Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

Ive had the self same argument recently about the Atheism being a faith, which it clearly is.

Nobody, but nobody on the planet can explain the cause of the Cosmic Trigger that created the big bang. Therefore all the truly smart atheists would at better off acknowledging the fact and possbily calling themself agnostics leaning towards atheism, since otherwise those thinking that this was not caused by a creative intelligence is premised upon precisely the same kind of faith base that is held by those of us who believe that the universe has been intelligently created.

In fact those of us in the latter camp have possibly more going for them than the former, when we consider some of the logical theosophical arguments that can be made based around the non-local, instaneous interaction of everything which occurs at the quantum level. - Just sayin

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


Yes, atheism can be considered a religion, and the proof is that they worship themselves,.

Most aetheists seem to share one common characterstic, according to my arrogant aetheist friend, and that is that they are usually very conceited.

I personally believe that it's very stupid not to believe in a higher power than yourself.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by charlyv

 

So, if one does not believe in a Creator, then I would consider them a true Atheist, and not have any religion at all.

I believe in "GOD." But I don't believe in a creator. I believe GOD is the creation. The body of all that exists is what I believe GOD is. Not something outside of the universe that holds a magic wand and says "Let it be" to nothing, that suddenly becomes something.

I believe the fabric of the universe is the "Word of God" and we are GOD in the flesh. Everything in total is what GOD is.

Now, am I an atheist? Do all atheists disagree with me? No, and No.

It's refreshing to read that as I've seen it that way more or less for many years

Whether Atheism is a religion or not I don't give a hoot as long as I don't have to get up early on Sundays. Some people are going to believe the idea and some are not. Some can't see the gray between the back and the white, they're just not dialed in thus a debate such as this can never reach a true conclusion IMHO

Originally posted by MagyarVagyok
reply to post by hezro

 

This is funny, Why would you call it to religion ? Millions are delusional and other millions are educated enough to not eat that crap. It is not a belief , it is just you are not brainwashed. Atheist usually more opened and thinking logically.

Thank you for adding such a good post explaining why atheists are better than everyone else,

They are smarter. Simple but why did it escape me? I guess I was just to dumb to notice... Oh actually the term was educated. Which for sure does not indicate a higher IQ, as evidenced by your own post. even IQ does not really tell how smart someone is, but you are a good 70 years ahead of me. Atheist are open minded? Wow, I really am dumb.

Originally posted by idmonster
A very good question...

Maybe not playing footbal is a sport!

Now there's a good question! Given that we know what football is, and assuming we take a straightforward definition of what a sport is (you know, everything on ESPN that isn't bowling), we can actual proceed with an intelligent, though entirely pointless, investigation of this vexing issue.

Is not playing football a sport? It certainly can be! Not playing football may not be in and of itself a sport, but those not playing football are often playing baseball, tennis, or that other socialist football where all the action is redistributed from the top of the body to the bottom.

So yes, not playing football allows many possibilities where you are still playing a sport. I would put forward that not believing in God is similar. If we could come to an agreement on the meaning of "atheism" and "religion" as I have put forward the definitions of "football" and "sport", we could have a meaningful discussion. Until we do that, this discussion is all "sound and fury, signifying nothing". But at least we all feel better when we get our jabs in (take THAT bowling).

reply to post by CPAauditor



Next time could you post something with less fact and more opinion

Originally posted by idmonster
A very good question...

Maybe not playing footbal is a sport!

hmmm...maybe the question wasnt quite as good as you thought....

edit on 3-12-2012 by idmonster because: too many "stamp collector" metaphors

Classic

Funny, funny stuff!

reply to post by MagyarVagyok


Hey MV, didn't mean to take a side by posting this definition, I just wanted to give the discussion some boundaries. To me it's just a battle of dictionaries. Though what's taking place around the actual question itself, while not useful in deciding the question, is still interesting and provocative.

I've only read a few posts, but I'll go ahead and respond. If evolution was proven 100 percent wrong tomorrow, it will not prove that gods are real. My atheism is not dependent on evolution being true, lol. It's dependent on there not being extraordinary evidence that gods are real.

Atheists may have lack of belief in gods for different reasons, and may differ on ideas such as abortion, evolution, beginning of the universe, etc. The ONLY thing they will have in common is that they DO NOT believe gods are real.

Most of us don't even claim to KNOW the answer to whether or not gods are real. We just don't believe it until it is proven to us. Simple as that.

reply to post by CPAauditor


That seems a bit silly to me. There are plenty of people that I know in China for example, who are atheists because they simply have had no exposure to religion. They are not conceited, nor are many Americans who are atheists because they simply have been exposed to Darwinism and buy in. I believe the vast majority(over 90%) of professional biologists in the United States are atheists. This comes from a Scientific American survey. They are atheists because of their "scientific" orientation. Most young people, high school students exposed to Darwinism for the first time, would have to be considered atheists if they buy in to the argument for it(which I do not by the way). In this case, they are hardly old enough to have evolved a full-fledged conceit capability. I think you are confusing the bad apples with the group. Plenty of theists are conceited , and they are not conceited because they believe in God.

reply to post by markatUCR

In fact those of us in the latter camp have possibly more going for them than the former, when we consider some of the logical theosophical arguments

It would be wrong to assume every atheist is against hearing the arguments out and pondering them. The ones that have simply have not been swayed yet, that's all. It doesn't mean a sufficient case can't be presented at a later time to change the atheists mind. I am comfortable saying many, perhaps the majority, of atheists are open to seeing whatever evidence there is. Since the basis of being an atheist to begin with is the lack of evidence and all...

reply to post by Hydroman


That is correct. And evolution as currently presented in the main is far from proven correct. Because we have no good mechanistic, purely physical, explanation for the creation and development of living systems, this is not a proof of God. Science, empirics, is a long way from showing how we came to be. It is quite possible that understanding living systems completely is simply beyond our reach, beyond the ken of human understanding. That does not mean however that were such the case, God's existence and our creation by God would be proven.

If so, then everyone belongs to billions of religions.
Calling "not believing" a religion would make this so.

This is just a tactic religious people use to attack anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Originally posted by unconditionalsurrender
reply to post by Hydroman

 

That is correct. And evolution as currently presented in the main is far from proven correct. Because we have no good mechanistic, purely physical, explanation for the creation and development of living systems, this is not a proof of God. Science, empirics, is a long way from showing how we came to be. It is quite possible that understanding living systems completely is simply beyond our reach, beyond the ken of human understanding. That does not mean however that were such the case, God's existence and our creation by God would be proven.

edit on 3-12-2012 by unconditionalsurrender because: added the word this

edit on 3-12-2012 by unconditionalsurrender because: changed God to "God's"

Great post. We should not be like the ancient people who said, "I can't explain how that happened, therefore a god did it."

I've actually heard a preacher say this: "If you can't explain it, God did it." (and at the time, I agreed with him)

reply to post by CalebRight14

Atheist are open minded?

Some are.

Some are not.

Atheists are not one group.

Why is this so difficult to grasp

Christians are part of a group that has official reading material and subsequently a whole slew of beliefs and rules. We can judge a Christian on countless things as a result. Since atheism does not have mandated doctrine and rules, the only thing one can say about an atheist is they don't believe in God. That's it. Again I bring up this point. Does this not make sense? I can infer many beliefs and moral opinions knowing someone's a Christian simply because I know they read from the Bible. The religious person cannot infer anything similar from atheists in general since they do not have a Bible of their own. You can't lump atheists together for this reason. Not one group.

Originally posted by Hydroman
I've actually heard a preacher say this: "If you can't explain it, God did it." (and at the time, I agreed with him)

I've been there too. It's a very humbling experience and prepares you well for a lifetime of doubting not only what others tell you, but what you believe and perceive. Some are angry or embarrassed, but in truth it's a great gift.

so will atheists be tax exempt like churches?
we should just make all science institutions tax exempt

reply to post by undo


A very interesting point, atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism, here is the point like you made, the reformation and Protestantism maybe discarded 30-50% of Catholic dogma and kept the rest, but when you are sitting at 80% wrong to start, you pull a lot of garbage into your new so-called better belief.

Your point is well made.

No. A lack of belief in a deity is not a religion. Religions have certain belief patterns, traditions,etc.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by undo

 

A very interesting point, atheists are the most atheistic to Catholicism, here is the point like you made, the reformation and Protestantism maybe discarded 30-50% of Catholic dogma and kept the rest, but when you are sitting at 80% wrong to start, you pull a lot of garbage into your new so-called better belief.

Your point is well made.

well the point i found the most convincing was the attitude when combined with stubborn refusal to recant former positions that in any way, might make them seem wrong about the big picture, even remotely, even the slightest bit. even an itsy bitsy bit. divine knowledge. this is what we're looking at today in the form of mainstream science. science is great, but let's face it, it's not any more divine than the next guy that proves some part of it wrong. just depends who the guy is and what part of the dogma is being attacked.

that was the papal attitude toward knowledge. they were right. period. end of story. since the enlightenment was kick started by catholic professors who were the go to men for matters relating to higher knowledge, that's not a surprise. they established the principles as regards how the new information should be approached and taught. how the critical papers should be written on the subject and what subjects would be next on the list. they didn't have any archaeological evidence against the texts of the ancient world yet and were already pitching them in the proverbial mythological waste bin.

for example, the homeric problem was wrong about the ancient greeks. but it was never recanted. that kind of thing. it's okay to be wrong about the little things, but they were afraid if they gave any quarter, people would run screaming back into believing in "fairies," enmasse.

my question was and still is, "So?" it's none of your business what happens between a person's ears regarding the spiritual or magical. mind your own beeswax. they can't. they.must.tell.you.what.to.believe.