• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Atheism a belief system? A religion?

It is the stuff of another thread but it would be interesting to understand how you develop your moral code.
You say they stem from your "belief" in other concepts. That would be interesting to understand.

It sure would. The history of how we developed our concepts of natural law, morality, the metaphysical and spirituality is fascinating. Not to mention which one actually came first in human consciousness.
 
Scientists are the smallest demographic of theists. There are not "many" that are religious. There are very few. But let's talk about the huge expose. It's been going on for more than a century. Archaeological findings show that supposedly historical events in religious texts didn't happen. Astronomy has shown that the universe is vast and not at all centered around us. Medicine has shown that religious claims about healing and sickness are nonsense. Geology has shown us an Earth far older than religions suppose. Biology has shown us evolution, showing us the absurdity of religious creation. Psychology and anthropology have shown us the human impulses that drove our ancestors to create myths to explain the world around them. History has shown us the myriad religions that humans have invented and the futility in thinking that one is supposedly right and all the others wrong. Human reason and scientific learning has shown us the absurdity of the myths and legends of our ignorant ancestors.


argumentum ad populum to start with. Certainly myths and legends can be absurd. But Christ does not fit this description.

Just because our notions of good and evil come from our evolution doesn't mean we practice them properly. Our fear and greed can overwhelm our capacity for good. But, as a species, we all know that such acts are wrong. Morality isn't an individual thing. It's among the whole human race.

But if they are in our DNA what choice do we have? Societies spring forth from individuals.




That's quite fine. People whose fear overrides their goodness can certainly turn to religious ideas to comfort them. But let's be honest, almost everyone's religious affiliation comes from their parents. People belong to a religion because they were born into it. It's just a cultural meme, passed from one generation to the next. But to simply equate moral ideas with religion is nonsense. The two may sometimes overlap, but they are hardly synonymous.

Your education didn't include the history of Christianity it would seem? It has spread around to globe, to every culture it comes to.


If you were in pursuit of the truth, you wouldn't feel the need to assume that every person must have a belief or a religious affiliation. Beliefs are stupid. They're just ideas that people refuse to let go of despite contradicting evidence.

So you tend to ignore all evidence of the spirit? Since you like the argumentum ad populum ploy, can billions of people be wrong?
The answer is of course they can, but there is enough evidence of people's encounters with this dimension that there certainly seems to be considerable smoke, if not fire.


Accusing atheists of hubris is almost always part of theists attacks on us. We are not driven by pride. We do not know things that others can't. The information is right there. You could know it, too. You can learn physics, geology, psychology, mathematics, chemistry, and dozens of other scientific fields the same as I have. The only difference between us is that I was open minded enough to learn even when what I learned contradicted the religious ideas I was taught as a child.

You may not be driven by pride, but it would be foolish to think you have none and it does not impact you. Why do you assume I am uneducated? I came from an atheist frame of mind. I've been where you are. There are just things that can't be explained by science. I can't throw those things out because science can't put a finger on them.


No one ignores "political evils", as you put it. Religion is simply one of the powerful causes of those evils, and it's one thing we can do to stop those evils from coming about.

Actually religion isn't usually the cause of evils, it's governments usurping religion and using it to cause evil. So one could say the far greater cause of evil is government. The concentration of power. There is all this talk of the evil fundamentalists. Christ was a fundamentalist, but he didn't kill anyone. Instead the governments and religious powers of the time couldn't stand him so they killed him. Who are the evil fundamentalists?
But that aside, what would you do to put a stop to evil religion?



It very well may have been a boon to us in the past. It might also be an unfortunate byproduct of boons, like our ability to find patterns, to extrapolate ideas, to imagine things beyond our vision, and our ability to transmit knowledge. But whatever benefits religion may have given us in the past, that time is long over.

There are quite literally millions of people all over the world who would disagree strongly with your opinion here. They see a benefit in their daily lives from their personal faith in God.



There are no beliefs involved. I have evidence to support every position I take. I have no need to beliefs. I have knowledge instead.

Eh, I'll have to take your word for this.



My camp has no beliefs, and so cannot codify them.
So tell me, how do you decide what is good in/for society? What facts do you use to make these types of decisions? What knowledge lends you the moral authority? Evolution? Mathematics? Geology maybe? I'm a bit snarky, please forgive, but morals are not scientific are they?



Don't worry, it's probably neither. The story of Jesus is likely an amalgamation of half a dozen different stories, highly embellished, and based on many older stories. There was probably no singular person who did or preached the things that gospel talks about. There may well have been a preacher named Joshua from Nazareth who had followers and was crucified, but there were dozens of similar preachers, all of whom were making various claims of performing miracles and all of whom weren't actually performing any. Likely no one maliciously created a hoax on anyone. People simply didn't know how to tell what was real and what was merely imagined, and got excited and told stories. Every culture has done this.

If you want to live up to the example of someone who said to go out and feed the hungry, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and do unto others as you would have them do to you, do that. Those are good ideas. They don't need divine authority to legitimize them. And they certainly don't need myths from thousands of years ago to muddy them.

If the story of Christ wasn't an actual personal story, you'd think someone of the time would have called it out. Instead we have a plethora of documentation about his life and deeds. These are historically scientific documents. We make scientific assumptions about all historical cultures based on far less documentation than exists for Jesus.
Also interesting: If there were dozens like him, why'd he hit the big time as he has? Right place right time?
If you think Christ came to teach us how to behave, then it is quite evident you aren't as educated as you claim.
 
Almost no one is agnostic. Agnostic means you hold the (unsubstantiated) belief that it cannot be proven whether or not gods exist. Almost no one thinks that. Theists think they have some reason to believe, or at least think that their god demonstrates itself to them or to their hierarchy. Meanwhile, a whole lot of atheists don't have a belief in a lack of a god, we have overwhelming evidence to contradict any logically consistent belief, and things which have no evidence to support them aren't there.

The agnostic belief, and it is nothing more than another unfounded religious belief, that we cannot possibly know about the existence of divine things is pretty nonsensical. Why would there be such an arbitrary limitation on our minds? But if you do take an agnostic position, then the only possibilities left are completely absurd and irrelevant deist gods, or no gods to know. The only reason agnosticism is getting any popularity at all is because scientific knowledge has disproved all gnostic theistic claims.
Boy, I didn't know everyone's use of the word was wrong until you gave me your personal definition. Thanks bro.
 
In its technical sense, atheism is neither a religion, nor a belief system.

Atheism in the United States, however, has been closly assosciated with secular humanism. Secular humansim is a belief system - though its beliefs have not been codified in an exacting manner.
 
And yet there are lots of terrible things that religion does that needs to be stopped. Oppression of gays, widespread misogyny, violence, and attempts to crush scientific learning spring to mind. And plenty of people just care about the truth and don't leave fundamental aspects of reality up to personal opinion. But seriously, compared to the above faults of religion, being called "mean" is a pretty weak criticism of atheists.

So only atheists can wage an effort against sexism, racism, and maltreatment of individuals?

Only religious people try to oppress people due to gender, race, and sexual orientation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that *that* is your point, here. Your belief is that all these things happen only within the presence of religion.

People can address all of these concerns without being an ass about it.
 
So only atheists can wage an effort against sexism, racism, and maltreatment of individuals?

Only religious people try to oppress people due to gender, race, and sexual orientation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that *that* is your point, here. Your belief is that all these things happen only within the presence of religion.

People can address all of these concerns without being an ass about it.

There is plenty of religious support for oppression of various groups. There is very little atheist support for it. Religion alone is not the cause of that oppression, but religion makes it worse and inhibits overcoming it. I cannot say that there would be no racism, sexism, or homophobia without religion, only that there would be a lot less.

Boy, I didn't know everyone's use of the word was wrong until you gave me your personal definition. Thanks bro.


It is a word that a lot of people use incorrectly. Just like people don't use "their", "they're", or "there" correctly. Or how people use "ironic", "peruse", or "bemused". Or how people say "for all intensive purposes" when they mean "for all intents and purposes". I wasn't giving you my personal definition, I was giving you the actual definition.
 
Last edited:
pascehdale said:
I didn't say pleasure. I said biology.
But in the next sentence you proceeded to explain that you meant pleasure. You said we call evil what causes us pain and suffering. If pain and suffering are evil, then pleasure must be good. So yes, that is the only possible interpretation of what you said.
paschendale said:
Hedonism? Hedonism isn't even really a thing, and it has no bearing on our discussion. Everything we call evil is acts that harm our neighbors. Acts that we do not wish performed upon us. Our conscience is the awareness that we are doing things that we would not wish done to us. Morality is our attempts to codify the communal survival instincts that evolution has instilled in us.
Yes, hedonism is a thing. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
And not all of us call evil whatever harms our neighbors. You might see not harming our neighbors as the summary of Morality. But why? Where did you get that code? (Epistemically, not causally. I don't mean did you get it from evolution or something like that, but what is your grounds for believing it.)
Also that is not what Conscience is. When you say this, you state utilitarianism. And that is hedonism, just not as selfish as the other form of it.
 
Agnostic means you don'nt know.

Atheist means you believe there is no God.

Again, the analogy of the number of stars fits, when someone Calls themself an atheist, they almost ALWAYs mean not agnostic, but atheist, i.e. they believe there is NO God.

No, that is merely the way that you choose to use the words.

(a)theism and (a)gnosticism are two entirely seperate dichotomies. (A)theism refers to whether or not one has faith in a theistic deity. (A)gnosticism refers to how certain you are in your belief - about anything, not necessarily theism, although it is often used as such (see the first listing in the link). As an example, I would describe myself as a 'free-will agnostic' - I think that free will exists because I experience it, but I accept that this may be an illusion, so I do not 'know' that free will exists. Another example - some programming languages are described as being 'device-agnostic', because they do not need to know what type of device they are running on in order to work.

As such, there are four possible combinations:

Gnostic theist - one who believes in a God, and claims that their belief is backed up sufficiently to be termed 'knowledge' - eg they have personal experience which they consider is beyond question.

Agnostic theist - one who believes in a God, but admits they may be wrong in their belief. There are several examples of this; I believe that Unitarian Universalism would probably fall into such a catagory (although I don't know enough to be sure - ironically enough I am agnostic about that claim)

Agnostic atheist - one who does not believe in a God, but admits that they may be wrong. This describes the majority of 'atheists', although there are those (often those who are theistic themselves, oddly enough) who would have you believe otherwise.

Gnostic atheist - one who does not believe in a God, and claims their absence of belief is backed up sufficientlyl enough to be called 'knowledge', which could also be described as a 'belief in the absence of God' by the cynical. There are not many of these (simply because ultimately, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence) but they do exist. It is also much easier to be a gnostic atheist when 'theism' is reduced to a specific form of God - if that reduction causes a logical inconsistency. For example, an all-loving, all-powerful God does not logically fit with the idea of people being irredeemably doomed to suffer in Hell if they make the wrong choices in life, so I might describe myself as having a more active belief that such a situation does not exist.

You don't like these definitions? Don't use them. But don't try and deny they don't exist.
 
No, that is merely the way that you choose to use the words.

(a)theism and (a)gnosticism are two entirely seperate dichotomies. (A)theism refers to whether or not one has faith in a theistic deity. (A)gnosticism refers to how certain you are in your belief - about anything, not necessarily theism, although it is often used as such (see the first listing in the link). As an example, I would describe myself as a 'free-will agnostic' - I think that free will exists because I experience it, but I accept that this may be an illusion, so I do not 'know' that free will exists. Another example - some programming languages are described as being 'device-agnostic', because they do not need to know what type of device they are running on in order to work.

As such, there are four possible combinations:

Gnostic theist - one who believes in a God, and claims that their belief is backed up sufficiently to be termed 'knowledge' - eg they have personal experience which they consider is beyond question.

Agnostic theist - one who believes in a God, but admits they may be wrong in their belief. There are several examples of this; I believe that Unitarian Universalism would probably fall into such a catagory (although I don't know enough to be sure - ironically enough I am agnostic about that claim)

Agnostic atheist - one who does not believe in a God, but admits that they may be wrong. This describes the majority of 'atheists', although there are those (often those who are theistic themselves, oddly enough) who would have you believe otherwise.

Gnostic atheist - one who does not believe in a God, and claims their absence of belief is backed up sufficientlyl enough to be called 'knowledge', which could also be described as a 'belief in the absence of God' by the cynical. There are not many of these (simply because ultimately, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence) but they do exist. It is also much easier to be a gnostic atheist when 'theism' is reduced to a specific form of God - if that reduction causes a logical inconsistency. For example, an all-loving, all-powerful God does not logically fit with the idea of people being irredeemably doomed to suffer in Hell if they make the wrong choices in life, so I might describe myself as having a more active belief that such a situation does not exist.

You don't like these definitions? Don't use them. But don't try and deny they don't exist.

No one uses the term's "Gnostic theist" or "agnostic theist" the way People use the term "agnostic" is for People who won't say whether or not a God exists, they withhold judgement.

This is how the English Word "agnostic" is commonly used.
 
No one uses the term's "Gnostic theist" or "agnostic theist" the way People use the term "agnostic" is for People who won't say whether or not a God exists, they withhold judgement.

This is how the English Word "agnostic" is commonly used.

I repeat myself:

You don't like these definitions? Don't use them. But don't try and deny they don't exist.
 
I repeat myself:

You don't like these definitions? Don't use them. But don't try and deny they don't exist.

I define Words by how they are understood by actual People.
 
I define Words by how they are understood by actual People.
Indeed. But you seem to be in denial that not all People are in agreement with your opinion of how they understand words.
 
There is plenty of religious support for oppression of various groups. There is very little atheist support for it. Religion alone is not the cause of that oppression, but religion makes it worse and inhibits overcoming it. I cannot say that there would be no racism, sexism, or homophobia without religion, only that there would be a lot less.
.......

This is just your opinion, how religion might influence bad behavior. There were many sinners (actually all people present) when Jesus walked the earth. He wasn't out to "get them" but loved them and tried to help them from their sin.
Notably, the ones he confronted the most were the pious religious folks of the time. At least that is how it is documented in the bible.
He called us not to judge others, although we are to be discerning about sin and not ignore it.
I don't find anything in what Christ taught that compels me as a Christian to seek out those who sin and punish them. Just as in a secular persons life, you might not seek out those who disagree with your moral code and punish them.

So the way it works out, a secular person might be more inclined to do these evil things to others, as there is no codified higher authority to preclude them, other than mans law, as equivocal as it can be.
While the Christian has to disregard Christ's commandments to allow them the liberty to perpetrate harm on others. When they do this one could say they are embracing secularism, as they have certainly rejected the guidance of Christ and are operating as their own authority.
We can readily see that the secular population has many evil thoughts and actions that cause all kinds of harm to people in this world. History is full if individual and corporate evils perpetrated by secularists.
Secularism is where human nature has full reign. In Christianity we are called to die to self and seek the will of God. Some are better at it than others. We all fall from it, and are all sinners, but the believer will always seek it and refine themselves over time. If not, their faith is dead.
You would do better to encourage believers in the actual truth in the bible than to try and destroy it in them. The example of Christ is the best one could hope to be on this side of faith. And although I see many times people say they hate God, I have yet to see someone say they hate Christ.
 
A-theism, without a belief in God. So there's no belief, let alone belief system.

If you want to go with believes there is no god definition, that still isn't a system of beliefs, as it only involves one.
 
But in the next sentence you proceeded to explain that you meant pleasure. You said we call evil what causes us pain and suffering. If pain and suffering are evil, then pleasure must be good. So yes, that is the only possible interpretation of what you said.

Alleviating pain and suffering is good. Pleasure is much more complicated than that.
 
No one uses the term's "Gnostic theist" or "agnostic theist" the way People use the term "agnostic" is for People who won't say whether or not a God exists, they withhold judgement.

This is how the English Word "agnostic" is commonly used.

You are speaking of colloquial definitions, and that is fine. However, if you want to try and discuss issues a little deeper than the common person does, it is best to use more useful definitions. The most useful way to define these terms is in the manner that deep thinkers did in the past. They defined these words carefully, and for reason. This is why many people try to hold on to them, and seek to avoid letting the discussion be overwhelmed by colloquialisms. These people are not necessarily being pedantic, many are trying to give the discussion a framework which can use a brevity of words. It may not seem like it to you, but it is actually MORE confusing to use the colloquial definitions.

Much of what we have to explain endlessly to theists is due in part to the confusion engendered by colloquial definitions. If the definitions had not been bastardized, these discussions could be much shorter and more productive.
 
Last edited:
You are speaking of colloquial definitions, and that is fine. However, if you want to try and discuss issues a little deeper than the common person does, it is best to use more useful definitions. The most useful way to define these terms is in the manner that deep thinkers did in the past. They defined these words carefully, and for reason. This is why many people try to hold on to them, and seek to avoid letting the discussion be overwhelmed by colloquialisms. These people are not necessarily being pedantic, many are trying to give the discussion a framework which can use a brevity of words. It may not seem like it to you, but it is actually MORE confusing to use the colloquial definitions.

Much of what we have to explain endlessly to theists is due in part to the confusion engendered by colloquial definitions. If the definitions had not been bastardized, these discussions could be much shorter and more productive.

I would say the colloquial definitino comes from atheists saying "God does not exist" also the way atheism has always been used has been "God does not exist," that's how it's used, that's how it's understood, and that's what it means.
 
I would say the colloquial definitino comes from atheists saying "God does not exist" also the way atheism has always been used has been "God does not exist," that's how it's used, that's how it's understood, and that's what it means.

"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." - Baron d'Holbach Good Sense without God, or, Freethoughts Opposed to Supernatural Ideas Original publication 1772

Good Sense Without God by Baron D'holbach

Now what were you saying about how it has always been used?? Was his intended meaning that babies are thinking "God does not exist?"
 
Before you are even aware of a thing or the concept of a thing even existing in the first place you do not believe in it. This lack of belief is the default position, once exposed to a thing or the concept of something then you are able to determine whether or not to the abandon the position of not believing in it or determining there is still not sufficient reason to sway you away from the default position of non belief.

Two different analogies to hopefully illustrate this.
1) a blind person has never before heard of a venus fly trap, he lacks a belief in them. Someone then tells him about this insect eating plant, the idea sounds preposterous to him, so he retains the default non belief since there was not sufficient reason for him to move to the new position of believing it. He is not insisting that venus fly traps do not exist*, he just has not been given sufficient reason to be swayed from the default lack of belief position. Someone then hands him a venus fly trap, he is able to feel it with his hands, he triggers the release mechanism, feels the plant close to grasp his finger. Having now had more evidence he finds it plausible that this is indeed a method of trapping insects. He now moves from the default position to one of believing in venus fly traps.

*the bold part is especially germane to the entirety of the discussion in this thread

2) A couple moves to an isolated island and has a child. They raise this child without ever introducing him to the concept of god. This child becomes an adolescent and then an adult without a hint that such a thing is thought by many to exist. He does not believe there is a god, he is at the default position of non belief. HE then moves off from the island and learns of the concept of god, at this point he can either accept that there is sufficient reason to be swayed from the default position of lacking belief in god, or he can determine that he is not convinced and continue with the default position and lack a belief that there is a god.

I disagree. If Religion and beliefs are just human concepts then the idea started with someone somewhere at some point in time. To the apparent predisposition that we have towards beliefs there a possibility that said beliefs are an intrinsic part of human nature. Do you know that evidence of ritualistic beliefs were found at mound sites during prehistorical times, it goes back as far as we can go back.

I don't see how number one is relevant at all. With the second one the experiment is ruined if the parents at any time introduce the idea of non-belief to the child which would be the more likely scenario. Have you ever been around kids? They tend to be very imaginative and full of beliefs.
 
I disagree. If Religion and beliefs are just human concepts then the idea started with someone somewhere at some point in time. To the apparent predisposition that we have towards beliefs there a possibility that said beliefs are an intrinsic part of human nature. Do you know that evidence of ritualistic beliefs were found at mound sites during prehistorical times, it goes back as far as we can go back.

I don't see how number one is relevant at all. With the second one the experiment is ruined if the parents at any time introduce the idea of non-belief to the child which would be the more likely scenario. Have you ever been around kids? They tend to be very imaginative and full of beliefs.

At some point humans or proto humans developed ritualized behavior and from there religion. Ii is not something that comes along with the severing of the umbilical cord, you have to be introduced to the concept, or create it on your own. Prior to this you are at the default state of lack of belief due to lack of awareness. At some point in ones life they develop this awareness and then either move towards a belief or retain the default state

You do not introduce someone to non belief.. you are born with it. This is the default state. Once you learn or imagine that there is something to either believe or not then you have the potential to leave the default state

The venus fly trap is a completely relevant analogy to help convey the concept to you. If you fail to understand how it is applicable I have no idea what to tell you. I tried to get the point across in a simplistic manner, you just do not seem to get it.
 
At some point humans or proto humans developed ritualized behavior and from there religion. Ii is not something that comes along with the severing of the umbilical cord, you have to be introduced to the concept, or create it on your own. Prior to this you are at the default state of lack of belief due to lack of awareness. At some point in ones life they develop this awareness and then either move towards a belief or retain the default state

You do not introduce someone to non belief.. you are born with it. This is the default state. Once you learn or imagine that there is something to either believe or not then you have the potential to leave the default state

The venus fly trap is a completely relevant analogy to help convey the concept to you. If you fail to understand how it is applicable I have no idea what to tell you. I tried to get the point across in a simplistic manner, you just do not seem to get it.

No you don't. Someone created that concept, at some point someone created it without being introduced to it and I wasn't talking about religion in particular when I mentioned mounds, there's evidence of ritualistic behavior suggesting some sort of belief which doesn't automatically equal religion.

You haven't proven that the default state is a lack of belief you just assume it is. If you want to make that claim then you have to provide evidence for it, evidence that it's not something already deeply ingrained in humanity. The fact that young children come up with some of the most imaginative beliefs lends more credence to the idea that our default state is full of such beliefs.
 
No you don't. Someone created that concept, at some point someone created it without being introduced to it and I wasn't talking about religion in particular when I mentioned mounds, there's evidence of ritualistic behavior suggesting some sort of belief which doesn't automatically equal religion.

You haven't proven that the default state is a lack of belief you just assume it is. If you want to make that claim then you have to provide evidence for it, evidence that it's not something already deeply ingrained in humanity. The fact that young children come up with some of the most imaginative beliefs lends more credence to the idea that our default state is full of such beliefs.

"someone created that concept" - precisely. "Children come up with some of the most imaginative beliefs" - precisely again. They had to imagine or create the concept in the first place

Before a concept exists in your mind you lack a belief in that concept. It really is that simple.
 
"someone created that concept" - precisely. "Children come up with some of the most imaginative beliefs" - precisely again. They had to imagine or create the concept in the first place

Before a concept exists in your mind you lack a belief in that concept. It really is that simple.

Right. The concept started somewhere that belief had to first exist so again I ask you why do you think non-belief is the default? Where is your evidence when at the earliest of ages we already see proof of such beliefs existing?
 
Back
Top Bottom