Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[A Vestigial Mote]

You wish that was the case, I'm sure. Meanwhile, theists continue to not be some hive-mind with identical reasons and motivations for identifying atheism as a religion. They also continue to have perfectly good reasons and evidence for their positions.

Did I say atheists have good evidence and reasons for all the positions they may take? Not even close. So back at you with your "you wish" sentiment. All I know is, and all I, personally, assert from my atheist position (specifically) is that "I haven't been provided sufficient reasons or evidence for theist claims, and won't believe until I do." That is all. I hold opinions and beliefs about all sorts of other topics - and I admit I could be wrong about many things I may assert. And if I assert certain things as a form of "truth" which are unwarranted, then I should taken to task and shown where my head should be at.

Yours here is a red herring tactic. Meant, again, to distract from the real meat of the issue that atheists often bring to light. Believing in god/gods without sufficient evidence and being unwarranted in your belief is actually separate from any other issues of the same type in anyone else, and should be treated as such. This is exactly like the times I bring up animal mistreatment issues and some fool says "But what about the homeless vets?" or "There are sweatshop workers committing suicide in China you know." As if this somehow negates the idea that we should be concerned about our treatment of animals and how it affects the animals, our health and the environment. You can't just throw up another issue and expect it to take the spotlight off of your own. We all have issues... it just so happens that, in the realm of theism, it points to an issue that is widespread - throughout just about the entire population of theists.

And before you get all huffy, I understand that your "gods" are the trees, the rocks, the dirt, the plants, etc. So no, I am not about to say you don't have sufficient evidence for your "gods." But I will continue to simply call them their commonly held names like "tree", "rock", "dirt", "plant". You've really only transferred your unwarranted activity to another level above supernatural belief. I feel you are simply unwarranted in ascribing the term "god" to things that already have a name, and exhibit no attributes that convey the idea of "god" that would be recognizable by the vast majority of people who might use that term. And no... I don't give a crap that you do it, go right ahead... but don't ever expect me to join-in, or even respect the fact that you do it. It's unnecessary in the extreme in my opinion, and I can't help but feel it is agenda-driven. But again... have at it. Do as you will. Just don't be surprised by comments like mine.

 

[Audie]

Naw... atheism is nothing more than a lack of believe that any god or gods definitely exists. By your silly definition your lack of belief that magical fairies definitely exist is a religion as well. What a ridiculous concept.

It is kind of like asportism. I have zero interest in team
sports.
To others, the foot ball and the church steeple are the
pillars that hold up the sky.

"Asportist?"

"What?? Everybody has a sport, has faith in
that sport. You must, then, have faith in yourself
as a sport."

 

[Audie]

Everyone knows that science has not got an answer for everything, so why the national emergency on your part when scientism is not a thing? Spellcheck doesn't even recognize it as a word.

We better tell spellcheck to add "Scientismist", coz
them scientism people is said to be lurking
all about.

 

[Audie]

Well, you understand what atheism means, I was commenting for those that don't.

The way you had phrased your statement was ambiguous.

 

[Audie]

If you strongly believe there is no God, then you have faith in that belief. For me a true atheist is someone who doesn't care if there is a God or not - like the animals, insects and fish - which are concerned only on their daily survival.

On the other hand, those who believe in god or gods which people call theists are harboring their own respective beliefs, believing theirs is right but at the end of all things, their beliefs are useless and share no advantage over the atheists.

I think, people have gone in different ways instead of God's way. Strangely enough, some people are atheists because they are disillusioned over their former religion that they stopped searching and they think that looking for an invisible God is just a waste of time. So in this strong belief that there is no God, they have formulated a series of "tenets or dogma" like the Big Bang, Evolution and so forth and so on.

Atheists are entitled to their beliefs as the theists are entitled to theirs. But for me, I will stick to my bible:

1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version (NIV)

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Even when others believe in UFOs, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna, unicorns and Trinity. My focus is there is only one God, the Father while the Lord Jesus Christ is not God but a man approved by God:

Acts 2:22 New King James Version (NKJV)

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—

My basis of faith is what is written in the Bible not from strange stories, theories or legends weaved by people who just guessed about things.

So in this strong belief that there is no God, they have formulated a series of "tenets or dogma" like the Big Bang, Evolution and so forth and so on.

IF you must say something this ridiculous, you
might at least want to add "IMHO" or something
lest it be taken that you have no concern at all
for the truth or falsity of your words

 

[Audie]

The problem is that this requires good faith on behalf of both parties which tends to be lacking in discussions like this.

All true. But for a start, there really should be
something like a Godwin that can be called
when someone equivocates the word "faith".

 

[Audie]

I have heard atheist say religion is just a state of mind and as you said - Atheism isn't about faith or belief, it's a state of mind. Then, that is your religion. It is like matter and dark matter, both are matter so that is the matter or as if it does matter.

The only thing about atheists is that you don't need to go to church, sing and give offerings to the one who is invisible - not having a religion is also the freedom of religion. I go to church twice a week, to worship the Father and hear His truth while you [an atheist, I suppose would watch a movie at home or something.

For me, the Lord God exist not because of mythical stories but because everybody exist - the earth exists, life exist, bacteria exists, oxygen exists, gravity exists - no stories, just common sense. When I see a house, I know for sure that someone built it same is true when I see the universe.

Believing in something and not believing in something - are two faiths - just two religions opposing each other.
A plant does not believe in anything, hence there is no faith, a no brainer.

Again, offering an opinion rather than stating
nonsensical "facts" would be a lot more honest.
And less egotistical appearing.

Oh, and this wild equivocation with the word
"religion" kind of takes the edge off the credibility
of anything you say.

 

[MJFlores]

So in this strong belief that there is no God, they have formulated a series of "tenets or dogma" like the Big Bang, Evolution and so forth and so on.

IF you must say something this ridiculous, you
might at least want to add "IMHO" or something
lest it be taken that you have no concern at all
for the truth or falsity of your words

Alrighty then, I wouldn't use my foolish words but the words of the Bible. Let us see:

Jeremiah 10:12 New International Version (NIV)
But God made the earth by his power;
he founded the world by his wisdom
and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.



The Big Bang Theory isn't from God and not the way he stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
Written by the prophet Jeremiah (655 Before Christ) by the way - a long time ago before the first telescope was ever invented in 1608 (AD).

1 Corinthians 15:38-39 New International Version (NIV)
But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.



The Theory of Evolution isn't from God and not the way he has determined which is people have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. Well if evolutionist insist that their forefathers were monkeys, they should speak for themselves because my folks are all humans.


Colossians 2:8 Good News Translation (GNT)
See to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by human beings and from the ruling spirits of the universe, and not from Christ.





1 Corinthians 1:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

We shouldn't be here according to physicist Michio Kaku - Wikipedia

Whaaaattt?

 

[Audie]

Alrighty then, I wouldn't use my foolish words but the words of the Bible. Let us see:

Jeremiah 10:12 New International Version (NIV)
But God made the earth by his power;
he founded the world by his wisdom
and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

View attachment 27093

The Big Bang Theory isn't from God and not the way he stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
Written by the prophet Jeremiah (655 Before Christ) by the way - a long time ago before the first telescope was ever invented in 1608 (AD).

1 Corinthians 15:38-39 New International Version (NIV)
But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

View attachment 27094

The Theory of Evolution isn't from God and not the way he has determined which is people have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. Well if evolutionist insist that their forefathers were monkeys, they should speak for themselves because my folks are all humans.


Colossians 2:8 Good News Translation (GNT)
See to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by human beings and from the ruling spirits of the universe, and not from Christ.


View attachment 27095


1 Corinthians 1:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

We shouldn't be here according to physicist Michio Kaku - Wikipedia

Whaaaattt?

What you have there is your opinion about
your chosen "god", and, your chosen interpretation
of a book.

There are about as many different inerrant readings
of scripture as there are people to read it.

Others do not happen to choose to see it as
you do.

I would be slightly more inclined to think you
got something right if it did not require either
ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty on your part.

The depth of your understanding of the science
you choose to deny is well illustrated by your
lame strawman about monkeys. Even
the most benighted creos tend to know better
than that one.

At a guess, you probably think there
really-really was a world wide flood, Noah
and all the animals, and all that.

Anyway, I expect you are out there somewhere
past the orbit of Pluto, certainly beyond the call
of reason. So I wont attempt anything with you
more than a request that you apply at least
enough honesty to state your "facts" as what
they are, your chosen opinions.

 

[lukethethird]

Maybe you need to update your spell check.

Scientism - Wikipedia

from your wiki source on scientism: Karl Popper defines scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".

Believers want to have it both ways, they want to declare they know something about some invisible god of theirs and then cry scientism when it is correctly pointed out that there is no objective evidence for it.

 

[lukethethird]

A plant does not believe in anything, hence there is no faith, a no brainer.

The plant is smarter than the mistaken believer in this case by not believing.

 

[PureX]

Depends on how you define 'truth'. I think a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to/ corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (the 'correspondence' view). It has the great advantage of an objective test for what's true.

And using that definition, can you suggest a better alternative (one that's presently known and available) than the methods of reasoned enquiry, that is, the methods science and of history?

And if you have a different definition of truth, please put it on the table. It may be the difference between our views.
You assume that eg scientific method is admired for its own sake, whereas round my way it's admired because it works.

Should a better approach become available for answering the question, What's true in reality? I'd be fascinated and delighted to hear it.

I'm not here to debate the foolishness of materialism, or of 'scientism'. This thread is about the assertion that atheism is or can be a "religion". I believe that it can become an ideology that's held to "religiously" (for the above stated reasons), but that it usually is not.

 

[PureX]

Genuine question: where did you get this definition of atheism from? I've seen many but never this one. Language is fluid but I don't think that most people who use the term "atheism" mean this by it.

Many self-labeled atheists are liars. They claim that they have "no beliefs regarding the existence of gods when it's very clear that they believe gods do not exist because they have not been given, (or if they looked, could not find) any proof. This is not "no belief". This is believing that if gods did/do exist we humans would be able to know it, and to prove it. They call their belief "unbelief" to avoid having to explain or defend it, and to try and put the onus back on the theists.

I use the term atheist to mean not having a belief in god(s) (as for example: Oxford Dictionaries or wiki or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The reason why I'm an atheist is lack of any evidence (proof is not available outside of pure logic or mathematics) for any god(s) or any other reason to take any of them seriously.

It's obviously not impossible that god(s) could exist and there be no evidence for it/them.

Philosophically speaking, what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. It's what you assert that defines your position. You assert that no gods exist, and you base that assertion on your own determined 'lack of convincing evidence'. And so does pretty much every other atheist I've ever come across. If you assert nothing, but "believe" whatever, then no one knows or cares.

 

[Audie]

I'm not here to debate the foolishness of materialism, or of 'scientism'. This thread is about the assertion that atheism is or can be a "religion". I believe that it can become an ideology that's held to "religiously" (for the above stated reasons), but that it usually is not.

Then quit making foolish statements about "scientism"
and you will not hear about it either.

 

[Audie]

Many self-labeled atheists are liars. They claim that they have "no beliefs regarding the existence of gods when it's very clear that they believe gods do not exist because they have not been given, (or if they looked, could not find) any proof. This is not "no belief". This is believing that if gods did/do exist we humans would be able to know it, and to prove it. They call their belief "unbelief" to avoid having to explain or defend it, and to try and put the onus back on the theists.
Philosophically speaking, what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. It's what you assert that defines your position. You assert that no gods exist, and you base that assertion on your own determined 'lack of convincing evidence'. And so does pretty much every other atheist I've ever come across. If you assert nothing, but "believe" whatever, no one really cares.

Of course, you cannot produce an example of one
of these "liars". Which makes you, what?

 

[ratiocinator]

Genuine question: where did you get this definition of atheism from? I've seen many but never this one. Language is fluid but I don't think that most people who use the term "atheism" mean this by it.

Many self-labeled atheists are liars. They claim that they have "no beliefs regarding the existence of gods when it's very clear that they believe gods do not exist because they have not been given, (or if they looked, could not find) any proof. This is not "no belief". This is believing that if gods did/do exist we humans would be able to know it, and to prove it. They call their belief "unbelief" to avoid having to explain or defend it, and to try and put the onus back on the theists.

So it isn't a genuine definition of atheist, then - just what you'd prefer it to mean. I don't recognise your assertions about what atheists believe either. I do not believe in any gods because I have never been given a good reason to take any of them seriously. I do not know that there are no gods. Neither do I think they can only exist if there is evidence.

The onus is on theists because they are the ones asserting that something exists - this is a normal philosophical burden of proof.

Philosophically speaking, what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.

According to what philosophy - or did you just make this up too?

It's what you assert that defines your position. You assert that no gods exist...

No, I don't.

 

[We Never Know]

from your wiki source on scientism: Karl Popper defines scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science".

Believers want to have it both ways, they want to declare they know something about some invisible god of theirs and then cry scientism when it is correctly pointed out that there is no objective evidence for it.

I'm not debating what Popper or anyone thinks about scientism. You stated "scientism is not a thing, spellcheck doesn't even recognize it as a word".
I was showing you it is a word and a thing.

 

[We Never Know]

I have heard atheist say religion is just a state of mind and as you said - Atheism isn't about faith or belief, it's a state of mind. Then, that is your religion. It is like matter and dark matter, both are matter so that is the matter or as if it does matter.

The only thing about atheists is that you don't need to go to church, sing and give offerings to the one who is invisible - not having a religion is also the freedom of religion. I go to church twice a week, to worship the Father and hear His truth while you [an atheist, I suppose would watch a movie at home or something.

For me, the Lord God exist not because of mythical stories but because everybody exist - the earth exists, life exist, bacteria exists, oxygen exists, gravity exists - no stories, just common sense. When I see a house, I know for sure that someone built it same is true when I see the universe.

Believing in something and not believing in something - are two faiths - just two religions opposing each other.
A plant does not believe in anything, hence there is no faith, a no brainer.

I understand you have a belief and faith.
I disagree that not believing in something is faith/religion. For example I don't believe in the Easter bunny and I would think you don't either. Now the question is do we have a faith/religion that the Easter bunny doesn't exist?
Of course we don't but by your logic, not believing is a faith/religion which means you not believing in the Easter bunny shows you have more than one faith/religion which you shouldn't have. Do you understand?

 

[blü 2]

I'm not here to debate the foolishness of materialism, or of 'scientism'. This thread is about the assertion that atheism is or can be a "religion". I believe that it can become an ideology that's held to "religiously" (for the above stated reasons), but that it usually is not.

You chose to associate atheism with 'scientism', an inaccurate and abusive cheap shot that diminishes you while changing nothing about atheism.

Nor have you offered, here or in the past, any reasoned case to show that materialism / physicalism is 'foolish' in any way.

That's the context of this particular discussion.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Which god is that one god? I understand that excluding the 33,000,000 hindu gods there have been over 4000 of them and every one an individual to their religion

You have a great point. I don’t think we disagree here.
But to come to a meeting of the minds, we would need to know what we are talking about. So, what is the definition of god?
Once, we agree on that definition, we could move the conversation towards a meeting of minds.