Why don't you consider Atheism a religion?

[Blazer]

I am an atheists and I can try to explain my opinion on how it isn't a religion.

Atheism isn't considered a religion because most religions have it so you have to fallow a set of rules, codes, ect. Being an atheist is just having a lack of belief in god and that is all.

Is a lack of belief in aliens, ghosts, or big foot considered a religion at all? Then why a lack of belief in god? All because it apposed what most religions fallow does not mean it itself is a religion. If it did then that mean their would be a lot of people who are apart of tons of religion just because they didn't believe in something.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Blazer

I am an atheists and I can try to explain my opinion on how it isn't a religion.

Atheism isn't considered a religion because most religions have it so you have to fallow a set of rules, codes, ect. Being an atheist is just having a lack of belief in god and that is all.

Is a lack of belief in aliens, ghosts, or big foot considered a religion at all? Then why a lack of belief in god? All because it apposed what most religions fallow does not mean it itself is a religion. If it did then that mean their would be a lot of people who are apart of tons of religion just because they didn't believe in something.

There's many different denominations of religions all holding various beliefs, none being similar. Religion is used to explain the cause and purpose of the universe. Regardless of what you believe you are in a sense pertaining to some sort of religion.

[Blazer]

Originally Posted by Michael.

There's many different denominations of religions all holding various beliefs, none being similar. Religion is used to explain the cause and purpose of the universe. Regardless of what you believe you are in a sense pertaining to some sort of religion.

What description of atheism says anything about the purpose or cause of the universe though?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Michael.

There's many different denominations of religions all holding various beliefs, none being similar. Religion is used to explain the cause and purpose of the universe. Regardless of what you believe you are in a sense pertaining to some sort of religion.

From this, I'm gathering the definition of religion you're adhering to is belief(s) that can explain the cause and purpose of the universe with or without a deity. For atheism, this definition is not met because not believing in a deity in no way explains the cause and purpose of the universe. If anything, it addresses whether deities exist within the universe but that does not fulfill the definition you provided. Therefore, according to you, atheism is not a religion.

The fact that there are many different demoninations in meaningless when determining whether one set of beliefs is a religion or not because although each demonination would have its own spin, they would all adhere to the basic beliefs of the religion (i.e. explaining the cause and purpose of the universe).

[Jack]

Originally Posted by OhaiThere

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Athiesm, Agnosticism, and hell, even Nihilism are religions (although nihilism can be disputed).

Don't fool yourself.

Then science is a religion. Which it's blatently not. With such a vague definition as that pretty much anything could be classed as a religion.

It seems pretty clear that atheism is not a religion. People keep using the phrase belief and religion interchangably. One of the key points that differentiates Atheism from religion is the lack of dogma and guidelines. All religions have certain frameworks within which people should live their lives if they wish to be a good member of the religion. Atheism does not.

[l0stCause]

atheism is the lack of a religion calling it a religion is like calling christianity a science

[OhaiThere]

I suppose I just have a much looser (more incorrect) definition of religion.

In my mind, it is much closer to pure belief than it actually is.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Michael.

There's many different denominations of religions all holding various beliefs, none being similar. Religion is used to explain the cause and purpose of the universe. Regardless of what you believe you are in a sense pertaining to some sort of religion.

But as has been pointed out by others, that's not all a religion is. All religions prescribe some set of morals or directives by which to live, though some are much more lenient than others. But the purpose of religion is to direct life first and explain life only second. Judging by how you live your life, I think you're in agreement with this. Atheism makes no such prescription, nor do agnosticism or deism.

[Jesus Christ.]

Originally Posted by Michael.

Religion isn't exclusive in a belief of a deity as numerous people seem to hastily conclude. It ofttimes embraces a deity, but is not limited to in order define a religion.

Also, not to get picky but you contradicted yourself. You say, "It's not a 'belief of nothing,' as other have stated." However, you continue by claiming that it is a belief there is no deity. In essence you gave the same explanation as the definition "others have stated."

You might say it is unbelief of a deity, but they cannot prove there is no deity so it is still a belief. For example, one either believes in Nessy or one does not believe in Nessy. You can consider the one who does not believe in Nessy to be unbeliever of Nessy, or simply to have a lack of belief. However, they cannot prove it, so their BELIEF is simply that there is no Nessy. Either way you are still embracing a belief in belief or a belief in unbelief (I don't know how to better explain this, but if you don't understand I'll try).

I'll rephrase it this way: the person who believes Nessy is real has an unbelief in the unbelief of Nessy. They don't believe that Nessy is a myth. Therefore even someone who is adopting a belief still has an disbelief or unbelief in something else, namely that which is opposed to their belief.

A Christian has a unbelief that God doesn't exist, but a belief that God does exist. An Atheist has an unbelief that God does exist, but a belief that God doesn't exist. A Christian does not believe that God doesn't exist, rather they believe God does exist. An Atheist does not believe that God does exist, rather they believe that God does not exist. They're both reliant on faith (though one may require more faith than the other -- the Atheist will argue the Christian does, the Christian will argue the Atheist does, but this is besides the point) because neither can prove for 100% certainty to the other that God is real or not.

Since you used Nessy as an example to prove something, let me do the same. If someone believes that Nessy is real does that mean they're in a religion? I think not.

Atheism is a belief in one thing, that there is no higher beings. And a belief differs from a religion, for example a religion is a SET of beliefs not a single belief, which atheism is. This is why atheism ISN'T a belief.

I've been away, so I've not responded, and I feel rude as I was addressed directly. But on a side note, I'm only responding to this post for now, sorry if I've missed anything others have posted since.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

You have me a bit confused here because in a previous post you argued and provided a definition showing how atheism can be one big religion. You then provided an additional argument regarding its uniformity amongst people. So I'm a bit confused now as to what that definition and argument was for if it wasn't for atheism. From what I'm gathering, you're suggesting forms of atheism are likely to be religious but atheism in general is not religious. In other words, the sum isn't equal to its parts. I can live with that depending on the situations but your definition of religion comes back from my memory and it allows certain forms of atheism as well as atheism in general to be religious. I'm confused by this, can you please explain your position?

Have you never argued something you either didn't particularly think through, or later decided to reform/review what you previously said? I'll admit I'm guilty on TH of sometimes just jotting down thoughts in posts without totally thinking them through... And I'm fine with changing my argument if it seems it needs to change. There's no point sitting there and continuing with something I no longer think makes sense?

My actual position on the topic is, I don't think it really particularly matters. It's semantics. Whether or not Atheism, or sects of Atheism, are effectively a religion or not, doesn't change how they are in practice. I suppose the only real worth of the discussion is to bring light to how some types of atheism are. Because, like organised Religion, organised Atheism can be used dangerously, or blindly with particularly doctrine some sects may require of 'followers', and I suppose likening it to religion may at least aid as an illustration. Another thing, particularly if you are religious, I suppose comes from frustration. But it is usually over specific types of atheists. The range of atheists is highly varied, and I'm sure, even as an atheist yourself, you've meet types of atheists you would not really identify with.

True, it is a possibility however the scientific view isn't required to be adopted by atheists. It commonly is but even if it is without really understanding it, this same phenomenon of believing in something or adopting a certain mindset without fully understanding what it is occurs in other beliefs as well.

I'm not disagreeing this happens in other beliefs/mindsets as well. But this was my response to someone suggesting most Atheists adopt a scientific approach. I think the approach we take to these sort of issues probably have more connection to your education, enviroment and intelligence than the specific belief you are taking on. It was a criticism of Atheism as a concept, but a criticism of generalising individual atheists.

Agreed, the universe cannot be explained by simple studies. If I recall, you're studying psychology. As a fellow psychology student, you're aware that psychology has many explanations for the same observed behavior. So if we cannot understand ourselves or "lower beings", then it's not likely we're going to understand an area that's all theory (i.e. theoretical physics).

I want to make a thread on this topic, because I think it's pretty interesting, particularly as a psychology student. But i wasn't suggesting lets go from the one extreme to the other, rather I think, at least for the study of mental life, you need a combination. The essay I wrote was on something called the 'Systems Approach'... or systems thinking. Which is about relationships, patterns, non-linear equations, etc. But this is another topic. I'll get round to making it.

The ones that are more intelligent (only know a few, mostly through online forums) seem to adopt a view of being more scientific in a sense that they adhere to some reductionism by analyzing the individual parts of their belief (or other beliefs). But if one is to be entirely devoted to theism and no science, then even when they're older and more educated, they still take the theist approach Xujhan mentioned.

Ignoring those who are religious because of parents, etc.... we will call them blind faith people (I know some think all religious people are having blind faith, but I assume you get the type I mean)... If someone is devoted to a religious belief, they tend to have reasons for such a conviction, or enough evidence for themselves to believe. I think that essentially, if these reasons were shattered, most of them wouldn't keep holding on to religion for the sake of religion alone. I think it's a complicated issue, and I think it's one that may be hard to understand to many.

Though you cant be devoted entirely to theism and have no science unless you are totally mentally inept. Unless by that comment you mean no devotion to science, as oppose to no use/belief in any science, so they can pick and choose and throw whatever they don't like away without justification?

True but the same is said for beliefs in a god(s) so if there is a problem with it, then the belief in a god(s) shares that exact same problem. When things like this are essentially universal, then to me it's fairly useless to point them out as though they're unique to a certain group. If you can put a certain spin on it then by all means go ahead but stating a problem that's universal and a given as being unique is rather pointless.

What I meant was more... the belief there is no God only exists because others believe there is a God. This is a slightly different example, bu I find it hard to explain what I mean, so it might help. Generally, human beings are sexual creatures. People don't go around identifying explicitly really as 'Sexual', unless they are maybe very sexual.... like if you were asked your sexuality, you would probably just mention your orientation.... but I've noticed in groups with knowledge of Asexuality, or even individuals who identify as asexual, some people are feeling the need to assert they are sexual, not asexual, even though by default, you'd be sexual. I suppose this illustration is sort of meant to comment that, particularly if there is no God, then not believing in him is the natural default, and you only need to point that out because others have a God.

I don't really see it as a massive problem myself, because on the flip side, if you are a theist, and you believe there is a God, then the default may not be atheism. For example, in Christianity, the knowledge of God is meant to be in people. But I have seen some Atheist get quite annoyed by being told they have a belief, because they don't see it as 'I believe there is no God', rather 'I do not believe in a God' (there is a difference here).

Basically I was trying to voice the opinions of people I've talked to in the past. But I have no strong investment in such a discussion.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Invert

Have you never argued something you either didn't particularly think through, or later decided to reform/review what you previously said? I'll admit I'm guilty on TH of sometimes just jotting down thoughts in posts without totally thinking them through... And I'm fine with changing my argument if it seems it needs to change. There's no point sitting there and continuing with something I no longer think makes sense?

I am guilty of that also, however, before I begin a debate, I do try my best to think my stance through although I am only human and my views can change.

Originally Posted by Invert

My actual position on the topic is, I don't think it really particularly matters. It's semantics. Whether or not Atheism, or sects of Atheism, are effectively a religion or not, doesn't change how they are in practice. I suppose the only real worth of the discussion is to bring light to how some types of atheism are. Because, like organised Religion, organised Atheism can be used dangerously, or blindly with particularly doctrine some sects may require of 'followers', and I suppose likening it to religion may at least aid as an illustration. Another thing, particularly if you are religious, I suppose comes from frustration. But it is usually over specific types of atheists. The range of atheists is highly varied, and I'm sure, even as an atheist yourself, you've meet types of atheists you would not really identify with.

Fair enough but if we discuss how some types of atheism are, then is that not a subset of the overall population of atheism, so one could attempt to make an inference that based on how these subsets operate, then all of atheism must do so also. I have no problem addressing only certain forms, although that concern is in the back of my mind.

Correct, I have met atheists who I disliked but it's not simply due to their atheistic beliefs. They don't believe in an deity and I agree with them on that. So for that purpose, we agree on atheism. Other topics we may not agree on but those topics can be irrelevant to our agreement on atheism. I suppose I'm beating around the bush here a little bit because I'm a bit perplexed by what you refer to as "forms" of atheism. It's simply a matter of disbelief in deities. How one applies that to other topics isn't really a form of it, it's simply the methods of application, not how one practices atheism.

Originally Posted by Invert

Ignoring those who are religious because of parents, etc.... we will call them blind faith people (I know some think all religious people are having blind faith, but I assume you get the type I mean)... If someone is devoted to a religious belief, they tend to have reasons for such a conviction, or enough evidence for themselves to believe. I think that essentially, if these reasons were shattered, most of them wouldn't keep holding on to religion for the sake of religion alone. I think it's a complicated issue, and I think it's one that may be hard to understand to many.

I disagree for two reasons. First, how does their belief get shattered? As a scientist, I could provide arguments to refute their religious beliefs but their faith isn't based on evidence, so more often than not, it may weaken their religious faith, sometimes even shatter it but it's not guarunteed to. So the point is, depending on how their religious faith is shattered, they may still cling to theism. Second, supposing their religious faith is shattered, people resort to what they know best and so they're likely to resort back to religious faith, perhaps of a different form. Alternatively, they may abandon it completely but only if they have had lots prior experience with something such as science.

Originally Posted by Invert

Though you cant be devoted entirely to theism and have no science unless you are totally mentally inept. Unless by that comment you mean no devotion to science, as oppose to no use/belief in any science, so they can pick and choose and throw whatever they don't like away without justification?

My apologies, I should have rephrased it better. I mean the second option, having no devotion to science but still using elements of it or some belief it.

Originally Posted by Invert

What I meant was more... the belief there is no God only exists because others believe there is a God.

Agreed, so I'll retract that statement I made in that post.

Originally Posted by Invert

But I have seen some Atheist get quite annoyed by being told they have a belief, because they don't see it as 'I believe there is no God', rather 'I do not believe in a God' (there is a difference here).

Agreed, there is a difference in those two statements, a rather large one and I speak for many atheists when I say we have faced such occurances although I'm certain many theists have also.

I suppose the universal problem I mentioned earlier should be changed to whether or not one accepts a belief in a god(s), goddess(es) or other higher being(s) for topics involving religious faith.

[TheBabyEater]

I'm totally late getting into this thread, which is a shame. Because I don't have the time nor patience to read through all the posts. lol

But either way, I do consider it a religion. Certaintly not one that believes in a God or any godlike figure, but that is still believing in something right? Even if that believing is believing in nothing. Make any sense? Probably not.

But hey, I tried.

Then, theres when I'm talking about all that stuff together, I'd really rather just say all religions rather than Religious, Agnostics, and Atheists. Really, that just gets annoying when you're having a conversation about religious stuff all together.

[Spellbound]

Okay, I went to Catholic school for a number of years, and we learned that "religion" is a belief in a supernatural power (or powers, for those who believe in many different gods), or in other words, a supreme being. So, Christians believe that God is the supreme being, but atheists don't believe in a supreme being at all. That's why I don't think Atheism is a religion. It lacks a belief in a supernatural power.

[Blazer]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

I'm totally late getting into this thread, which is a shame. Because I don't have the time nor patience to read through all the posts. lol

But either way, I do consider it a religion. Certaintly not one that believes in a God or any godlike figure, but that is still believing in something right? Even if that believing is believing in nothing. Make any sense? Probably not.

But hey, I tried.

Then, theres when I'm talking about all that stuff together, I'd really rather just say all religions rather than Religious, Agnostics, and Atheists. Really, that just gets annoying when you're having a conversation about religious stuff all together.

Believing in one thing does not make a religion though, as number man said religion is a set of beliefs. Also let me correct your statement and say that atheist don't "believe in nothing", that is a misconception. All we don't believe in is a god or gods and that is as far as the relationship between all of us can go.

[l0stCause]

religions r based on faith faith is believing in sumthing even though there is no real evidence of it what do athiests believe in that would be described as faith?

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by Blazer

Believing in one thing does not make a religion though, as number man said religion is a set of beliefs. Also let me correct your statement and say that atheist don't "believe in nothing", that is a misconception. All we don't believe in is a god or gods and that is as far as the relationship between all of us can go.

I suppose I really should have clarified that Atheists don't believe in nothing no. They all usually believe in something, whether you consider that something to be a set of morals, or whether or not they believe in the big bang theory or both or.. well whatever. It's still something. By not believing in anything, I meant that they don't believe in a God or Gods or Goddess ext.

And you're totally right about the set of beliefs, I hope my post didn't come across like that. Being a Satanist, I don't really believe or care about whether or not there is a higher power or deity. Instead, Satanists usually abide by the same or similar codes or morals and such. Though they're not always the same, they vary from person to person (which is why I love it. lol)

So anyway. I pretty much agree with everything you said, just was awful at clarifying what I meant. I was hardly paying attention lol

[Blazer]

Originally Posted by l0stCause

religions r based on faith faith is believing in sumthing even though there is no real evidence of it what do athiests believe in that would be described as faith?

In the case of god most atheist use rule of elimination. No sceintific proof for god has been discovered so until then the idea of a god being the ruler is ruled out by us and replaced with nature.

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

I suppose I really should have clarified that Atheists don't believe in nothing no. They all usually believe in something, whether you consider that something to be a set of morals, or whether or not they believe in the big bang theory or both or.. well whatever. It's still something. By not believing in anything, I meant that they don't believe in a God or Gods or Goddess ext.

And you're totally right about the set of beliefs, I hope my post didn't come across like that. Being a Satanist, I don't really believe or care about whether or not there is a higher power or deity. Instead, Satanists usually abide by the same or similar codes or morals and such. Though they're not always the same, they vary from person to person (which is why I love it. lol)

So anyway. I pretty much agree with everything you said, just was awful at clarifying what I meant. I was hardly paying attention lol

No it's all good. We all can't describe things how we feel them, especially on the internet

Sorry if I came off like I was mad at you because I wasn't. I knew what you meant when you said atheist believe in nothing meant god I just wanted to correct that because others who might not be up to date on the subject or are just idiots (offending as it may seem) take that in a literal meaning which I can get pissy about.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by l0stCause

religions r based on faith faith is believing in sumthing even though there is no real evidence of it what do athiests believe in that would be described as faith?

Everyone has faith, however, not everyone has religious faith. An example of this non-religious faith would be as follows: you're the age you say you are on here (18). Do I have any direct evidence to confirm your age you displayed on here is your actual age (i.e. not 18)? No. Thus, I have to assume or go on faith that you are not lying and are being truthful about this. Atheists use faith just as much as theists do, however, they may not use a specific type of faith, which I term to be religious faith. Another example: I go to a store and I see that lettuce is marked to be from a certain country. Do I have any direct evidence of that? No. Do others? Yes. Thus, I go on faith that the lettuce is actually from that place even though I personally cannot verify it.

So, yes atheists use faith, however, it's not religious faith.

[l0stCause]

theres a difference between faith in somthing that can be proven and faith in sumthing that has no evidence

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by l0stCause

theres a difference between faith in somthing that can be proven and faith in sumthing that has no evidence

Correction.

[Edited by Essence. Reason: Please state your points without patronizing or belittling a use rbased on typing style. That is not the point of stating a point or debating in any way shape or form. Respect one another, please.]

It doesn't make if It can be proven. People shouldn't have to have evidence for everything in their lives. Some yes, but not everything.

[l0stCause]

y not im not saying u need 100% proof but at least a little evidence su facts that point to u maybe possibley being right
and y shouldnt evidence be needed if u can act without evidence were all fucked

i believe my neighbor is a terrorist trying to blow me up i have no evidence but i believe it to be true so can i kill him? u see ppl need evidence in order to keep order
i know that seems insane but it makes as much sence as religous ppl talking to a being they have no idea exists or not but religion has been around long enough that ppl just excet it and thats fucked up

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by Blazer

No it's all good. We all can't describe things how we feel them, especially on the internet

Sorry if I came off like I was mad at you because I wasn't. I knew what you meant when you said atheist believe in nothing meant god I just wanted to correct that because others who might not be up to date on the subject or are just idiots (offending as it may seem) take that in a literal meaning which I can get pissy about.

No it's cool, you didn't come across as mean or mad I'm glad you said something anyway or else I wouldn't have corrected myself at all. lol




And guys, do we really need to get into whether or not God or whatever exists? That's not the point of this thread anyway. Last time I checked anyway, what with a title like "Why don't you consider Atheism a religion" and whatnot.

[hopefaithlove]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

And guys, do we really need to get into whether or not God or whatever exists? That's not the point of this thread anyway. Last time I checked anyway, what with a title like "Why don't you consider Atheism a religion" and whatnot.

What she said. :P Please stay on topic and debate kindly, or I will have to close this thread. Thanks!

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by l0stCause

theres a difference between faith in somthing that can be proven and faith in sumthing that has no evidence

Agreed, however, from the perspective of each individual person, faith is faith, it doesn't matter if it's of something with no evidence or something that has been reliably proven. For the individual, they have no evidence and that is what matters for them. For someone else, they may have evidence of that same thing but whenever faith is discussed, it's at the level of the individual only.

Originally Posted by l0stCause

i believe my neighbor is a terrorist trying to blow me up i have no evidence but i believe it to be true so can i kill him? u see ppl need evidence in order to keep order

I agree that people need evidence and I also agree with having evidence that points oneself into the general ballpark region versus specific evidence to reliably prove a specific thing. When faith is involved in this, there is a concern I have over how much evidence is needed to still have faith. In this universe we cannot prove anything to be 100% correct or false, so we have to establish a benchmark for how much evidence is needed for something to be considered to be based on faith. That is the question I pose to you.

Originally Posted by l0stCause

i know that seems insane but it makes as much sence as religous ppl talking to a being they have no idea exists or not but religion has been around long enough that ppl just excet it and thats fucked up

There's a difference between physically hurting or killing someone versus praying or talking to oneself. Religion can serve many purposes and one is simply to provide comfort to the individual, and people who badly want this comfort may not look for cold hard facts, they may simply observe what is used constantly and accept that. It's a fallacy of tradition. So, although there is no evidence for their perceived being(s) to exist, it seems for the most part to just be psychological in that they want this being to exist so they assume it exists. For the most part, it does no harm but in extreme cases, it does.

[PhoenixAlive]

It depends. I do not believe that non-spiritual atheism (for example, people who don't believe in God, and don't care to align themselves with any particular religions) is a religion.

However people who do not believe in a deity can still be religious. Satanism and Buddhism have been mentioned. Etc.

For the most part, I've noticed that non-spiritual atheists look down on religion and would feel insulted if someone told them they were part of a religion. I don't know why anyone would insist that they are. If they don't want to have religion, then who am I to say that they have to?

For atheists who believe that science is their "religion", I'm sorry but I find that ridiculous. Scientists who believe in the same theories consider themselves to belong to a school of thought. However, belonging to a school of thought is not the same as having religion. Religion is not only faith in something that cannot be proven (and science can be proven). Organized religion also offers a set of rules to live by, and usually has a social aspect like mass, or service, or gatherings, etc. To believe in science is not faith, its logic really. I don't see how that can be considered faith.

[TheBabyEater]

A lot of people consider Satanism and Buddhism a religion, and some others as well.

I'm a Satanist, as some of you may know, but I do not believe in a God or higher power. I don't even believe in Satan, that may surprise a few of you. Does that mean Satanism is no longer a religion?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

A lot of people consider Satanism and Buddhism a religion, and some others as well.

I'm a Satanist, as some of you may know, but I do not believe in a God or higher power. I don't even believe in Satan, that may surprise a few of you. Does that mean Satanism is no longer a religion?

Are you a LeVeyan Satanist? If so, I didn't think that religion required that you believe in Satan?

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Are you a LeVeyan Satanist? If so, I didn't think that religion required that you believe in Satan?

Yeah, LeVeyan, Modern, whichever you want to call it I do't believe Satan or The Devil exists, but I, and a lot like me, follow the same or similar codes and morals and such that was followed back when Satanists did worship Satan.
(which, fun fact for you guys out there, Satanists did not worship the same Devil that Christianity has taught our modern world. Satanism was around before Christianity, and Satan was never really evil like todays world has put it. That just came up in other, newer religions. But, either way I don't think he exists anyway lol.)

[TigerTank77]

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.

[l0stCause]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.

i like that

Originally Posted by Darth Cara

I don't think it's a religion because a religion has faith. Athiests don't have faith there's no God really, they just don't believe there is.

Haha, my wording's really bad but idk how to explain it.

This is what I believe. I think the whole basis of religion is having faith and belief in a higher power. With atheism there is none of that. So, I would not classify it as a religion.

[Blackwing]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.

Lol...........

[Thurineth]

I consider religions to be beliefs, theism is a believe therefore atheism is a religion, thats my view on it.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Vlora

I consider religions to be beliefs, theism is a believe therefore atheism is a religion, thats my view on it.

So this means you then are religious that theism and atheism are both religions. So in other words, people have religions of religions of religions of religions ad infinitum? For example, I believe that I'll do good on my test because I believe I have studied enough, which is based on my belief of more studying benefits test scores and my belief of quality of studying benefits test scores. Hence, I have a religion of a religion of a religion of a religion. Also, people could abandon their beliefs (i.e. I could change my belief on amount of studying is good) so I'm no longer religious to that. This means people are constantly making and abandoning and editing their apparent religions. You'll find most people will say this idea of what a religion is, is simply so vague because there is a difference for most people between a religion and a belief.

[Thurineth]

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

So this means you then are religious that theism and atheism are both religions. So in other words, people have religions of religions of religions of religions ad infinitum? For example, I believe that I'll do good on my test because I believe I have studied enough, which is based on my belief of more studying benefits test scores and my belief of quality of studying benefits test scores. Hence, I have a religion of a religion of a religion of a religion. Also, people could abandon their beliefs (i.e. I could change my belief on amount of studying is good) so I'm no longer religious to that. This means people are constantly making and abandoning and editing their apparent religions. You'll find most people will say this idea of what a religion is, is simply so vague because there is a difference for most people between a religion and a belief.

No thats not what I meant.
I'm just saying atheism is a belief just like a religion. We just don't believe in God, rather than the opposite.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Vlora

No thats not what I meant.
I'm just saying atheism is a belief just like a religion. We just don't believe in God, rather than the opposite.

And doing well on my test is also a belief, so from what you said before, that would constitute it as being a religion. Your argument then and now still is belief = religion or belief is equivalent to a religion. Define what a belief is by setting certain parameters because right now you're still saying any belief is a religion. In either case, it's turning out to be a circular argument: a belief is X and a religion is X because a belief is X since a belief is a religion. You need to make your argument a lot more specific, detailed and unambiguous.

[Thurineth]

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

And doing well on my test is also a belief, so from what you said before, that would constitute it as being a religion. Your argument then and now still is belief = religion or belief is equivalent to a religion. Define what a belief is by setting certain parameters because right now you're still saying any belief is a religion. In either case, it's turning out to be a circular argument: a belief is X and a religion is X because a belief is X since a belief is a religion. You need to make your argument a lot more specific, detailed and unambiguous.

[Edit]

Religion is where you believe in God or Gods. You believe in the bible or whatever holy book your religion has, be it the quaran or some other. There are things you believe in.

I don't see why, that if you don't believe in these, it isn't a religion.

Its beliefs about God (hence religion) not wether you pass some test.

As Richard Dawkins has said, many religions don't believe in more than one God, atheists just go on God further.

[Katara]

I would call it a system of thought rather than a religion, in the end this is really just an argument about semantics

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Vlora

As Richard Dawkins has said, many religions don't believe in more than one God, atheists just go on God further.

Richard Dawkins would also probably froth at the mouth about the suggestion of atheism being a religion.

[GophersCantFloat]

I don't consider Atheism a religion because they don't believe in a God(s).
I know this isn't what religion is ALL about but it's a majority of what it is, seeing as religious people will do certain things only because of their God(s).

Also, a lot of people, who don't understand what Atheism is will say that they are Atheist, just because they do not have a religion, Even if they believe you go to heaven when you die. So a lot of "Atheists" aren't actually Atheists. Most likely a large population of Atheists don't really understand what it is.