Atheism is NOT a Religion - Accept this, move on.

The essence of the argument is similar to that of the "color" black.

Black is not a color, it is the absence of color, as Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.
The reason we put black in the color category is simply that it is easier to deal with, in the same way the Atheism is grouped in with religious belief.

And to be clear, many people group Agnosticism with Atheism, they are, in fact almost polar opposites.

Agnostic (from the Greek for "without knowledge") does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.

The OP has made the definition of Atheism quite clear.

The Billmeister

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by The Revenant
If you believe there is no God - you're an agnostic. If you KNOW there is no God, you're an atheist.

Using the word 'religion' to define your disbelief is a matter of semantics, but in my opinion, atheism is an act of faith. There is an elegance to the universe that suggests a higher order. To deny that is to express a 'belief' because there is no 'knowledge' available. You can't know.

Atheism is not a matter of knowing something. It's a matter of not believing the claim that there are gods.

Atheism requires no more faith than not believing in Zeus, Thor or Isis, which very likely you do not believe in.

Well, as the thread atheist...do you accept the existence of a higher order? Cuz if so, everything else is a matter of semantics and/or anthropomorphism.

So the question that follows is...How can you know?

error

Originally posted by Student X
All that could be said about theists, so I think you're missing the point. Sociological forces are the "requirement". A skeptic who believes in psychic ability will not fit in at JREF. Not because there is a "requirement" that skeptics reject psychic ability, but because of JREF sociological factors - groupthink. An atheist mystic will not fit in at Richard Dawkins website, not because atheists can't be mystics (they can) but because of the very same sociological forces which operate in a religious community.

Those web groups are not religions. And whether or not someone is accepted in them on the basis of belief in things other than whether gods exist or not does not make them religions.

But even so, I wouldn't call atheism a religion. I would call it a dysfunctional mythology

It would appear then that you also have a misunderstanding about what a mythology is.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Well, as the thread atheist...do you accept the existence of a higher order? Cuz if so, everything else is a matter of semantics and/or anthropomorphism.

So the question that follows is...How can you know?

You would have to define "higher order" for me in order for me to clarify.

Also, I don't know, nor pretend to know, the answers to that which is unknown. That's usually reserved for the theist, who tends to assign god as the answer to such things.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Do you know there are gods? If yes, you're a gnostic, if no, you're an agnostic.

I think that we've been down this road before, TD, but the first part of your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure what term might be applied to one who claims to know that there is a God, but it cannot be "gnostic", as that describes a very specific set of beliefs, and has been so applied for over 2,000 years.

I wouldn't say it's incorrect, but more accurately, that we must distinguish the homonyms. "Gnostic" (capital G) refers to an ancient sect. But "gnostic" (lower case G) refers to knowledge.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Student X
But even so, I wouldn't call atheism a religion. I would call it a dysfunctional mythology

It would appear then that you also have a misunderstanding about what a mythology is.

I suspect that he is using the word "mythology" in its "the study of myths" context, not the "collection of myths" sense.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by The Revenant
If you believe there is no God - you're an agnostic. If you KNOW there is no God, you're an atheist.

Sorry but that's not correct.
If you believe there is no god, you're an atheist. If you know there is no god you are a gnostic atheist, or as it's sometimes called, a strong atheist.

I applaud your knowledge. Well done sir - I'm glad someone noticed!!!! Star for you.

Rev.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Do you know there are gods? If yes, you're a gnostic, if no, you're an agnostic.

I think that we've been down this road before, TD, but the first part of your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure what term might be applied to one who claims to know that there is a God, but it cannot be "gnostic", as that describes a very specific set of beliefs, and has been so applied for over 2,000 years.

I wouldn't say it's incorrect, but more accurately, that we must distinguish the homonyms. "Gnostic" (capital G) refers to an ancient sect. But "gnostic" (lower case G) refers to knowledge.

Yes, but knowledge generically, not knowledge of God specifically, which again confuses the issue. Like I said, it was properly applied 2,100 years ago, but misapplied when Huxley used the term agnostic in the 1800s.

Originally posted by adjensen
Yes, but knowledge generically, not knowledge of God specifically, which again confuses the issue. Like I said, it was properly applied 2,100 years ago, but misapplied when Huxley used the term agnostic in the 1800s.

I think we agree on that. For the context of theism and atheism though, gnosticism and agnosticism has some commonly accepted meanings, and we must distinguish them because agnosticism is so widely misunderstood in this context.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
So the question that follows is...How can you know?

Excellent point my Canuck friend - there is no reliable evidence that points to the existence of anything that theists propound. They will present things that are not provable or worth proving through scientific methodology.

If you believe some of the evidence, or you believe there is no god, but that there are other things that exist but cannot be explained, then you are an agnostic.

An Atheist demands scrutineered evidence, nothing less, nothing more.

Therefore, given I have seen no evidence in all my life that any theists claims are truthful, I KNOW that no god exists etc.

The Rev.

I like Stefan Molyneux's definition:

"Atheism: The acceptance of the non-existence of imaginary entities such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Bronze Age sky ghosts."

It is accepting things as they are. You can't be against gods any more than you can be against square circles.

Originally posted by purplemer
cmon who you kidding... atheism is a belief system just like religon who you trying to kid?

kx

True enough.

Atheism has no more claim to empirical data that God doesn't exist than those who wish to prove God does exist. From personal experience, I've met atheists who were just as flat-out fanatical as any religious fundamentalist

That said, please no one equate this with the evolution vs creationism discussion: creationism has zero data for it, while evolution has the entire fossil record behind it - tangible physical evidence you can touch and test.

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
So the question that follows is...How can you know?

Excellent point my Canuck friend - there is no reliable evidence that points to the existence of anything that theists propound. They will present things that are not provable or worth proving through scientific methodology.

If you believe some of the evidence, or you believe there is no god, but that there are other things that exist but cannot be explained, then you are an agnostic.

An Atheist demands scrutineered evidence, nothing less, nothing more.

Therefore, given I have seen no evidence in all my life that any theists claims are truthful, I KNOW that no god exists etc.

The Rev.

Thing is, it does get a little loosey-goosey around the fringes. Scientists will acknowledge a certain elegance which is often ascribed to a higher order of some sort. Slap a beard on it and call it God is something else, again.

But to deny (or purport) the existence of anything without facts...is faith. You connect the dots.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
It would appear then that you also have a misunderstanding about what a mythology is.

edit on 18-1-2011 by traditionaldrummer because: (no reason given)

It would appear that way to someone who is not a mythologist, as I am. Mythologists have a different and obviously superior understanding of myth than the man-on-the-street. Especially the atheist-on-the-street, who tend to conflate myths with lies. It comes from years of studying comparative mythology. One learns to rise above myopic insider perspectives and embrace a panoramic cross-cultural view.

Originally posted by The Revenant
Therefore, given I have seen no evidence in all my life that any theists claims are truthful, I KNOW that no god exists etc.

How have you managed to draw an absolute conclusion ("I KNOW that no god exists") from what you admit are non-absolute observations? It is impossible to state knowledge that something does not exist, barring observation of everything, which you (and no one else) have clearly not done.

You can either say "I believe that God does not exist", or "I do not believe that God exists" (the two statements are not equivalent, and the latter is usually preferred by atheists, as it removes "faith" from the equation) but you cannot say "I know that no god exists" truthfully.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Thing is, it does get a little loosey-goosey around the fringes. Scientists will acknowledge a certain elegance which is often ascribed to a higher order of some sort. Slap a beard on it and call it God is something else, again.

Indeed - very pertinent. Pattern in the chaos, natures' Mandala's, all that sort of thing yes? Certainly, it could be argued that a higher power designed all of existence - but why ascribe that power to a God? Why not some form of perfectly rational conclusion founded in Quantum Physics etc?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
But to deny (or purport) the existence of anything without facts...is faith. You connect the dots.

I ask the question regularly - Do I have any evidence to support the idea of a 'God?'

My answer, is still no. If it changes, I will change my mind. Until then, I remain atheist.

The Revenant.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by The Revenant
Therefore, given I have seen no evidence in all my life that any theists claims are truthful, I KNOW that no god exists etc.

How have you managed to draw an absolute conclusion ("I KNOW that no god exists") from what you admit are non-absolute observations? It is impossible to state knowledge that something does not exist, barring observation of everything, which you (and no one else) have clearly not done.

You can either say "I believe that God does not exist", or "I do not believe that God exists" (the two statements are not equivalent, and the latter is usually preferred by atheists, as it removes "faith" from the equation) but you cannot say "I know that no god exists" truthfully.

Gods cannot exist by definition, so his statement is correct.

Originally posted by Student X
It would appear that way to someone who is not a mythologist, as I am. Mythologists have a different and obviously superior understanding of myth than the man-on-the-street. Especially the atheist-on-the-street, who tend to conflate myths with lies. It comes from years of studying comparative mythology. One learns to rise above myopic insider perspectives and embrace a panoramic cross-cultural view.

Then by all means, explain to us the mythology of atheism, since that is your assertion and you claim to be a mythologist.

Originally posted by strato
Gods cannot exist by definition, so his statement is correct.

That makes even less sense, sorry. What is the definition, what is the basis by which something cannot exist under that definition, and what are the absolute observations that demonstrate that both the definition and basis are true?

You are attempting to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.