Is Atheism a belief system? A religion?

[OldWorldOrder]

Atheism can be considered a religious belief, if you can consider someone who does not believe in unicorns to have a religious belief in the lack of unicorns.

If belief in unicorns was a religious belief, that would make sense. Since it's not, it doesn't.

 

[Sean.McDonnell]

I would like to say I'm an atheist. But I do know that I can not disprove there is a god. So I guess I'm an agnostic with a strong belief that there is no god

That being said I consider it a belief, not a religion.

I don't think atheism is a religion because it is simply the act of abstaining from religion.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

If belief in unicorns was a religious belief, that would make sense. Since it's not, it doesn't.

Then you have to define "religion."

If you ask me, "Do you believe in a supernatural sky being who cares if you masturbate," I must unequivocally say, "No," because I am a reasonable person. The fact that there is a religion devoted to this being does not mean a lack of belief in this entity is also a religion. That's like saying you don't believe in Zeus, so therefor you belong to the "Zeus Doesn't Exist" religion.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Then you have to define "religion."

Not really, all I have to do is say that a belief in god is a religious belief. Do you agree?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Not really, all I have to do is say that a belief in god is a religious belief. Do you agree?

Sure.

But you are qualifying all belief (concerning gods) as "religious belief." You don't believe in the god Zeus.... but you don't say you belong to the "Zeus Doesn't Exist" religion, do you?

Not having a religious belief DOES NOT automatically translate into having a religious belief about the absence of a deity. It is simply a lack of belief.... just like your shared lack of belief in all other deities (except one).

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Sure.

But you are qualifying all belief (concerning gods) as "religious belief." You don't believe in the god Zeus.... but you don't say you belong to the "Zeus Doesn't Exist" religion, do you?

I consider it a religious belief. It's a belief about religion.

Not having a religious belief DOES NOT automatically translate into having a religious belief about the absence of a deity. It is simply a lack of belief.... just like your shared lack of belief in all other deities (except one).

I don't believe in any dieties. Why did you assume I did?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I consider it a religious belief. It's a belief about religion.

It's the lack of belief about religion.

Making the claim that something exists is making a positive claim. NOT making the claim that something exists is NOT a claim.

I do not make the claim that God definitely does not exist.... but in absence of any evidence of God's existence, the null hypothesis says that God does not exist. Just like how saying you don't believe in unicorns is not making a positive claim, in the face of the stunning lack of evidence for their existence.

As an atheist, the burden to prove God's non-existence does not fall on me; there is no such negative burden. The burden to support such a claim lies entirely on those who believe God DOES exist.

I don't believe in any dieties. Why did you assume I did?

My mistake. Most people who think atheism is a religion tend to belong to one of the major ones themselves.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Making the claim that something exists is making a positive claim. NOT making the claim that something exists is NOT a claim.

Which is agnosticism. Making the claim that something doesn't exist- atheism- is itself a claim.

I do not make the claim that God definitely does not exist

That would be agnosticism.

.... but in absence of any evidence of God's existence, the null hypothesis says that God does not exist.

And now you've ventured into atheism.

Just like how saying you don't believe in unicorns is not making a positive claim, in the face of the stunning lack of evidence for their existence.

Which has nothing to do with religion.

As an atheist, the burden to prove God's non-existence does not fall on me; there is no such negative burden. The burden to support such a claim lies entirely on those who believe God DOES exist.

That's fine. Understand that that is a belief about the nature of humanity's place in the universe; a belief about religion; a religious belief.

My mistake. Most people who think atheism is a religion tend to belong to one of the major ones themselves.

I'm entirely agnostic, and I really don't care either way. But I know a religious belief when I see one. If someone says that Zeus doesn't exist, that Ahura Mazda doesn't exist, that Yaweh doesn't exist, that Krishna doesn't exist...that's a belief about religion: a religious belief. Staunch atheists try to separate themselves from religion to such an extent that it actually ends up driving them closer insofar as zealotry and metaphysical conviction.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Which is agnosticism. Making the claim that something doesn't exist- atheism- is itself a claim.



That would be agnosticism.



And now you've ventured into atheism.

All degrees of atheism, save the last degree, are agnostic. Unless someone professes to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God definitely cannot and does not exist, that person is agnostic about their belief in the existence of a deity.

This is a very, very small percentage of those who say they are atheists.

I, for one, find the prospect of a deity unnecessary and unfounded. I would be very surprised if we proved one day that a god must exist. That being said, recognizing the statistical argument against the existence of a deity does not automatically mean one makes the positive claim that a god or gods definitely cannot and do not exist.

There is a subtle difference.

Which has nothing to do with religion.

It is a religious belief insofar as it has to do with religion. It is NOT a religious belief in terms of making a claim founded on faith, as are all beliefs in all religions. Atheism is not a religion. I do not have faith that god does not exist; one cannot say that I believe god does not exist and be arguing in good faith. That is a perversion of logic.

I'm entirely agnostic, and I really don't care either way. But I know a religious belief when I see one. If someone says that Zeus doesn't exist, that Ahura Mazda doesn't exist, that Yaweh doesn't exist, that Krishna doesn't exist...that's a belief about religion: a religious belief. Staunch atheists try to separate themselves from religion to such an extent that it actually ends up driving them closer insofar as zealotry and metaphysical conviction.

I am staunchly atheist like you could call a supporter of gay rights "staunchly gay". By supporting gay rights, that doesn't automatically make one gay. Likewise, campaigning for the repeal of religious discrimination from public and government entities does not mean I automatically believe there is no god. If someone wants to make a faulty argument trying to prove that god exists, and I call them out on it, I am not "proselytizing a faith in atheism". And yes, people who do exactly that do indeed exist. But there is a fine distinction between those beating back the hordes of religious intruders into their lives and those who actively want you to have faith in the idea there is no god. The latter are actually quite rare.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

All degrees of atheism, save the last degree, are agnostic. Unless someone professes to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God definitely cannot and does not exist, that person is agnostic about their belief in the existence of a deity.

This is a very, very small percentage of those who say they are atheists.

Then they're using it wrong. They're agnostic. They don't know. That's not what atheism is. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

I, for one, find the prospect of a deity unnecessary and unfounded. I would be very surprised if we proved one day that a god must exist. That being said, recognizing the statistical argument against the existence of a deity does not automatically mean one makes the positive claim that a god or gods definitely cannot and do not exist.

So, agnostic.

It is a religious belief insofar as it has to do with religion. It is NOT a religious belief in terms of making a claim founded on faith, as are all beliefs in all religions. Atheism is not a religion. I do not have faith that god does not exist; one cannot say that I believe god does not exist and be arguing in good faith. That is a perversion of logic.

If they're arguing that no god exists, that's a claim founded on faith. About a metaphysical condition. That's religious. That's a religious belief.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Then they're using it wrong. They're agnostic. They don't know. That's not what atheism is. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

I do not claim to know definitively, for sure, that a god does not exist.

That being said, the likelyhood of one existing is not very good. For all intents and purposes, I find it much more likely that gods/a god does not exist, simply because there is no need for one to exist nor any evidence pointing to one existing.

This is what you call agnostic atheism.

Calling something smart money does not mean you definitively, absolutely, positively believe that thing to be true. For example, when I play poker and my opponent needs one specific card to beat me, the odds are very good that they are not going to draw that card. If they do draw that card, they beat the odds... but at no point did I consider that draw an impossibility.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but you are making it sound like atheism equals a positive claim (that god does not exist). If this is the case, you are conflating gnostic atheism with all forms of atheism.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I do not claim to know definitively, for sure, that a god does not exist.

That being said, the likelyhood of one existing is not very good. For all intents and purposes, I find it much more likely that gods/a god does not exist, simply because there is no need for one to exist nor any evidence pointing to one existing.

This is what you call agnostic atheism.

Calling something smart money does not mean you definitively, absolutely, positively believe that thing to be true. For example, when I play poker and my opponent needs one specific card to beat me, the odds are very good that they are not going to draw that card. If they do draw that card, they beat the odds... but at no point did I consider that draw an impossibility.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but you are making it sound like atheism equals a positive claim (that god does not exist). If this is the case, you are conflating gnostic atheism with all forms of atheism.

That is the case. I find gnostic atheism to be the only true version. Everything else is agnostic.

There's only three options:

1- "Yes, I believe in one or more gods." Theist.
2- "I don't know. I think probably _____, but I really dunno." Agnostic.
3- "No, there is no god." Atheist.

Of course you can argue there are differences in each and of course that's true. No one person, however, is ever going to be exactly alike another, so we might as well just say there's several billion different convictions about religion and stop categorizing it at all.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

That is the case. I find gnostic atheism to be the only true version. Everything else is agnostic.

There's only three options:

1- "Yes, I definitively believe in one or more gods and I think I can prove it." gnosticTheist.

Yes, I believe there is probably a god, but I cannot prove it so I don't definitively know. Agnostic Theist

2- "I don't know. I think probably _____, but I really dunno and it may be that we simply cannot know" Agnostic.

There probably is not a god, because there is neither evidence for one nor a need for one. In the absence of any evidence, the most likely is not one. Agnostic atheist.

3- "No, there is no god, and I think I can prove it." Gnostic Atheist

 

[OldWorldOrder]

1- "Yes, I definitively believe in one or more gods and I think I can prove it." gnosticTheist.

Yes, I believe there is probably a god, but I cannot prove it so I don't definitively know. Agnostic Theist

2- "I don't know. I think probably _____, but I really dunno and it may be that we simply cannot know" Agnostic.

There probably is not a god, because there is neither evidence for one nor a need for one. In the absence of any evidence, the most likely is not one. Agnostic atheist.

3- "No, there is no god, and I think I can prove it." Gnostic Atheist

As I said, if you want to start cutting it down like that, there's literally 3 billion different types of answers, and now the purpose of categorizing them has become absurd.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

As I said, if you want to start cutting it down like that, there's literally 3 billion different types of answers, and now the purpose of categorizing them has become absurd.

There is also absurdity in labeling everyone who says they are an atheist as one whose lack of belief is somehow on par with someone else's belief. They are not the same thing.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

There is also absurdity in labeling everyone who says they are an atheist as one whose lack of belief is somehow on par with someone else's belief. They are not the same thing.

No one has "proof" of anything, so, again, there's only three types of people:

1- People who think they know god exists.
2- People who think they don't know one way or another.
3- People who think they know no god exists.

You could say there's a fourth type, those that don't know that such a concept of god even exists. But they're obviously not reading this.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

No one has "proof" of anything, so, again, there's only three types of people:

1- People who think they know god exists.
2- People who think they don't know one way or another.
3- People who think they know no god exists.

You could say there's a fourth type, those that don't know that such a concept of god even exists. But they're obviously not reading this.

To claim the positive belief, one needs proof.

One does not need proof to NOT have the positive belief. This is the difference.

If a person says they believe god exists (either gnostically or agnostically), there must be a reason why they believe this. Conversely, if a person says they do not believe, THIS DOES NOT MEAN they actively believe the opposite and are making their own positive claim to the contrary. There is simply no reason to believe. This state is not called disbelief, anymore than someone who doesn't believe in unicorns is said to have an active disbelief in unicorns. They simply have seen no evidence or reason as to why unicorns must exist. The null hypothesis in this case states that they don't; it's the job of the unicorn believer to overcome the null hypothesis.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

To claim the positive belief, one needs proof.

No, one doesn't. It's a belief.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

No, one doesn't. It's a belief.

You need some reason to believe. "Proof" doesn't apply to belief, although proof can be a reason to believe. However, to make a claim, one does need proof. Otherwise it is an easily dismissable claim and as such is worthless.

If I have no reason to believe... that is NOT the same as a belief to the contrary, and I DO NOT NEED proof to NOT believe.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You need some reason to believe. "Proof" doesn't apply to belief, although proof can be a reason to believe. However, to make a claim, one does need proof. Otherwise it is an easily dismissable claim and as such is worthless.

If I have no reason to believe... that is NOT the same as a belief to the contrary, and I DO NOT NEED proof to NOT believe.

No, you don't need a reason to believe anything. Nor do you need proof to make a claim: I claim that I believe I'll have sex with Jessica Alba tonight. I can't prove to you that I believe that. There is no proof of a belief.

All these extremely arbitrary rules to get out of saying that atheism is a religious belief. Downright silly at this point.

You don't need proof to believe something. You don't need proof to not believe something. Proof has nothing to do with belief.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

No, you don't need a reason to believe anything. Nor do you need proof to make a claim: I claim that I believe I'll have sex with Jessica Alba tonight. I can't prove to you that I believe that. There is no proof of a belief.

All these extremely arbitrary rules to get out of saying that atheism is a religious belief. Downright silly at this point.

You don't need proof to believe something. You don't need proof to not believe something. Proof has nothing to do with belief.

Actually believing you will have sex with Jessica Alba tonight is what is silly.

I can't prove you don't believe it.... but come on, you would need a reason to believe it in order to believe it! And I have no reason to believe you actually believe this will happen. If you were SURE you were going to sleep with her tonight, you'd either have to know her already and be going out with her tonight, or you a rapist, and I don't have any reason to believe you are either of those things.

The entire reason why you don't believe all AA batteries are filled with nougat is because you have no reason to believe batteries are filled with nougat. ...unless, you do believe this... in which case, I'd like to know the reason why you believe this.

If you are going to make the claim that all AA batteries are filled with nougat, you are going to have to have some kind of evidence or else your claim is easily dismissable. As in, it's a worthless claim unless you back it up. This is the difference between belief (just needs a reason) and a claim (needs evidence).

You are trying to say that beliefs don't even need reasons. This is just ridiculously incorrect. I didn't say they have to be good reasons. For example, you might have been raised to worship the Greek pantheon of gods, which would be a reason to believe in them, but not a good reason. There has to be some impetus to cause a belief. Beliefs don't just magic themselves out of thin air.

For example, I do not believe Pluto is made from goat cheese. You see, I have no reason to believe this.

Some people do believe that the airlines and the government conspire together to spray the population with "chemtrails" for some unknown purpose. They probably believe this because of some horrendous psuedoscience coupled with a general distrust of authority. Not good reasons, but they didn't just come up with the idea all on their own. Hell, the first guy who came up with this conspiracy theory probably saw some (easily explainable) contrails at altitude, didn't know what they were, and then came up with a cockamamy bull**** story rather than learn about atmospheric sciences. See? A reason, but not a good reason.

However, when these guys make truth-claims that the government is spraying the populous from aircraft, they put up evidence trying to support their claim. Their evidence is BS and doesn't withstand even a cursory review, so their claim is bunk. The evidence they use to support their claim can be used as reasons for why they themselves believe it, but the reasons they believe can be entirely separate from the evidence they try to use to support their claim. See the difference?

When adapted to a religious argument, those that make the claim have something to prove (i.e. those that claim god exists). Those that do not believe god exists are not forwarding an active truth-claim of their own; rather, in the absence of a reason to believe, there is no reason for the belief and thus no belief. Just like those that don't believe unicorns exist. They are not making the claim that "Unicorns do not exist and I CAN PROVE IT". They don't have to. Their belief in unicorns just started at "zero" and remained there.

 

[ginwood]

if you understood what words mean, you'd know that it is on he who asserts the positive to show proof, and religionists can do that. So they try to make us "prove a negative", which can't be done and is quite well understood to be an underhaned, a-hole sort of argument. Atheism is not a belief system, but Objectivism IS,and we are atheistic.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Actually believing you will have sex with Jessica Alba tonight is what is silly.

I can't prove you don't believe it.... but come on, you would need a reason to believe it in order to believe it!

No, you wouldn't. Certainly not a reason that is acceptable to a random third party. That's what you're basing your entire argument on, and it's just not true.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

No, you wouldn't. Certainly not a reason that is acceptable to a random third party. That's what you're basing your entire argument on, and it's just not true.

Do you believe you will have sex with Jessica Alba tonight?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Do you believe you will have sex with Jessica Alba tonight?

Yes, because I'm handsome and dashing and my mom says I'm a catch and I hear she's in Baltimore tonight.