Is Atheism a religion?

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I'm sorry missus but our religion doesn't allow female scholars let alone the possibility of free thinking ones.

S'ok - I'm wearing a headscarf.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

pfff

alright banna it's up to us - let's set up our own one

Yes- goodbye headscarf which made me feel like a member of the House of Windsor about to go on a grouse killing spree!

Bluewolf - Let's make chocolate eating a sacrament!

DuPLeX

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Perhaps it might be useful for the purposes of having a useful discussion for you to define what you think a religion is, what are its characteristics and how atheism fulfills those characteristics.

As the title of this thread is Atheism is a religion Maybe you should define what you think Atheism is and in what ways does it not conform to the structure of a religion ? ..

It seems to me that so far regarding science and atheism the argument you have been putting forward is that belief is a component of religion and therefore anything which requires belief is therefore a religion. However, this is a fallacious argument.

If you think my argument is "Fallacious" why? explain.

First of all, atheism while being a position regarding belief (as opposed to agnosticism) does not require any faith, unless you're a strong atheist who positively believes that there is no god. I think you'll find however that strong atheists are a minority of all atheists. It doesn't require any faith to lack belief in something.
.

I think you'll find that strong Christians are in a minority too .minimum of faith required also... So no religion is not about faith Its more about lazyness.

coffee_cake

DuPLeX wrote: »

As the title of this thread is Atheism is a religion

no it isn't

Delirium

The title of the thread is "is atheism a religion?", it's a question not a statement

Bannasidhe

koth wrote: »

The title of the thread is "is atheism a religion?", it's a question not a statement

Not according to his interpretation of the Little Book of Grammar and Punctuation...

Statistician

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Perhaps it might be useful for the purposes of having a useful discussion for you to define what you think a religion is, what are its characteristics and how atheism fulfills those characteristics.

I just looked 'Religion' up in wikipedia, and Atheism seems to tick the boxes. Atheism is certainly a private belief that has a public aspect, as this very forum testifies.

Just like Duplex, you seem to be making a fallacious argument that atheism is a religion, in this case the fallacy of biased sample.

First of all, atheism while being a position regarding belief (as opposed to agnosticism) does not require any faith, unless you're a strong atheist who positively believes that there is no god. I think you'll find however that strong atheists are a minority of all atheists. It doesn't require any faith to lack belief in something.

Faith and belief are closely intertwined. To put it simply, faith is belief without proof. This is what Atheists of all calibres demonstrate.

As for your two other points, the actions of some atheists are not necessarily representative of either a) all atheists or b) atheism. After all I'm sure you wouldn't argue that the number of Christians filling up the prison system is representative of Christianity in general.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. A majority of people in this country would regard themselves Catholic, but not all of them attend Mass.
Do we need Venn diagrams?

seamus

Statistician wrote: »

Faith and belief are closely intertwined. To put it simply, faith is belief without proof. This is what Atheists of all calibres demonstrate.

The opposite of "I believe in God" is not, "I believe there is no God". It's "I do not believe in God".

How can having no belief be regarded as a belief?

oldrnwisr

DuPLeX wrote: »

As the title of this thread is Atheism is a religion Maybe you should define what you think Atheism is and in what ways does it not conform to the structure of a religion ? ..

Atheism is the lack of belief. It has no central organisation, no holy books, no required practices or beliefs, no position on the continuation of existence after death, none of the characteristics of organised religion. This may explain my position better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

DuPLeX wrote: »

If you think my argument is "Fallacious" why? explain.

It's called the composition fallacy. You are arguing that because science or atheism or anything else you choose to pick has belief as a component and that religion has belief as a component then anything which entails belief is religious. See example 3 in the link above.

Now, instead of avoiding my question, maybe you would be so kind as to answer it?

DuPLeX wrote: »

I think you'll find that strong Christians are in a minority too .minimum of faith required also... So no religion is not about faith Its more about lazyness.

I'm not certain what you mean by strong Christian other than perhaps a gnostic Christian. All Christians by default have a positive belief in God and so there is no comparable divide in Christianity as there is between weak and strong atheism.

MagicMarker

Atheists, by definition, lack faith (in a deity).

I'm not sure why this is so hard for certain people to understand.

DuPLeX

bluewolf wrote: »

no it isn't

OK

DuPLeX

DuPLeX wrote: »

OK

but it is !

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bluewolf - Let's make chocolate eating a sacrament!

Old hat. The Aztecs and Mayans were doing that centuries ago. Well, the high-status members were anyway and that means that wimmin were probably not allowed it, unless permitted by men:

http://www.chocolate.org/

chocolate.org wrote:

Cacao beans were used by the Aztecs to prepare a hot, frothy beverage with stimulant and restorative properties. Chocolate itself was reserved for warriors, nobility and priests. The Aztecs esteemed its reputed ability to confer wisdom and vitality. Taken fermented as a drink, chocolate was also used in religious ceremonies. The sacred concoction was associated with Xochiquetzal, the goddess of fertility. Emperor Montezuma allegedly drank 50 goblets a day. Aztec taxation was levied in cacao beans. 100 cacao beans could buy a slave. 12 cacao beans bought the services of courtesan.

Delirium

Statistician wrote: »

I just looked 'Religion' up in wikipedia, and Atheism seems to tick the boxes. Atheism is certainly a private belief that has a public aspect, as this very forum testifies.

From wikipedia:

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

How exactly does atheism meet that description?

robindch

seamus wrote: »

How can having no belief be regarded as a belief?

If you don't understand the difference, then the two will look the same.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Old hat. The Aztecs and Mayans were doing that centuries ago. Well, the high-status members were anyway and I think we can rest assured that this did not include wimmins:

http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/chocolate/eat_intro2.html

Well in our new, better, brighter, religion Mayans and Aztecs will be barred from consuming the chocolate - as will the Olmecs as they are guilty by location.
ALL men shall also be required to wear headscarfs.

Statistician

seamus wrote: »

The opposite of "I believe in God" is not, "I believe there is no God". It's "I do not believe in God".

How can having no belief be regarded as a belief?

Please explain the difference between these two statements:
"I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe in God"

I believe there is no milk in my fridge. I do not believe there is any milk in my fridge.

(Of course there is the whole issue of disproving a negative which would make atheism inherently a faith based system)

oldrnwisr

Statistician wrote: »

I just looked 'Religion' up in wikipedia, and Atheism seems to tick the boxes. Atheism is certainly a private belief that has a public aspect, as this very forum testifies.

From wikipedia:

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

How exactly does atheism qualify as any of those? Atheism isn't a belief, private or otherwise.

Statistician wrote: »

Faith and belief are closely intertwined. To put it simply, faith is belief without proof. This is what Atheists of all calibres demonstrate.

Perhaps you could give me an example of something that I as an atheist, or any atheist for that matter, believes without proof (relevant to this discussion obviously).

Statistician wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. A majority of people in this country would regard themselves Catholic, but not all of them attend Mass.
Do we need Venn diagrams?

If Venn diagrams will clarify things for you, fair enough. My point is that in your last post you made two points about the actions of a subset of atheists (i.e. those who read Dawkins and those vocal about atheism) as if these people were representative of all atheists or atheism. They aren't.

shizz

Statistician wrote: »

Please explain the difference between these two statements:
"I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe in God"

I believe there is no milk in my fridge. I do not believe there is any milk in my fridge.

(Of course there is the whole issue of disproving a negative which would make atheism inherently a faith based system)

"I believe there is no God" = From the evidence you have shown me I can assert that there is no God to believe in.

"I do not believe in a God" = From the evidence you have provided me, I am not fully convinced that a God exists.

Bannasidhe

Statistician wrote: »

Please explain the difference between these two statements:
"I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe in God"

I believe there is no milk in my fridge. I do not believe there is any milk in my fridge.

(Of course there is the whole issue of disproving a negative which would make atheism inherently a faith based system)

I do not believe in milk.
I do not believe there is milk in my fridge.

MagicMarker

Statistician wrote: »

Please explain the difference between these two statements:
"I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe in God"

I believe there is no milk in my fridge. I do not believe there is any milk in my fridge.

(Of course there is the whole issue of disproving a negative which would make atheism inherently a faith based system)

Do you hold the belief that I am a doctor? I assume you don't. Does that then mean you believe I am not a doctor?

seamus

Statistician wrote: »

Please explain the difference between these two statements:
"I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe in God"

I believe there is no milk in my fridge. I do not believe there is any milk in my fridge.

(Of course there is the whole issue of disproving a negative which would make atheism inherently a faith based system)

One is a statement of knowledge or faith. "I believe X". The other is the opposite of that - a statement that one lacks knowledge or faith.

Of course your milk example is typical false argument because it deals with things which we know to exist or which could exist.

Perhaps it would clearer for you if I phrase it as such:

Theist: "I possess a belief in a God"
Atheist: "I do not posses a belief in a God"

fitz0

It might sound like semantics but they mean very different things. 'I believe there is no god' implies an active belief that there is no god(s) which in essence is the same as belief that there is a god. They both make statements asserting something without evidence.

'I don't believe in god' is a passive non belief. It neither says that I believe there is no god or that there is definitely no god. It's more an agnostic statement than an atheistic one. You'll find that most regular posters here hold to this non-belief. It doesn't assert that there is no god(s) just that it doesn't seem like there is based on the observable evidence.

So, the first position, 'I believe there is no god', is a faith based position, while the second, 'I don't believe in god', is not.

EDIT: In the time it took me to write this, there were five similar positions posted. Sounds like it's lunchtime.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ALL men shall also be required to wear headscarfs.

I feel freer already!

Statistician

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Perhaps you could give me an example of something that I as an atheist, or any atheist for that matter, believes without proof (relevant to this discussion obviously).

It's human nature to have faith in things (or belief without proof). I have faith that I won't die of a heart attack today. I have faith that the desk I'm sitting as is made from wood. However, I have never completely broken it apart to prove this. I have faith that my coffee capsules contain coffee. I didn't analyse them to get proof of this.

I do not explicitly seek proof for everything, so therefore I must have faith.

I can take people's word for these things. Isn't that what Christians do?

coffee_cake

Statistician wrote: »

It's human nature to have faith in things (or belief without proof). I have faith that I won't die of a heart attack today. I have faith that the desk I'm sitting as is made from wood. However, I have never completely broken it apart to prove this. I have faith that my coffee capsules contain coffee. I didn't analyse them to get proof of this.

I do not explicitly seek proof for everything, so therefore I must have faith.

I can take people's word for these things. Isn't that what Christians do?

no because you can independently verify these things if you want

Statistician

bluewolf wrote: »

no because you can independently verify these things if you want

But I didn't.

oldrnwisr

Statistician wrote: »

It's human nature to have faith in things (or belief without proof). I have faith that I won't die of a heart attack today. I have faith that the desk I'm sitting as is made from wood. However, I have never completely broken it apart to prove this. I have faith that my coffee capsules contain coffee. I didn't analyse them to get proof of this.

Thanks for the clarification Statistician but I did ask for examples pertinent to this discussion. I'm sure that everyone has faith about something. I have faith that I won't live to see the year 3000, for example. However, you argued that atheism is a position of faith. How is it? What belief is it that all atheists have that is based on faith?

Statistician wrote: »

I do not explicitly seek proof for everything, so therefore I must have faith.

I can take people's word for these things. Isn't that what Christians do?

Neither do I seek proof for everything but my degree of skepticism is related to the scope of the claim or assertion. If someone tells me that they bought a new watch, then I'm happy to take that on faith. However, if they tell me that they have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, not so much.

Yes, Christians do take other people's word for things. On the other hand, I'd rather honestly state what I know and can show to be true and say I don't know to everything else.

seamus

I think you might be getting confused between faith and confidence Statistician. This is probably because in other uses of the word "faith", it's often used in place of confidence, e.g. "You can do it, I have faith in you, I believe in you".

In religious terms, faith is sure belief that something is correct, in the absence of proof.

I have confidence that I won't die of a heart attack today because I'm healthy and with no heart issues. But I wouldn't say that I have faith (absolute surity without proof). Likewise for the table and the coffee. I would be confident that my table is wooden and my coffee is real coffee, but if you asked me to bet any money on it, I wouldn't put those chips down. I don't have faith that these things are correct.

MagicMarker

Statistician wrote: »

It's human nature to have faith in things (or belief without proof). I have faith that I won't die of a heart attack today. I have faith that the desk I'm sitting as is made from wood. However, I have never completely broken it apart to prove this. I have faith that my coffee capsules contain coffee. I didn't analyse them to get proof of this.

I do not explicitly seek proof for everything, so therefore I must have faith.

I can take people's word for these things. Isn't that what Christians do?

Obviously none of those are relevant to the topic, atheist can have faith too, just not in a deity.

But now that you mention it, are you religious because you have faith that you won't die today of a heart attack?