Atheism Not A Religion?

[AddamS]

Well you're saying it's not a religion. I and others say it is.

 

When in doubt about words, consult a dictionary.

 

Dictionary.com

 

noun

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. The life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

 

 

I think we again end up at "Is non-belief a belief" and so on...

 

 

In reading this I'm finding myself less and less likley to identify myself as an Atheist or an Agnostic at all.

 

I think I'll just be a "human" from now on as I don't spend any time on either the belief or disbelief of spirituality.

[Rob Osborn]

There you go again, telling people what they should or shouldn't call themselves. Why not ask them?

 

I once had an Evangelical in Texas ask me if I believed in Jesus as my Savior, the Son of God, and so on. I said I did, and he then said, "That means you're not a Mormon." I most certainly was, but he told me that I couldn't believe in Jesus and still be a Mormon. What you're doing is no better and no fairer.

This is not rocket science. If you define first what a theist is all else fits into place. So I ask, what is a theist? Everyone agrees that a theist is someone who believes that one or more gods exist. There is no disputing that factual definition. So, if that is the correct definition for a theist then the definition for an atheist must in fact be the opposite. Thus the atheist definition would be someone who believes that one or more gods do not exist.

[Brian 2.0]

So you're basically saying there is still at least a little hope for someone who is an atheist.  After all, they could change their mind.

 

For sure.  And at least from the atheists I know, which is a good amount, I think they would agree with that.

 

But maybe I just surround myself with these 'soft' atheists and the hard ones are plentiful.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Ahab]

I'm justified because the lack of belief is the dictionary definition. It does not require an active assertion that there is no God.

I was saying you're not justified in saying "lack of belief" is the "broader" idea of what it means to be atheist.  According to the dictionary, a person is atheist is they deny the existence of God or lack belief in God.  Either definition is a valid definition, and my position is consistent with how the dictionary defines what an atheist is.

[Rob Osborn]

A couple of years ago, there was a huge discussion on these boards about Georg Cantor and the nature of infinity.  Did you participate in that by chance?

I was one of the main participants. People dont understabd the nature of infinity. Infinity can never be known as a number or a whole because it is a self contradiction.

[Stone holm]

That's for the bunnies to work out. I admit I've confined my investigations to people-gods, and some of those do concern themselves with other creatures it seems.

But there would be a certain symmetry to the notion except would be a little worried about meeting up with say the heavenly sire of Mosquitos

[Brian 2.0]

That's interesting. I'm the sort of agnostic that believes in many kinds of gods, just as I believe in may kinds of recipes or formulas. The recipes and formulas are certainly real in an abstract sense, and they can be made concrete by following them and getting results. These instances reveal god as an aspect of the person who follows the formula, and so that is the way that God is reified.

 

Whether or not the various recipes (some of them compete with others) represent some objectively "existing" being isn't important, and claiming that knowing that the story does represent some real, external and exclusive thing misses the point and distracts people from what actually matters.

 

It seems you are a pragmatist (if I'm using that term correctly).  

 

From a purely pragmatic standpoint it seems that many kind of Gods can be "true" becuase believing/following in that God yeilds positive results.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm justified because the lack of belief is the dictionary definition. It does not require an active assertion that there is no God.

You are wrong. That is like saying that it does not require an active assertion that there is a god to be defined as a theist. See the problem?

Atheism requires the belief of an active assertion that there is no god.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I feel like we have been over this like 300 hunderd times already in this thread.

[pmccombs1]

It seems you are a pragmatist (if I'm using that term correctly).  

 

From a purely pragmatic standpoint it seems that many kind of Gods can be "true" becuase believing/following in that God yeilds positive results.

 

Yes, plus mostly I think mfb's posts are about right. But he settled down with Mormonism and I'm still wandering about with uncertainty as my ideal. This pragmatism has an agnostic flavor to it.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes, plus mostly I think mfb's posts are about right. But he settled down with Mormonism and I'm still wandering about with uncertainty as my ideal. This pragmatism has an agnostic flavor to it.

 

I'm still in a wandering state myself.  I attend church about once a month.  I see the pragmatic usefulness of certain aspects, but certainly dislike other things.  I'm kind of stuck weighing the scales on if it's "worth it" to continue in the ritual and community of it all.

 

In all honesty, if it was just me, all alone, I'd probably attend more.  But I have very yound kids and it's trying to determine what sort of worldview I'm instilling in them, or would be instilled into them by church leaders, etc.  It's a much tougher decision when trying to figure out where and how to raise kids.  Kind of a catch-22 because I personally enjoyed my church upbringing (granted I was a perfect fit for the church system), but the huge paradigm shift I've gone through in the past 10 years I would rather not have them go through.  

 

Life's all about pros and cons and probability and it's tough to see them through the fog.

[jkwilliams]

I feel like we have been over this like 300 hunderd times already in this thread.

 

It depends. How are you defining "times"?

[Ahab]

I'm still in a wandering state myself.  I attend church about once a month.  I see the pragmatic usefulness of certain aspects, but certainly dislike other things.  I'm kind of stuck weighing the scales on if it's "worth it" to continue in the ritual and community of it all.

 

In all honesty, if it was just me, all alone, I'd probably attend more.  But I have very yound kids and it's trying to determine what sort of worldview I'm instilling in them, or would be instilled into them by church leaders, etc.  It's a much tougher decision when trying to figure out where and how to raise kids.  Kind of a catch-22 because I personally enjoyed my church upbringing (granted I was a perfect fit for the church system), but the huge paradigm shift I've gone through in the past 10 years I would rather not have them go through.  

 

Life's all about pros and cons and probability and it's tough to see them through the fog.

I think the best thing you can teach your kids is that they need to try to learn directly from God through personal revelation/communication to them.

 

Other people have some good ideas too, especially others who have also learned in that way, but it's still better for them to learn directly from God.  We can all see who has learned from God based on what God has told us, personally.

 

It sure helps me to get along better with my kids than to tell them they need to learn from me and what God has taught me, and I don't see anyone else on Earth I would rather they learn from, either.  He is the Father of all of us and all of us are equally entitled to revelation/communication from him.

[jkwilliams]

I'm still in a wandering state myself.  I attend church about once a month.  I see the pragmatic usefulness of certain aspects, but certainly dislike other things.  I'm kind of stuck weighing the scales on if it's "worth it" to continue in the ritual and community of it all.

 

In all honesty, if it was just me, all alone, I'd probably attend more.  But I have very yound kids and it's trying to determine what sort of worldview I'm instilling in them, or would be instilled into them by church leaders, etc.  It's a much tougher decision when trying to figure out where and how to raise kids.  Kind of a catch-22 because I personally enjoyed my church upbringing (granted I was a perfect fit for the church system), but the huge paradigm shift I've gone through in the past 10 years I would rather not have them go through.  

 

Life's all about pros and cons and probability and it's tough to see them through the fog.

 

Boy, do I understand that. My dad tells me that I shouldn't have taken Mormonism seriously, and if I'd been more casual, I wouldn't have had such a bad experience. There are certain things I like about the church, but there's no guarantee that my kids aren't going to take it as seriously as I did, and there are certain aspects of the teachings and culture that I find destructive. But, I go to church because my wife does not want to go alone. I'm trying to help my kids understand that they don't have to take everything the church teaches as absolute truth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 I'm trying to help my kids understand that they don't have to take everything the church teaches as absolute truth.

I would say that the kids need to know that it is ok, upon further light to change, once held beliefs.  Carry on.

[Brian 2.0]

I think the best thing you can teach your kids is that they need to try to learn directly from God through personal revelation/communication to them.

 

Other people have some good ideas too, especially others who have also learned in that way, but it's still better for them to learn directly from God.  We can all see who has learned from God based on what God has told us, personally.

 

I truly mean no offense to you Ahab, but that's actually something I do NOT want to be a big part of my kids' worldview.  I want them to learn critical thinking skills and apply those in helping determine truth.  I do not find the "ask God" method to be a reliable method (and in some cases a safe method) for determining what choices one makes in life.

[Analytics]

You're trying to lump us all together as if we all have the same ideas, but that is not the case here.

 

The dictionary definition offered for atheism was this:  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

I have consistently said an atheist is someone who does not believe God exists.

 

Where are you getting the idea that my idea isn't consistent with the definition from the dictionary?

 

I think 301 times will be sufficient to make this point.

 

I agree with you about the dictionary definition: atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Further, the dictionary defintion of disbelief means, "not believing." 

 

Consider two groups of people:

 

A- People who believe God doesn't exist.

B- People who don't believe God exists.

 

I claim the following:

 

1- The two phrases don't mean the same thing

2- Group A is a subset of Group B

3- People in group A have a positive belief that God does not exist

4- People in group B simply lack the positive belief that God exists

5- The definition of atheist is somebody in the larger group--group B

 

As far as I can tell, you think the two phrases mean exactly the same thing. 

[Ahab]

I truly mean no offense to you Ahab, but that's actually something I do NOT want to be a big part of my kids' worldview.  I want them to learn critical thinking skills and apply those in helping determine truth.  I do not find the "ask God" method to be a reliable method (and in some cases a safe method) for determining what choices one makes in life.

I think you would probably change your mind if you realized the person we normally refer to as "God" is not only our Father but he is the most loving and intelligent person you could ever hear from.  But then again, if you realized that, you still may not change your mind, preferring that your kids learn from making their own mistakes.

 

There are 2 ways to become the best person you can be.  Make mistakes and learn from them or follow counself that will help you to avoid making mistakes in the first place.

[Ahab]

I think 301 times will be sufficient to make this point.

 

I agree with you about the dictionary definition: atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Further, the dictionary defintion of disbelief means, "not believing." 

 

Consider two groups of people:

 

A- People who believe God doesn't exist.

B- People who don't believe God exists.

 

I claim the following:

 

1- The two phrases don't mean the same thing

2- Group A is a subset of Group B

3- People in group A have a positive belief that God does not exist

4- People in group B simply lack the positive belief that God exists

5- The definition of atheist is somebody in the larger group--group B

 

As far as I can tell, you think the two prases mean exactly the same thing. 

Look, there's a way to settle this very quickly.

 

Ask someone if they believe God (a supreme being) exists.  If they say no, then they're atheist.  If they say yes, they're theist.

[Analytics]

Look, there's a way to settle this very quickly.

 

Ask someone if they believe God (a supreme being) exists.  If they say no, then they're atheist.  If they say yes, they're theist.

 

I agree with that.  It's like asking if somebody supports Immigration reform.  If they say yes, it means they support it.  If they say no, it means they don't support it.  Not supporting immigration reform is a lack of positive support for immigration reform.  But it doesn't imply that they oppose immigration reform. 

 

Likewise, if somebody says no, they don't believe in God, it means they are an atheist, but all they said is that they don't have a positive belief in God.  They didn't say that have a positive belief that God doesn't exist.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Analytics

[Ahab]

I agree with that.  It's like asking if somebody supports Immigration reform.  If they say yes, it means they support it.  If they say no, it means they don't support it.  Not supporting immigration reform is a lack of positive support for immigration reform.  But it doesn't imply that they oppose immigration reform. 

 

Likewise, if somebody says no, they don't believe in God, it means they are an atheist, but all they said is that they don't have a positive belief in God.  They didn't say that have a positive belief that God doesn't exist.

A person is either for or against something.  You're suggesting there is a middle ground, where a person neither agrees or disagrees with an idea.  I can see how you can think that way, to a point, but once a decision is made either for or against, that person is accountable for that decision.

 

Suppose you ask a person if they believe God exists and they say "I don't know".  They're not saying yes, and they're not saying no, so they're neither atheist nor a theist.   See the difference?  A person who says or thinks "no" to the question of whether there is a God has denied there is a God because they don't believe there is a God and they believe God doesn't exist.

[Rob Osborn]

I think 301 times will be sufficient to make this point.

 

I agree with you about the dictionary definition: atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Further, the dictionary defintion of disbelief means, "not believing." 

 

Consider two groups of people:

 

A- People who believe God doesn't exist.

B- People who don't believe God exists.

 

I claim the following:

 

1- The two phrases don't mean the same thing

2- Group A is a subset of Group B

3- People in group A have a positive belief that God does not exist

4- People in group B simply lack the positive belief that God exists

5- The definition of atheist is somebody in the larger group--group B

 

As far as I can tell, you think the two phrases mean exactly the same thing.

The two phrases do mean exactly the same thing, just two different ways to say the same thing. Do it from the theist side to see why-

A. People who believe God does exist.

B. People who don't believe God doesn't exist.

[Stone holm]

A person is either for or against something. You're suggesting there is a middle ground, where a person neither agrees or disagrees with an idea. I can see how you can think that way, to a point, but once a decision is made either for or against, that person is accountable for that decision.

Suppose you ask a person if they believe God exists and they say "I don't know". They're not saying yes, and they're not saying no, so they're neither atheist nor a theist. See the difference? A person who says or thinks "no" to the question of whether there is a God has denied there is a God because they don't believe there is a God and they believe God doesn't exist.

There may be no middle ground in language, but there are vastly different grounds in thought and feeling. There may exist a small group of people who with great passion and vehemence believe there is no such thing or being as God. At the other end of the atheist spectrum is the guy that doesn't believe he has any reason to think God exists, so until God manifests Himself he is going to disbelieve in God...but he isn't going to lose any sleep over the issue and he doesn't really care what others believe on the subject. You might say he is rather indifferent to the whole subject. Now we believers think this a bit odd, since we think of God and about God from time to time everyday, and we couldn't escape Him if we wanted to as He tends to lurk there all day long and if He actually did decide to depart from us we would feel an emptiness. So we think, well everyone is like ourselves, and if they say they don't devote any time to their disbelief, well then they must be a liar. Edited November 15, 2013 by Stone holm

[pmccombs1]

A person is either for or against something.  You're suggesting there is a middle ground, where a person neither agrees or disagrees with an idea.  I can see how you can think that way, to a point, but once a decision is made either for or against, that person is accountable for that decision.

 

Suppose you ask a person if they believe God exists and they say "I don't know".  They're not saying yes, and they're not saying no, so they're neither atheist nor a theist.   See the difference?  A person who says or thinks "no" to the question of whether there is a God has denied there is a God because they don't believe there is a God and they believe God doesn't exist.

 

I see all kinds of middle ground:

• There is definitely a God
• There is probably a God
• There might be a God
• There may or may not be a God, but no reason to disbelieve
• There may or may not be a God
• There may or may not be a God, but no reason to believe
• There might not be a God
• There probably is not a God
• There definitely is not a God

Of course, this isn't in terms of being "for" or "against."  Not believing in something, or even denying it, does not necessarily mean that one is against the idea. And acknowledging or confessing a thing does not mean that one is in favor of it it. For and against is a whole different dimension of the argument.

[Rob Osborn]

I see all kinds of middle ground:

• There is definitely a God
• There is probably a God
• There might be a God
• There may or may not be a God, but no reason to disbelieve
• There may or may not be a God
• There may or may not be a God, but no reason to believe
• There might not be a God
• There probably is not a God
• There definitely is not a God

Of course, this isn't in terms of being "for" or "against."  Not believing in something, or even denying it, does not necessarily mean that one is against the idea. And acknowledging or confessing a thing does not mean that one is in favor of it it. For and against is a whole different dimension of the argument.

Nice breakdown but I see three distinctions here- First two can be classified as theists, next five would be agnostic and last two would be atheist. Of interest is those 5 in the middle because I believe a lot of people who call themselves atheist fit somewhere in this middle ground and just do not actually realize they are actually agnostic as far as correct definitions go.