Atheism AS religion? please.

[Six Billion of Spades]

CleverScreenname

No, atheism is not a religion because that would require believing in something supernatural. However, atheism IS a faith. Simply because, like religious faiths, you are taking a stance on the existance of a supernatural being or beings, or lack there of. You can't prove that there is no god, so by taking a side, you are taking a leap of faith equally large to the leap taken by those who believe that there is a god.

Actually, it's not, because there is no proof for a supernatural being either way. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You don't have to have faith that Germany exists, because we have sources that prove it and people that speak the language. On the other hand, if you claimed to believe that Germany did not exist, you would be under no obligation to prove anything, but you could still be proven wrong if the proper evidence for the positive claim presents itself. As far as religion goes, this hasn't happened yet. So it's up to the religious people to present their evidence (whenever/ifever it shows up).  

[freak0592]

For once, I'm not sure. I mean, what is religion defined as? Is it what you believe...or is it the belief in a super-natural being? I really don't know. If someone asks me what religion I am, I usually say something along the lines of "Well, I don't really have one, I'm an Atheist" or "I'm an Atheist". But, well, what is "Atheism" considered? PLEASE DON'T START MAKING FUN OF ME! I am serious; I don't know whether to consider it a religion.

You all make really nice points though, so this is helping. Please, expand!!!
Thanks!!!! I've been wondering this for a while...  

[hachimitsugirl]

freak0592

For once, I'm not sure. I mean, what is religion defined as? Is it what you believe...or is it the belief in a super-natural being? I really don't know. If someone asks me what religion I am, I usually say something along the lines of "Well, I don't really have one, I'm an Atheist" or "I'm an Atheist". But, well, what is "Atheism" considered? PLEASE DON'T START MAKING FUN OF ME! I am serious; I don't know whether to consider it a religion.

You all make really nice points though, so this is helping. Please, expand!!!
Thanks!!!! I've been wondering this for a while...

I'd begin by going to www.samharris.org and reading some of his articles for the Huffington Post. They're concise and tend to be written in an explanatory stance.  

[freak0592]

hachimitsugirl

freak0592

For once, I'm not sure. I mean, what is religion defined as? Is it what you believe...or is it the belief in a super-natural being? I really don't know. If someone asks me what religion I am, I usually say something along the lines of "Well, I don't really have one, I'm an Atheist" or "I'm an Atheist". But, well, what is "Atheism" considered? PLEASE DON'T START MAKING FUN OF ME! I am serious; I don't know whether to consider it a religion.

You all make really nice points though, so this is helping. Please, expand!!!
Thanks!!!! I've been wondering this for a while...

I'd begin by going to www.samharris.org and reading some of his articles for the Huffington Post. They're concise and tend to be written in an explanatory stance.

O.O Whoa, those articles helped a lot, actually. I read over some from the Huffington Post, but there was a good one called "An Atheist Manifesto" in some other paper. It showed me that atheism is more of a way of thought, and not a religion.

Thanks for that! I was really confused, but now I feel better ^^
~~~~~~~~~
((I read one of his books, "Letter To A Christian Nation", and it was really good. He's an amazing writing; very powerful! Gets right to the point and drills it into ya!!))  

[CleverScreenname]

Semper Fiasco

CleverScreenname

No, atheism is not a religion because that would require believing in something supernatural. However, atheism IS a faith. Simply because, like religious faiths, you are taking a stance on the existance of a supernatural being or beings, or lack there of. You can't prove that there is no god, so by taking a side, you are taking a leap of faith equally large to the leap taken by those who believe that there is a god.

Actually, it's not, because there is no proof for a supernatural being either way. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You don't have to have faith that Germany exists, because we have sources that prove it and people that speak the language. On the other hand, if you claimed to believe that Germany did not exist, you would be under no obligation to prove anything, but you could still be proven wrong if the proper evidence for the positive claim presents itself. As far as religion goes, this hasn't happened yet. So it's up to the religious people to present their evidence (whenever/ifever it shows up).

But that's the thing, there is no proof either way about God. So really, there is equal responsibility on both sides to either prove or disprove. That is, assuming it's deftly important that we prove this one way or the other during our course of existance. Last time I checked (which was just now) a faith is defined as belief in something that has no proof or evidence. There is no proof or evidence that there is no god, just like there isn't any proof or evidence that there is. So in this case, I would say that it's equally proposterous, if you will, to claim that there isn't a god as it is to claim that there is.

And I'm curious, when was it decided that the responsibility of proof lies on the one making the positive claim? And when was it also decided that making any claim on the existance of god was positive and that making a claim on the nonexistance of god was not also positive? And yes, I do understand what you mean by "positive."  

[The Amazing Mr. Tommyos!]

I'm slowly moving (sprinting) towards the school of thought that we as atheists do not have to disprove the existence of god, but they as theists have to prove the existence of one. For centuries their belief has gone unquestioned, but when an atheist sentiment starts to arise, they always act like god exists and it is futile/ignorant to doubt this "simple fact." Why must we play by their rules? A more formidable challenge is for them to prove to us that god exists.  

[Theophrastus]

Hear hear.

I don't remember thousands of children being sent to destroy the ottoman empire (and subsequently be kidnapped by slavers before they got there and destined for lives as eunuchs to Egyptian and Persian empires) for the cause of nothing. But for God, yes.

I don't remember the IRA tearing into the heart of domestic peace and making an already nervous nation live in fear of civilian terrorism for the sake of nothing. But for God, yes.

Examples become laborious. If this God guy's so important, why doesn't he ever take a participative hand? Why does he have to act through proxies and smoke and mirrors? Is he shy?

On the other hand, I can demonstrate that Jesus, Krishna and the mythical King Kamehameha had nothing to do with nuclear power, bullet proof vests or solar panels. And these things actually, ya know, keep people alive and well. A clumsy correlation but it illustrates the point.

The responsibility does lie on Theists to prove their god, because they invoke his presence for all manner of atrocious acts including religious war, public defamation, child mutilation, mental, physical and emotional abuse, imprisonment and execution.  

[CleverScreenname]

Considering an overwhelming majority of people believe in some kind of god, don't we have some responsibility to try and prove these people wrong, too?

And since when did faith have anything to do with actually proving what you believe is true? All it implies is that you believe it, not that you have to prove it. Faith is not defined by who has the "burden of proof" however arbitrarily that was decided, but it has to do with believing in something that has no evidence. Since there's no more evidence that there isn't a god than there is, then it's an equally large leap of faith to say that there isn't than that there is.

And besides, being an atheist isn't just adopting one, singular belief. It's an entire system of beliefs. If you don't believe in god, you then adopt other beliefs, such as evolution (or however you believe life came about on earth), you tend to search for scientific answers to phenomena. And so on. It's a school of thought, which, I might add, is another characteristic of a faith.

I think the problem we're having here is that faith has a religious connotation. Obviously, a religion is a faith. But a faith isn't always a religion. Kind of like how a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square.  

[hachimitsugirl]

CleverScreenname

Considering an overwhelming majority of people believe in some kind of god, don't we have some responsibility to try and prove these people wrong, too?

I don't know if I'd sign up for having a "responsibility" to prove anything to anyone. Not requiring a supernatural deity to enrich my life doesn't entail evangelism (though I do enjoy a good verbal scrap with a believer every once in a while).

CleverScreenname

And since when did faith have anything to do with actually proving what you believe is true? All it implies is that you believe it, not that you have to prove it. Faith is not defined by who has the "burden of proof" however arbitrarily that was decided, but it has to do with believing in something that has no evidence. Since there's no more evidence that there isn't a god than there is, then it's an equally large leap of faith to say that there isn't than that there is.

The problem at the core of relious faith is that their faith compels them to make claims regarding natural law. In that respect, they must prove something just as any scientist must have proof to withstand peer-review of a theory. People of religious faith make themselves vulnerable to the burden of proof by making unsubstantiated claims about the universe. They made their bed, so to speak.

CleverScreenname

And besides, being an atheist isn't just adopting one, singular belief. It's an entire system of beliefs. If you don't believe in god, you then adopt other beliefs, such as evolution (or however you believe life came about on earth), you tend to search for scientific answers to phenomena. And so on. It's a school of thought, which, I might add, is another characteristic of a faith.

On the contrary, atheism is indeed only a disbelief in a deity/dieties. That in itself doesn't predetermine anything else about a person - even their rationality! You can be an utter nut who believes in the human race's extraterrestrial lineage and still be an atheist.  

[Atomic Communist]

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into this argument in class. Thankfully, I usually win, pulling the "Were you aware there are requirements for something to be a religion?" card.


I just find it amusing that some people can't comprehend the fact that someone somewhere might just think differently.  

[=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=]

LOLX. atheism is a word ending with "-ism". the suffix "-ism" has various definition. in this case, it means "behavior", "characteristic" and "theory". not "belief", "faith" or "religion".

to me, atheism is a way of thinking, actually, the only way of thinking. this might be considered flaming, but in my opinion, we the atheists are really the only ones who would use our brains and think. religion is more like blindly believing in something or someone that nobody can prove exists.

whenever i argue with my friend that religion is belief in a god that doesn't exist, she keep saying that he does. and i would just go like, "where's the proof? where's the evidence?" and she would just shut up.

seriously, if god exists, then why are there so much sufferings in this world? kids are dying of hunger every 7 seconds in africa. and it's not like they made any major mistakes or sins.  

[Sanguvixen]

Quote:

I don't know if I'd sign up for having a "responsibility" to prove anything to anyone. Not requiring a supernatural deity to enrich my life doesn't entail evangelism (though I do enjoy a good verbal scrap with a believer every once in a while).

The only responsibility we have as Atheists are to prevent Theists from taking things so far as to suppress people in violent or sneaky ways. We stand up for others when they won't stand up for themselves(or can't), and we stand up for tolerence. That is all we have to do because if we don't stand up as hard shiny nails, they'll just hammer down every person that believes differently, and the way in which they do it will just get progressively worse.

Quote:

The problem at the core of relious faith is that their faith compels them to make claims regarding natural law. In that respect, they must prove something just as any scientist must have proof to withstand peer-review of a theory. People of religious faith make themselves vulnerable to the burden of proof by making unsubstantiated claims about the universe. They made their bed, so to speak.

I don't get where you are getting the above. It has nothing to do with faith, or even science. The reason they will make superflous claims including claims regarding natural law, and claims that have no possibility of having proof...is that they are just trying to fight extinction. That is all it is.

The core problem is that religion is like a living thing, and it will fight viciously against that which can wipe it out, including other religions. By striving to exist it perpetuates intolerance towards difference. Religion exists by gaining flock. If they lose flock, their form of thinking goes extinct. So anything that can take away thier flock is a threat. That said both science and other religions are an equal threat to every religion out there because of it's ability to take away sheep from the herd. The only thing is that Science involve things that are tangible...and so in a way it can seem like a bigger threat.

That is all I really have to say about your post...girl whose username is too hard to spell out from memory.

 

[CleverScreenname]

=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=

LOLX. atheism is a word ending with "-ism". the suffix "-ism" has various definition. in this case, it means "behavior", "characteristic" and "theory". not "belief", "faith" or "religion".

to me, atheism is a way of thinking, actually, the only way of thinking. this might be considered flaming, but in my opinion, we the atheists are really the only ones who would use our brains and think. religion is more like blindly believing in something or someone that nobody can prove exists.

whenever i argue with my friend that religion is belief in a god that doesn't exist, she keep saying that he does. and i would just go like, "where's the proof? where's the evidence?" and she would just shut up.

seriously, if god exists, then why are there so much sufferings in this world? kids are dying of hunger every 7 seconds in africa. and it's not like they made any major mistakes or sins.

Judaism. Buddhism. Hinduism. Last time I checked, those were all religions.  

[hachimitsugirl]

hachimitsugirl

I don't know if I'd sign up for having a "responsibility" to prove anything to anyone. Not requiring a supernatural deity to enrich my life doesn't entail evangelism (though I do enjoy a good verbal scrap with a believer every once in a while).

Sanguvixen

The only responsibility we have as Atheists are to prevent Theists from taking things so far as to suppress people in violent or sneaky ways. We stand up for others when they won't stand up for themselves(or can't), and we stand up for tolerence. That is all we have to do because if we don't stand up as hard shiny nails, they'll just hammer down every person that believes differently, and the way in which they do it will just get progressively worse.

Of course anyone with a core of basal ethics should be standing up for oppressed peoples, regardless of their belief system or lack of belief system. I would, however, hesitate to use atheists as an adequate "our." Rationality is a good quality but seems insufficient to corrall such disparate people as may reject supernaturality.

hachimitsugirl

The problem at the core of relious faith is that their faith compels them to make claims regarding natural law. In that respect, they must prove something just as any scientist must have proof to withstand peer-review of a theory. People of religious faith make themselves vulnerable to the burden of proof by making unsubstantiated claims about the universe. They made their bed, so to speak.

Sanguvixen

I don't get where you are getting the above. It has nothing to do with faith, or even science. The reason they will make superflous claims including claims regarding natural law, and claims that have no possibility of having proof...is that they are just trying to fight extinction. That is all it is.

I was referring to what an earlier poster had said about the "burden of proof." When the poster was posed the question of who decides who is saddled with the burden of proof, I chimed in to suggest that making claims about natural law places religious peoples in an immediate position to prove what they believe as opposed to simply believing it.

That's what I was "getting" at.  

[Six Billion of Spades]

CleverScreenname

Semper Fiasco

CleverScreenname

No, atheism is not a religion because that would require believing in something supernatural. However, atheism IS a faith. Simply because, like religious faiths, you are taking a stance on the existance of a supernatural being or beings, or lack there of. You can't prove that there is no god, so by taking a side, you are taking a leap of faith equally large to the leap taken by those who believe that there is a god.

Actually, it's not, because there is no proof for a supernatural being either way. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You don't have to have faith that Germany exists, because we have sources that prove it and people that speak the language. On the other hand, if you claimed to believe that Germany did not exist, you would be under no obligation to prove anything, but you could still be proven wrong if the proper evidence for the positive claim presents itself. As far as religion goes, this hasn't happened yet. So it's up to the religious people to present their evidence (whenever/ifever it shows up).

But that's the thing, there is no proof either way about God. So really, there is equal responsibility on both sides to either prove or disprove. That is, assuming it's deftly important that we prove this one way or the other during our course of existance. Last time I checked (which was just now) a faith is defined as belief in something that has no proof or evidence. There is no proof or evidence that there is no god, just like there isn't any proof or evidence that there is. So in this case, I would say that it's equally proposterous, if you will, to claim that there isn't a god as it is to claim that there is.

And I'm curious, when was it decided that the responsibility of proof lies on the one making the positive claim? And when was it also decided that making any claim on the existance of god was positive and that making a claim on the nonexistance of god was not also positive? And yes, I do understand what you mean by "positive."

Of course you can't prove that God does not exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative statement. Positive statements must be proven because statements have to be shown to reflect reality to be "proven." But "proof" is a strange word, because it sounds like an absolute. Thus, when you are "proving" something, all you're doing is showing that it is evident. And if there is no proof for a claim, there's really no reason to believe it.

And you seem to be defining negative claims as positive denials of positive claims. Not so. The existence of negative claims implies an absence of positive beliefs. If I were to tell you that my friend can turn a Pentecostal into a carton of orange juice and cheese, it is up to him to prove it, because the claim that he can't has no consequences or bearing upon reality.

I would write more, but I'm off to school. xd