Is atheism a religion

[hallenrm]

The ongoing discussion, to me appears quite akin to capitalism-communism-anarchist debate. The fact of life is, that is neither monochromatic, dichromatic etc etc. It is polychromatic, just like the electromagnetic spectrum. The more we accept this in the social arena, lesser is the conflict and more, I hope, peace.!

 

:wink:

[pgrmdave]

Agnostics believe we cannot know the truth about God, that it is unprovable. There are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

 

Just like C1ay is an agnostic atheist, I am an agnostic theist. I believe in God, I believe He exsists, but I also know that there is no way that is provable either way.

[Pyrotex]

Belief: A proposition that one holds conviction of the truth of without varification. Atheism is a belief.....

A-theism is the ABSENCE of a particular belief. Literally, "without god-belief".

You contradict yourself.

 

On the other hand, I could just as easily say, "I believe there is no god." But then you would respond, "Aha! See? It IS a belief, just like religion."

 

Unfortunately, English is one of those languages with multiple meanings attached to many words. I could just as easily say, "I think there is no god."

 

Voila! The word "believe" has been removed and the paradox resolved. Or has it? The problem is inherently tied up with the words we use to define, refer to or "point at" our mental processes; processes that denote our personal relationship to an external declaration which may or may not be true. Someone in this thread accused us of playing with semantics, and he was right -- just not right in the way I assume he actually meant.

 

Semantics is the study of word meanings, and this includes the fact that a particular word ("believe") may take on DOZENS of subtly different meanings according to the CONTEXT within which they are used. The word "believe" is especially subject to meaning drift because it refers to an entire spectrum of mental processes going all the way from [it occurred to me once] to [i accept without reservations]; from [i choose] to [my best informed guess is].

 

We cannot avoid "playing semanitics" because that is what languaging IS. But we can be more responsibly articulate in our use of difficult words so as to avoid pun-like distortions of verbal intent. That is why lawyers communicate with "legalese"--every word and phrase carries a singular meaning that avoids meaning-drift and meaning-ambiguity.

 

The sentence "I believe I have no belief" appears to be a quandry, a paradox, a self-contradiction ONLY because we permit the two instances of "belief" to have subtly different meanings.

[IDMclean]

A-theism is the ABSENCE of a particular belief. Literally, "without god-belief".

You contradict yourself.

 

As I have asserted before and you can take it or leave it. Your choice, not mine. The absence of a belief, with the full knowledge thereof is not the absence of a thing, and therefore is in and of itself a thing. Therefore it is a self-falsifying proposition.

 

That is that you are aware of the proposition and you hold conviction either for or against, makes it into belief if the proposition is unverified or unverifiable.

 

Now if you were ignorant of the circumstances, of the context, and/or the proposition on a whole then you couldn't tell me you have an absence of belief. That is a paradox, the unknown unknowns. You can not tell me what you do not know, nor what you do not believe. Simple examination of this would seem to implicate such a conclusion, logically.

 

By stating your position on a belief, or non-belief, you create a belief, that is a proposition with which you hold the conviction of the truth (true or false) of without verification.

 

The only non-belief then in my book is one which one can not voice, as one does not know that they lack the belief. A non-belief is therefore a unknown unknown. The moment you are aware of the non-belief it becomes a belief, because you create a position, that may change with time and futher information.

 

The definition of belief that I put up is what I found in the dictionary and the definition that I hold when I say belief, or believe. It can mean whatever to you but I have identified my meaning, and standardized it. Sure we may think somewhat differently but we still use the same fundamental hardware, and software.

 

I hope that gives a little more clarity.

 

If not, then oh well.

[C1ay]

By stating your position on a belief, or non-belief, you create a belief, that is a proposition with which you hold the conviction of the truth (true or false) of without verification.

It is not simply a binary issue. The statements:

 

I believe in God.

I do not believe in God.

I believe there is no God.

 

are all seperate statements with different meanings, no two are synonymous. The statement in the middle is not a statement of belief, one way or the other. Everything is not limited to either black or white, some things are gray. You might as well argue that all numbers are positive or negative with no zero in the middle.

 

I hope that gives a little more clarity.

 

If not, then oh well.

[HydrogenBond]

I one believes in God or believes there is no God, and can not offer conclusive proof for their believe, their belief is based on faith, which is the basis of a religion. Using that logic an aethiest has faith in no God even though he can not conclusively prove that God does not exist, therefore it is a type of rational religion, i.e, rationalis.

 

In that sense the belief that there is life on other planets, without anyone currently having any conclusive proof, but only logic and assumptions of science extrapolated with faith is also a type of rational religion until life can be conclusely proven. The belief in UFO's also fall under this definition of religion since the data is not 100% conclusive or else everyone would accept it as a fact of life. These are rational religions instead of subjective religions, since the faith does have a good logic line but still lacks proof.

[C1ay]

I one believes in God or believes there is no God, and can not offer conclusive proof for their believe, their belief is based on faith, which is the basis of a religion. Using that logic an aethiest has faith in no God even though he can not conclusively prove that God does not exist, therefore it is a type of rational religion, i.e, rationalis.

I have no faith that there is no God, I simply have yet to see any evidence to support belief in a God. Until I see such evidence I have no belief. Even if I had faith it would not make it a religion. I have faith that gravity will keep me from floating away. Does that make gravity a religion?

[IDMclean]

Sorry I went tangent on my originial intention.

A-theism is the ABSENCE of a particular belief. Literally, "without god-belief".

You contradict yourself.

 

I quoted that because I was going to note that in this statement it would seem to be assumed that I can contradict myself. One can only contradict that which is mutually exclusive. As C1ay points out it isn't a binary issue.

 

I have an opinion (or rather several, as it happens) as to how the world came about, but I have no beliefs that needs to draw on supernatural, all-knowing beings.

 

This is a misconception on the issue of religion, and atheism as a religion. It assumes that religion must be supernatural in origin. I would argue this to be a fallacy, that religion can be strictly natural in origin. I would feel that the evidence would support my position.

 

Religion, Wiki style

Religion, Dictionary.com style

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

So, it is your claim then that the statements, "I do not believe in Tinkerbell" and "I believe there is no Tinkerbell" are philosophically and/or logically the same? That there is no "lack of belief"?

 

This would infact be my position on it. A lack of belief, that validates to true is one which one can not voice. A known unknown is non-trivially different from a unknown unknown and a true unknown is not known by logical definition. A known unknown is not a lack, it is a thing and therefore by logical definition not a non-entity.

 

It would seem to me that the adverse rejection of the term religion as it would be applied to a so called non-religion such as atheism comes from the perception that the individuals involved are in worship to a deity or are part of some set of specific beliefs. Post #20, by C1ay would outline this as the definitions that he uses to base his arguements on would all support religion as inheriently being of supernatural origin.

A religion is NOT a set of beliefs. It is specifically a canonized set of spiritual and moral beliefs concerning a god (or gods), and a canonized set of rules or procedures for worshiping, praising, beseeching and/or asking for forgiveness or guidance from the god(s). The canonization is supplied by an organized body of spiritual authorities and/or scriptures.

 

Theism, Wiki style

Theism, Dictionary.com style

 

Now usually I am wary to reply to Pyrotex directly, as I find his (your?) style of debate rather crude, and unnessessarily aggressive, and even somewhat condecending. However it is crucial to address this purposed definition of religion. This definition would seem to me to more befit the term Theism, rather that Religion. It is like trying to discuss philosophy as if nihilism encompassed the whole of it. Theism is a branch of the more general subject of religion.

 

I believe the sky is blue (on clear days) and I believe that with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?

I believe in atoms and photons and magnetic fields with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?

 

To all these questions I would answer, yes. They are a religion. They may not seem like it in comparission to things like Christianity, or Hinduism, but they are, in my logical understanding. I have already stated that I recognize that my belief in the scientific method, the logical processes and other such conceptual systems constitute my own religious beliefs. Religion as I have stated before is, to me at the least based on the evidence and verifications of third party cannonical sources, the study of purpose, the search for truth and reason for existence. It is a belief structure (conviction of the truth of without varification) regarding the nature of existence.

 

Wheather it is theistic or not is independent of the term religion. Though often a religion is theistic, it does not have to be. Take for instance core buddhism, which denies deity, that says "I do not believe in a god entity, nor a seperation of what is from what is." The way this is said is far more complex, but the fundamental basics of it remain unchanged.

 

Simply because I say I choose not to hold conviction of the truth of the existence of god, does not say that I choose not to hold conviction of the truth of anything at all. Religion is about what you believe.

 

There is very little that I can say beyond this which has not already been said before by someone else.

 

Any further discussion on this point I would think to be moot. As it quickly has broken down into a rational definition of something as something else versus a irrational definition of something as something more than it's sum.

 

I understand the displeasure at being put at the same table with those who worship Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or whatever, but the truth is what it is. Just because I deny the validity of something does not make it any less verifiable, and in this case I would think that the best distinction one could hope for is as a philosophical doctrine, rather than religious.

 

Just remember that in the world of religions, beliefs, propositions, ideas, and mechanics, it is not a requirement to have a figure head, it is just a general rule with many exceptions.

 

Examples of religions without deity:

Wuism (Animistic)

Buddhism (Core atheistic)

 

For me what constitutes the difference between Religion, Science, and Philosophy is the questions they focus on.

 

Science talks allot about How things work. the mechanics. It makes a statement that it can not talk about Why things work, only that they do.

 

Philosophy is concearned more with the What of things. What we are talking about, and if we are talking about anything at all.

 

Religion then is concearned with, logically, the Why of things. Why something is the way it is, and why it works the way it is.

 

Hence the proximity of each concept, and the almost trivial distinction of such things.

 

Like I have said, and this is my final post here, I would think, it is up to you to decide, I have said what I can, that I know I can say. Whether you make it mean something, wheather you ask why, is up to you and your religious beliefs of the universe, in whatever form it may take.

 

-Wisdom, the virtue of understanding and the king of information. Knowledge it's student, the virtue of memory, and the king of data. One has meaning at it's core the other does not.

Foolish is as a KickAssClown does.

[C1ay]

This is a misconception on the issue of religion, and atheism as a religion. It assumes that religion must be supernatural in origin.

No it doesn't. A·theism simply means "not theist", literally. Theists believe in a deity, atheists do not. It's that simple. Theists are religious by definition. It could be said that some atheists are religious too but that does not mean that all of them are. To claim otherwise is to say that everyone is religious or that there can be no such thing as an irreligious person which would defeat the reason for even having a word such as "irreligious" in the dictionary.

[IDMclean]

No it doesn't

 

Sorry I fail to understand the response given. No, what does not?

 

If Theist is religious

and atheist is anti (?) theistic

but religious is not implicitly theistic,

then though theist implies relgious, it does not imply that atheist is not religious.

 

Also, in my book it makes no sense to have a word such as Irreligious. Unless I take it's meaning wrongly, it is a senseless word. As in having literally no meaningful meaning. That is GIGO.

 

Woah, slightly of topic but related and found through research. I am not an atheist, I am a Nontheist. Odd notion.

 

On further reading of the definition of religion, some might make the distiction that one must have a sense of the profound, or sacred, expecially in the case of Atheism as a possible non-religious doctrine. I would make no such distinction, but I suppose that is simply me.

 

ir‧re‧li‧gious  /ˌɪrɪˈlɪdʒəs/ [ir-i-lij-uhs]

–adjective

1. not religious; not practicing a religion and feeling no religious impulses or emotions.

2. showing or characterized by a lack of religion.

3. showing indifference or hostility to religion: irreligious statements.

 

This word when combined with:

re‧li‧gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

Would seem to indicate:

ni‧hil‧ism  /ˈnaɪəˌlɪzəm, ˈni-/ [nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-]

–noun

• 
  [4.]Philosophy.
  
  • 
    [a.] an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
    [b.] nothingness or nonexistence.
    

 

Which just makes me sad. Perhaps I am not done, do not truely know.

[pgrmdave]

KickAssClown, I think that one of the biggest logical problems with asserting that not having a belief in something is the same as believing it not to be true is that there are vastly more beliefs that you do not believe in than there are that you do. In fact, there are infinitely more potential beliefs than there have been beliefs ever or ever will be. Would you assert that my not believing in Qryyr, the God of the Guardians of the Purified Darkness qualifies me as being religious?

[C1ay]

Sorry I fail to understand the response given. No, what does not?

That any supposed misconception on atheism and religion assumes that religion must be supernatural.

[Pyrotex]

As I have asserted before and you can take it or leave it. Your choice, not mine. The absence of a belief, with the full knowledge thereof is not the absence of a thing, and therefore is in and of itself a thing. Therefore it is a self-falsifying proposition.

That is that you are aware of the proposition and you hold conviction either for or against, makes it into belief if the proposition is unverified or unverifiable.....

Fallacy upon fallacy. There, I have made my choice.

 

I can clear this all up in a few sentences:

I have NO beliefs at all. Period. Never did, never will.

I have choices.

I have convictions.

I have deductions.

I have conclusions.

I have opinions.

And on rare occassions, I think.

Right now, I think I'll have another drink.

Now that I think about it, I believe there is NO SUCH THING as a belief.

So there!

Put that in your thesaurus and smoke it.

neener-neener-neener! ;)

[Pyrotex]

...my not believing in Qryyr, the God of the Guardians of the Purified Darkness qualifies me as being religious?

What a freakin coincidence!!!!

 

I don't believe in that very same god!!!!

 

Damn, what are the odds????

[Turtle]

;)

What a freakin coincidence!!!!

 

I don't believe in that very same god!!!!

 

Damn, what are the odds????

 

Quite good according to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, who released a book two years ago called The End of Faith: Religion Terror, and the Future of Reason, et al.

To whit, a lengthy 8 page article in evidence & a short quote from therin thouest mustus readeth.;) (Emphasis mine;) )

 

This autumn, Harris has a new book out, Letter to a Christian Nation. In it, he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. "Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you," he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, "dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well -- by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God."

 

Here here!!

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

[Chacmool]

To whit, a lengthy 8 page article in evidence & a short quote from therin thouest mustus readeth.

Thus spake the Great Turtle. Amen.

[Boerseun]

Hats off to the Tempestuously Tyrannical Turtle of Truth.

- That was a great article, by the way...