone back to debating what happened on another forum. The question posed by the thread has been clearly answered - on any standard meaning of the word "religion", atheism cannot qualify as a religion. As Mark Hamill has reminded us in his post at 11:38 today, even if some atheists fervently defend their views and fervently deny those of theists, this does not apply to atheism as a concept.

Some of the postings in this thread are quite frankly embarrassing. Because I participated in the earlier debate, I feel uneasy about exercising the moderator's ability to close the thread down, but maybe one of the other moderators will be prepared to intervene.

And on that good pointer to ======> Feedback, I am closing this thread.
Its going nowhere productive,
Asia.