Is atheism a religion?

[abrown9]

Disclaimer: Agnostic Atheist here.

In terms of the very definition of atheism (a lack of belief in a greater power), it is a stretch to call it a religion.

In terms of faith, I think many (if not all atheists) possess a certain amount of faith. For example, I possess a lot of faith in the scientific method. I know it is not infallible, but I do believe that it is self-correcting and will ultimately lead to a greater and greater understanding of the world. Faith does no necessarily have to be belief with lack of evidence.

I would argue, however, that the faith many atheists possess differs significantly from the faith possessed by religious folk (this might garner some argument). My faith is founded on my experience with the natural world. I take a leap of faith in trusting the methods of other scientists. Scientists are humans with flaws but overall, based on my experience, I believe the system works. Religious faith cannot be founded on worldly experience because, by definition, it deals with the supernatural (and thus un-observable). Faith in the morals of religion may be founded in experience, but the ultimate pinnacle of religion - a belief in god - is a faith that has no foundation to support it. This does not mean it is wrong. Merely, it means that it is a different kind of faith than atheistic faith.

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I would argue atheist faith is #1 and religious faith is #2.

 

[Bonairos]

Disclaimer: Agnostic Atheist here.

In terms of the very definition of atheism (a lack of belief in a greater power), it is a stretch to call it a religion.

In terms of faith, I think many (if not all atheists) possess a certain amount of faith. For example, I possess a lot of faith in the scientific method. I know it is not infallible, but I do believe that it is self-correcting and will ultimately lead to a greater and greater understanding of the world. Faith does no necessarily have to be belief with lack of evidence.

I would argue, however, that the faith many atheists possess differs significantly from the faith possessed by religious folk (this might garner some argument). My faith is founded on my experience with the natural world. I take a leap of faith in trusting the methods of other scientists. Scientists are humans with flaws but overall, based on my experience, I believe the system works. Religious faith cannot be founded on worldly experience because, by definition, it deals with the supernatural (and thus un-observable). Faith in the morals of religion may be founded in experience, but the ultimate pinnacle of religion - a belief in god - is a faith that has no foundation to support it. This does not mean it is wrong. Merely, it means that it is a different kind of faith than atheistic faith.

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I would argue atheist faith is #1 and religious faith is #2.

Thank you for being clear in your identification and beliefs.

Whether I agree or not with your position and/or points, it (making it personal) produces a good foundation for dialog.

Again, thank you. If ability exists, I can now follow your posts in a light you have provided me with.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Pard]

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I would argue atheist faith is #1 and religious faith is #2.

It's interesting you say that (and mind you I'm not arguing as it's pretty hard to argue beliefs at this level) because I'd say the exact opposite. A religious belief (at least Christianity as I cannot really speak for any other belief system) is more of a number 1 and the way I see how atheism is presented it appears to be a #2.

But yeah I agree with you that MOST atheists are not really religious. However there are those who are. I'd probably suggest that if you are part of a local AA (Atheist Anonymous... good joke right? ) group then you are religious as you probably attend for the social aspect and/or for the ego stroke (not to be rude just cannot find abetter term. Basically you surround yourself with people of like mind so that you can never be portrayed as wrong. People from every walk of life do this not just atheists).

 

[A.J.]

My answer to the topic question: yes. Why?

1. Atheism requires faith. We Christians must have faith in God because there is no scientific proof that He exists. Atheists require the same faith to believe that there is no God because there is no scientific proof that He does not exist.

2. Atheists are evangelists, just like Christians. Atheists, in general, try to disprove the existence of God and try to convert others to believe in their beliefs.

3. Atheists unite and form communities, just like Christians.

 

[Artie]

My answer to the topic question: yes. Why?

1. Atheism requires faith. We Christians must have faith in God because there is no scientific proof that He exists. Atheists require the same faith to believe that there is no God because there is no scientific proof that He does not exist.

2. Atheists are evangelists, just like Christians. Atheists, in general, try to disprove the existence of God and try to convert others to believe in their beliefs.

3. Atheists unite and form communities, just like Christians.

1. No. Some atheists don't have dis-belief in God they have non-belief. Big difference.

2. Some atheists with a dis-belief in God are evangelists.

3. Some atheists do.

 

[ManofChrist101]

Hello,

I'm new to these forums so I'm unsure whether or not this is the appropriate place to post this new thread. If it's not I'm hoping one of the moderators can move it to it's right place.

I'm here to ask if atheism should be considered a religion. I'm curious to hear all responses and am most interested in those that are thought out and intelligent.

Thanks for anytime you guys give me!

This is complicated but the short answer is "yes"

First we need to understand something. Atheism is not a Theology, its a religion. Theologies are beliefs about God or if youre pagan, different "gods" whereas a religion is just a set of beliefs governing one's moral decisions and their understanding of why we exist and what our purpose and mandates are.

in Bhuddism there are not gods hence its not a theology. But it does have a moral code so its a religion. With the atheist chances are they do not profess to believe in GOD (go figure) but they do believe in moral codes, (which oddly enough you cant have without God) :toofunny ........so they have a religious belief

 

[Artie]

First we need to understand something. Atheism is not a Theology, its a religion. Theologies are beliefs about God or if youre pagan, different "gods" whereas a religion is just a set of beliefs governing one's moral decisions and their understanding of why we exist and what our purpose and mandates are.

in Bhuddism there are not gods hence its not a theology. But it does have a moral code so its a religion. With the atheist chances are they do not profess to believe in GOD (go figure) but they do believe in moral codes, (which oddly enough you cant have without God) :toofunny ........so they have a religious belief

Of course you can have moral codes without God. Most of the population of the world has moral codes without believing in the Christian God. Atheism just means a non-belief in deities and has nothing to do with anything else. A Christian is for example an atheist when it comes to every other god besides the Christian one. Moral codes are a result of evolution. Just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

 

[ManofChrist101]

Of course you can have moral codes without God. Most of the population of the world has moral codes without believing in the Christian God. Atheism just means a non-belief in deities and has nothing to do with anything else. A Christian is for example an atheist when it comes to every other god besides the Christian one. Moral codes are a result of evolution. Just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Morals are beleifs in absolute truths that govern how we should live. The only one with the authority to make those is God. You need God for morals, a nihilistic view of life is insufficient on which to base morals. Moreover dont try to say that "we evolved morals to survive" garbage because by that logic the nazi's would be absolved because they allowed only the fittest aryans to live. When in reality the committed God-less atrocities!

 

[reba]

A snippet of the ToS....


You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted.

 

[Artie]

Morals are beleifs in absolute truths that govern how we should live. The only one with the authority to make those is God.

So the 67 percent of the population of the world who aren't Christians are all immoral?

You need God for morals, a nihilistic view of life is insufficient on which to base morals. Moreover dont try to say that "we evolved morals to survive" garbage because by that logic the nazi's would be absolved because they allowed only the fittest aryans to live. When in reality the committed God-less atrocities!

Seems like you didn't read the link. Cooperating organisms have a better chance of survival. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals such as the Golden Rule. Those codes were incorporated into judicial systems and religions. Nazis didn't follow the codes and didn't survive.

But I think we strayed from the OP.

 

[SMOOCH]

from my understanding of what atheism is I dont know why it would be considered a religion because I was always told it was the belief that there was no God, which is why it ends in -ism which is a suffix that means belief in or belief. However religion is a personal ideal so in that sense it can infact be a religion. On the other hand its not like christianity, catholicism and so because these are faiths where there is a god, prophet or sacred doctrine to follow.


i could be wrong, its just my theory

 

[ManofChrist101]

So the 67 percent of the population of the world who aren't Christians are all immoral?Seems like you didn't read the link. Cooperating organisms have a better chance of survival. Cooperation evolved a common code of conduct called morals such as the Golden Rule. Those codes were incorporated into judicial systems and religions. Nazis didn't follow the codes and didn't survive.

But I think we strayed from the OP.

Lets give a quick example of adultery. One could say that adultery is immoral because it threatens the health of the couple because of things like chlamydia, but lets say we lived in a world where things like that didnt exist. The same person would probably say adultery is still wrong because it hurts the feelings of person who got cheated on (golden rule). Lets say in this world the person who did the cheating would still be able to get away with it without thier spouse ever knowing. Would it still be o.k? chances are the person would say NO. They would keep saying NO regardless of how many consequences we subtract from the equation because they beleive in the intangible existence or moral good and moral wrong. This beleif is regardless of its "benefits to the species' chance of survival". SO it must be metaphysical with no physical ramifications!

If good exists, then who decided what was good and what wasnt?

Obviously GOD

 

[Artie]

Lets give a quick example of adultery. One could say that adultery is immoral because it threatens the health of the couple because of things like chlamydia, but lets say we lived in a world where things like that didnt exist. The same person would probably say adultery is still wrong because it hurts the feelings of person who got cheated on (golden rule). Lets say in this world the person who did the cheating would still be able to get away with it without thier spouse ever knowing. Would it still be o.k? chances are the person would say NO.

Because of logic, reason and common sense, conscience and morals and compassion and love and empathy and altruism etc. all traits a result of the Evolution of morality

They would keep saying NO regardless of how many consequences we subtract from the equation because they beleive in the intangible existence or moral good and moral wrong. This beleif is regardless of its "benefits to the species' chance of survival". SO it must be metaphysical with no physical ramifications!

If good exists, then who decided what was good and what wasnt?

Obviously GOD

Obviously Allah. Or did God and Allah just agree about the standard?

"Do not go near to adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and evil, opening roads (to other evils)" (Quran 17:32).

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has said in many places that adultery is one of the three major sins.

But let's stay with the OP.

 

[ManofChrist101]

Because of logic, reason and common sense, conscience and morals and compassion and love and empathy and altruism etc. all traits a result of the Evolution of morality
Obviously Allah. Or did God and Allah just agree about the standard?

"Do not go near to adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and evil, opening roads (to other evils)" (Quran 17:32).

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has said in many places that adultery is one of the three major sins.

But let's stay with the OP.

Evolution is INSUFFICIENT for morality because all animals care about is collective survival and individual survival.

The Bible solves the euthyphro dilemma when it says (psalm 89:14)
14Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.


GOD CHOOSES, whats right and wrong.

 

[Artie]

Evolution is INSUFFICIENT for morality because all animals care about is collective survival and individual survival.

The Bible solves the euthyphro dilemma when it says (psalm 89:14)
14Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

GOD CHOOSES, whats right and wrong.

Does God choose what's right and wrong for Christians, and Allah choose what's right and wrong for Muslims?

 

[Vic C.]

This is NOT a Muslim discussion. Lets please get back to the original topic.

Thanks.

 

[Pard]

All cultures share the same basic moral code because, as Romans 1 clearly shows, God made it known to all people. It is through a life of being lied to and later lying to oneself that a person is able to not see the presence of God.

Atheism is a religion. The definition of the word "religion" is:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That's atheism in a nutshell! Atheists just don't want to be tied to the word "religion". It's not a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of the English language and the definition of the word. Atheists, along with everyone in the entire world, has a religion.

Someone may point out that some people have a different view than everyone else, and thus it isn't a religion. This is a wrong assertion, as we have seen over the years that there are very crazy people who belief in things that no one else does, and yet they are still religious, although it is generally called a "cult". Everyone has some idea for how everything came to be and what the heck we are doing, even the crazy liberal atheists with their dreadlocks and showerlessness.

Everyone has some sort of religion. It's just a fact, it's not something that can be argued. It's just a fact of the English language!

 

[Drew]

This is one of the silliest arguments I have ever come across. A thousand years ago people didn't know how thunder and lightning came about so they thought that Thor created thunder and lightning. If people had chosen your approach and stuck with "Thor did it" we wouldn't even have meteorology. Says something about the human race that our reasoning hasn't improved in a thousand years.

I think you are being a little hard here. I would agree that the post was certainly incomplete in the sense that the writer did not explain why "God as cause of the universe" seems more reasonable than "creation out of nothing". Perhaps you assume that the poster is not aware of the obvious rejoinder that the "God explanation" is just as problematic when it comes to the "first cause" issue.

It is an error of logic to reason thus:

1. People in the past attributed natural event to the caprice of the gods;
2. We now have scientific explanations for these events;
3. Therefore, we will ultimately have a "scientific" explanation for everything.

1 and 2 are true, but 3 does not follow. Now let me be clear: I am not suggesting you are making this kind of argument.

But I can imagine it is at least plausible that the "best" explanation of the existence of a universe with the properties ours has could be that God created it, recognizing full well that this explanation has its own problems - not least the problem of "how did God come into existence".

It is an understatement but I will make it anyway - this is a very tricky issue.

 

[Matthew6]

I completely understand the argument of the fact that atheism is a lack of belief, however I'd like to throw this out there: atheists do hold to some loose set of beliefs (there is no God, the Big Bang, evolution, scientific explanations for everything, religion is at worst a cause for great violence and hatred and at best a feel good for people). Also I've seen many a testimony from Christians who came to Christ from other faiths (like myself), I've also seen many testimonies from those who became Muslim, embraced some type of New Age/Eastern thinking, or become atheists and the conviction of those speakers, their experiences, and the reactions from the crowds are strikingly similar in all cases. I am not saying that atheism is a religion, I am saying that atheism bears more similarities to religion than most would like to admit.

 

[heymikey80]

If a religion is a set of fundamental beliefs about reality, then atheism would be a religion. It is not devoid of concepts taken "on faith".

If a religion is a set of assertions about how God and men relate to one another, atheism would not be a religion per se, but only because of its disbelief in one side of the relationship. Obviously atheism has some ideas about the absence of such a relationship, and thus an idea about how that absence should be conducted. So again, it wouldn't be a religion, but only on a technicality.

Philosophically I don't see a distinction between religions holding to a view of God, and atheism. They're all belief systems with principles taken on good faith -- and thus on faith.