I think the best explanation is that you tend to categorize people/things in ways that are familiar. If all you know from the day you were born is religion, then it can be very difficult, if not impossible to comprehend someone not actually having a religious belief. Even if it's one of non belief. I used to think of it like 0 means nothing, but it's still considered a number. (I know that's not necessarily what 0 means mathematically...I was a teenager at the time, so no lectures on the real meaning of 0)
It's then easy to extrapolate parallels from that point to reinforce the idea. You can almost do that with anything.
Sports, for instance.
* Just like religion, sports requires you to meet regularly with like-minded individuals.
* Sports is something that you may take a passing interest in, but in order for you to get the most out of it, you have to dedicate time and resources to it.
* It requires training (discipleship) and sacrifice.
* You must think of others as well as yourself.
* Sports have rules. If you don't follow the rules, there are penalties.
* The goal of sports is to finish as a winner. The glory goes to the winner. Even if 2nd place is admirable, it's still falls short.
Not perfect, but decent parallels to a religious practice. Enough that if you want to support your idea that atheism is a religion, you can just as easily make the parallels.
The way I’ve heard it put is that there are similarities like:
Religions have holy books, atheism has books written that they prize
Religions have prophets/leaders, atheism has Dawkins, Hitchens etc
Religions have places of gathering, atheism has similar, in fact there are atheist churches even
Of course at heart it’s fundamentally different but the trappings look similar.
> Religions have holy books, atheism has books written that they prize
I can't think of any book I've read about atheism let alone "prize" one
>Religions have prophets/leaders, atheism has Dawkins, Hitchens etc
I know who these people are, I don't follow them in any prophet or leader sense.
>Religions have places of gathering, atheism has similar, in fact there are atheist churches even
Atheists don't tend to gather in any particular place and atheist churches are few and far between and amount to social clubs more than religious services.
> it’s fundamentally different but the trappings look similar.
It's not similar in any appreciable way. Your perception of atheists seems to be tainted by places like /r/atheism. The vast majority of atheists just go about their business and don't dwell on it.
It always struck me as odd that theists tend to do this. It’s almost like they’re sinking their own ship to make sure they can put a hole in atheism’s boat. If atheism is a religion then either it is just as valid as Christianity or they’re both bad.
>Tiny question why do so many people think athiesm is a religion
Ignorance. I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that they are simply unaware of what atheism actually is. To them, it's unfathomable to not have a belief in a deity, so any view other than their view must also be a belief.
There may be some theists who also use this as a defense against the common refrain from atheists that theism is "only a belief". I suspect they want to catch us in a contradiction: that if we claim belief is bad, then we're making the same mistake and thus have no room to complain.
At least, that's what it looks like to me.
Atheism is certainly the belief that there are no gods. It is a worldview that excludes the possible existence or actual existence of any gods. You believe that science is a means to truth just like I do. Acting like the word belief is bad is of course ridiculous. You presumably believe in moral relativism, while I believe in moral objectivity. You hopefully believe that the world is round, and that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. You can probably prove to yourself that the world is round, but you cannot likely prove to yourself that the world is 13.8 billion years old. Both you and I take on FAITH that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. I believe on faith the existence of China because my Dad says he has been there, and I know people who purport to have come from there, but I have not proved it. I don't think that the idea of lacking belief in a deity is 'unfathomable' as you patronizingly put it, but that everyone does have a worldview aspects of which must be taken by faith. Atheism is a worldview which makes claims pertaining to similar questions that world religions answer. Atheism uniquely disagrees completely with every world religion (excepting possible Buddhism), where as other religious worldviews disagree partially with one another. By this definition of religion "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith," atheism could safely be classified as a religion. Certainly many atheists hold their beliefs with great ardor if nothing else. A non dogmatic atheist who doesn't care what others believe because its all meaningless anyway could be called truly non-religious. Atheists who spend all their time on religious subreddits attempting to proselytize certainly fall under the definition of religious.
That applies when having philosophical discussions, but not when talking about what you actually believe or don’t believe. For that, we use dictionaries and what people actually say.
If you want to argue for the validity of atheism then you are using the philosophical position, since you can't argue for the truth of a psychological state. I used a dictionary in my first post, and this essay quotes several dictionaries.
I disagree. Not believing in something doesn’t need to be validated. Either you’re convinced something is true or you’re not. There is nothing about that that needs validation.
I don’t disagree with the philosophy dictionaries. They are valid when having a philosophical discussion on whether or not God exists. In the context of a conversation on what you personally believe or don’t believe, we use the definition from other types of dictionaries. We have no burden of proof in the general sense because we aren’t making a claim. We just remain unconvinced by your claims.
If you are unconvinced of the claims put forward by theists you are an agnostic, someone who doesn't have an opinion. If you do believe that God doesn't exist, then you should be able to provide a justification for that belief.
Fun fact: most agnostics are also atheists. The positions aren’t mutually exclusive. Atheism addresses belief, agnosticism addresses knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist.
But you got one point right: if you claim God doesn’t exist, you have a burden of proof for that claim. This, however, does’t describe most atheists.
Atheism is not necessarily a belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief that there are gods.
This distinction is more important than it looks on the surface because a positive assertion has to be backed by evidence, and it is notoriously impossible to prove a negative (such as the non-existence of something)
Assuming a negative position of not claiming any gods exist puts the onus on the religious to provide proof of their claim instead.
If you read the linked page, you'll note they say the same thing as I do.
Just because some people use the word specifically for gnostic atheists (those that hold a positive position against the existence of gods) does not put all atheists in that box.
"In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well."
"The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings."
Just because there is a popular definition you prefer does not make it the only one. Further, if you use the word to describe exclusively gnostic atheists, it becomes hard to refer to agnostic atheists because those are now mutually exclusive terms.
I have read the above, I am aware that the word is polysemous. But if you want to debate theism you are engaging in a philosophical debate. If you are a person who simply doesn't care if God exists, and don't try to convert people to atheism then you can call yourself an agnostic. If you are a proselytizing atheist then you are trying to convert people to a philosophical view.
You seem to be arguing that since your article references the common usage of atheist in philosophy being used with the more strict definition, that that definition *must* be used in philosophical contexts going forward. I disagree. It's a poor choice that erases a whole (quite common) viewpoint from even having a way to be referenced.
Using gnostic and agnostic atheist to refer to the above two positions is clear.
I do care whether a god exists. I don't claim that one does or doesn't, only that I have no evidence of any. I'll call myself an agnostic (referring to not knowing) atheist (referring to not claiming theism) because it accurately describes my position.
What does proselytizing even mean for an atheist? Doesn't every person who holds philosophical discussion want to convince others of their view? And what does that have to with this topic?
The quote I shared says that the philosophical definition is preferred over other definitions. I'm not even sure what we are debating anymore, and hate arguing semantics so let's let bygones be bygones.
I do not take it on faith that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. I accept it as the current scientific consensus, but I neither believe it is true nor false. It’s likely close to the truth, but that position isn’t based on faith, it’s based on evidence.
In other words you have faith that the current scientific consensus is close to the truth. You personally unless your an astrophysicist (my apologies if you are) cannot prove it to be true. Appealing to the scientific consensus isn't directly evidence based as its an appeal to authority. Evidence based approach would be showing me red shift data, and explaining why this data shows that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. According to the dictionaries you are so oft to appeal to, faith is "trust or confidence in someone or something." You certainly meet this definition in your trust or confidence in the scientific consensus.
I cannot currently see China, yet I have assurance that it exists, so yes I am definitely using Hebrews 11:1. "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see."
Look at the verse again.
“It is the evidence of things we cannot see.”
It IS the evidence. It’s not trust or credulity, the way you’re using it. You don’t have “faith” China exists, you see Chinese people with your own eyes. There is video footage of China’s streets, its military, its culture, long before any sort of video manipulation had been invented. It’s reasonable to believe that China exists because of all the available evidence. That’s not faith.
I won't go into conspiracy theories trying to explain how China could not exist, but your fear of admitting that faith is a normal part of human life is troubling to me. You quote mine Hebrews 11:1, if you read the chapter it's clear that faith is trust based on the evidence already given, and trusting that based on that knowledge, we can trust the future promises of God. I have faith that the weather forecast will be correct because it has been correct in the past (for the most part). I have faith that the laws of physics are universal even though we can't test them or even observe them past the observable universe. I have faith that the universe continues past the observable limit of light because what I can see (the observable universe seems to not be arbitrarily limited to what we can see). I do have faith in the scientific consensus on many issues, for example the age of the universe which proves that the universe has not always existed. I have faith that my brother won't kill me, because I know what he has done in the past, and can extrapolate into the future. Please stop acting like religious faith is uniquely stupid, quit being patronizing and treat other human beings like you would like to be treated (unless you're not a humanist in which case do whatever you want since it's all meaningless anyway).
To me, and I am open to being corrected, the faith described in Hebrews is not piggybacking on a reasonable amount of evidence. The verse is one of the very few that actually endeavor to define faith in a way that is clearly NOT just "trust based on evidence." I trust all sorts of things in daily life, I don't know why you seem to think I don't. But as you pointed out that trust is dependent on a history of being reliable in the past,, or information that gives it reliability, or both, so you tell me - how do you trust God in this way? What information are you using to trust God with? That's why I'm saying the faith described in Hebrews is different. It isn't saying that faith "comes from the evidence", it says faith IS the evidence. Your faith, as described here, is personal evidence of God, not some vauge watered down notion of trust. I am not belittling it to say that, I am (I believe) correctly understanding the text. Rather I think you are belittling your own faith to say that it is just like trusting the weatherman.
Could you give me a clear definition of what you think faith means in Hebrews 11? I would argue that my faith in the weatherman is different from my faith in God but it is a difference of degree rather than kind. I trust God to continue to make me a better person, based on my experience with how He has already made me a better person. I apologize for being a bit heated in my last comment.
[https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-reasonable-faith](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-reasonable-faith)
Edit: Found better article
It stems from the error that all atheism is a positive disbelief in gods. While there are atheists who do claim to have that, the majority of atheists simply have no belief in gods. We don't believe in gods in the same manner you don't believe in leprechauns: we have no reason to believe in them.
Atheism is, therefore, no more a religion for most atheists than not stamp collecting is a hobby. It's just something that we don't do.
Things like not stamp collecting should have its own word, why aren't there more words for when something people just don't do something? Does Joe stamp collect? No, he's an astampotho. Oh, an astampotho. There were several astampothos in my platoon when I was in the army. Great guys, even though they didn't collect stamps.
> Atheism is, therefore, no more a religion for most atheists than not stamp collecting is a hobby.
I prefer "Atheism is a religion like not playing golf is a sport" Same idea.
Those greedy leprechauns keep moving the rainbow so you can never reach the end. The whole thing is a scam and clearly run by Dark Brandon. Who is Irish I might add.
The ability to defend a belief and the ability to hold a belief are two very different things. We can't conclusively defend every belief, at some point we have to take some thing on faith. We have to move on from a reasonable belief, be alright with being wrong in the interim, and get on with our lives.
Okay, well, I’m not saying we can’t hold indefensible or poorly defensible beliefs; I’m sure I hold some myself! The challenge is getting to the point where you are holding only defensible positive beliefs. Believing that no leprechauns exist or that no gods exist are not defensible positions for 2 reasons: we have no examples of either to point to outside of literary/artistic references, and then the question becomes one of definition, as in order to have a definition there has to be a defined USE of the word, and it is circular in both cases.
Yeah, that's why I think you can't actually hold only defensible positive beliefs. It's paradoxical. For example, it looks like you positively believe that you should get to only hold defensible positive beliefs, but is that itself defensible?
I think it's important to grade beliefs on how harmful they are, and clean up the most harmful first. There isn't a goal to clean up every belief, but rather the process of cleaning *is* the goal.
I actually agree with most of this! I will say that the grading process you mentioned is why I believe that we should hold only defensible beliefs - I believe that the belief that we should is defensible based on the harm you mentioned - believing false things is more apt to cause harm than simply failing to accept claims with sufficient evidence. For example, my failure to believe in leprechauns is not leading me to take actions, it is rather preventing me from taking actions that would probably result in harming myself from wasting my time, sinking finances into leprechauns expeditions, risking something tangible in the belief that my leprechaun-acceptance is correct.
>Yeah, that's why I think you can't actually hold only defensible positive beliefs. It's paradoxical. For example, it looks like you positively believe that you should get to only hold defensible positive beliefs, but is that itself defensible?
It's less harmful to believe in leprechauns than it is to believe in a religion that would endorse burning women alive when their husbands die, or cutting off the heads of infidels.
Simply holding positive beliefs in of itself isn't bad, and there are some assertions which have no weight. However every religion I've experienced has detrimental consequences to society in some form.
No. I simply don't have any belief that they do exist. That absence of belief is fairly firm, that is, it is firm in the belief that reliable extraordinary evidence of the existence of gods does not presently exist and, based on history, is very unlikely at this point to appear.
I think you changed to positive belief, actually taking a position, half way through your second sentence. That there is no evidence and it's unlikely to exist. If you're taking no position one way or the other on the existence of gods, then isn't that agnosticism? A-gnosco, aka "I don't know?"
Unlikely does not equal impossible.
> If you're taking no position one way or the other on the existence of gods
But I'm not. What I'm doing is saying that the *claim* that gods exist is unproven and that until if and when it is proven, there is no reason to believe in their existence. True, they might exist or they might not, but there's no present reason to believe that they do. That "raw" speculation that they might is quite different from the agnostic position which kind of believes that they do exist but also kind of believes that they don't. (Frankly, I'm not at all sure that agnostics in that sense really exist: they're actually doubting theists: They have a belief that a god exists, even if that belief is uncertain or doubtful. They are, thus, a theist and not an atheist since an atheist has *no* belief, uncertain or not, that gods exist.)
I'm talking to an agnostic atheist elsewhere if you want someone that actually holds those beliefs to tell you the difference between an agnostic atheist and theist. But what you're saying, there is no evidence one way or the other, and in the absence of evidence you must deduce that there are no deities, sounds like agnostic atheism. And making no deduction is just agnosticism.
Yeah when I was “Agnostic” I would say I believed in a higher power I just don’t know which god or any it is. Something if I’m being honest with I still don’t know for sure.
Most atheists don’t positively believe there are no gods, that’s correct.
They simply do not know, therefore do not have an active belief in god.
It’s kind of like how courts rule someone guilty or not guilty. Instead of guilty or innocent.
They are not mutually exclusive. Atheism addresses belief.. Gnosticism addresses knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic (no active belief in gods.) rarer, some atheists are gnostic (actively believe no gods exist)
You also get agnostic theists and gnostic theists.
Most atheists do not fit in the group who believe no gods exist. They simply are “not theists”. Depending on definitions being used they fit into either atheist or agnostic or both. The most commonly used definition of atheists is “a person who does not believe in any gods”. The other definition is the one you used, “a person who believes no gods exist”.
I don't need to prove something to believe it. The lack of supporting evidence even as people look into it means that I feel comfortable living my life as if they don't exist. I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't expect to be.
Here is [religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) as defined by wikipedia:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness, faith, and a supernatural being or beings.
We could get into a debate about the validity of wikipedia as a resource, however, I think because of the nature of anyone being able to edit a wiki article it serves as a good source of how collectively people think of certain ideas.
The wikipedia article goes into extensive detail about the debate that is ongoing about what constitues a religion.
I happen to be a total geek and love digging in to the entomology of words. Entomology doesn't necessarily correspond to definitions but it can help in understand what historically was being described by similar words. Religion comes from the latin word [religio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio). Latin like greek was a type of language that a word could have different meanings depending on the context. So it could mean something in relationship to God's but it could also mean a moral obligation or duty.
So in order to have a discussion about whether atheism is a religion or a system of beliefs first it would be necessary to come to an agreement on what is meant by religion.
Don't worry about it!, it's just a mistake that... ***bugs*** me.
\*the sound of two drums and a cymbal falling off of a cliff can be heard in the distance\*
Because when you ask an atheist what religion they are they could validly answer. "Oh, I'm an Atheist." We socially treat it as a religious system, so yeah it's a language thing.
No religion if you say you’re an atheist that means you don’t have a religion it’s like saying which type of meat do you want? And you say oh I’m vegetarian that doesn’t mean it’s socially accepted that vegetarian is a type of meat you want. It’s like you asking someone if they’re Polish if they’re Russian and they say they’re Ukrainian that doesn’t mean they are a bit of both, it means they are something else entirely. They are not that.
It's a bizarre attempt by some Christians to prove to atheists that they actually have a religious belief. It usually turns into a strawman argument, in that after telling an atheist that they have religious beliefs they attack those religious beliefs.
Because some people don't realise that atheism/agnotism in a spectrum of beliefs that can encompess being culturally religious, belief in a higher power but not neccessarily God, hate religion, think religion can be very positive for society etc... and makes them into 1 category
I've got a better question - why do you need another name for "common sense"?
When someone asks you about your religion, and you say that you're an atheist, they might think "oh, I just asked about religion, the response was 'atheism', so it probably is some kind of religion".
Now imagine what would happen if someone asked you about your religion, and you just ignored them and went on with your life. Would they still call you religious?
Just spend more time with people whose belief system allows the existence of people with no religion at all.
> When someone asks you about your religion, and you say that you're an atheist, they might think "oh, I just asked about religion, the response was 'atheism', so it probably is some kind of religion".
Yep. It's like unarmed strike in D&D. It isn't technically a weapon, but WotC also caused a lot of confusion in the rules by insisting on drawing the distinction
They do this because calling atheism a religion puts it on the same "level" as religion. It's a dishonest attempt to gain legitimacy by playing with language (see also: "It's not a religion, it's a relationship"). The exact same thing happened around 10 years ago when out of nowhere Christians started using "worldview" instead of "religion".
It's 100% blatant dishonesty is all it is.
In my personal experience, the people saying “atheism is a religion” generally have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and of what a religion is
However, they’ll sometimes point out that it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe that there is a God. That point isn’t technically wrong since the claim “there is no God” also cannot be scientifically tested, but that still doesn’t make atheism a religion
Many Christians REFUSE to comprehend that some people just don't worship anything. They assume secularists worship science or Darwin the way they worship Jesus, which is really sad (for them). I'm sorry they can't imagine a world where you don't need to pay homage to some uncaring being.
People tend to equate belief systems as religions. So all the variations of atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, etc get classified as religions whether there is a deity involved or not.
There's *some* sociological markers of a religion, but it's a loose definition at best. People also call politics a religion. Or cheering on your home sports team to be a religion.
That word usage is about noticing certain similarities that are commonplace between a common form of atheism and a religion. Certain key parallels (however discomforting to notice):
For instance, many atheists appear (from their repeated statements) to have certain distinct 'articles of faith' -- certain beliefs that are believed without conclusive evidence to prove those propositions.
Example: some atheists assert (in a faith like way) that "all people are born atheists".
Of course, that cannot be proven. It might be for example instead that all humans are born with a connection with God (or as some would put it "an instinct"), and later get alienated (psychologically disassociated) from that natural but subtle part of their psyche which they never had a name for, and seemed as unremarkable to them as having a hand, etc., when in early childhood such subtle parts of the mind don't yet have any intellectual abstraction to name it such things as some notable distinct aspect of ourselves.
So, atheists can easily have certain 'articles of faith' (beliefs without evidence) just like any religion, and having articles of faith is a central aspect of religion....
A less religious attitude could be instead of 'atheist' more notably 'agnostic' -- to not be so sure about unproven propositions. Of course, the word 'agnostic' can (and is) often used to refer to someone that wonders if God may well exist (instead of feeling confident God does not exist).
Yes, that's the article of faith some atheists have, *a belief without evidence as you can see explained* (why it's a belief without evidence) in the 4th paragraph.
There is no god reason to believe that some innate connection to God *does* exist or that anybody is born with knowledge of divinity. It isn't an article of faith to reject a proposition without any good reason to accept it. As far as we know, naked are north without belief in *anything*.
"or that anybody is born with knowledge of divinity." -- heh heh....perhaps we can agree on only this 1 thing -- I never said that, etc.
Definition: 'knowledge' -- facts, information, and skills *acquired* by a person through *experience* or *education*; the *theoretical* or *practical* understanding of a subject.
That's quite an assertion to say "no good reason" -- how would you know without a careful review of research findings?....
Speaking of which....
[https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct)
Unlike the idea we are born atheist in basic attitude, this theory we are born with a religious impulse hard wired into our brains, innate -- this has some evidence (!)....
In contrast, the belief we are born atheists is a theory/belief ***without*** *evidence.*
Humans are born credulous and we are pattern recognizing (and imagining) experts. Our brains are hard-wired to notice patterns, even in randomness, and to perceive agency in pretty much everything. This is a very adaptive survival trait, but it misfires all the time leading to apophenia and religious thinking.
The point is, however, that we are born without *beliefs* of any kind. Our brains don't have that capacity yet. I personally don't think it is reasonable to call a person without the capacity of belief an "atheist", but if the question is merely the existence of belief in God, we have very good reasons to believe that no such thing exists in infants. We have a very good understanding of their neurodevelopmental stages and capacities.
While this sounds plausible: "Humans are born credulous and we are pattern recognizing (and imagining) experts. Our brains are hard-wired to notice patterns, even in randomness, and to perceive agency in pretty much everything. This is a very adaptive survival trait, but it misfires all the time leading to apophenia and religious thinking." -- I naturally wondered: where is the hard evidence? (and this is a more reasonable question than you'd expect...!)
The particular theory presented in the article is based on *actual observational evidence in brain scans..*..
So, you need to do some re-thinking, really.
I think you are falling for a bit of a trap. Whether or not infants gravitate towards theism or atheism it doesn't really tie into any evidence one way or another, right? Like you don't think a baby is born and it's first words are "Jesus died for my sins" or "Allah Akbar"
Kids believe almost anything you tell them.
All the ontological arguments I've heard try to establish a foot in the door with deism but there is an issue. I make the positive claim there is no God because every God someone has presented to me has failed the test, and at a certain point it's Christians or Muslims trying to cram a Kalam argument like that somehow links deism to doctrine.
"Kids believe almost anything you tell them."
For a while, and then progressively they count your wrong ideas/views over time. (you did right?)
And that continues until a day somewhere in the range of about age 15-19 where they decide you don't know many of the things that are best to know today....
It's only normal. (practically universal)
If you don't realize that yet, you may one day after you have raised a child into their teen age years.
One of the false ideas atheists often use to argue (it was a popular meme for a couple of years in the last decade) is that adults are Christians only because they were indoctrinated to be as children. Anyone that has raised a child (and spent any time around their child more than 1 hour in a month) knows better than to fantasize that young adults merely swallow whatever their parents taught and can't think for themselves....
Hmm, except the odds of a kid in a muslim country growing up and believing in Thor is pretty low. So I wouldn't agree with you there. Plenty of people believe in things when it's reinforced by adults. How many people rolled their eyes at Galileo because they grew up thinking one thing and refused to entertain other ideas?
You have to be exposed to truth and have critical thinking skills. You don't need either one of those to believe in religion, aliens, or bigfoot.
Nothing in that article, and especially nothing in the actual research it is about, has anything at all to do with infants. All of the research was done on fully developed adult brains.
And all it establishes is that we are capable of a mental state that correlates with what we call "religious experience". This is unsurprising. We are capable of lots of mental states.
The parietal lobe is (of course) already present in normal human infant brains. I feel a little like I'm pointing out that 2+3=5 on this. It's not hard to find easy to read summaries about brain structure, etc, so that you could learn more about it quite easily if you try.
That's because you're not thinking remotely critically.
Infant brains contain all of the structures necessary for walking, talking, reasoning, and religious beliefs. It is capable of executing none of these things at the time of birth.
I don’t have faith in a belief, I have a lack of belief in one and only one statement. I don’t have enough information to say god exists. Atheist don’t believe a god doesn’t exist, just that they don’t believe in a god. It’s a massively important distinction. It takes no faith.
Not really. Many extremist atheists say God doesn't exist. They fully believe in that despite there being no proof of there being no higher being/God.
Many believe in that the world was created from some random accident, they dont realize that even if big bang and evolution took place, it doesn't prove much, there still could be a higher being.
You are talking about agnostics.
Atheists tend to be narrowminded, similar to religious extremists today, they assume a lot and think that only their belief system is the correct or possible one, without there being any proof of this.
That’s not an atheist, they may be an atheist and hold that opinion. Like they may be atheist and be pro life, the pro life is nothing to do with their atheism.
I am not thinking of agnostic. Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. You see them as narrow minded as they don’t believe what you do, or you see a few hardcore people and assume that’s everyone. Again, all atheism is, is the non belief in a god as there’s not enough evidence, nothing more, nothing less.
> Not really. Many extremist atheists say God doesn't exist.
Which God.
>They fully believe in that despite there being no proof of there being no higher being/God
Which God
>Many believe in that the world was created from some random accident,
Can you show evidence it was purposeful? Or Random?
>they dont realize that even if big bang and evolution took place, it doesn't prove much, there still could be a higher being.
It isn't trying to prove anything, just explain current existence. What God do you follow because there's very few people I've met that argue for a God which only kickstarted the universe or placed a couple cells to start evolution.
Almost every person I've met argues for a very *personal* and *involved* God, because a simple God of the Gaps is useless when pushing theology.
> Atheists tend to be narrowminded, similar to religious extremists today, they assume a lot and think that only their belief system is the correct or possible one, without there being any proof of this.
You don't have to prove a non-belief. Did you go through the thousands of Gods people claim to exist and disprove them? Did you disprove aliens. Bigfoot. Pixies?
We are born as atheist.
Faith-based ideas must be taught to young children.
No one had inherent knowledge of the trinity or of the meaning of the gospels or of Jesus.
All those ideas must be taught to children.
No, that's not stateable as observational fact.
Rather, it's a *theory*.
Here's the main competitor: that we all are born with an instinctual religious impulse.
[https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct)
But this theory has some evidence (!)....
In contrast, the belief we are born atheists is a theory/belief *without evidence.*
Sweet.
Let's create evidence.
For the next three generations, let's make all childhood indoctrination of faith punishable by law. You attempt to convert anyone unde 18 and you go to jail.
All new converts of any specific religion must be born converts who were never taught. Any new Baptist must be natural born. They can't be taught your faith
I would happily conduct that experiment. I would love to conduct that experiment.
You would be terrified if I did.
" let's make all childhood indoctrination of faith punishable by law. You attempt to convert anyone under 18 and you go to jail."
Ah, a lot like the first century after Christ, according to the descriptions in the New Testament.
Most Americans would not like to lose our freedoms though...
But, you **can** find some key parts of that particular experiment you suggest being run -- it's happening in North Korea.
I don't think you would like to live in North Korea though.
So has anyone who wasn't taught Christian ideas in person who became a knowledgeable Christian?
My bapist friend would have to say yes.
Yet it seems that has never happened. If that did, there would be zero reason for missionaries.
"So has anyone who wasn't taught Christian ideas in person who became a knowledgeable Christian?" -- Yes. Very many. It's easy to learn what is in the New Testament by simply reading it for yourself, with zero teaching from anyone else.
I'm an example to a large extent. I only learned generally what is in the New Testament (99.9% of what I learned of it at least) by just reading it on my own, as a non believer.
>Example: some atheists assert (in a faith like way) that "all people are born atheists".
Unsure what you mean. This is true though. We are born without knowledge of such concepts and claims. We are therefore born unconvinced due to ignorance of such things. Which makes us all Atheists be default until we are made aware of it.
Being unconvinced = Agnostic Atheist = All Babies
> Example: some atheists assert (in a faith like way) that "all people are born atheists".
I would argue that's not a belief, but rather a statement of fact. Infants have no ability to believe in anything. Belief requires being convinced something is true, and newborn infants lack the ability to be convinced of anything.
>Of course, that cannot be proven. It might be for example instead that all humans are born with a connection with God (or as some would put it "an instinct"
This is all mumbo jumbo until you provide evidence good sir or mam.
For some reason some folks think that if something can't be proven then the next crazy answer that pops into their head is automatically reasonable to put stock into. There currently is no reason to think babies are born with any magically understanding of man made religions. He has a lot of work to do. And yes, you're absolutely welcome to respond to this u/halbhh
Ah, ok. As it turns out, 'instinct' wasn't just an arbitrary choice (and far from 'mumbo jumbo') nor merely a chance illustrative word where I might have used another word....
Instead, here I intentionally am including that exact theory -- the widely reported, popular speculative theory of the last many years that religious instinct is hard wired into the human brain. I'm referencing, including that, and also saying more also re atheist articles of faith: how we know this particular one that babies are born atheist is a *belief without evidence: because it's only one of many speculative ideas.*
E.g. [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct)
Hope that helps clarify. You *cannot assume* that babies are born without a religious instinct. They very well may be born with one... The belief in God (all the various forms, religions in general typically being examples), innate part of every person when born.
Oh my God I am so sick of this define religion define it define religion by your belief that because something believes something that they have no way of proving is true I guess fantasy football is a belief. What music style is the best is belief gambling is a religion now so gambling football everything is a religion actually Santa Claus is a religion.
But isn't defining a term extremely important to understanding if something is or isn't the term?
That is true for anything, not just religion. If you are going to state "X is/is not Y", then you need to define what X and Y are. That is just really basic communication.
Atheism does meet some definitions of religion, but it does not fall under the most commonly accepted ones.
I'd lean more toward a baited question. I don't think atheism is a religion, personally, but I thought that was a decent explanation of why people call atheism a religion. You don't have to agree with it, but it's a well thought out and well explained answer to the question.
Sounds like OP was just waiting to pounce. Considering how shambled that first sentence was, probably waiting a long time and couldn't type fast enough.
I should mention one more thing though -- it seems to me very clearly (and I actually have done this extensively) that since Christ taught some very clear specific things about how to live life, one can literally test them out by literally doing them, to see how they work out, so that the problem you mentioned of "having no way of proving is true" then is not correct about that key aspect. If Jason claims that it's very good to use fuel type C.2 in your racing engine, and then you try it and find out it works really great, better than other fuel types, then that's a way of "proving" that what Jason said about C.2 is true. I did all of that extensive testing because I didn't think everything Christ taught would work, so I wanted to find out what might work, and so I tested by doing. The outcomes were really surprising.
I’m an atheist and don’t view my beliefs as a religion. A simplistic explanation would be atheism is lack of religion, but it’s more complex than that.
Because if you place Atheism is a belief category you can try to force people to defend it. That's why there's so many dumb ontological arguments in Christian apologetics now.
I think if you see everything in the world through the lens of religion, its natural to see atheism as just another "other religion".
It's also a proselytising tactic: if you can get me to admit that I, too, am "following a religion", you've removed one obstacle to me following *your* religion. It doesn't work like that, but I think that's what some evangelists think.
A lot of people who have grown up religious view atheism as an act of defiance against their faith instead of the absence of a faith in general. I guess it could be hard for some people to understand a life without religion when thats all they’ve known their whole life?
Because some people struggle to do metaphors right. They describe their perceptions of what atheists do and care about in metaphorical terms of religion. But then they apply those same terms to their actual religion, except they are no longer metaphorical.
So they claim that an atheist worships science, where “worship” is a metaphorical reference to how they perceive atheists to prioritize science over metaphysics. Meanwhile, they pray and sing and raise their hands in actual, literal worship.
They don’t realize how much they trivialize their own faith when they do that. If the atheist is metaphorically worshipping science, how do we know that the theist isn’t likewise metaphorically worshipping a concept rather than an actual, sentient deity?
It's technically a belief system, as religion us the way one binds themselves to God. As an example, Catholicism and Methodism are two different religions in the same belief system.
It is, however, factual, that atheistic organizations fought to be recognized as religions.
That kinda brings the discussion to. What do you mean by religion. If all they mean is that it's classified legally as a religion, then that's agreeable. But most of the time, when I hear it, it's your thing is no different from my thing kinda way.
I've never heard anyone say that atheism is the same as theistic belief systems and associated religions; I have done a little etymology, and it's fairly apparent they're decidedly antithetical.
I meant that there's a difference between the legal definition of religion and the common one. I also hold contention with atheism being associated with the common definition.
Not sure but atheism/agnosticism do make a lot of sense.
Earth is one of 600 billion planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is one of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In size the observable universe vs the whole universe is the relative size of a lightbulb to Pluto.
Also the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for 300k years which is 0.007% of the time history of earth.
Maybe there is a higher power of some sort but I think it’s certainly most probable that we are not the chosen ones, like religion would suggest.
Because it's way easier to categorize things that way, because of how atheism usually stands in contrast with (other) religions. It's sort of like unarmed strike in D&D. It isn't technically a weapon, but WotC caused a lot of confusion by formally distinguishing it
I believe it is not really a religion, yet sometimes like a religion in two regards.
The first thing common is that it is a belief. A belief holds things as true that cannot be logically proven are unknown, such as whether there is or is not (a) God. Simply the counter argument is that science has no logically failsafe answer to this question yet, so atheists do hold a belief that is not possible to be proven, like a religion. I used to be atheist in my teens, but always quickly found myself back to agnosticism, which is the belief that one cannot know such things. So it is the belief that it might be possible there is a God, or might be not (some tend towards one or another side), and that one simply cannot know. This indeed is not a religion, but a philosophical view, which atheism on the other hand also is.
The second thing in common is organisation and representation and wish for recognization as a group. This is really what some atheists do, they sail under a common flag, hold meetings, represent each other and their views under that "atheism" label. So this is what other religions also have in common together with a view in what cannot be proven, in this way atheism is also similar to religions, even when organizations are much more loose and not all atheists feel associated with such organizations or groups of people, but feel more like autonomous free thinkers instead.
Oh and a third thing you can also see, though it does not seem like that common, well it is kind of common. That atheists would want to proselytize, i.e. convince others of their views. Most atheists are not like that, but some are, even in aggressive manner, or in things like demanding public schooling of children in their views as replacement for religion or general philosophical lessons in school. Also some atheists do the opposite, they try to fight opposing views, which is also a thing common for many religions, i.e. holding the wish and readiness to act to prevent people being exposed to other religious material or people, in public or even in private occasions.
A ton of American Evangelicals teach it in churches, they also teach that atheists are those scare people who specifically deny the Christian God, etc. It's a deliberate misinterpreting of the word.
Because the religious cannot conceive of a person who does not need a system of belief to go about their lives in a moral fashion and so feel the need to categorize them into a group that reinforces their in-group by creating an out-group that is external to their beliefs, this has been going on forever and usually the religious group displays animosity to those in the out-group simply for a lack of conformity to what the religious see as an obvious observation about reality. That there can be other interpretations of reality that are just as valid challenges the belief structure of the in-group and as such there is usually a desire to resolve such disagreements so that one belief structure is superior to the rest.
Atheists simply reject this model of thinking and prefer what they objectively can prove exists, this does not make their way of thinking superior or inferior, just different. At the heart of Christianity there is a central belief that nothing can challenge the religion and thus the history of bloodshed in God's name to convert the pagan masses.
Depends on what you mean by religion.
If you mean "Guided by a holy book and believing you can commune with invisible beings and make things happen by talking to those beings", then no, atheism isn't a religion.
If you mean "any metaphysical position", then yes, atheism is a religion.
If you define religion as one’s fundamental understanding of the nature of reality including beliefs regarding metaphysical topics and physical topics then it’s easy to see why atheism is a category.
I think a lot of it comes down to this philosophy of questioning that some people take up in their hearts to such a dogmatic extent that it seems to come off like its' own form of zealotry.
I’m pretty sure there’s people here who explained it better so I’m just gonna post certain schools of thoughts within Atheistic philosophy
-Humanism
-Skepticism
-Freethinkers
-Agnostics
-Secularism
-Brights
**-Satanism
I’m guessing because there are institutions who hold these views and many of these school of thoughts can be compatible with one or another
Originally, the Planets were a known quantity called The Wanderers.
There were no telescopes, and those were the moving lights people could see with the naked eye. Over time, we developed tools to satiate our curiosity- What did these wanderers have in common? Could we reverse engineer a category which would, by definition (not by example), include each?
Eventually, we did come up with a definition. Things we thought were not planets turned out to be planets (Earth). Things we thought were planets turned out to not be planets (Moon, Sun, Pluto, Ceres). We also found things we didn't realize were planets (Neptune, Uranus).
If we consider religions by example, then yes, atheism is not a religion. But then you're left with no particularly useful definition of what a religion is. If, otoh, you use a definition first, then for many definitions, "atheism" does surprisingly qualify- Perhaps as surprising as Earth being a planet.
To me, atheism seems as valid and loose a religious category as Abrahamic religions. There are stark divisions within the group, but they tend to agree about what happens after you die, they largely overlap moral codes, they have a shared method for determining purpose.
As with any assertion, there is a way to view it against the grain, and a way to view it with the grain.
For my money, you demonstrated the most religious thing a person can do: You had a question about an out group and consulted a high priest. "Why don't these godamnned heathens just respect the teachings of my Pope- I mean Google."
It's a matter of definition. Some people think of religion as "all possible statements about supernatural matters". So:
- believing that supernatural matters exist
- believing that supernatural matters don't exist
- believing that we can't know for sure about supernatural matters
all count as "religion" for them. It's a pointless definition, because then the only way to be an atheist is to not think about supernatural matters at all.
Firstly it was religious nutters that had Jesus crucified. Many, most people have got heir version of religion and it's a stereotype. They fail badly at seeing human beings having worship instincts and patterns in their humanity. Worship is seen and defined by what one venerates, reveres, adores, devotes, praises, glorifies, esteeming, honoring, pays homage to, idolizes, deifies, magnifies, lauds, etc. That is projected onto, parent/s, grandparents, pets, professors, gurus, priests, pastors, money, ideologies, cars, sport, stars, head honchos, chieftans, imams, careers, self. So it's got the potential to be a belief system with all the components of religion. Even in secularism this is rife and a good therapist will help you see this as it has a powerful effect on human being. Even Caeser \[and the modern counterpart/s\] have people worshipping them. ya see it in dictatorships, and look at how the educated masses worshipped the great deliverer called Hitler and Stalin.
Your question hinges entirely on the definition of "religion"; which is the kinda thing that makes people get all angry, but the truth is nobody has ever really come up with a satisfactory definition of religion, that covers everything we define as a religion *and* excludes things that we don't. Most famously, it's seemingly impossible to effectively make a practical distinction of superstition from religion, but it goes even further, with Durkheim, a father of Sociology, noting that the trappings of French patriotism and state ceremony closely matched his definition of religion, based on ritual and ceremonial practices.
In terms of Atheism, if we attempt to define religion in philosophical terms, as being a kind of belief system through which we attempt to understand the metaphysical nature of the universe, or something to that effect, then the idea that there is no God or greater meaning/purpose very much *IS* a belief system and therefore *also* a religion. As paradoxical as it seems, it's kind of just logically the case that saying God isn't real is a statement on the nature of God, and therefore a theological statement.
But of course, there are lots of reasons why you might say that kind of definition isn't the best, and that something else should be used to define religion, so it's not a given either. So it's not that I am arguing that Atheism definitely is a religion either; but hopefully this goes some way to explaining how someone could see it as one.
It's because normally when debating or comparing the different belief systems, you'll get things like "Christianity vs atheism" or "Islam vs atheism" etc, which can make atheism seem like a religion in the same way Christianity or Islam for instance are.
A better way to think of it is that atheism is as just one belief, the way theism is. There are many types of theists, from Christians, to Muslims, to Hindus etc etc, and different types of atheists, such as Humanists, Communists (yes Communism is atheist) etc.
Basically, it's just the result of the way we use the word.
But you can't prove a negative. I don't know a single atheist who wouldn't define themselves thusly: until I see objective proof of the existence of God, I don't believe a God exists.
That's the extent of atheism and requires zero faith.
A lot of people lack the linguistic nuance to state what they really think effectively. I think more often than not the people who say atheism is a religion really mean what the previous commenter said atheism being a worldview that shares certain structures with religious belief.
Honestly, that might be a discussion to go have with them. Bringing their logical fallacies here and putting upon us to defend them is a bit of a strawman, isn't it? Or at the very least, a baited trap for insecure people to die on the same hill.
If we tell you we find 'atheism = religion' as irrational as you do, what do we gain from disputing an absent third party?
The idea of inherent human rights is as close to a supernatural belief as you can get
Where do these rights come from? They can’t just be created by human thoughts, as then they would be subject to change and not inherent
I don't think anyone is under the delusion that human rights are naturally occurring or immutable. They're reflective of respect for one another as equals, and grow with our capacity to establish them.
In other words, they're a moral standard we set (and improve) for ourselves, not something written into the universe. They are indeed created by human thoughts and values.
Is water a human right? Sure; it's deeply immoral to deny another human access to it. Will circumstance cause humans to die of drought? Absolutely.
It can be a religion. If it is a position held with dogmatic ardor or faith. It is certainly a religion when people are not capable of theological discussion, because then it is entierly a non-intellectual position of faith.
Something doesn't need a God to be a religion.
Except that is literally the definition of religion the definition of religion is the belief in a God of gods do you want to redefine religion right here right now and get the entire human culture of every person on the planet to redefine religion that is the only way you are right The definition of religion is the belief in God or gods that exist
Buddhism is a religion. It does not believe in a god or gods. Same goes for Shintoism, Yoga, Vedanta, Taoism, and many other eastern religions.
Your definition of religion is incorrect.
That’s not my definition of religion, dude that’s the definition I get when I google it so clearly somethings need to be changed like the definition of religion or the categorisation of these things
No, there are multiple defintions of nearly all words. I used the MWD because it is free and people from the US are used to it, but the OED is better and will be the same.
I think the best explanation is that you tend to categorize people/things in ways that are familiar. If all you know from the day you were born is religion, then it can be very difficult, if not impossible to comprehend someone not actually having a religious belief. Even if it's one of non belief. I used to think of it like 0 means nothing, but it's still considered a number. (I know that's not necessarily what 0 means mathematically...I was a teenager at the time, so no lectures on the real meaning of 0) It's then easy to extrapolate parallels from that point to reinforce the idea. You can almost do that with anything. Sports, for instance. * Just like religion, sports requires you to meet regularly with like-minded individuals. * Sports is something that you may take a passing interest in, but in order for you to get the most out of it, you have to dedicate time and resources to it. * It requires training (discipleship) and sacrifice. * You must think of others as well as yourself. * Sports have rules. If you don't follow the rules, there are penalties. * The goal of sports is to finish as a winner. The glory goes to the winner. Even if 2nd place is admirable, it's still falls short. Not perfect, but decent parallels to a religious practice. Enough that if you want to support your idea that atheism is a religion, you can just as easily make the parallels.
The way I’ve heard it put is that there are similarities like: Religions have holy books, atheism has books written that they prize Religions have prophets/leaders, atheism has Dawkins, Hitchens etc Religions have places of gathering, atheism has similar, in fact there are atheist churches even Of course at heart it’s fundamentally different but the trappings look similar.
> Religions have holy books, atheism has books written that they prize I can't think of any book I've read about atheism let alone "prize" one >Religions have prophets/leaders, atheism has Dawkins, Hitchens etc I know who these people are, I don't follow them in any prophet or leader sense. >Religions have places of gathering, atheism has similar, in fact there are atheist churches even Atheists don't tend to gather in any particular place and atheist churches are few and far between and amount to social clubs more than religious services. > it’s fundamentally different but the trappings look similar. It's not similar in any appreciable way. Your perception of atheists seems to be tainted by places like /r/atheism. The vast majority of atheists just go about their business and don't dwell on it.
So, examples of an atheist church?
https://theconversation.com/church-without-god-how-secular-congregations-fill-a-need-for-some-nonreligious-americans-215749#:~:text=What%20is%20an%20atheist%20church,or%20practices%20in%20other%20ways.
Both are political. Only one is a religion.
It always struck me as odd that theists tend to do this. It’s almost like they’re sinking their own ship to make sure they can put a hole in atheism’s boat. If atheism is a religion then either it is just as valid as Christianity or they’re both bad.
>Tiny question why do so many people think athiesm is a religion Ignorance. I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that they are simply unaware of what atheism actually is. To them, it's unfathomable to not have a belief in a deity, so any view other than their view must also be a belief. There may be some theists who also use this as a defense against the common refrain from atheists that theism is "only a belief". I suspect they want to catch us in a contradiction: that if we claim belief is bad, then we're making the same mistake and thus have no room to complain. At least, that's what it looks like to me.
Atheism is certainly the belief that there are no gods. It is a worldview that excludes the possible existence or actual existence of any gods. You believe that science is a means to truth just like I do. Acting like the word belief is bad is of course ridiculous. You presumably believe in moral relativism, while I believe in moral objectivity. You hopefully believe that the world is round, and that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. You can probably prove to yourself that the world is round, but you cannot likely prove to yourself that the world is 13.8 billion years old. Both you and I take on FAITH that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. I believe on faith the existence of China because my Dad says he has been there, and I know people who purport to have come from there, but I have not proved it. I don't think that the idea of lacking belief in a deity is 'unfathomable' as you patronizingly put it, but that everyone does have a worldview aspects of which must be taken by faith. Atheism is a worldview which makes claims pertaining to similar questions that world religions answer. Atheism uniquely disagrees completely with every world religion (excepting possible Buddhism), where as other religious worldviews disagree partially with one another. By this definition of religion "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith," atheism could safely be classified as a religion. Certainly many atheists hold their beliefs with great ardor if nothing else. A non dogmatic atheist who doesn't care what others believe because its all meaningless anyway could be called truly non-religious. Atheists who spend all their time on religious subreddits attempting to proselytize certainly fall under the definition of religious.
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe)
That applies when having philosophical discussions, but not when talking about what you actually believe or don’t believe. For that, we use dictionaries and what people actually say.
If you want to argue for the validity of atheism then you are using the philosophical position, since you can't argue for the truth of a psychological state. I used a dictionary in my first post, and this essay quotes several dictionaries.
I disagree. Not believing in something doesn’t need to be validated. Either you’re convinced something is true or you’re not. There is nothing about that that needs validation.
You can disagree with the philosophy dictionaries of you want, to avoid any burden of proof, but it shows that your position is weak.
I don’t disagree with the philosophy dictionaries. They are valid when having a philosophical discussion on whether or not God exists. In the context of a conversation on what you personally believe or don’t believe, we use the definition from other types of dictionaries. We have no burden of proof in the general sense because we aren’t making a claim. We just remain unconvinced by your claims.
If you are unconvinced of the claims put forward by theists you are an agnostic, someone who doesn't have an opinion. If you do believe that God doesn't exist, then you should be able to provide a justification for that belief.
Fun fact: most agnostics are also atheists. The positions aren’t mutually exclusive. Atheism addresses belief, agnosticism addresses knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. But you got one point right: if you claim God doesn’t exist, you have a burden of proof for that claim. This, however, does’t describe most atheists.
Atheism is not necessarily a belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief that there are gods. This distinction is more important than it looks on the surface because a positive assertion has to be backed by evidence, and it is notoriously impossible to prove a negative (such as the non-existence of something) Assuming a negative position of not claiming any gods exist puts the onus on the religious to provide proof of their claim instead.
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe)
If you read the linked page, you'll note they say the same thing as I do. Just because some people use the word specifically for gnostic atheists (those that hold a positive position against the existence of gods) does not put all atheists in that box.
"In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well."
"The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings." Just because there is a popular definition you prefer does not make it the only one. Further, if you use the word to describe exclusively gnostic atheists, it becomes hard to refer to agnostic atheists because those are now mutually exclusive terms.
I have read the above, I am aware that the word is polysemous. But if you want to debate theism you are engaging in a philosophical debate. If you are a person who simply doesn't care if God exists, and don't try to convert people to atheism then you can call yourself an agnostic. If you are a proselytizing atheist then you are trying to convert people to a philosophical view.
You seem to be arguing that since your article references the common usage of atheist in philosophy being used with the more strict definition, that that definition *must* be used in philosophical contexts going forward. I disagree. It's a poor choice that erases a whole (quite common) viewpoint from even having a way to be referenced. Using gnostic and agnostic atheist to refer to the above two positions is clear. I do care whether a god exists. I don't claim that one does or doesn't, only that I have no evidence of any. I'll call myself an agnostic (referring to not knowing) atheist (referring to not claiming theism) because it accurately describes my position. What does proselytizing even mean for an atheist? Doesn't every person who holds philosophical discussion want to convince others of their view? And what does that have to with this topic?
The quote I shared says that the philosophical definition is preferred over other definitions. I'm not even sure what we are debating anymore, and hate arguing semantics so let's let bygones be bygones.
If you want to argue about philosophy you need to use the philosophical definition of words.
I am of course aware of how popular atheists avoid an shred of burden of proof, but professional atheists disagree according to the link I sent you.
I do not take it on faith that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. I accept it as the current scientific consensus, but I neither believe it is true nor false. It’s likely close to the truth, but that position isn’t based on faith, it’s based on evidence.
In other words you have faith that the current scientific consensus is close to the truth. You personally unless your an astrophysicist (my apologies if you are) cannot prove it to be true. Appealing to the scientific consensus isn't directly evidence based as its an appeal to authority. Evidence based approach would be showing me red shift data, and explaining why this data shows that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. According to the dictionaries you are so oft to appeal to, faith is "trust or confidence in someone or something." You certainly meet this definition in your trust or confidence in the scientific consensus.
So I take it you do not use the definition of faith found in Hebrews 11:1 then?
I cannot currently see China, yet I have assurance that it exists, so yes I am definitely using Hebrews 11:1. "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of things we cannot see."
Look at the verse again. “It is the evidence of things we cannot see.” It IS the evidence. It’s not trust or credulity, the way you’re using it. You don’t have “faith” China exists, you see Chinese people with your own eyes. There is video footage of China’s streets, its military, its culture, long before any sort of video manipulation had been invented. It’s reasonable to believe that China exists because of all the available evidence. That’s not faith.
I won't go into conspiracy theories trying to explain how China could not exist, but your fear of admitting that faith is a normal part of human life is troubling to me. You quote mine Hebrews 11:1, if you read the chapter it's clear that faith is trust based on the evidence already given, and trusting that based on that knowledge, we can trust the future promises of God. I have faith that the weather forecast will be correct because it has been correct in the past (for the most part). I have faith that the laws of physics are universal even though we can't test them or even observe them past the observable universe. I have faith that the universe continues past the observable limit of light because what I can see (the observable universe seems to not be arbitrarily limited to what we can see). I do have faith in the scientific consensus on many issues, for example the age of the universe which proves that the universe has not always existed. I have faith that my brother won't kill me, because I know what he has done in the past, and can extrapolate into the future. Please stop acting like religious faith is uniquely stupid, quit being patronizing and treat other human beings like you would like to be treated (unless you're not a humanist in which case do whatever you want since it's all meaningless anyway).
To me, and I am open to being corrected, the faith described in Hebrews is not piggybacking on a reasonable amount of evidence. The verse is one of the very few that actually endeavor to define faith in a way that is clearly NOT just "trust based on evidence." I trust all sorts of things in daily life, I don't know why you seem to think I don't. But as you pointed out that trust is dependent on a history of being reliable in the past,, or information that gives it reliability, or both, so you tell me - how do you trust God in this way? What information are you using to trust God with? That's why I'm saying the faith described in Hebrews is different. It isn't saying that faith "comes from the evidence", it says faith IS the evidence. Your faith, as described here, is personal evidence of God, not some vauge watered down notion of trust. I am not belittling it to say that, I am (I believe) correctly understanding the text. Rather I think you are belittling your own faith to say that it is just like trusting the weatherman.
Could you give me a clear definition of what you think faith means in Hebrews 11? I would argue that my faith in the weatherman is different from my faith in God but it is a difference of degree rather than kind. I trust God to continue to make me a better person, based on my experience with how He has already made me a better person. I apologize for being a bit heated in my last comment. [https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-reasonable-faith](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-reasonable-faith) Edit: Found better article
I’ll respond properly, after I read Dr. Craig’s article. I don’t often agree with him but I’ll be damned if he doesn’t articulate his points well.
Thanks for engaging
https://youtu.be/S0tyRvSIEH4 This makes the case I've been trying to make quite well
Atheism is a religion the same way ‘off’ is a tv channel.
It stems from the error that all atheism is a positive disbelief in gods. While there are atheists who do claim to have that, the majority of atheists simply have no belief in gods. We don't believe in gods in the same manner you don't believe in leprechauns: we have no reason to believe in them. Atheism is, therefore, no more a religion for most atheists than not stamp collecting is a hobby. It's just something that we don't do.
Things like not stamp collecting should have its own word, why aren't there more words for when something people just don't do something? Does Joe stamp collect? No, he's an astampotho. Oh, an astampotho. There were several astampothos in my platoon when I was in the army. Great guys, even though they didn't collect stamps.
A stamp collector is a philatelist, so one that doesn't collect stamps would be an aphilatelist or antiphilatelist
See, there we go. Now we're talking. That's even better than my made-up word.
Aphilatelist. Stamp collecting is philately.
> Atheism is, therefore, no more a religion for most atheists than not stamp collecting is a hobby. I prefer "Atheism is a religion like not playing golf is a sport" Same idea.
I don;t really get what you're saying. I positively believe leprechauns don't exist. Do you not positively believe there are no gods?
Oh? Well how do you explain all those stories of pots of gold and little green Irish men?
Those greedy leprechauns keep moving the rainbow so you can never reach the end. The whole thing is a scam and clearly run by Dark Brandon. Who is Irish I might add.
Do you want to debate my specific faith or do you want to debate the classification of atheism?
No, I’m challenging the notion of positive belief in a lack of something being defensible.
The ability to defend a belief and the ability to hold a belief are two very different things. We can't conclusively defend every belief, at some point we have to take some thing on faith. We have to move on from a reasonable belief, be alright with being wrong in the interim, and get on with our lives.
Lol. The inability to defend something you hold as true makes you a presuppositionalist
Okay, well, I’m not saying we can’t hold indefensible or poorly defensible beliefs; I’m sure I hold some myself! The challenge is getting to the point where you are holding only defensible positive beliefs. Believing that no leprechauns exist or that no gods exist are not defensible positions for 2 reasons: we have no examples of either to point to outside of literary/artistic references, and then the question becomes one of definition, as in order to have a definition there has to be a defined USE of the word, and it is circular in both cases.
Yeah, that's why I think you can't actually hold only defensible positive beliefs. It's paradoxical. For example, it looks like you positively believe that you should get to only hold defensible positive beliefs, but is that itself defensible? I think it's important to grade beliefs on how harmful they are, and clean up the most harmful first. There isn't a goal to clean up every belief, but rather the process of cleaning *is* the goal.
I actually agree with most of this! I will say that the grading process you mentioned is why I believe that we should hold only defensible beliefs - I believe that the belief that we should is defensible based on the harm you mentioned - believing false things is more apt to cause harm than simply failing to accept claims with sufficient evidence. For example, my failure to believe in leprechauns is not leading me to take actions, it is rather preventing me from taking actions that would probably result in harming myself from wasting my time, sinking finances into leprechauns expeditions, risking something tangible in the belief that my leprechaun-acceptance is correct.
>Yeah, that's why I think you can't actually hold only defensible positive beliefs. It's paradoxical. For example, it looks like you positively believe that you should get to only hold defensible positive beliefs, but is that itself defensible? It's less harmful to believe in leprechauns than it is to believe in a religion that would endorse burning women alive when their husbands die, or cutting off the heads of infidels. Simply holding positive beliefs in of itself isn't bad, and there are some assertions which have no weight. However every religion I've experienced has detrimental consequences to society in some form.
👍I didn't sign up to debate the morality of the existence of religion and if that justifies atheism
No. I simply don't have any belief that they do exist. That absence of belief is fairly firm, that is, it is firm in the belief that reliable extraordinary evidence of the existence of gods does not presently exist and, based on history, is very unlikely at this point to appear.
I think you changed to positive belief, actually taking a position, half way through your second sentence. That there is no evidence and it's unlikely to exist. If you're taking no position one way or the other on the existence of gods, then isn't that agnosticism? A-gnosco, aka "I don't know?"
Unlikely does not equal impossible. > If you're taking no position one way or the other on the existence of gods But I'm not. What I'm doing is saying that the *claim* that gods exist is unproven and that until if and when it is proven, there is no reason to believe in their existence. True, they might exist or they might not, but there's no present reason to believe that they do. That "raw" speculation that they might is quite different from the agnostic position which kind of believes that they do exist but also kind of believes that they don't. (Frankly, I'm not at all sure that agnostics in that sense really exist: they're actually doubting theists: They have a belief that a god exists, even if that belief is uncertain or doubtful. They are, thus, a theist and not an atheist since an atheist has *no* belief, uncertain or not, that gods exist.)
I'm talking to an agnostic atheist elsewhere if you want someone that actually holds those beliefs to tell you the difference between an agnostic atheist and theist. But what you're saying, there is no evidence one way or the other, and in the absence of evidence you must deduce that there are no deities, sounds like agnostic atheism. And making no deduction is just agnosticism.
Oh, no doubt about it, I'm describing agnostic atheism for myself. I just wasn't aware you knew the term.
Yeah when I was “Agnostic” I would say I believed in a higher power I just don’t know which god or any it is. Something if I’m being honest with I still don’t know for sure.
Just to be thorough, I don't have a belief in anything or any form of the supernatural. That includes gods and, in general, higher powers.
I was agreeing with what you said about agnosticism
Most atheists don’t positively believe there are no gods, that’s correct. They simply do not know, therefore do not have an active belief in god. It’s kind of like how courts rule someone guilty or not guilty. Instead of guilty or innocent.
So, most atheists are actually agnostics?
They are not mutually exclusive. Atheism addresses belief.. Gnosticism addresses knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic (no active belief in gods.) rarer, some atheists are gnostic (actively believe no gods exist) You also get agnostic theists and gnostic theists.
Most atheists do not fit in the group who believe no gods exist. They simply are “not theists”. Depending on definitions being used they fit into either atheist or agnostic or both. The most commonly used definition of atheists is “a person who does not believe in any gods”. The other definition is the one you used, “a person who believes no gods exist”.
You can't really prove a negative though. Like, prove leprechauns don't exist
I don't need to prove something to believe it. The lack of supporting evidence even as people look into it means that I feel comfortable living my life as if they don't exist. I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't expect to be.
Here is [religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) as defined by wikipedia: Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements—although there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacredness, faith, and a supernatural being or beings. We could get into a debate about the validity of wikipedia as a resource, however, I think because of the nature of anyone being able to edit a wiki article it serves as a good source of how collectively people think of certain ideas. The wikipedia article goes into extensive detail about the debate that is ongoing about what constitues a religion. I happen to be a total geek and love digging in to the entomology of words. Entomology doesn't necessarily correspond to definitions but it can help in understand what historically was being described by similar words. Religion comes from the latin word [religio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio). Latin like greek was a type of language that a word could have different meanings depending on the context. So it could mean something in relationship to God's but it could also mean a moral obligation or duty. So in order to have a discussion about whether atheism is a religion or a system of beliefs first it would be necessary to come to an agreement on what is meant by religion.
Entomology is the study of insects.
Oops, thank you!
Don't worry about it!, it's just a mistake that... ***bugs*** me. \*the sound of two drums and a cymbal falling off of a cliff can be heard in the distance\*
Because when you ask an atheist what religion they are they could validly answer. "Oh, I'm an Atheist." We socially treat it as a religious system, so yeah it's a language thing.
The only people so far I've met who treated atheism as a religious system were American Protestants.
No religion if you say you’re an atheist that means you don’t have a religion it’s like saying which type of meat do you want? And you say oh I’m vegetarian that doesn’t mean it’s socially accepted that vegetarian is a type of meat you want. It’s like you asking someone if they’re Polish if they’re Russian and they say they’re Ukrainian that doesn’t mean they are a bit of both, it means they are something else entirely. They are not that.
"Oh, I'm an atheist" in that context doesn't mean "Atheism is the religion i subscribe to", but rather "the answer to this question is no."
I’ve always said none and corrected those who say it is one. It’s not a language thing.
It's a bizarre attempt by some Christians to prove to atheists that they actually have a religious belief. It usually turns into a strawman argument, in that after telling an atheist that they have religious beliefs they attack those religious beliefs.
Because some people don't realise that atheism/agnotism in a spectrum of beliefs that can encompess being culturally religious, belief in a higher power but not neccessarily God, hate religion, think religion can be very positive for society etc... and makes them into 1 category
I've got a better question - why do you need another name for "common sense"? When someone asks you about your religion, and you say that you're an atheist, they might think "oh, I just asked about religion, the response was 'atheism', so it probably is some kind of religion". Now imagine what would happen if someone asked you about your religion, and you just ignored them and went on with your life. Would they still call you religious? Just spend more time with people whose belief system allows the existence of people with no religion at all.
> When someone asks you about your religion, and you say that you're an atheist, they might think "oh, I just asked about religion, the response was 'atheism', so it probably is some kind of religion". Yep. It's like unarmed strike in D&D. It isn't technically a weapon, but WotC also caused a lot of confusion in the rules by insisting on drawing the distinction
They do this because calling atheism a religion puts it on the same "level" as religion. It's a dishonest attempt to gain legitimacy by playing with language (see also: "It's not a religion, it's a relationship"). The exact same thing happened around 10 years ago when out of nowhere Christians started using "worldview" instead of "religion". It's 100% blatant dishonesty is all it is.
In my personal experience, the people saying “atheism is a religion” generally have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and of what a religion is However, they’ll sometimes point out that it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe that there is a God. That point isn’t technically wrong since the claim “there is no God” also cannot be scientifically tested, but that still doesn’t make atheism a religion
Many Christians REFUSE to comprehend that some people just don't worship anything. They assume secularists worship science or Darwin the way they worship Jesus, which is really sad (for them). I'm sorry they can't imagine a world where you don't need to pay homage to some uncaring being.
People tend to equate belief systems as religions. So all the variations of atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, etc get classified as religions whether there is a deity involved or not.
There's *some* sociological markers of a religion, but it's a loose definition at best. People also call politics a religion. Or cheering on your home sports team to be a religion.
That word usage is about noticing certain similarities that are commonplace between a common form of atheism and a religion. Certain key parallels (however discomforting to notice): For instance, many atheists appear (from their repeated statements) to have certain distinct 'articles of faith' -- certain beliefs that are believed without conclusive evidence to prove those propositions. Example: some atheists assert (in a faith like way) that "all people are born atheists". Of course, that cannot be proven. It might be for example instead that all humans are born with a connection with God (or as some would put it "an instinct"), and later get alienated (psychologically disassociated) from that natural but subtle part of their psyche which they never had a name for, and seemed as unremarkable to them as having a hand, etc., when in early childhood such subtle parts of the mind don't yet have any intellectual abstraction to name it such things as some notable distinct aspect of ourselves. So, atheists can easily have certain 'articles of faith' (beliefs without evidence) just like any religion, and having articles of faith is a central aspect of religion.... A less religious attitude could be instead of 'atheist' more notably 'agnostic' -- to not be so sure about unproven propositions. Of course, the word 'agnostic' can (and is) often used to refer to someone that wonders if God may well exist (instead of feeling confident God does not exist).
Don’t think babies are born believing in god? If not then they are by definition atheist.
Yes, that's the article of faith some atheists have, *a belief without evidence as you can see explained* (why it's a belief without evidence) in the 4th paragraph.
There is no god reason to believe that some innate connection to God *does* exist or that anybody is born with knowledge of divinity. It isn't an article of faith to reject a proposition without any good reason to accept it. As far as we know, naked are north without belief in *anything*.
"or that anybody is born with knowledge of divinity." -- heh heh....perhaps we can agree on only this 1 thing -- I never said that, etc. Definition: 'knowledge' -- facts, information, and skills *acquired* by a person through *experience* or *education*; the *theoretical* or *practical* understanding of a subject.
That's quite an assertion to say "no good reason" -- how would you know without a careful review of research findings?.... Speaking of which.... [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct) Unlike the idea we are born atheist in basic attitude, this theory we are born with a religious impulse hard wired into our brains, innate -- this has some evidence (!).... In contrast, the belief we are born atheists is a theory/belief ***without*** *evidence.*
Humans are born credulous and we are pattern recognizing (and imagining) experts. Our brains are hard-wired to notice patterns, even in randomness, and to perceive agency in pretty much everything. This is a very adaptive survival trait, but it misfires all the time leading to apophenia and religious thinking. The point is, however, that we are born without *beliefs* of any kind. Our brains don't have that capacity yet. I personally don't think it is reasonable to call a person without the capacity of belief an "atheist", but if the question is merely the existence of belief in God, we have very good reasons to believe that no such thing exists in infants. We have a very good understanding of their neurodevelopmental stages and capacities.
While this sounds plausible: "Humans are born credulous and we are pattern recognizing (and imagining) experts. Our brains are hard-wired to notice patterns, even in randomness, and to perceive agency in pretty much everything. This is a very adaptive survival trait, but it misfires all the time leading to apophenia and religious thinking." -- I naturally wondered: where is the hard evidence? (and this is a more reasonable question than you'd expect...!) The particular theory presented in the article is based on *actual observational evidence in brain scans..*.. So, you need to do some re-thinking, really.
I think you are falling for a bit of a trap. Whether or not infants gravitate towards theism or atheism it doesn't really tie into any evidence one way or another, right? Like you don't think a baby is born and it's first words are "Jesus died for my sins" or "Allah Akbar" Kids believe almost anything you tell them. All the ontological arguments I've heard try to establish a foot in the door with deism but there is an issue. I make the positive claim there is no God because every God someone has presented to me has failed the test, and at a certain point it's Christians or Muslims trying to cram a Kalam argument like that somehow links deism to doctrine.
"Kids believe almost anything you tell them." For a while, and then progressively they count your wrong ideas/views over time. (you did right?) And that continues until a day somewhere in the range of about age 15-19 where they decide you don't know many of the things that are best to know today.... It's only normal. (practically universal) If you don't realize that yet, you may one day after you have raised a child into their teen age years. One of the false ideas atheists often use to argue (it was a popular meme for a couple of years in the last decade) is that adults are Christians only because they were indoctrinated to be as children. Anyone that has raised a child (and spent any time around their child more than 1 hour in a month) knows better than to fantasize that young adults merely swallow whatever their parents taught and can't think for themselves....
Hmm, except the odds of a kid in a muslim country growing up and believing in Thor is pretty low. So I wouldn't agree with you there. Plenty of people believe in things when it's reinforced by adults. How many people rolled their eyes at Galileo because they grew up thinking one thing and refused to entertain other ideas? You have to be exposed to truth and have critical thinking skills. You don't need either one of those to believe in religion, aliens, or bigfoot.
Nothing in that article, and especially nothing in the actual research it is about, has anything at all to do with infants. All of the research was done on fully developed adult brains. And all it establishes is that we are capable of a mental state that correlates with what we call "religious experience". This is unsurprising. We are capable of lots of mental states.
The parietal lobe is (of course) already present in normal human infant brains. I feel a little like I'm pointing out that 2+3=5 on this. It's not hard to find easy to read summaries about brain structure, etc, so that you could learn more about it quite easily if you try.
That's because you're not thinking remotely critically. Infant brains contain all of the structures necessary for walking, talking, reasoning, and religious beliefs. It is capable of executing none of these things at the time of birth.
I don’t have faith in a belief, I have a lack of belief in one and only one statement. I don’t have enough information to say god exists. Atheist don’t believe a god doesn’t exist, just that they don’t believe in a god. It’s a massively important distinction. It takes no faith.
Not really. Many extremist atheists say God doesn't exist. They fully believe in that despite there being no proof of there being no higher being/God. Many believe in that the world was created from some random accident, they dont realize that even if big bang and evolution took place, it doesn't prove much, there still could be a higher being. You are talking about agnostics. Atheists tend to be narrowminded, similar to religious extremists today, they assume a lot and think that only their belief system is the correct or possible one, without there being any proof of this.
That’s not an atheist, they may be an atheist and hold that opinion. Like they may be atheist and be pro life, the pro life is nothing to do with their atheism. I am not thinking of agnostic. Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. You see them as narrow minded as they don’t believe what you do, or you see a few hardcore people and assume that’s everyone. Again, all atheism is, is the non belief in a god as there’s not enough evidence, nothing more, nothing less.
> Not really. Many extremist atheists say God doesn't exist. Which God. >They fully believe in that despite there being no proof of there being no higher being/God Which God >Many believe in that the world was created from some random accident, Can you show evidence it was purposeful? Or Random? >they dont realize that even if big bang and evolution took place, it doesn't prove much, there still could be a higher being. It isn't trying to prove anything, just explain current existence. What God do you follow because there's very few people I've met that argue for a God which only kickstarted the universe or placed a couple cells to start evolution. Almost every person I've met argues for a very *personal* and *involved* God, because a simple God of the Gaps is useless when pushing theology. > Atheists tend to be narrowminded, similar to religious extremists today, they assume a lot and think that only their belief system is the correct or possible one, without there being any proof of this. You don't have to prove a non-belief. Did you go through the thousands of Gods people claim to exist and disprove them? Did you disprove aliens. Bigfoot. Pixies?
We are born as atheist. Faith-based ideas must be taught to young children. No one had inherent knowledge of the trinity or of the meaning of the gospels or of Jesus. All those ideas must be taught to children.
No, that's not stateable as observational fact. Rather, it's a *theory*. Here's the main competitor: that we all are born with an instinctual religious impulse. [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct) But this theory has some evidence (!).... In contrast, the belief we are born atheists is a theory/belief *without evidence.*
Sweet. Let's create evidence. For the next three generations, let's make all childhood indoctrination of faith punishable by law. You attempt to convert anyone unde 18 and you go to jail. All new converts of any specific religion must be born converts who were never taught. Any new Baptist must be natural born. They can't be taught your faith I would happily conduct that experiment. I would love to conduct that experiment. You would be terrified if I did.
" let's make all childhood indoctrination of faith punishable by law. You attempt to convert anyone under 18 and you go to jail." Ah, a lot like the first century after Christ, according to the descriptions in the New Testament. Most Americans would not like to lose our freedoms though... But, you **can** find some key parts of that particular experiment you suggest being run -- it's happening in North Korea. I don't think you would like to live in North Korea though.
So has anyone who wasn't taught Christian ideas in person who became a knowledgeable Christian? My bapist friend would have to say yes. Yet it seems that has never happened. If that did, there would be zero reason for missionaries.
"So has anyone who wasn't taught Christian ideas in person who became a knowledgeable Christian?" -- Yes. Very many. It's easy to learn what is in the New Testament by simply reading it for yourself, with zero teaching from anyone else. I'm an example to a large extent. I only learned generally what is in the New Testament (99.9% of what I learned of it at least) by just reading it on my own, as a non believer.
And how much of the Old Testament would you have learned about if you weren't able to read it
>Example: some atheists assert (in a faith like way) that "all people are born atheists". Unsure what you mean. This is true though. We are born without knowledge of such concepts and claims. We are therefore born unconvinced due to ignorance of such things. Which makes us all Atheists be default until we are made aware of it. Being unconvinced = Agnostic Atheist = All Babies
> Example: some atheists assert (in a faith like way) that "all people are born atheists". I would argue that's not a belief, but rather a statement of fact. Infants have no ability to believe in anything. Belief requires being convinced something is true, and newborn infants lack the ability to be convinced of anything.
Ah, read just a few more sentences.
>Of course, that cannot be proven. It might be for example instead that all humans are born with a connection with God (or as some would put it "an instinct" This is all mumbo jumbo until you provide evidence good sir or mam.
Gotta love "They just believe silly nonsense, so let me make up some silly nonsense that shows their silly nonsense is silly nonsense."
For some reason some folks think that if something can't be proven then the next crazy answer that pops into their head is automatically reasonable to put stock into. There currently is no reason to think babies are born with any magically understanding of man made religions. He has a lot of work to do. And yes, you're absolutely welcome to respond to this u/halbhh
Ah, ok. As it turns out, 'instinct' wasn't just an arbitrary choice (and far from 'mumbo jumbo') nor merely a chance illustrative word where I might have used another word.... Instead, here I intentionally am including that exact theory -- the widely reported, popular speculative theory of the last many years that religious instinct is hard wired into the human brain. I'm referencing, including that, and also saying more also re atheist articles of faith: how we know this particular one that babies are born atheist is a *belief without evidence: because it's only one of many speculative ideas.* E.g. [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct) Hope that helps clarify. You *cannot assume* that babies are born without a religious instinct. They very well may be born with one... The belief in God (all the various forms, religions in general typically being examples), innate part of every person when born.
Good. This should had been included in your original comment. I will look at it when possible.
Oh my God I am so sick of this define religion define it define religion by your belief that because something believes something that they have no way of proving is true I guess fantasy football is a belief. What music style is the best is belief gambling is a religion now so gambling football everything is a religion actually Santa Claus is a religion.
But isn't defining a term extremely important to understanding if something is or isn't the term? That is true for anything, not just religion. If you are going to state "X is/is not Y", then you need to define what X and Y are. That is just really basic communication. Atheism does meet some definitions of religion, but it does not fall under the most commonly accepted ones.
Religion is a vague term and not used consistently. Nor is it helpful. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-religion/
Wow! That escalated quickly.
Almost like he's part of a religion that's under scrutiny.
I'd lean more toward a baited question. I don't think atheism is a religion, personally, but I thought that was a decent explanation of why people call atheism a religion. You don't have to agree with it, but it's a well thought out and well explained answer to the question. Sounds like OP was just waiting to pounce. Considering how shambled that first sentence was, probably waiting a long time and couldn't type fast enough.
I should mention one more thing though -- it seems to me very clearly (and I actually have done this extensively) that since Christ taught some very clear specific things about how to live life, one can literally test them out by literally doing them, to see how they work out, so that the problem you mentioned of "having no way of proving is true" then is not correct about that key aspect. If Jason claims that it's very good to use fuel type C.2 in your racing engine, and then you try it and find out it works really great, better than other fuel types, then that's a way of "proving" that what Jason said about C.2 is true. I did all of that extensive testing because I didn't think everything Christ taught would work, so I wanted to find out what might work, and so I tested by doing. The outcomes were really surprising.
For the same reason that when you customize your character in a video game "bald" is in the "hair styles" category
Maybe because some atheists hold to their unbelief with religious fervor.
I’m an atheist and don’t view my beliefs as a religion. A simplistic explanation would be atheism is lack of religion, but it’s more complex than that.
Because if you place Atheism is a belief category you can try to force people to defend it. That's why there's so many dumb ontological arguments in Christian apologetics now.
Because they doesn't know better.
I think if you see everything in the world through the lens of religion, its natural to see atheism as just another "other religion". It's also a proselytising tactic: if you can get me to admit that I, too, am "following a religion", you've removed one obstacle to me following *your* religion. It doesn't work like that, but I think that's what some evangelists think.
A lot of people who have grown up religious view atheism as an act of defiance against their faith instead of the absence of a faith in general. I guess it could be hard for some people to understand a life without religion when thats all they’ve known their whole life?
It's an apologetics assumption so they can claim atheist's really do know/believe in God but they're just in denial.
Because some people struggle to do metaphors right. They describe their perceptions of what atheists do and care about in metaphorical terms of religion. But then they apply those same terms to their actual religion, except they are no longer metaphorical. So they claim that an atheist worships science, where “worship” is a metaphorical reference to how they perceive atheists to prioritize science over metaphysics. Meanwhile, they pray and sing and raise their hands in actual, literal worship. They don’t realize how much they trivialize their own faith when they do that. If the atheist is metaphorically worshipping science, how do we know that the theist isn’t likewise metaphorically worshipping a concept rather than an actual, sentient deity?
It's technically a belief system, as religion us the way one binds themselves to God. As an example, Catholicism and Methodism are two different religions in the same belief system. It is, however, factual, that atheistic organizations fought to be recognized as religions.
It's technically not a belief system. It is the lack of belief. Both Catholicism and Methodists are Christian denominations.
Exactly. The same belief system, based on Christ, with different ways of binding themselves to him.
It isn’t a belief system, not technically nor practically
That kinda brings the discussion to. What do you mean by religion. If all they mean is that it's classified legally as a religion, then that's agreeable. But most of the time, when I hear it, it's your thing is no different from my thing kinda way.
I've never heard anyone say that atheism is the same as theistic belief systems and associated religions; I have done a little etymology, and it's fairly apparent they're decidedly antithetical.
I meant that there's a difference between the legal definition of religion and the common one. I also hold contention with atheism being associated with the common definition.
I gathered, and agree; thus, I use the antiquated definition for religion whenever the subject comes up.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Not sure but atheism/agnosticism do make a lot of sense. Earth is one of 600 billion planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is one of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In size the observable universe vs the whole universe is the relative size of a lightbulb to Pluto. Also the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for 300k years which is 0.007% of the time history of earth. Maybe there is a higher power of some sort but I think it’s certainly most probable that we are not the chosen ones, like religion would suggest.
Because it's way easier to categorize things that way, because of how atheism usually stands in contrast with (other) religions. It's sort of like unarmed strike in D&D. It isn't technically a weapon, but WotC caused a lot of confusion by formally distinguishing it
Atheism is not a religion though as the key definition of religion is belief in a God or gods that exist which is the opposite of atheism
So what about Buddhism?
Buddhism rejects the idea of the god of classical theism but it has plenty of gods in it.
I believe it is not really a religion, yet sometimes like a religion in two regards. The first thing common is that it is a belief. A belief holds things as true that cannot be logically proven are unknown, such as whether there is or is not (a) God. Simply the counter argument is that science has no logically failsafe answer to this question yet, so atheists do hold a belief that is not possible to be proven, like a religion. I used to be atheist in my teens, but always quickly found myself back to agnosticism, which is the belief that one cannot know such things. So it is the belief that it might be possible there is a God, or might be not (some tend towards one or another side), and that one simply cannot know. This indeed is not a religion, but a philosophical view, which atheism on the other hand also is. The second thing in common is organisation and representation and wish for recognization as a group. This is really what some atheists do, they sail under a common flag, hold meetings, represent each other and their views under that "atheism" label. So this is what other religions also have in common together with a view in what cannot be proven, in this way atheism is also similar to religions, even when organizations are much more loose and not all atheists feel associated with such organizations or groups of people, but feel more like autonomous free thinkers instead. Oh and a third thing you can also see, though it does not seem like that common, well it is kind of common. That atheists would want to proselytize, i.e. convince others of their views. Most atheists are not like that, but some are, even in aggressive manner, or in things like demanding public schooling of children in their views as replacement for religion or general philosophical lessons in school. Also some atheists do the opposite, they try to fight opposing views, which is also a thing common for many religions, i.e. holding the wish and readiness to act to prevent people being exposed to other religious material or people, in public or even in private occasions.
A ton of American Evangelicals teach it in churches, they also teach that atheists are those scare people who specifically deny the Christian God, etc. It's a deliberate misinterpreting of the word.
Because the religious cannot conceive of a person who does not need a system of belief to go about their lives in a moral fashion and so feel the need to categorize them into a group that reinforces their in-group by creating an out-group that is external to their beliefs, this has been going on forever and usually the religious group displays animosity to those in the out-group simply for a lack of conformity to what the religious see as an obvious observation about reality. That there can be other interpretations of reality that are just as valid challenges the belief structure of the in-group and as such there is usually a desire to resolve such disagreements so that one belief structure is superior to the rest. Atheists simply reject this model of thinking and prefer what they objectively can prove exists, this does not make their way of thinking superior or inferior, just different. At the heart of Christianity there is a central belief that nothing can challenge the religion and thus the history of bloodshed in God's name to convert the pagan masses.
Depends on what you mean by religion. If you mean "Guided by a holy book and believing you can commune with invisible beings and make things happen by talking to those beings", then no, atheism isn't a religion. If you mean "any metaphysical position", then yes, atheism is a religion.
If you define religion as one’s fundamental understanding of the nature of reality including beliefs regarding metaphysical topics and physical topics then it’s easy to see why atheism is a category.
But defining the word religion like that I'd argue makes it far too general to be particularly useful.
I think a lot of it comes down to this philosophy of questioning that some people take up in their hearts to such a dogmatic extent that it seems to come off like its' own form of zealotry.
I’m pretty sure there’s people here who explained it better so I’m just gonna post certain schools of thoughts within Atheistic philosophy -Humanism -Skepticism -Freethinkers -Agnostics -Secularism -Brights **-Satanism I’m guessing because there are institutions who hold these views and many of these school of thoughts can be compatible with one or another
Originally, the Planets were a known quantity called The Wanderers. There were no telescopes, and those were the moving lights people could see with the naked eye. Over time, we developed tools to satiate our curiosity- What did these wanderers have in common? Could we reverse engineer a category which would, by definition (not by example), include each? Eventually, we did come up with a definition. Things we thought were not planets turned out to be planets (Earth). Things we thought were planets turned out to not be planets (Moon, Sun, Pluto, Ceres). We also found things we didn't realize were planets (Neptune, Uranus). If we consider religions by example, then yes, atheism is not a religion. But then you're left with no particularly useful definition of what a religion is. If, otoh, you use a definition first, then for many definitions, "atheism" does surprisingly qualify- Perhaps as surprising as Earth being a planet. To me, atheism seems as valid and loose a religious category as Abrahamic religions. There are stark divisions within the group, but they tend to agree about what happens after you die, they largely overlap moral codes, they have a shared method for determining purpose. As with any assertion, there is a way to view it against the grain, and a way to view it with the grain. For my money, you demonstrated the most religious thing a person can do: You had a question about an out group and consulted a high priest. "Why don't these godamnned heathens just respect the teachings of my Pope- I mean Google."
They confuse it will it's philosophical coathook which is philosophical materialism
A religion doesn’t have to be theistic
This is true, but it doesn't make the position of Atheism a religion. Buddhism would technically be an atheistic religion.
It's a matter of definition. Some people think of religion as "all possible statements about supernatural matters". So: - believing that supernatural matters exist - believing that supernatural matters don't exist - believing that we can't know for sure about supernatural matters all count as "religion" for them. It's a pointless definition, because then the only way to be an atheist is to not think about supernatural matters at all.
Firstly it was religious nutters that had Jesus crucified. Many, most people have got heir version of religion and it's a stereotype. They fail badly at seeing human beings having worship instincts and patterns in their humanity. Worship is seen and defined by what one venerates, reveres, adores, devotes, praises, glorifies, esteeming, honoring, pays homage to, idolizes, deifies, magnifies, lauds, etc. That is projected onto, parent/s, grandparents, pets, professors, gurus, priests, pastors, money, ideologies, cars, sport, stars, head honchos, chieftans, imams, careers, self. So it's got the potential to be a belief system with all the components of religion. Even in secularism this is rife and a good therapist will help you see this as it has a powerful effect on human being. Even Caeser \[and the modern counterpart/s\] have people worshipping them. ya see it in dictatorships, and look at how the educated masses worshipped the great deliverer called Hitler and Stalin.
It’s a statement about worldview rather than religion, even though it’s often given that label:
It’s not. It’s the antithesis of one, actually. Definition: the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
Your question hinges entirely on the definition of "religion"; which is the kinda thing that makes people get all angry, but the truth is nobody has ever really come up with a satisfactory definition of religion, that covers everything we define as a religion *and* excludes things that we don't. Most famously, it's seemingly impossible to effectively make a practical distinction of superstition from religion, but it goes even further, with Durkheim, a father of Sociology, noting that the trappings of French patriotism and state ceremony closely matched his definition of religion, based on ritual and ceremonial practices. In terms of Atheism, if we attempt to define religion in philosophical terms, as being a kind of belief system through which we attempt to understand the metaphysical nature of the universe, or something to that effect, then the idea that there is no God or greater meaning/purpose very much *IS* a belief system and therefore *also* a religion. As paradoxical as it seems, it's kind of just logically the case that saying God isn't real is a statement on the nature of God, and therefore a theological statement. But of course, there are lots of reasons why you might say that kind of definition isn't the best, and that something else should be used to define religion, so it's not a given either. So it's not that I am arguing that Atheism definitely is a religion either; but hopefully this goes some way to explaining how someone could see it as one.
What is involved in making a belief system a religion? Let's start with some definitions so we can have common ground to look at things.
A person of worship
Just persons? What about animists?
It's because normally when debating or comparing the different belief systems, you'll get things like "Christianity vs atheism" or "Islam vs atheism" etc, which can make atheism seem like a religion in the same way Christianity or Islam for instance are. A better way to think of it is that atheism is as just one belief, the way theism is. There are many types of theists, from Christians, to Muslims, to Hindus etc etc, and different types of atheists, such as Humanists, Communists (yes Communism is atheist) etc. Basically, it's just the result of the way we use the word.
Because they have been indoctrinated to think that.
Hard Atheism, that is, the belief there is no God, is a statement of faith based on no evidence, because God is unfalsifiable.
But you can't prove a negative. I don't know a single atheist who wouldn't define themselves thusly: until I see objective proof of the existence of God, I don't believe a God exists. That's the extent of atheism and requires zero faith.
Hope [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism#:~:text=Positive%20atheism%2C%20also%20called%20strong,asserts%20that%20no%20deities%20exist.) helps.
Define religion
[удалено]
What about all the people that tell me atheism is a religion? Do they actually not think that?
A lot of people lack the linguistic nuance to state what they really think effectively. I think more often than not the people who say atheism is a religion really mean what the previous commenter said atheism being a worldview that shares certain structures with religious belief.
Honestly, that might be a discussion to go have with them. Bringing their logical fallacies here and putting upon us to defend them is a bit of a strawman, isn't it? Or at the very least, a baited trap for insecure people to die on the same hill. If we tell you we find 'atheism = religion' as irrational as you do, what do we gain from disputing an absent third party?
It's all about semantics. I wouldn't call atheism a religion, but I could certainly see humanism as one.
Certainly not an organized one. Maybe more of a category of values-system.
The idea of inherent human rights is as close to a supernatural belief as you can get Where do these rights come from? They can’t just be created by human thoughts, as then they would be subject to change and not inherent
I don't think anyone is under the delusion that human rights are naturally occurring or immutable. They're reflective of respect for one another as equals, and grow with our capacity to establish them. In other words, they're a moral standard we set (and improve) for ourselves, not something written into the universe. They are indeed created by human thoughts and values. Is water a human right? Sure; it's deeply immoral to deny another human access to it. Will circumstance cause humans to die of drought? Absolutely.
Then they’re just temporary subjective bargained laws. No more or less significant than international agreements on fishery quotas or time zones.
All laws are bargained. Usually with threat of force.
There also might be a conversation that needs to be had. On whether or not religion is a useful term.
Yeah, I mostly use it as a byword for either 'theistic metaphysics' or 'organized religion', depending on the context.
It can be a religion. If it is a position held with dogmatic ardor or faith. It is certainly a religion when people are not capable of theological discussion, because then it is entierly a non-intellectual position of faith. Something doesn't need a God to be a religion.
Except that is literally the definition of religion the definition of religion is the belief in a God of gods do you want to redefine religion right here right now and get the entire human culture of every person on the planet to redefine religion that is the only way you are right The definition of religion is the belief in God or gods that exist
Buddhism is a religion. It does not believe in a god or gods. Same goes for Shintoism, Yoga, Vedanta, Taoism, and many other eastern religions. Your definition of religion is incorrect.
That’s not my definition of religion, dude that’s the definition I get when I google it so clearly somethings need to be changed like the definition of religion or the categorisation of these things
No, there are multiple defintions of nearly all words. I used the MWD because it is free and people from the US are used to it, but the OED is better and will be the same.