The debate "Is atheism a religion too" was started by
February 28, 2017, 11:21 am.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Blu_Ray posted 1 argument, UnderdogMike posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Blu_Ray, UnderdogMike, Ematio and 1 visitor agree.
historybuff, Yanksxx21, thereal, PsychDave, Nemiroff, Your_dad, TheExistentialist, tony, human, ProfDoke, EthanTReilly, makson, FaithofExaltism and 3 visitors disagree.
It seems that the need to compare Atheism to religion stems from a misunderstanding of the claims made by Atheists vs Theists.
Theists claim that evidence is sufficient to make a truth claim about the existence of God (i.e. God is real and I believe).
The Atheist position is a bit different. The claim made by the Atheist is "I don't have sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God" or "given the evidence for God, I find it unreasonable to believe in God". Neither of these claims are claims requiring faith or belief. A denial of God is also not the affirmation of a belief in one scientific hypothesis or another. I for one, am not convinced by the Big Bang. I think an eternal universe actually seems more likely. However, I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility to either. So I am not making a faith claim in the same way that religion is making a faith claim. My claim is that "both theories hold merit and neither can be eliminated given the evidence, thus either could be correct".
To further illustrate the flaw in your argument, if I ask you what Kim Jung Un had for breakfast, does you not knowing mean God is not real?
No, they are completely separate things. You can believe in God and not know something. In exactly the same way, others can not believe in God without being required to know everything.
To be clear, I am not really an atheist. I am not sure if God exists or not. I honestly hope one does, but I have issues with the hypocrisy, intolerance and injustice that is and has been done in the name of religion. I doubt organized religions because it is amazing how ofter God agrees with whatever is best for those in power. Not once, on all of history, did a Pope say "God came to me in a dream and told me we had misinterpreted something". Televangelists make millions claiming to speak God's words. I try to be open to evidence of God, but generally I get people like najam spouting their beliefs as self evident truth without proof.
If that is what you got from what I wrote, you need to reread it.
Being an atheist is entirely independent of the start of the universe or life. Someone can not believe God exists and simultaneously admit to not knowing how life started. Not believing in God is not a belief, it a a lack thereof. I don't need to be able to explain how life started to not believe in God. I just have to not believe in God based on the fact that there is absolutely no convincing evidence one exists.
This makes no sense. Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color and abstinence is a sexual position.
Atheism is the claim that evidence for God is unsatisfactory to conclude God is real. In essence it's a negation of the evidence for God.
" If you believe that life spontaneously erupted from non-life that the organic was created by the inorganic then you have to believe in some cause"
A belief in cause is not a religion. By this logic, any belief one holds becomes a religion. So a belief in conservative ideals is a religion, a belief in liberal ideals is a religion, etc...
"Both of those beliefs require faith and the faith on the level of religion."
Except that you are absolutely wrong here. A belief in abiogenesis only lasts so long as the evidence for it keeps coming. If there was a piece of evidence came out that proved life couldn't possibly have come about through abiogenesis, then the belief in abiogenesis would die immediately. A belief in God is not the same. Evidence has come out to definitively prove that the Bible, tora, Koran, etc... Couldn't possibly be true as a matter of historical record, that the origin story of the abrahamic religions couldn't possibly be true, and yet religious people believe it. That's a different kind of faith than saying: "so long as it remains the best explanation for the origin of species I'll believe in evolution, and as long as it remains the best hypothesis for life, I'll believe in abiogenesis".
You can't possibly equivocate claims with built in doubts to a truth claim like God exists based on no actual evidence.
therefore atheism is not science, and still a lack of something cannot be a religion.
you are trying to argue that science is a religion, not atheism. is that correct?
and this person disagrees. he believes the universe always was, as is. never changed. he doesn't believe is science, yet his is an atheist.
no, science says that the universe had a beginning.
he says atheism REQUIRES no faith, not that atheists HAVE no faith.
he even clearly cited a situation in which he does have faith.
you keep confusing atheism with science. tell me, if someone believes in an everlasting, nonchanging universe, with no creator god, is he not an atheist? is he totally not in line with science? the 2 words are not the same thing....
that is what I got from what he wrote. That an atheist doesn't have faith in anything. Will you have to believe we came from somewhere. And that belief shapes your worldview. If you believe that life spontaneously erupted from non-life that the organic was created by the inorganic then you have to believe in some cause. Weather that causes random chance plus the Magic Bullet of time or the guiding hand of an all-knowing God. Both of those beliefs require faith and the faith on the level of religion.
he never said that. he can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but he still believes it.... where did you get your (suspiciously preset) statement from? it certainly was not in response to any of our posts.
so you don't believe anything you can't prove?
tell me how life began on this planet.
So your argument is that a lack of faith in God requires faith? You really don't see the flaw there?
Being an atheist requires no faith whatsoever. If you have no faith in anything, you are an atheist. That said, even most atheists have faith in some things, like that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I wouldn't call that a religion though.
living requires faith. faith that the bank will hold your money safe. faith authorities of some level won't come and take you or your possessions. faith places you never been to like Mongolia even exist (It's all a conspiracy :D
so yes, there is faith involved. but it's not blind faith.
I have not recreated all the experiments to see them all for myself, but I have faith in them. mostly because I am welcome to do them, welcome to challenge them, welcome to learn them, and in any way free to think how I want as long as I don't deny the truth of what is the result of my question. I also have faith that they work because I see the results of their discoveries in the form of technologies and amazingly explanation of how our world works.
on the other hand, the complete opposite of that, is "dogma". the unquestioned, set in stone truth that shall not be challenged. that is blind faith, that is religion.
one of the synonyms of religion is faith. and like I said, it takes a whole lot of faith to be an atheist.
lack of belief cannot be labeled a religion, that makes no sense. does not believing in leprechauns also qualify as a religion?
you can make the argument that science is a religion, you would be wrong, but at least your labeling an actual positive aspect about someone instead of a lack of something.
Zeus is a particular god. not the amorphous God that atheists claim cannot exist.
agnosticism is a logical belief. atheism is irrational.
Agnostic assumes you do not know. Atheists assume that there is no God.
If someone does not believe Zeus is real, does that make it a religion?
the ardent belief in sonething one cannot prove to be true? smacks of religion to me.
agnosticism I would disqualify, as there your simply admitting you don't know.
Its a religion. Complex numbers arent numbers but numbers that arent numbers are imaginary and complex. Its something of that sort.
By defininition, no it is not. I don't see how anyone could think it is.