Is Atheism a Religion?

Your truth is not a constant, merely the current limitation of what we are capable of knowing. That is to say, we once thought molecules were the smallest thing, then atoms, then particles (electrons, neutrons, etc.), etc. We are not capable of knowing what produced the big bang, so we are not capable of stating fact about the origins of the universe. It is theory, creationism is another theory (though much poorly founded). Neither are yet provable (though one seems much more probable). There is a large leap of faith to believe in the existence of higher power, god, or supernatural. Still, would you not admit that there is at least a small leap of faith to believe that there is absolutely nothing out there that cannot be proven to exist through our five basic senses?

Just a question, I am only a metaphorical creationist.

 

Interesting subject here.

If truth is not constant,
can truth be truth at one point in time and then becomes untruth at the next?

Anyone?

 

I think I will post this as a new thread. Come on follow me....

 

Fair point. Even if we use Occam's Razor and are 99.9999% certain that it would be stupid to assume we were victims of some Cartesian "Great Deceiver" purely because it's possible, we still have to trust what we think we know of the world in order to rely on such certainty.

 

Materialism can also be considered a religion.
I think, materialism is the religion of a lot of people.

 

Atheism is not a religion, being that religion is a set of beliefs (which not all atheists have in common, i.e. 'god does not exist' and 'god probably does not exist, please show me some proof') and practices (which there certainly isn't within atheism).

 

It has nothing to do with faith, i know i'm real because i exist and i know i exist because i'm thinking. Scepticism is great but so is the cogito.

 

And I add, atheism is just as valid as any other belief system. Religion is the organized group usually involving devotional and ritual observances with believers of that tenant, so if you are involved with a group of atheists, you have your 'atheistic religion'. Usually, atheists are less 'religious', however they are very spiritual just like their religious counter part. To be spiritual is to hold to ideas pertaining to the spirit or soul, in the case of atheism it may be that there is no soul, no spirit, no after life, but this is a spiritual belief and I believe requires as much 'faith' as an opposing view since neither can be conclusively proven and so both are valid views.

Life is the organization of the disorganized. A spiritual person has a belief concerning that process, evolution, I.D. or creationism (and others)... all explanations of that wondrous organization we call life. Science lends itself to some more than others, still no explanation is entirely absolute, evolution has yet to demonstrate in a lab just how DNA and life was started, how that disorganized became organized to start life. But for me, I acknowledge evolution has answers that make more sense than the other options that I am aware of. But I see all options as possibilities. Perhaps the Raelians have it right, ET brought life to Earth. Statistically speaking, it has the highest probability of being right (if lief exists anywhere in the Universe).

 

It is an OPINION.

IMHO of coarse.

 

If there were absolutely no religion and no belief of a highter reality on earth, and even if god existed would people be atheistic? Yes, even if they won't know it.

Are animals atheistic? Yes, for what we know they are.
Does it require them to have a system of belief based on the non-existance of god? Of course not, they arn't aware of their atheism, they don't follow any system of belief exept what they learn by simply living.

To me, atheism is not a religion. I need beliefs, but I don't need a system of belief. Also my beliefs do not concern the afterlife, or the highter universe or whatever you call it.

My beliefs concern life itself, and the existance or non-existance of god that never shows up has no impact whatsoever on my life and state of mind.


On another note science should never be put on the same level than religion. While religion is almost only based on tradition, which is often based on mythology and metaphorical stories, science is based on the constant observation of nature.
While both require belief to a certain extent, science promotes skeptiscism while religion promotes faith.

 

how do you propose we know that other animals are atheistic? do you talk to them? interview them?

if you think about it, we assume that animals are less "intellectual". which would seem to indicate a lack of scientific knowledge. maybe they don't know why the sun rises on one side of the earth and sets on the other...or how weather works. once upon a time we didn't know these things either. which is how religion arose. a way to explain the things we could not understand. so, what makes you believe that animals havent thought up some other theistic reasoning of why water falls from the sky?

 

The Prophet speaks thusly:
Belief is belief; Knowledge is knowledge.
The atheist knows not the existence of the Lord, nor the existence of nothingness, but only the existence of opinion. and thusly of belief.
Whereas the knowledgeable suspect all of the triad, yet know nothing of certainty.
Knowledge, like Faith, arises only from empirical ignorance.

 

no, atheism is not a religion. it is an absence of belief in a supreme/supernatural being or beings. there are no set guidelines for atheism, no dogma except for that aforementioned lack of belief. now, the absence of belief may well be considered belief/faith in itself, as we cannot (yet?) entirely and certainly disprove the existence of a God or Gods, but it does not imply religion. for example, I may have faith that the toothfairy is real, but that does not make me a toothfairyist.

 

It is a philosophy, more than a religion.

 

Is fasting a type of meal?

Is virginity a form of sexual intercourse?

Is non-smoking a brand of cigarette?

Why would anyone even ask these sorts of questions?

Peacelove,
Aldousage

 

"Anyone" might ask these questions because they are on a religion and philosophy board. Maybe, I don't know, they are interested in questioning all things religious and philosophical. It's really not that strange.

 

None of those three questions are related to philosophy or religion, but you probably specifically mean the question to which I was equating my three questions.

You feel that because a word or words within the question pertain to a given topic, the question necessarily becomes meaningful within a forum devoted to said topic?

If this is the case, I'll be more specific in one of my examples:

Would it make sense - on a forum devoted to food and eating - to ask a question such as "Is going without food a type of meal?"?

Did you know that many Buddhists, Unitarians, Taoists, Confucianism and more, are atheistic? This means that the members of some recognized religions are atheists. In this bizarro world where atheism is a religion, would those people be considered members of two religions?

Are agnostics a seperate religion? What about atheists who believe in aliens/other dimensional entities, but not Gods, per se? Are these all different denominations of the "atheistic faith" or are they all to be perceived as fellow congregants?

The only thing that atheists necessarily share with one another is a non-belief in God(s). Beyond that aspect, their philosophies, societies, beliefs and practices could be (and often are) COMPLETELY different from one another. How could anyone who thinks about this for even a moment consider such people unwilling/unknowing members of the same scriptureless, templeless, clergyless, prophetless, non-tax exempt religion?

 

Seems to me this thread is an exercise in word games. It's a matter of definition, and definitions are human tools. It causes confusion to use familiar words in unfamiliar ways, but sometimes the words are fuzzy at the margins, as is the case here. A person who simply doesn't believe in God is certainly and atheist. A person who dogmatically maintains there is no God and devotes considerable energy to proselytizing others to that belief is showing traits that we often associate with religion in its more unpleasant forms. A person who fervently adheres to an ideology of naturalism or humanism could be described as having a secular religion--or not. To call it religion points to similarities in the functions performed by religious and secular value systems, but if the belief in a supernatural deity is the defining criterion, they're not. When the secular beliefs are accompanied by rituals, it gets fuzzier. I once attended a meeting of the American Humanist Society where the discussion focused on developing rituals for birth and rites of passage, such as one they called "the presentation of the child". Sounds religious, but they don't believe in God. But neither do orthodox Buddhists, so go figure.

 

I'm an atheist.I believe there is no god.I'm a theist.I believe there is a god.I'm an agnostic.I cannot explain existance relative to a god."Ya' pays yer money and ya takes yer chances."

 

Look,you(generally speaking ,of course)can espouse any theory/ies about the nature of existance you want.But consider =were these theories,beliefs,faiths,ect,ect around ,say,10 million years ago.I don't think so,which leads me to believe all the aforementioned are obviously of human construct developed as evolution unfolded.It's an interesting and perplexing state of affairs to be human.