Is atheism a religion?

[paarsurrey]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

I understand Atheism is a man made religion/no-religion or position/no-position. It doesn't claim to solve any human problem of this world or the next world. Right, please?
Regards

 

[Lepoldo]

I understand Atheism is a man made religion/no-religion or position/no-position. It doesn't claim to solve any human problem of this world or the next world. Right, please?
Regards

Hi!
Responding to the last message and the main topic:

Atheism should not be considered as much more than a very specific non belief. As non belief in spirits, angels, ghosts and many other beings or things, but atheist refers specificaly to one of those beings: gods (or a god). One should not deduce much from a declaration of non belief. I observe that religions use to have a holy book, perform reunions where beliefs are ensured, prayers are performed, directed by someone, money is payed to raise the community etc. It is essential to believe something to build a religion around it. I am not saying that atheist do not have beliefs! I am saying that when they present theirselfs as atheists they are expressing a very specific non belief. I am sure that believers also have many non-beliefs, they are not stupid people that belive anything that is presented to them.

To consider atheists as religious, they should all gather and reinforce a certain world view, moral landscape, filosofical view, and a will to convert others etc... Some of this elements might be found in atheist individuals, but it does not fit with the definition of what an atheist claims, which is nothing more than a specific non-belief in their lives. I always consider incredibly naive to say that atheists consider that "everything came from nothing", for instance. You should first ask what is the view of an atheist in this type of matters. This is usually a thing people deduce because they consider that when something is not known, there are only 2 options: God or some other nonsense. As if there were only 2 options, and discarding one, makes the other one true. Like atheist dont beleive in god, the only option left is a stupid one... pretty lame (it is actually not that stupid, though). By the way, giving only 2 options is a classical psicological tactic, beware of it! Many times one can consider more than 2! By experience, i observe that many atheist are not afraid of being honest and answer: I dont know, which is a perfectly reasonable answer for an atheist, that has not claimed anything of the origins of life or existance, by expressing his non belief in specific gods or a god. Yo can safely deduce an atheist thinks that a god is not the responsible, but dont be so naive to think that there are only 2 options without a doubt!

In conclusion, I find it surprising how people can think that atheism is a religion. I think humanism is not a religion either, but it is at least a collection of beliefs or world views, and a debate "is humanism a religion?" could have some sense. But atheism? I really think it is only something many like to state because it might offend someway atheists. No offense taken by my part. I simply observe considering atheism a religion as a poor structured thought.

 

[Valjean]

That is true, but if one is too skeptical they will not be led down ANY paths.
One needs actual evidence to prove that their skepticism warrants rejection of the truth of a religion.

But isn't non belief the default position, pending evidence? The burden of proof, it seems to me, is on the religious believers.

There is no such thing as rational because what is rational TO YOU is not necessarily rational to someone else. Unless you can prove that something is irrational you cannot SAY it is irrational.

But isn't rationality an algebra; a form of logical analysis? Mathematics is not a matter of opinion. What is rational is rational, everywhere, for everyone.

I understand Atheism is a man made religion/no-religion or position/no-position. It doesn't claim to solve any human problem of this world or the next world. Right, please?
Regards

No. Atheism isn't "made" at all. It's the epistemic default position.
Lack of belief, obviously, has no "position," claims, beliefs or doctrine.

​

 

[Trailblazer]

But isn't non belief the default position, pending evidence? The burden of proof, it seems to me, is on the religious believers.

Only if they are trying to prove something.

But isn't rationality an algebra; a form of logical analysis? Mathematics is not a matter of opinion. What is rational is rational, everywhere, for everyone.

Maybe that is so in math but not in life.
Atheists think they are rational and beleivers are all irrational.
Believers think they are rational...
Who is to say what is rational? It is all a matter of perspective.
From my perspective atheists are rational and certain religions are rational whereas I consider Christianity as represented by the Church doctrines to be irrational.

 

[Valjean]

Only if they are trying to prove something.

Maybe that is so in math but not in life.

But we're not talking about life, we're talking about rationality: logic, Boolian algebra.

Atheists think they are rational and beleivers are all irrational.

Atheists think all sorts of things. They're not a unified bloc.

Believers think they are rational...

They feel they're rational.

Who is to say what is rational? It is all a matter of perspective.
From my perspective atheists are rational and certain religions are rational whereas I consider Christianity as represented by the Church doctrines to be irrational.

I think it's more based on facts, logic and critical analysis.

 

[Audie]

But we're not talking about life, we're talking about rationality: logic, Boolian algebra.
Atheists think all sorts of things. They're not a unified bloc.
They feel they're rational.
I think it's more based on facts, logic and critical analysis.

Its ok, the great majority of people are rational.
Few are rational in all matters.

Religionists are not rational about their faith.

A fundy could accurately say to a evo with
elevator phobia- "You are not being rational."

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheists think all sorts of things. They're not a unified bloc.

That is true, but the same applies to beleivers.

They feel they're rational.

I guess you are implying that believers do not think, they just act on feelings.
I think that is an over-generalization. Those are rarely true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is not a religion. Scientism is. Those that rely on science for absolutely everything in their way of life. It aint true if it aint scientific.

How is it "religious" to rely on science for explanations about reality?

 

[lukethethird]

That is true, but the same applies to beleivers.

I guess you are implying that believers do not think, they just act on feelings.
I think that is an over-generalization. Those are rarely true.

Believers accept prescribed sets of beliefs on faith, no thinking required.

 

[osgart]

How is it "religious" to rely on science for explanations about reality?

Because explanations are more a philosophical interpretation of an observation of something evident.
And the perceptions of science are not always 100 percent beneficial to human life, and there are risks in taking scientific advice. Conforming absolutely to science about everything is a faith based ideology.

 

[ecco]

Conforming absolutely to science about everything is a faith based ideology.

Dictionary result for faith
/fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence;

What is wrong with having confidence that the vast majority of scientists, in many different areas of expertise, know what they are talking and writing about?

I would rather put my faith in the collective findings of those people than in the writings of goat herders living 8000 years ago.

 

[osgart]

Dictionary result for faith
/fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence;

What is wrong with having confidence that the vast majority of scientists, in many different areas of expertise, know what they are talking and writing about?

I would rather put my faith in the collective findings of those people than in the writings of goat herders living 8000 years ago.

They are only human though, subject to bias, and interpretation, error, and limitation. I dont imply that science is all bad, but if you are going to risk taking scientific advice then research their answers and their performance record.

It is imo that explanations are purely philosophy. And require faith to believe in them. Science to me is how, and not why.

I dont think science and religion offer much good why answers to any existential questions nor moral dilemmas.

I NEVER implied that goat herders of 8000 years ago are going to be able to give much in the way of meaningful answers.

I value science when it works within its realm of demonstrated usefulness. I dont make a faith out of it like some people do. And i was really only referring to people who do that; where it becomes an ideology that can do no wrong, and speaks only truth.

I would think the strength of science is in being able to question everything, be it experts, or findings, or explanations and answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because explanations are more a philosophical interpretation of an observation of something evident.
And the perceptions of science are not always 100 percent beneficial to human life, and there are risks in taking scientific advice. Conforming absolutely to science about everything is a faith based ideology.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I rely on science because it works.

I have no alternative.
When I'm sick and want to get better, a medical doctor is my best bet.
When I want to know the wheather patterns the rest of the week, I'll ask a meteorologist instead of a clear voyant.
When I want to know about plants, a botanist sure will have some interesting information for me.


When you build planes with science, they fly.

 

[ecco]

What is wrong with having confidence that the vast majority of scientists, in many different areas of expertise, know what they are talking and writing about?

I would rather put my faith in the collective findings of those people than in the writings of goat herders living 8000 years ago.

They are only human though, subject to bias, and interpretation, error, and limitation.

Did you not notice the words "collective findings".

I dont imply that science is all bad, but if you are going to risk taking scientific advice then research their answers and their performance record.

Do you research the work of the people who designed and built and maintained the last airplane you flew in?

The consensus of the scientific community, with experts in many different specialized fields, is that evolution is fact. Do you suggest I "research their answers and their performance record"?

It is imo that explanations are purely philosophy. And require faith to believe in them.

iYo.

The alternative to having faith (confidence) in modern day science is having confidence in the superstitious goatherders of 8000 years ago.

Science to me is how, and not why.

OK

I dont think science and religion offer much good why answers to any existential questions nor moral dilemmas.

That's a confusing comment.

I NEVER implied that goat herders of 8000 years ago are going to be able to give much in the way of meaningful answers.

So you don't get answers from old goatherders and you don't get answers from modern science. Hmm

I value science when it works within its realm of demonstrated usefulness.

What would be some examples of science working outside its realm of demonstrated usefulness?

I dont make a faith out of it like some people do. And i was really only referring to people who do that; where it becomes an ideology that can do no wrong, and speaks only truth.

The biggest truth of science is the admission that science doesn't know everything. Religions and philosophies often like to say they do know and can explain everything.

I would think the strength of science is in being able to question everything, be it experts, or findings, or explanations and answers.

That's pretty much what they do, isn't it?

 

[dfnj]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

It is important to understand exactly what atheism is in their own words:

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

I find most theist really do not understand exactly what atheism is which I think is essential before making any criticisms.

My second point is why would an theist ever care about what atheists think? To me it's like the Japanese saying, "the first person to raise their voice in an argument loses." If a theists is offended by an atheist, to me that is a signal the theists has weak faith in God. If you faith in God is strong it does not matter what atheists claim or think.

I would, however, agree with you that like religion, people who claim to be atheists, have a set or system of thoughts through which they experience their lives. Everyone has their own personal dogma. My dogma may include and axiom, "God exists". Someone else who is an atheist may not agree with that axiom. So when I am speaking I include my axioms as being true without any proof. My language just exists a certain way. So many things I say as a theist may sound completely insane to an atheist. This is because the atheist does share my axioms.

 

[dfnj]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I rely on science because it works.

I have no alternative.
When I'm sick and want to get better, a medical doctor is my best bet.
When I want to know the wheather patterns the rest of the week, I'll ask a meteorologist instead of a clear voyant.
When I want to know about plants, a botanist sure will have some interesting information for me.


When you build planes with science, they fly.

I rely on religion because it gives me a sense of meaning in my life. Science does not. Science just cleans my toilet. Flush toilets are amazing!

 

[Valjean]

That is true, but the same applies to beleivers.

I guess you are implying that believers do not think, they just act on feelings.
I think that is an over-generalization. Those are rarely true.

But it is. What do you think "faith" implies?
Faith is untested and not predictive. It's belief without rational justification.

Because explanations are more a philosophical interpretation of an observation of something evident.
And the perceptions of science are not always 100 percent beneficial to human life, and there are risks in taking scientific advice. Conforming absolutely to science about everything is a faith based ideology.

No. Faith isn't an interpretation. It's an acceptance of a fact or explanation without sufficient evidence. It's only when the faithful are challenged that they begin justifying and interpreting.
Science is testable, predictive, and peer reviewed. Before a scientific explanation is accepted as theory, the process requires attempts to disprove it.
Faith requires no such criticism, in fact, it discourages it.

Science has nothing to do with benefit. It just determines the facts. Politics dictates their application.

 

[osgart]

Did you not notice the words "collective findings".




Do you research the work of the people who designed and built and maintained the last airplane you flew in?

The consensus of the scientific community, with experts in many different specialized fields, is that evolution is fact. Do you suggest I "research their answers and their performance record"?


iYo.

The alternative to having faith (confidence) in modern day science is having confidence in the superstitious goatherders of 8000 years ago.


OK



That's a confusing comment.




So you don't get answers from old goatherders and you don't get answers from modern science. Hmm



What would be some examples of science working outside its realm of demonstrated usefulness?



The biggest truth of science is the admission that science doesn't know everything. Religions and philosophies often like to say they do know and can explain everything.



That's pretty much what they do, isn't it?

My sister died from experimental medications. And i have been on three different medications that reaped havoc on my body. It took trial and error to finally find a medication that worked.

If at all possible i would research those things.

Do they NOT have a performance record? They should!

Science would benefit from making their work known to laypeople. Consensus is a good thing, but it could also be negative peer pressure to conform for credibility's sake.

Telling people what to think, and believe and how to run their lives, and what morality they should subscribe to is outside of the realm of science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I rely on religion because it gives me a sense of meaning in my life. Science does not. Science just cleans my toilet.

I require neither to find meaning in my life.

 

[ecco]

So many things I say as a theist may sound completely insane to an atheist. This is because the atheist does share my axioms.

For the most part atheists, at least me, do not think many things theists say may sound completely insane. I think most atheists understand the word insane and do not use it lightly.

However, I do think that most theism comes from indoctrination. Since theistic beliefs stem from indoctrination they should not be considered "insane".