Is Atheism a Religion? Why or why not?

[The Grand Nudger]

It never matters. These dipshits try to force people like you into some positive knowledge claim, but they don't have any interest in talking to me..a person who actually does make that knowledge claim, about it.

[GrandizerII]

So let's debate this. 

Anarchism is a system of government though it says it "is no system of government" at all. It doesn't get to win by default by saying that. It must be show that it is the true and best government system. Similarly, Atheism comes under Religous Systems. It is not excused from the obligations of showing it is the true and best form of religion or religious opinion. It must also adduce solid and weighty evidence in its favor to be taken seriously.

Thus, Dr. Craig rightly defends two propositions in most of his debates (1) There are Good Reasons to think (Christian) Theism is true. (2) There are no Good Reasons to think Atheism is true. And then gives evidence under either point. What evidence can Atheists offer to think Atheism is True?

I don't know if atheism (in the positive sense of the term) is true. I just find that the reasons for Christian theism, along with various other particular theisms, are lacking and not very convincing and often entail beliefs that I just find either too fantastical to be true or just clearly man-made. And if we're talking bare minimum theism (i.e., simply that a personal God exists),  I don't see why there should be. If we're talking just simply some impersonal First Cause, I don't personally consider that to be God anyway, and why should there even be that.

That's really all there is to it. My confidence in atheism being true is primarily dependent on my confidence in theism being true. And I suspect the same with many atheists here. Many atheists don't appear to think much about positive evidence for atheism, nor do they appear to hold to atheism to the same degree of confidence that Christian theists hold to theism.

[Angrboda]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It never matters.  These dipshits try to force people like you into some positive knowledge claim, but they don't have any interest in talking to me..a person who actually does make that knowledge claim, about it.

While atheism per se is not a positive claim, there’s no conflict in an atheist (in this case, you) making that positive claim. Good on yer!

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

So let's debate this. 

Anarchism is a system of government though it says it "is no system of government" at all. It doesn't get to win by default by saying that. It must be show that it is the true and best government system. Similarly, Atheism comes under Religous Systems. It is not excused from the obligations of showing it is the true and best form of religion or religious opinion. It must also adduce solid and weighty evidence in its favor to be taken seriously.

Anarchism has tenets of "no government is the best government", but doesn't state anything about the existence of governments. My version of atheism makes no claims about the existence of gods, but rather about my state of belief.

Thus, Dr. Craig rightly defends two propositions in most of his debates (1) There are Good Reasons to think (Christian) Theism is true.

This is a non sequitur.

(2) There are no Good Reasons to think Atheism is true. And then gives evidence under either point. What evidence can Atheists offer to think Atheism is True?

This is, as well. How does this follow from your analogy to anarchism?

As for evidence that atheism is true, I suppose that depends on the brand of atheism. An agnostic atheist such as myself makes no claims about the existence of gods, but rather, only about whether I find what is proffered as "evidence" is entirely unconvincing. I need not prove to you my lack of belief.

Atheists making the positive claim that gods do not or cannot exist do have the obligation to evidence that positive claim. Given that I don't make that claim, and (more to the point) don't care what you believe so long as you don't inflict it upon others, why should I present what I think is evidence for a claim I am not making?

You, on the other hand, who propounds not only the existence of a god but one so full of contradictions as to be absurd -- you have your hands full with this demand for evidence. You should probably worry about evidencing your own claims before demanding such from others who disagree with you.

But I doubt you're interested in challenging your own beliefs. You seem primarily engaged in sermonizing them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lets see if we can expand this silly shits mind. I'm an atheist...... but also a nationalist..... and a hardcore capitalist. Thats probaly why I'm anti-christian. There's absolutely nothing about christianity that helps my nation. It has only ever harmed my nation, it -can- only ever harm my nation. There's absolutely nothing about christianity that helps free markets, it has only ever harmed free markets, and only -can- harm free markets.

Discuss.

[Nishant Xavier]

If your nation is America, as I think it is, a certain historical figure disagrees. Oh yeah, his name also happens to be Abraham Lincoln, lol. Like the Holy Bible had said long ago, that Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord, Lincoln, quoting that passage and reflecting on it, affirming it to be proven by all history, said:

---

"Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord;

And, insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us (!)

---

Taken from: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/document...and-prayer

Now, let's get back to the issue. One of the absurd things I heard Mr. Hitchens say in his debate where he got badly defeated by Dr. Craig, even according to Atheistic Websites, was: "There's no claim I know to make that Atheism is True, because Atheism is the Proposition that a Certain Proposition isn't True". This is an elementary/textbook logical fallacy, a classic Hitchensism. Who told you this, Hitchens? Granted that for a Proposition P, Q is the negation of P, the affirmation that P is not True, it in no way follows that Q does not have a Truth Value of its own. Of course, it does, the opposite Truth Value. Thus, if P is the Proposition "It is raining outside", Q, the negation of P, "It is not raining outside" of course has a Truth Value of its own, contra Hitchens. If P is True, Q is false. If Q is true, P is false. This is sheer sophistry from MA Hitchens.

Now, let's take some "definitions" of Atheism that have been proffered on this thread:

Helios: "(A): I lack belief in the theistic claim there is a god 

(T) I claim there is a god"

Your statement is not about objective reality, but a subjective opinion, hence the "I"s in both. Re-formulate it without involving an "I" in either. Also, it would follow, for each Atheist and Theist, both A and T are true, which is trivial; because both respectively either lack belief or claim there is a god. So what does that tell us? Nothing. Whereas as with A-Mars-ism, if you define it as whether Mars exists or not, then that's a statement about reality, not about a person's opinion on it.

If you want to define G: "It is uncertain whether there is a God or not", that would be Agnosticism. 

Also, something is only a Proposition if it has a non-trivial Truth Value: "In mathematics, a proposition is a statement that can either be found to be true or false. The truth value is true if the proposition is true". https://study.com/learn/lesson/propositi...ables.html The way you've defined A and T, every Atheist would find A true in his own mind, and every Theist T true in his. 

Brian:

---

But A-Mars-ism would NOT be a claim - in this context- that Mars does not exist. 'I believe Mars does not exist' and 'I do not believe Mars exist' are not the same statement. Additionally, the positive claim that Mars does not exist isn't the same as lacking the belief that it does exist.

Even if the atheist lack of belief in gods turns out to be false, that doesn't negate the lack of that belief, it just makes it wrong. There is a MASSIVE semantic difference between 'Gods do not exist' and 'I do not believe gods exist'.

---

Ok, agreed. "I believe Mars does not exist" and "I do not believe Mars exists" are not the same; however, that's just a question of degrees. A dogmatic "strong" A-Mars-ist would say, I absolutely affirm, with 100% certainty, that no such thing as a Planet Mars exists! A non-dogmatic "weak" (to use the same language Dawkins uses on his "scale"), non-dogmatic A-Mars-ist would say, "I lack a belief in the Planet Mars. I'm fairly sure no such Planet exists, maybe 90% sure. However, I don't want to affirm absolutely that it could not exist". Whether that or something like that is what Dawkins meant by giving himself a 6.9, I don't know.

But again, the issue is, when you have an "I" in your definition, then it confuses the issue. The statement "Mars exists/Mars does not exist" is very clear and is a statement about objective reality that can be falsified or not and does not depend on you or me, Brian.

[Silver]

An actual historical figure quoting a fictional religious book isn't evidence of god's existence. All I care about is the evidence, which you and every other theist always fails to provide.

[Nishant Xavier]

God's Existence is as mathematically certain as the fact that an infinite number of contingent beings cannot exist. That is the Demonstration from Contingency. Since these contingent beings cannot go on indefinitely, they terminate in a First Cause, an Eternal First Being, Almighty God.

God's Existence is as scientifically certain as the fact that chance, given the exceedingly narrow range of certain fine-tuned physical constants required to create life, can be reasonably inferred not to have been the true cause of the formation of life. Thus, the True Cause of Life can be Scientifically known to be a Benevolent Designer.

God's Existence is as morally certain as the fact that objective moral obligation - which we know from our Conscience to be a self-evident Truth - cannot exist in a blind, directionless, purposeless Universe, but can only originate from the Free Decrees of a Personal, and Supremely Good, Being, who gave us some objective moral "dos" and "donts" (thou shalts and thou shalt nots), which we know as a properly basic Truth from our Conscience.

One can easily come to 90+% certainty about God's Existence from these and such like similar considerations. Then, personal experience can bring you to 100% or close to it. God Bless.

[Bucky Ball]

It's a religion. Just like Catholicism is a religion.
Catholicism is worth the same thing as atheism. The absence of anything substantial.
See how that works. Your question implies you have no respect for your faith.

Of course it's not. The concept of "god" is incoherent without any coherent definition.
Do you believe in Pink Sparkly unicorns ? Do you have faith that there are no Pink Sparkly unicorns ?
Do you find it necessary to take a position with respect to Pink Sparkly unicorns ?

No. You dismiss the very idea. We dismiss the very idea of the gods as incoherent, and worth no consideration.
Dismissal is not religion, (unless you have so little regard for religion and equate dismissal as the same thing as your faith.)