1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Atheism is not a religion

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Deadly Ferret, Dec 5, 2007.

  1. Deadly Ferret

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Apr 11, 2003

    Posts: 9,371

    Location: London

    (I am not atheist.)

    Chambers
    religion noun 1 a belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods. 2 a particular system of belief or worship, such as Christianity or Judaism. 3 colloq anything to which one is totally devoted and which rules one's life • mountaineering is his religion. 4 the monastic way of life.

    Clearly parts 1, 3, and 4 do not apply. Therefore your whole argument, should you choose to contest my point, hinges on some of part 2, the idea that atheism is a belief. (Obviously worship isn't relevant.)

    However, there is not something in which atheists believe; there is merely something propounded by others, which they in turn actively disbelieve/reject. It's a huge difference!
     
  2. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,539

    Location: Back in East London

    Atheism - the belief that no god exists. [sic]

    Easy to see why it is a religion.
     
  3. Moley

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 29, 2006

    Posts: 3,161

    Location: In a world of my own

    Its a single belief, not a system of beliefs - which is what religion is defined as.

    I believe that my name is Jamie - doesn't make my belief into a religion...
     
  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,204

    Location: Plymouth

    If you wish, substitute religion for faith ;)

    They take a stance on an untestable hypothesis that is not based on evidence, or demonstratable lack of evidence, in that regard, the theist and the atheist are no different, they both act solely on what they believe, rather than what they can demonstrate.

    Couple that with the fact that the behaviour of many of the atheists on this forum mimics the more aggressive religious preachers and you have a perfect reason why I referred to it as a religion. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it? Your suggestion that they simply reject the beliefs of others is incorrect, they substitute their own beliefs for it, because atheism is active disbelief, even in the weak "I see no evidence for" form.
     
  5. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,539

    Location: Back in East London

    Christianity is not a system of belief's either, in that context. I don't know enough about other religions to quote them as one of the other.
     
  6. Samione

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 7, 2007

    Posts: 1,373

    Atheism is a blind faith; an aspect of religion- if you deny any possibility of a god you are doing this with the absense of evidence as there is nothing to suggest either way that a god doesn't or does exist.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  7. Van_Dammesque

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 4, 2004

    Posts: 2,165

    Location: NE England

    I guess we are all fundamental a-goblinists, since we all have faith that goblins do not exist. Add to that santa claus, pixies, dragons, flying spaghetti monsters, zeus, thor, etc.....

    Simply put, theology is a very bad argument in terms of philosophy, never mind science.

    According to your own views of the universe it is nothing and everything, since you could use occam's razor to say it is elves or pixies, but certainly not a duck. ;)
     
  8. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,177

    Atheism isn't a religion.

    It is a faith based position, but not a Faith.
     
  9. Van_Dammesque

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 4, 2004

    Posts: 2,165

    Location: NE England

    There is no evidence to support the notion of a god in the first instance:
    therefore the proposer of a god must first provide evidence, not an atheist!

    Atheists have listened to the proposals (even though there is zero evidence offered at the same time as the proposal) and rejected it becasue it:
    A/ defies reality.
    B/ so preposterously irrational to be soundly rejected (remember no evidence is put forward by any deists).


    "That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
    - Steve Weinberg.
     
  10. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,204

    Location: Plymouth

    If you wish to have faith that something absolutely does not exist, then yes, because it's not something proveable by your own favoured approach ;) The difference between active disbelief and irrelevance is the key, something that your faith does not allow you to see past. I find it especially ironic as you are one of the most evangelising atheists here, the most religious, if you like, in your views.

    Not true at all, I could say all evidence points to it being a duck, it is most likely to be a duck, even that the chances that it's actually not a duck are so small that they are irrelevant and can be ignored, but feel free to misrepresent me, it's a favoured trick of those attacking religions other than their own.
     
  11. Deadly Ferret

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Apr 11, 2003

    Posts: 9,371

    Location: London

    Don't you know the difference between believing something and believing in something? (Jamiemoles made the point well.)
     
  12. Samione

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 7, 2007

    Posts: 1,373

    The notion of god arises from the concepts of the creation of creation surely-and things we can NEVER understand becuase of our logic bound minds?
     
  13. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,204

    Location: Plymouth

    No, not at all. Logical positivism is not a natural state, it is an assumption that is not supported by evidence. It is part of your faith based structure, nothing more. The natural state of any untested hypothesis is not true or false, it's unknown. You start from the flawed position of believing it to be false in the absence of any testing.

    You cannot logically take a stance on an untestable hypothesis unless you invoke faith based assumptions (such as the one above). You are rejecting a hypothesis because you don't think it's right, not because you can demonstrate anything.

    Your argument holds no weight other than your own faith, it is the philosophical equivilent of saying "The bible is the word of god, so it must be true."
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  14. Van_Dammesque

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 4, 2004

    Posts: 2,165

    Location: NE England

    No it is not the key, someone either believes santa claus exists based on no evidence or they do not entertain such notions because there is no proof of santa claus and it would mean defying the laws of physics.

    There is no difference in terms of strength of argument to a god.
    So you believe of goblins then? And santa claus? It could be possibly one of those if you invoke occam's razor (which is what you like doing - I could say you are the most evangelical agnostic, yet you are a neo-pagan :) )

    Can you define your god Dolph, and his (presumably) powers?
     
  15. Deadly Ferret

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Apr 11, 2003

    Posts: 9,371

    Location: London

    I disagree that it is not based on a demonstratable lack of evidence. (Coming back to this in a moment...) Firstly, I would like to clarify that evidence and proof are not the same thing. I'm sure we all know that, but I mention it just in case. Proof is absolute; evidence is not.

    I agree they take a stance on an untestable hypothesis (that's why I'm agnostic! :D), but it is not their own hypothesis. It is the one that came into existence when man said there is god. The atheists are the ones who not only refuse to support the hypothesis, but choose to oppose it.

    The godmen (you know what I mean) have put forward this hypothesis with absolutely no evidence!* A lack of proof can be overlooked, but a lack of mere evidence cannot! The atheists' position is in fact based on this, demonstratable ** lack of evidence. (It's a position I understand, even sympathise with, but I cannot take it myself because I know that they might be wrong. I do not need a position.)


    *No, the bible doesn't count as evidence, because even the christians acknowledge it was written by man. Might as well cite Dante's Inferno!

    **I put it to you that any sane, reasonable man of logic would support my stance that if a group of people in the millions, all supporting a hypothesis over the course of thousands of years, fail to produce any evidence, then that historical lack of evidence may be justly considered a demonstratable lack of evidence.

    Something that looks, walks and quacks like a duck but isn't one...

    Active disbelief indeed, but what do you mean by that? I say active disbelief, rather than just disbelief, because they are making the point that it is their position, rather than just being silent about it.
     
  16. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,539

    Location: Back in East London

    Other than the word "in," there isn't one. You either believe something to be true, or believe it to be false. Christians believe God exists, and they believe he has sent messages to us/them. They believe these messages contains commands/instructions on our way of life, etc. Atheists believe none of that is true. Neither party has any evidence.
     
  17. Deadly Ferret

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Apr 11, 2003

    Posts: 9,371

    Location: London

    I believe socialists are flogged.
    I believe in socialists being flogged.

    The first statement signifies that I think socialists are flogged. The second statement does not; it signifies that I think they should be. See, that is the difference the word 'in' makes. :)

    (For the record, I don't believe socialists are flogged but I do believe they should be...occasionally, lightly.)
     
  18. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,539

    Location: Back in East London

    aka You believe it is correct that socialists should be flogged. :)
     
  19. The Mad Rapper

    Banned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,480

    Why does it have to be a belief in a formalised way? Why can't it just be a point of view?
     
  20. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,539

    Location: Back in East London

    It always whittles down to what you believe.. e.g. your point of view is what you believe to be the "right" point of view.