Atheism is a religion

[Michelle_Patton]

So, I've seen this asked/mentioned quite a few times before with no response:

Just say I did agree that atheism is a belief/religion - now what? What difference does it make? What's your point?





(I'm not saying I do agree, just wondering why so many theists use this as an argument - an argument for what exactly?)

[Faith No More]

Let's set this aside for now, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. Is it possible for a person to not be part of any religion?

Amkerman, I see you decided to ignore this question and only focus on those disagreeing with you. Are you actually here for conversation, or are you only here to get into pissing matches? If it is the former, please answer my question. If you do not, I will assume it is the latter.

[Mister Agenda]

fidel castronaut:
"atheism= the lack of belief in God or gods."

- You do know that definition is the most passive aggressive load of horseshit regardless of whether or not it's found in a dictionary or not right?

If thy dictionary offend thee, pluck it out and go some place where they don't care if you make up your own meanings for words.

The very definition commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance.

A definition can't commit a fallacy. If I define bleck as the very definition of the fallacy of invincible ignorance, that does not mean the definition commits that fallacy. What's committed is those of us who are agnostic or weak atheists saying 'we don't believe in any God or gods' and you finding passive-aggressive ways to say we're all liars without actually coming out and saying so.

If you are aware of an idea, regardless of what that idea is, you are automatically forced to form beliefs about it. It's unavoidable.

"afoiweuroij"

- you just formed a belief about the string of letter above. You have formed a belief about every letter and word in this sentence, including the .

I have knowledge of that word: which letters compose it, what order they're in, and so forth. I have no beliefs (or idea) of what the word is supposed to mean or if it correlates to anything real. I don't know if you made it up or if you got it somewhere else. I don't know if a meaning has already been assigned, if you plan to make one up, or if it hasn't been defined, if you plan on letting it remain so. I completely lack a belief regarding whether or not anything it may refer to is real. And let's be clear: the Abrahamic God is clearly the result of generations of a game of 'my god is better than yours'. It's a ridiculous pile of omnis that contradict each other and can't possibly coexist. But it's possible some other version of God may exist or some 'small g' god exists; although I think it's unlikely I don't set the probability at zero. I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't rule out the possibilty of some sort of god (although I lack belief in any); but I'm a 'gnostic' atheist toward versions of God that are self-contradictory or contradict observable reality. And speaking of forming beliefs about strings of letters, I question whether a word like God that seems to have hundreds of definitions which many proponents shift freely to suit their arguments can meaningfully be said to actually have a definition.

- by the mere fact that you have been introduced to the idea of God you have formed a belief about it. You either believe God exists, believe God does not exist, or believe in the possibility of God but are unsure of God's existence or non-existence.

Sure. What I believe about any God or god I've heard of is that belief in it's existence is unjustified by logic or evidence, even if it's possible that it really does exist. My belief about the Abrahamic God based on his most commonly-ascribed attributes is that he doesn't exist. Your version of God isn't the only one, even many of your co-religionists don't mind throwing that version under the bus if another is more defensible. I'm reminded of a debate I attended on whether the God of the Bible exists. The proponent never even attempted to prove more than an ill-defined creator God. I believe the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. I don't believe the Deist God does exist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any God or god exists. We can have all kinds of other beliefs. We can even believe God doesn't exist, but it's not required, anymore than theists are required to never have doubts that God exists.

Those are the only three options you have regarding God's existence, because you are aware of the idea of God.

Sigh. If I believe in the possibilty of some sort of God or gods, but am unsure of God's existence or non-existence, there's still the matter of whether I believe God exists. I am not sure no version of God exists, but I don't believe any version of God exists, with the possible exception of other things being named God (the universe, your cat, whatever) and they don't count for purposes of whether I'm a theist or an atheist. I've been both an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist. It's perfectly possible to believe in God without being sure God exists and it's perfectly possible to not believe in God without being sure God doesn't exist.

Only if you have never heard the word "God" or gods, AND were never made aware of what God is or isn't, AND personally had not considered anything relating to purpose, meaning, mortality, life, death, and a host of other ideas, could you be regardes as "lacking belief in God or gods". Of course, you could never be aware of the fact that you "lacked belief," being aware of that would mean you had formed a belief.

I've been exposed to the idea that you may have a $50 in your front right pants pocket. I've considered pockets, money, people, and a host of other ideas. I lack belief that you have a $50 in your front right pants pocket. It's one of the less-common denominations and I don't even know if you're wearing pants. However, I don't believe you don't have a $50 in your front right pants pocket.

Beliefs are not physical things, you can not lack them like you can lack a brain.

So you don't believe someone who lacks a brain can lack beliefs? Are you sure you're not just ranting?

They can be strong, they can be weak, they are beliefs nonetheless. I have heard that my words are trying to tell atheists "What they believe". No. . They aren't. I have no idea what any of you believes. I just know you believe something. Even if you think you don't believe anything... that's still a belief.

I don't have a belief in any version of God or gods existing. I can't imagine what, other than a truly profound passive-aggressive attitude, could lead someone to tell me that it's passive-aggressive to say I don't believe in something and that for some reason I HAVE to agree that I believe it doesn't exist instead. I noticed you've conflated not believing in God with not believing in anything. I believe you know better.

What is even more interesting is that so many of you "atheists" believe in observable physical reality, which is predicated on a belief in "God". Think for yourselves, and think critically. But first, learn how to think correctly.

Insufferable arrogance is not an endearing quality. Physical reality doesn't depend on anyone's beliefs and the astounding ignorance required to make such an utterly preposterous claim makes the following recommendation to learn how to think critically hilarious.

All it takes believe or not believe in something is blind faith. Many people have it. Atheists and theists alike. Words are just labels, the have no meaning besides that which we personally ascribe them.

If they don't have the meanings we collectively ascribe to them, then they're useless for communication.

Religions are nothing more than groups of people who think the same way about "God" (I know, YOUR definitions of atheism and religions conveniently make it so atheism is not a religion because atheism is "not a belief" but a "lack of belief"... convenient for you, and utterly ridiculous and aggravatingly passive aggressive as I have said before).

Complete certainty there is no God isn't a religion either. I totally and completely believe the God of the Bible is nothing but fiction. It's still not a religion. Whether atheism is a belief or not couldn't be more irrelevant to the question of whether it's a religion. Theism is the belief in some sort of God or gods, but it's not a religion and can't be unless you change the meaning of the word.

Not all Christians believe exactly the same thing, neither do all Atheists. Both are religions.

Theism and atheism are opinions on the topic of whether or not any gods exist. One can be a theist without any religon and an atheist with one. 'Christian' is one category of theist you can be. Plants and animals are both living things, that doesn't mean rutabagas and animals are both plants.

One has faith that "God" exists and tries to define God, one makes believes that no definition of "God" exists, so has faith that nothing called "God" exists either.

Oh, there's plenty of definitions of God that exist.

Some atheists then make the additional leap of making fun of the word "God".

Maybe if all you theists could find a way to agree on what the thing you believe in actually is, it wouldn't be so funny.

And yet we all believe the Sun rises in the East...and the world goes 'round.

Those thar are things with whut we like to call around hyar, convincin' 'evidence comprisin' reasonable justification fer belief'. Assuming the first part's jest a figure o' speech.

[Mister Agenda]

Shell: all of reality is experienced through consciousness. If you believe in reality you must believe consciousness is real. If consciousness is real it must exist apart from sciences observation of or ideas about it. The only things science believes exists apart from it's observation or ideas about are universal constants. If consciousness is a universal constant it can correctly be called "God". Sentience as universal law responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it. If you believe in reality you must necessarily believe in "God".

---

If you cannot be confident in that consciousness is real you can not be confident in your experience of reality.

---

If "you don't believe in anything" by definition you can't be conscious.

The parts I bolded are mere assertion and can be dismissed as such. Did someone say they 'don't believe in anything' or is that just a straw man? I believe in lots of things. I just try to make a little effort to make my beliefs proportional to the reasons I have to believe them. I am delighted when I find out I'm wrong about something I believe: it means I can discard an incorrect belief, which means I'm making a little progress. There's only one thing I say I don't believe that gives you heartburn. It really chaps your hide for some reason that I don't rule out some conception of a god 100% and still won't say I believe it exists. For you, 'I don't know and I don't believe' doesn't compute. Which would be fine if you didn't come to the house of 'I don't know and I don't believe' to crap on us.

[amkerman]

If thy dictionary offend thee, pluck it out and go some place where they don't care if you make up your own meanings for words.

many words have multiple definitions. Definitions are often different depending on which dictionary you use. Until I understand a concept, I try to stick with the dictionary. Once I get it, I define it myself.

A definition can't commit a fallacy. If I define bleck as the very definition of the fallacy of invincible ignorance, that does not mean the definition commits that fallacy. What's committed is those of us who are agnostic or weak atheists saying 'we don't believe in any God or gods' and you finding passive-aggressive ways to say we're all liars without actually coming out and saying so.

I get what you are getting at, but I stick with my original statement. You cant "lack belief" in something you have formed thoughts about. That atheists "lack belief in God or gods" commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. I'll give you this: the definition by itself does not commit the fallacy, anytime an someone uses that definition in response to a question about what atheism is, the person is committing the fallacy.

I have knowledge of that word: which letters compose it, what order they're in, and so forth. I have no beliefs (or idea) of what the word is supposed to mean or if it correlates to anything real. I don't know if you made it up or if you got it somewhere else. I don't know if a meaning has already been assigned, if you plan to make one up, or if it hasn't been defined, if you plan on letting it remain so. I completely lack a belief regarding whether or not anything it may refer to is real.

Words have no meaning beyond that which we personally ascribe them, they are simply constructs of language. If you go up to someone who speaks a different language and start talking they will not understand you. Nevertheless, they will be forced to form beliefs. probably that you are trying to communicate with them. Complete knowledge of anything is beyond our comprehension. We ONLY have beliefs about things, no actual knowledge. If I ask you to prove something exists, anything, you would not be able to do it. You could have all the evidence in the world and yet you could not prove something to 100% certainty. We start with axioms which we assume to be true but can not prove, say "reality exists" we build off that. When you say "knowledge" I hear "belief" the fact that many of us share the same believes does not automatically make them true.

And let's be clear: the Abrahamic God is clearly the result of generations of a game of 'my god is better than yours'. It's a ridiculous pile of omnis that contradict each other and can't possibly exist. But it's possible some other version of God may exist or some 'small g' god exists; although I think it's unlikely I don't set the probability at zero. I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't rule out the possibilty of some sort of god (although I lack belief in any); but I'm a 'gnostic' atheist toward versions of God that are self-contradictory or contradict observable reality. And speaking of forming beliefs about strings of letters, I question whether a word like God that seems to have hundreds of definitions which many proponents shift freely to suit their arguments can meaningfully be said to actually have a definition.

"the Abrahamic God" , or "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Odin" or "Zeus" have no inherent meaning to them beyond that which we ascribe them. If God exists, God exists independently of our beliefs about what that God is. That people have made up many definitions for God is simply human nature and our need to understand and label things. God is incomprehensible. That someone would assume to know God's will is travesty. Although the attempt to know God is nobel, many people are not.

Sure. What I believe about any God or god I've heard of is that belief in it's existence is unjustified by logic or evidence, even if it's possible that it really does exist. My belief about the Abrahamic God based on his most commonly-ascribed attributes is that he doesn't exist. Your version of God isn't the only one, even many of your co-religionists don't mind throwing that version under the bus if another is more defensible. I'm reminded of a debate I attended on whether the God of the Bible exists. The proponent never even attempted to prove more than an ill-defined creator God. I believe the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. I don't believe the Deist God does exist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any God or god exists. We can have all kinds of other beliefs. We can even believe God doesn't exist, but it's not required, anymore than theists are required to never have doubts that God exists

I might stop here because I think the crux of our are disagreement begins with the axiom which we base our knowledge on. It seems that you start from a point of "things are real because they are" whereas I start from "I percieve". From your starting point a conclusion that God exists is near impossible to prove whereas that conclusion is an inevitability from my starting point. You need proof that the things we observe through your conscious perception are true, yet for some reason the statement that your perceptions are inherently true is assumed without proof. There is no evidence that our conscious perceptions of reality are real. The axiom is circular reasoning. Starting from, "I percieve", however, no assumptions are initially made beyond the assumption that I am perceiving things. From there my belief in reality is based on a belief, not knowledge, that my perceptions and observations are real. If perceptions are real consciousness must be real. If consciousness is real it must exist independently of my ideas about it. The only things we believe exist independently of our ideas about them are those forces which created and bind all things in the universe and the universe itself. If consciousness is a force that is responsible for the creation of the universe it can be called "God".

I honestly believe that "I percieve" is the only logical assumption one can make. It is the only thing one is capable of "knowing". Everything else requires belief.

---

Your right Master, it is aggravating to me hear someone say that they lack any beliefs about something they are aware of. It doesnt compute with me. It honestly seems like such a obvious reality that how someone can hold the belief that they "lack belief" in thins they are aware of is somehow offensive. You, however, are not. I really do enjoy discussing with you, you are one of a select few on here who actually consider anything I say. So I thank you for that.

[Jackalope]

I looked high and low, near and far, and no fuck could be found to be given.

[dloubet]

You cant "lack belief" in something you have formed thoughts about. That atheists "lack belief in God or gods" commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance.

These two statements do not intersect. You can form thoughts about something and not possess the belief that it exists.

The belief -- that god exists -- is not in my head. Therefore I lack that belief.

The belief -- that Darth Vader exists -- is not in my head. Therefore I lack that belief.

I additionally hold the belief that Darth Vader does not exist.

The lack of belief in Darth Vader is a report of my subjective state. The belief that Darth Vader does not exist is a claim concerning objective reality. These are two entirely different things.

The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.

-- Wikipedia

Have atheists ignored any and all evidence of gods? I haven't. I've merely examined what's been presented and found it lacking. Hence my lack of belief.

[amkerman]

Doublet:
The fallacy has nothing to do with what atheists think about God, it has to do with the statement that they "lack belief". It isn't that they don't belief God "exists", it's that the are aware of an idea called "God" yet somehow "lack" any belief in it.

If I ask you, what is "bocephilitus"? And you say, "I have no idea, a word you just made up I guess", you have just made multiple statements of your belief in "bocephilitus"
1. You don't know what it is
2. A word
3. Something I made up

To the state that you lack belief in it commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. The very fact that I said the word and you heard it forces you to form a belief about it.

If I say, "don't think about a white elephant" and you say you didn't... Invincible ignorance.

[KichigaiNeko]

Bocephalitis IS a word you just made up..... You are lacking in logic

---

Now if you were just doing an uneducated typo and actually meant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucephalus

This would be something that say only someone who has studied or is interested in would understand

---

or are you referring to http://australianmuseum.net.au/movie/Bla...bucephalus ??

---

or are you referring to this http://www.bucephalus.org/

[amkerman]

Faith: I just saw your question...

Before I reply I'd just like to say that I am here to discuss whatever I find interesting or worthy of discussion. I do not see everything and will not be on here enough to respond to all queries. When I am I will do my best to answer any honest question posed to me.

Do I believe it is possible for a person to not be a part of any religion?


- well, first and foremost that would depend on how you define religion.

But yes

religions aren't real. They are man made institutions. They are labels people use. They have no actual significance apart from that which we personally ascribe them. If you ACTUALLY form your own beliefs by thinking for yourself then regardless of what those beliefs are and regardless of how similar those beliefs are to any religion you would not be a part of that religion, unless of course you chose to be.

However, since religion is illusory whether or not someone "belongs" to a particular religion doesn't is meaningless. I colt call myself an atheist if I wanted to.