Atheism and Religion are both belief structures. Collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both lifestyle choices. Baldness and hair are both genetically determined.
That doesn't make atheism a religion, but it can lump them in the same category.
If religion is a way of life related to beliefs in the divine or supernatural, how is atheism not a religion? They believe as adamantly that there are no gods as others believe in them. There is no way to prove either. To say that scientific method cannot prove that god exists, therefore god doesn't exist -- it is like saying that since the Bible proves that god exists then god exists. It is the same way of thinking. Atheists have faith in the scientific method, Christians have faith in dogma.
Whether one is grounded in reality and the other a deluded masochist is a matter of personal opinion ;) Which is which?
I'm not sure you can call atheism a way of life, though. Personally I make a distinction between having a belief and engaging in a set of practices, rituals, or observances based on that belief. Then there's the purpose of a practice: just because I meditate doesn't make me a Buddhist. Conversely, you'll find a huge range of beliefs among the Wicca, but you aren't one of them unless you engage in specifically Wiccan practices.
Sure, I've met some atheists who seem to approach what they believe in a religious way, but I don't think that's my problem.
So, how's your religion based on there being no Tooth Fairy doing for you? Or your religion based on there being no Santa Claus?
Lacking belief is not a religion.
> To say that scientific method cannot prove that god exists, therefore god > doesn't exist
You're arguing a strawman. The correct position is that "there is no evidence that god(s) exist, therefore there is no reason to believe that god(s) exist, therefore I believe in no god(s)."
A lack of belief is not a belief, nor does it require faith, any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
> Atheists have faith in the scientific method, Christians have faith in > dogma.
There is no faith involved in science. The entire point, in fact, is to remove faith and get strictly to fact
The fact that you confuse the two just means you haven't the slightest clue what faith is and how science works. A hint: They're not opposites. They're orthogonals.
> They believe as adamantly that there are no gods as others believe > in them.
Not true. You're assuming that an atheist is actively holding a belief, rather than concluding that there is nothing to believe in.
Yes, you may have met some which behave like that. It is no more a core element of atheism that homophobia is of Christianity, or worshipping victimhood is of atheism.
theweaselking's question about your there-is-no-Tooth-Fairy religion sums it up fairly well. Anotehr parallel might be your non-fifth-arm-using exercise routine.
The scientific method is a process based on logic and the need for reproduceable results before a finding can be acepted.
Theism and atheism are about positing or not positing the existence of a divinity/divinities ouside our existence/universe.
Since no one apparently can test for the existence (or not) of a divinity, making an assumption either way is faith. Agnostics consider the question unanswerable, and therefore moot. Yeah, I'm agnostic.
People trying to explain that science is wrong or evil or just another religious belief without evidence, mostly.
They're not just wrong, they're wrong *at the definition level*, from their first premises, and they're trying to inflict that wrongness of everyone else.
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying monotheism is a religion. Neither are. Both are catagories that can include religions, but being an athiest (or a monotheist) does not mean that you have to belong to a religion.
It's difficult for atheism to contain a religion, since atheism is DEFINED as the lack of a religion.
One can have beliefs not grounded in fact and still be an atheist. That doesn't make you religious, it just means that your faith-based beliefs don't happen to be in culturally postulated supernatural beings.
Find me a religion without a culturally postulated supernatural being.
(And yes, Buddha counts, if only on the technicality that he was much more enlightened than everyone else and the ultimate state of perfection would be to be like him, even if you couldn't necessarily get there by imitating him)
Actually, atheism is specifically the lack of religion:
'a' - from the Greek anti, meaning not or against 'theism' - from theo/theis, meaning religion or belief in gods, or theology, meaning the study of religion (which assumed the existance of a diety or dieties or some equivalent higher power).
'There is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Indeed, atheism is inspired by many rationales, encompassing personal, social, philosophical, and historical reasoning.'
A thread in a dumb forum full of dumb people, many of whom are creationists, areguing, for the ten millionth time, about whether or not belief in evolution is a religion, whether atheism is a prerequisite to believe in evolution, whether atheism is an illogical insane religion as opposed to the poster's perfectly logical religion, whether you have to choose between believing in God and believing in Darwin because they're incompatible, etc, etc, etc, etc around in circus ad infinitum world without end amen.
Arrgh, wrote this all out then hit the wrong button and lost it. So this is shorter than it would've been.
I've for a while seperated atheism into two types: Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, there can be no gods - real belief in lack of gods. atheism is the lack of belief in gods, the "I've seen nothing that makes me believe in any god or gods" response to religion.
I'd say the same about agnosticism, - there are those who say we can never know if gods exist or not, and those who just say "I don't know if they exist"
Personally I'd describe myself as an agnostic who defaults to the atheism viewpoint most of the time. Philosophically, I'd describe myself as somewhat Daoist, with an added touch of Discordianism (though I find it hard to resist the temptation of the forbidden hot dog in a bun whenever I walk through the local town center on a Saturday)
Interesting discussion. I muddy the waters a bit: I love the scientific method and hold strongly to the stance that "we don't know for sure" on most things (agnostic?) BUT I have experienced the supernatural on an almost daily basis with a few miracles far beyond any explanation outside of supernatural (with before and after material evidence) so I KNOW there is a supernatural world with supernatural beings that can manipulate this physical world. Beyond the fact of existence, I am agnostic about everything. Here I make a distinction between "faith" and "belief"... with faith you know but with belief you have arrived at that belief through weighing of evidence (or lack of evidence for the alternatives). As a future biologist and animal breeder, the concepts of evolution are key to understanding things. If I was a creator, I would design my systems to be self-repairing so evolution is an obvious necessary element to a good creation... This does not prove in my mind that there is a creator but leaves it open to be a scientifically acceptable possibility... especially with evidence that supernatural events can occur. Now I have the two possibilities: that the universe has always existed and time stretches infinitely in both directions or that there was in fact a beginning and possibly an end to the universe. Both are possible with a creator who is infinite but only the first is possible without a creation event. This does not prove anything in particular but I like to leave my options open so I lean toward thinking a creator is a more universal solution to explaining the universe's existence. Now, assuming there is a creator... it begs the question "why create a universe?". If one of the purposes is to create souls and test them or refine them, an alternative answer needs to be supplied to the test. If you are given a multiple choice questionnaire with only one choice supplied for each question, the test results would be useless. Like any personality test, there are no wrong answers but if the test is to see if you are suitable for a job... you may not be hired. I like to leave the questions I am not sure of until I am done looking at the test because I might find clues to the right answers along the way... I will continue to be an agnostic (I don't believe anything) but with faith in some things.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:02 pm (UTC)Collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both lifestyle choices.
Baldness and hair are both genetically determined.
That doesn't make atheism a religion, but it can lump them in the same category.
-K
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:05 pm (UTC)The bit about "not collecting stamps" is what cracked me up.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:15 pm (UTC)Whether one is grounded in reality and the other a deluded masochist is a matter of personal opinion ;) Which is which?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:43 pm (UTC)Excuse while I spend some time not collecting stamps.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:53 pm (UTC)Sure, I've met some atheists who seem to approach what they believe in a religious way, but I don't think that's my problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:59 pm (UTC)Lacking belief is not a religion.
> To say that scientific method cannot prove that god exists, therefore god
> doesn't exist
You're arguing a strawman. The correct position is that "there is no evidence that god(s) exist, therefore there is no reason to believe that god(s) exist, therefore I believe in no god(s)."
A lack of belief is not a belief, nor does it require faith, any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
> Atheists have faith in the scientific method, Christians have faith in
> dogma.
There is no faith involved in science. The entire point, in fact, is to remove faith and get strictly to fact
The fact that you confuse the two just means you haven't the slightest clue what faith is and how science works. A hint: They're not opposites. They're orthogonals.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:26 pm (UTC)> in them.
Not true. You're assuming that an atheist is actively holding a belief, rather than concluding that there is nothing to believe in.
Yes, you may have met some which behave like that. It is no more a core element of atheism that homophobia is of Christianity, or worshipping victimhood is of atheism.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 05:01 pm (UTC)Theism and atheism are about positing or not positing the existence of a divinity/divinities ouside our existence/universe.
Since no one apparently can test for the existence (or not) of a divinity, making an assumption either way is faith. Agnostics consider the question unanswerable, and therefore moot. Yeah, I'm agnostic.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 05:29 pm (UTC)Begging the question there, aren't we? You're assuming a definition of religion not stated.
They believe as adamantly that there are no gods as others believe in them.
Not necessarily.
Atheists have faith in the scientific method, Christians have faith in dogma.
News to me. Somehow I doubt that all atheists are what you would call science-worshippers.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 03:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:02 pm (UTC)That's not the point.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:13 pm (UTC)They're not just wrong, they're wrong *at the definition level*, from their first premises, and they're trying to inflict that wrongness of everyone else.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:42 pm (UTC)One can have beliefs not grounded in fact and still be an atheist. That doesn't make you religious, it just means that your faith-based beliefs don't happen to be in culturally postulated supernatural beings.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 04:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 05:02 pm (UTC)(And yes, Buddha counts, if only on the technicality that he was much more enlightened than everyone else and the ultimate state of perfection would be to be like him, even if you couldn't necessarily get there by imitating him)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 08:57 pm (UTC)'a' - from the Greek anti, meaning not or against
'theism' - from theo/theis, meaning religion or belief in gods, or theology, meaning the study of religion (which assumed the existance of a diety or dieties or some equivalent higher power).
'There is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Indeed, atheism is inspired by many rationales, encompassing personal, social, philosophical, and historical reasoning.'
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 07:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 08:42 pm (UTC)I came across it in pursuit of sanity.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-30 01:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 08:40 pm (UTC)Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that a particular dip switch is an arcade game.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-29 10:56 pm (UTC)I've for a while seperated atheism into two types: Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, there can be no gods - real belief in lack of gods. atheism is the lack of belief in gods, the "I've seen nothing that makes me believe in any god or gods" response to religion.
I'd say the same about agnosticism, - there are those who say we can never know if gods exist or not, and those who just say "I don't know if they exist"
Personally I'd describe myself as an agnostic who defaults to the atheism viewpoint most of the time. Philosophically, I'd describe myself as somewhat Daoist, with an added touch of Discordianism (though I find it hard to resist the temptation of the forbidden hot dog in a bun whenever I walk through the local town center on a Saturday)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-30 02:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-30 03:34 am (UTC)From now on, when people ask what my hobbies are, I'm going to say "Not collecting stamps".