"Atheism is religion," they say

[tjt]

How do you respond to someone who says to you "well, atheism is your religion"?

 

I suppose the burden of proof is on that person, but is there a quick response that the atheist can use to end it ASAP? I find this 'atheism as religion' to be quite an annoying perspective and don't have the patience to slowly and gently talk someone out of their ignorance.

[tiepolo]

Bald is not a hair colour...

[Wesley]

re·li·gion

riˈlijən/

noun

noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

or

a particular system of faith and worship.

 

I am not sure how atheism can fit into these definitions.

 

This is an attempt to marginalize reason by calling it just another form of crazy, and therefore it is able to be disregarded in the same way that all other religions are (except their own personal favorite).

 

I generally do not waste time by responding to this, but if I did, it would be to ask what their definition of religion is.

[tjt]

Here's how it went down for me (and I'm not proud of it, which is why I wanted to get your guys' advice for handling this better in the future):

 

him - "Atheism is your religion."

me - "No it isn't"

him - "Yes it is."

me - "No it isn't. Look I've heard that argument before and it's invalid."

him - changes topic without a hitch

 

 

Bald is not a hair colour...

 

This is perfect!

 

 

 

 

re·li·gion

riˈlijən/

noun

noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

or

a particular system of faith and worship.

 

I am not sure how atheism can fit into these definitions.

 

This is an attempt to marginalize reason by calling it just another form of crazy, and therefore it is able to be disregarded in the same way that all other religions are (except their own personal favorite).

 

I generally do not waste time by responding to this, but if I did, it would be to ask what their definition of religion is.

 

 

Defining the word religion would definitely debunk the claim if the discussion was between rational people, but with these types I'm afraid it opens up the conversation to more of their ambiguity. I see these two responses working well together, though... starting with the bald analogy, then if they need more clarification, offering the definition of religion and drawing the connection. Thanks, Wesley and tiepolo

[Alan C.]

Referring to atheism as a religion is 1) an attempt to apply the negative stigma of religion to atheism, and to 2) imply that religion and atheism are commensurate positions.

[GRosado]

The person you were talking to most likely didn't mean it along the lines of Atheism actually being a religion. It was probably more along the lines of calling atheists Dogmatic or you a Dogmatic atheist.

[alexakarpov]

Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of faith. Just like in mathematics, you either hold the Axiom of Choice to be true (as most mathematicians do), or you do not. Neither group is "religious" in their choice - it's a matter of taste, I'd say.

And that's not very different from believing there is God, or believing there isn't. God, by definition (I ask that you trust me on that) is impossible to "prove", deduce, demonstrate, catch, reveal, or otherwise "force" into existence. Neither is He a subject to disproving. He is an unfalsifiable proposition - just as the Axiom of Choice. You can or you can't - you do or you don't. If God actually is, or if God is not - doesn't matter in this regard.

 

(sorry, I am an anarchist AND a Christian, so I had to chime in).

[cynicist]

How do you respond to someone who says to you "well, atheism is your religion"?

 

I suppose the burden of proof is on that person, but is there a quick response that the atheist can use to end it ASAP? I find this 'atheism as religion' to be quite an annoying perspective and don't have the patience to slowly and gently talk someone out of their ignorance.

 

There is no good and quick way to do it. You either go into the difference between faith/science or you don't bother having the conversation. I mean you can if you want, but this problem is exactly why I don't argue with irrational people. (you can't win)

 

Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of faith. Just like in mathematics, you either hold the Axiom of Choice to be true (as most mathematicians do), or you do not. Neither group is "religious" in their choice - it's a matter of taste, I'd say.

And that's not very different from believing there is God, or believing there isn't. God, by definition (I ask that you trust me on that) is impossible to "prove", deduce, demonstrate, catch, reveal, or otherwise "force" into existence. Neither is He a subject to disproving. He is an unfalsifiable proposition - just as the Axiom of Choice. You can or you can't - you do or you don't. If God actually is, or if God is not - doesn't matter in this regard.

 

(sorry, I am an anarchist AND a Christian, so I had to chime in).

 

Hey I recognized your picture from a comment on one of Stefan's youtube videos, welcome to the boards. Atheism is not a kind of faith, it is an acceptance of the lack of evidence for a deity and the contradictory nature of the deities worshiped by the most popular religions of today. The god that christians worship has self-contradictory properties, and with the knowledge that self-contradictory entities don't exist in reality we can rule out the existence of the christian god.

 

You can learn more from Stefan's free book "Against the Gods? A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism" (in PDF or audiobook format). I considered myself an agnostic for a long time while under the same belief as you (that disproof was not possible) but finally became an atheist after reading the compelling arguments made by Stefan and not having any rebuttals for them.

[alexakarpov]

Thank you! Glad I finally made it here =)

 

I don't think your definition works... because I fall under it, while being a Christian (Eastern Orthodox variety). To clarify:

 

- I absolutely acknowledge lack of evidence for a deity; more than that - I "re-discovered" (after Tertullian) that such lack of evidence is a necessary condition for me to adopt a faith (which I did at age of 28, being a complete atheist before that).

 

- I also acknowledge contradictory nature of many existing religions

 

And yet, I am not an atheist.

 

As for self-contradictory properties - I'd urge you to be cautious when making such strong statements. It is important to remember that, at some point in time, *all* philosophers were religious; most of those our culture borrowed from, specifically Christians. They might have been a slightly different breed, but they all knew Aristotle pretty darn well, including his "Law of Non-contradiction". Somehow, it didn't present a problem for them.

 

Thank you for recommending the book; I was actually looking for something by Stefan (whom I absolutely adore for all of his other views). So far I only saw one short video, which I found to be missing the point completely... but then again, maybe it was targeted against a very *different* kind of faith, in which case it probably deserves all the bashing he can provide =)

[cynicist]

- I absolutely acknowledge lack of evidence for a deity; more than that - I "re-discovered" (after Tertullian) that such lack of evidence is a necessary condition for me to adopt a faith (which I did at age of 28, being a complete atheist before that).

 

Well that's new. I know faith is belief without evidence but rarely do I see christians acknowledging that. 

 

As for self-contradictory properties - I'd urge you to be cautious when making such strong statements. It is important to remember that, at some point in time, *all* philosophers were religious; most of those our culture borrowed from, specifically Christians. They might have been a slightly different breed, but they all knew Aristotle pretty darn well, including his "Law of Non-contradiction". Somehow, it didn't present a problem for them.

 

Thank you for recommending the book; I was actually looking for something by Stefan (whom I absolutely adore for all of his other views). So far I only saw one short video, which I found to be missing the point completely... but then again, maybe it was targeted against a very *different* kind of faith, in which case it probably deserves all the bashing he can provide =)

 

Facts and evidence don't generally present a problem for religious beliefs; There always seems to be some corner of the unknown they can scurry to in order to preserve themselves. I hope his book is useful for you -- it is aimed particularly at the god described by the main three religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) so I'm sure it will be relevant.

[alexakarpov]

Well that's new. I know faith is belief without evidence but rarely do I see christians acknowledging that. 

 

 

Facts and evidence don't generally present a problem for religious beliefs; There always seems to be some corner of the unknown they can scurry to in order to preserve themselves. I hope his book is useful for you -- it is aimed particularly at the god described by the main three religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) so I'm sure it will be relevant.

 

Hold on a minute - we're not talking about some ignorant and repressed "believers", we're talking about philosophers, learned people, scientists. It's important. I am familiar with the stereotype of an ignorant, repressed, aggressive, superstitious and intolerant religious person. Alas, that stereotype is often realised and observed around us. But I urge you to consider, that virtually every philosopher of Middle Ages, and many of them in Renaissance/Enlightenment era were Christians. That fact doesn't add one bit to "validity" of religion - but it clearly indicates that claiming "religious people are ignorant idiots who don't know about contradictions" is a very weak position. Indefensible, in fact.

[Wesley]

Hold on a minute - we're not talking about some ignorant and repressed "believers", we're talking about philosophers, learned people, scientists. It's important. I am familiar with the stereotype of an ignorant, repressed, aggressive, superstitious and intolerant religious person. Alas, that stereotype is often realised and observed around us. But I urge you to consider, that virtually every philosopher of Middle Ages, and many of them in Renaissance/Enlightenment era were Christians. That fact doesn't add one bit to "validity" of religion - but it clearly indicates that claiming "religious people are ignorant idiots who don't know about contradictions" is a very weak position. Indefensible, in fact.

All it makes clear is that people would get killed for not being religious.

 

What do you know? Everyone seems to claim they are religious!

 

Must add some credibility to the case that people say they believe things when under duress.

[Alan C.]

Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of faith.

 

How is atheism a kind of faith?

 

What is faith?

[Wesley]

How is atheism a kind of faith?

 

What is faith?

faith

fāTH/

noun

noun: faith

1.

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[Alan C.]

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

The problem with that definition is that it could apply to any belief, regardless if the belief is supported by reason and evidence or is simply blind obeisance. If 'faith' is simply any belief then it renders the word meaningless in the context of this discussion.

 

It is usually deliberate equivocation to refer to atheism as 'faith.' Religious people often try to lend credibility to their religion by referring to atheism as a faith or religion in order to place them into the same category. It's like asserting that astrology and astronomy are both science.

[Wesley]

The problem with that definition is that it could apply to any belief, regardless if the belief is supported by reason and evidence or is simply blind obeisance. If 'faith' is simply any belief then it renders the word meaningless in the context of this discussion.

 

It is usually deliberate equivocation to refer to atheism as 'faith.' Religious people often try to lend credibility to their religion by referring to atheism as a faith or religion in order to place them into the same category. It's like asserting that astrology and astronomy are both science.

Well, no. I think that atheist provide a null hypothesis for their belief, which in general subjecting a belief to the scientific method renders it to not be "complete trust or confidence" as it can always be proven wrong.

 

Religions do not submit their beliefs to science or propose a null hypothesis. In fact, they profess complete confidence often in complete opposition to the evidence, but always without adequate proof.

 

An atheist or scientist could be proven wrong tomorrow, but a person who believes something on faith can never be proven wrong for the believe their conclusion completely.

 

 

At least that is how I interpreted the definition, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I only googled to search for the definition, so of course there could be better ones available to go by, though I think that to some extent it is a bit squirrelly to reject a definition because it does not fit the point you are trying to make (even though there are a ton of poorly-defined words out there, somewhat of a no-win if the definition you find is a bad one).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

It's not a kind of faith. It is a proven fact that there is no god. It's properties are contradictory, therefore it cannot exist. Axioms are not a matter of taste. The axioms I use to disprove god you already hold to (logic, reason). It is impossible to proceed without using to these axioms. There is no choice. God IS a choice. God is not an axiom.

Please do not try to draw some equivalency between a rational position and some horseshit you want to continue believing.

[cynicist]

That fact doesn't add one bit to "validity" of religion - but it clearly indicates that claiming "religious people are ignorant idiots who don't know about contradictions" is a very weak position. Indefensible, in fact.

 

I never said or implied that. If I did I would be calling myself an idiot, since I wasn't aware of the contradictions when I was an agnostic. You can be an intelligent person and still have irrational beliefs and unprocessed trauma. Whether they recognized the contradictions or not is irrelevant to whether those contradictions exist.

[BlackHeron]

Yes, indeed.  I am an official high priest in the "religion" of Not Believing In The Easter Bunny.  As an emissary and member of the clergy of NBITEB I am the beneficiary of tax-free status, and get to wear a special collar of office made of woven plastic green Holy Easter Basket grass.

 

All hail non-Easterbunnyism!  Heap scorn on all the EB beliebers...

 

But I joke

[Brentb]

There are plenty of atheists out there who don't use reason or evidence as the basis for their knowledge, but simply use groupthink and believe whatever is most comfortable. For those people, atheism is a religion. 

 

Truth is in the process, not the conclusions.

[alexakarpov]

How is atheism a kind of faith?

 

What is faith?

 

I use the word "faith" as follows: faith, in it's very essence, is a commitment to hold a proposition P to be true, without having any proof or rational argument for it to be true; indeed, in most cases it's impossible to either prove or disprove P.

 

If you have evidence that P is true, then it's not faith, but rather proof, or deduction, or another process of arriving at a proposition being true, following the use of logic.

 

However, if there is no such way to arrive to the proposition P being true, you can still hold it to be true; that is an act of faith.

 

If a proposition is defined in such a way that it *can* be proven -- then, by necessity, it can be disproven also. This is called "falsifiability", as you may know. Thus, faith in a proposition that is falsifiable can be disproven, or proven. But, indeed, the term 'faith' is rarely applied to such propositions.

 

Now, God is an unfalsifiable proposition. Most often, this is the kind of situations where we apply the word "faith".

It is a proven fact that there is no god. It's properties are contradictory, therefore it cannot exist. Axioms are not a matter of taste. The axioms I use to disprove god you already hold to (logic, reason). It is impossible to proceed without using to these axioms. There is no choice. God IS a choice. God is not an axiom.

 

You are mistaken - there IS choice. Axioms ARE all about choice; axioms, by definition, are taken without proof, and are indeed impossible to prove. They are the basis of what's called "theory", in terms of logic. A theory is the set of all theorems which can be deduced from a given set of axioms. But axioms themselves are not proven or derived from anywhere. They are a static set.

Look up "Axiom of Choice" in Wikipedia. Many mathematicians had simply chosen to hold it true, because it allowed them to do fun things. To prove results they love. It opened more exciting areas in mathematics to them. They wanted it.

 

Same principle applies to some of us Christians - we pick God as an axiom (by choice), because it's more fun this way. The only difference with the Axiom of Choice is that we believe "God axiom" has a central place in our lives, whereas mathematicians don't have *that* kind of status for the Axiom of Choice =)

 

And, if you read up on "falsifiability", you will see that, quite trivially, unfalsifiable propositions (hypotheses) can not be either proven, or disproven, by definition. God being an unfalsifiable proposition certainly can't be "disproven", as you claim.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You are mistaken - there IS choice. Axioms ARE all about choice; axioms, by definition, are taken without proof, and are indeed impossible to prove. They are the basis of what's called "theory", in terms of logic. A theory is the set of all theorems which can be deduced from a given set of axioms. But axioms themselves are not proven or derived from anywhere. They are a static set.

Look up "Axiom of Choice" in Wikipedia. Many mathematicians had simply chosen to hold it true, because it allowed them to do fun things. To prove results they love. It opened more exciting areas in mathematics to them. They wanted it.

 

Same principle applies to some of us Christians - we pick God as an axiom (by choice), because it's more fun this way. The only difference with the Axiom of Choice is that we believe "God axiom" has a central place in our lives, whereas mathematicians don't have *that* kind of status for the Axiom of Choice =)

 

And, if you read up on "falsifiability", you will see that, quite trivially, unfalsifiable propositions (hypotheses) can not be either proven, or disproven, by definition. God being an unfalsifiable proposition certainly can't be "disproven", as you claim.

No, you are mistaken. The fact that you have no choice but to accept certain axioms as valid (in order to tell me axioms are all about choice) proves my point. You accepted that you exist, that language must be meaningful and that logic is valid and that your senses are valid. You did not need to accept a god or other mythological being. In order to even understand the concept of god you had to accept all these axioms. Children accept them even if they can't articulate what they are. 

The "axiom of choice" is generally in mathematics. What you're talking about is metaphysics and epistemology.   It doesn't follow that because axioms can be chosen that ALL axioms are chosen. You can falsify what I'm claiming by responding to me without accepting these axioms as valid. I can respond to you without holding a god as an axiom but I can't without holding the others as true. Do you see the difference?

God isn't an non-falsifiable proposition (unlike the axioms I just mentioned). God has properties that contradict with each other and reality. It cannot exist. There is no god. The notion that you pick some axiom because it's fun has no place in philosophy. What the hell has your "fun" go to do with anything? I will fight tooth and nail to prevent people like you dragging us down to your irrational level. 

[Snafui]

 

a·the·ism

• the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
• disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a·the·ist 

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

athe·ism

1 archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness

2

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

athe·ist  

a person who believes that God does not exist

 

 

The above definitions provided by dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com show the problem with the attempt to debate this: the default position is that God does exist because an atheist is actively disbelieving. This is an oxymoron.

 

When working from first principles the default *should be, "a lack of belief in a diety." If this cannot be established then you will be wasting a lot of time because you are trying to radically change a world view. Short of someone's world crashing down around them, where they are now seeking for new meaning to events unfolding around them... well, just change your name to Sysiphus or move on.

 

I am not saying to reject those that are willing to engage you but beware of those that cannot understand the given definition is illogical.

 

*should The using of should is a clue that banging your head against a wall will, at some point, ensue.

[Philosphorous]

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief.

 

If a Christian tells you atheism is a religion, they must practice it also as they do not believe in other religions' gods. (Aren't they now polytheists?)

 

If I don't eat a banana this morning, it is not a religion.

 

In addition, all babies are born atheists. I think it sounds a bit foolish to say that a 1-day-old human has entered into a religion.

[alexakarpov]

No, you are mistaken. The fact that you have no choice but to accept certain axioms as valid (in order to tell me axioms are all about choice) proves my point. You accepted that you exist, that language must be meaningful and that logic is valid and that your senses are valid. You did not need to accept a god or other mythological being. In order to even understand the concept of god you had to accept all these axioms. Children accept them even if they can't articulate what they are. 

The "axiom of choice" is generally in mathematics. What you're talking about is metaphysics and epistemology.   It doesn't follow that because axioms can be chosen that ALL axioms are chosen. You can falsify what I'm claiming by responding to me without accepting these axioms as valid. I can respond to you without holding a god as an axiom but I can't without holding the others as true. Do you see the difference?

God isn't an non-falsifiable proposition (unlike the axioms I just mentioned). God has properties that contradict with each other and reality. It cannot exist. There is no god. The notion that you pick some axiom because it's fun has no place in philosophy. What the hell has your "fun" go to do with anything? I will fight tooth and nail to prevent people like you dragging us down to your irrational level. 

 

Fight tooth and nail for "dragging us down? Look, I'm really sorry if you've suffered in hands of abusive parents and/or priest, who tried to force their religion on you. But I've never forced my religion on anyone, much less you in particular; more than that, I consider such forcing to be extremely evil, because it is both immoral (as any violence is), *and* because it is detrimental to one of the two main goals a Christian has (the one about spreading the word).

 

That said, I ask you to please tone down your hostility. There's really no need to fight me tooth and nail - not on the forums, at least =)

 

Next, it seems to me you didn't quite grasp the meaning of the word "axiom". Let me repeat: an axiom is a proposition which is considered true, *without* a proof of it being true. For example, 2+2=4 is NOT an axiom, because there EXISTS a proof of that proposition, based on Peano axioms, which are the basis of our arithmetic.

The first two of Peano's axioms is a good example of what an axiom IS:

[*]0 is a natural number.

[*]For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.

 

One could say these axioms are "evident", but "evident" is not a term used in logic; these propositions are accepted to be true. That is the important part. That is why we call them "axioms".

 

Same is the case with God. God is an axiom that some people choose; some others do not. Some people persecute those who do not hold the axiom to be true. Some people persecute those who do hold the axiom to be true. Both are guilty of initiating violence.

 

Now, if someone didn't chose to believe in God freely (i.e. was forced to accept, or feign acceptance under duress) - that is a bad, bad thing. It's bad because it's a form of violence, and it's bad, inside of Christian "theory", because it destroys faith, instead of creating it.

 

Do you see my point(s)?

[cynicist]

One could say these axioms are "evident", but "evident" is not a term used in logic; these propositions are accepted to be true. That is the important part. That is why we call them "axioms".

 

The reason these self-evident things don't appear in logic is because they are empirical, so logic is not necessary to know that they are true. There is nothing self-evident about god. If there were, what would be the point of the bible or teaching others about him?

[alexakarpov]

The reason these self-evident things don't appear in logic is because they are empirical, so logic is not necessary to know that they are true. There is nothing self-evident about god. If there were, what would be the point of the bible or teaching others about him?

 

The problem is, "self-evident" is entirely subjective. Some find God hypothesis self-evident! I am not one of them - I arrived to my choice of faith through a very different process, but "self-evidence" was never close... to be honest, I rather distrust people who claim it's like that for them. I suspect them to be delusional (though it's not necessarily the case).

[cynicist]

From dictionary.reference.com:

 

Self-evident - containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration

 

Proof/evidence are not subjective.

[meta]

I agree with alexakarpov on many things, especialy the axiom definition.I will try to make the following case, even if it is a bit off topic:Any ideology that is based on an ideal, is an ideology that is based on an axiom, therefore on faith.

I accept the dictionnary definition of religion posted previously, but I would like to redefine the word to present how I see it.To me religion is the "exteriorisation" of an ideal out of human morality and ethics.The divine is a domain that humans create to be, by nature, outside of our reach.A superior level.I find that absolutlely fascinating.

 

 Of course, like you guys have said before, violence in any form coming from religion is dangerous. Therefore religion can, and (very) often is dangerous.And from the very beginning of many cults, you find a psychotic guy craving power, and his priests buddies.

But there is no black and white, and I still see some good intentions in it.It seems to me like humans, facing their own barbarity, and building from earlier basic mystical beliefs (to rationnalise the unexplained from the tides to sunset or plagues), tried to build a system of morals which placed an Ideal, whatever it may be, above themselves. Unexplainable, unreachable, and unquestionable.

 

In the exact same way  other people , as myself, place Truth as an unreachable ideal.We don' know what we don't know, and we have to accept that all we have as Truth is a freaking axiom in order to keep on going.

Even if you can proove what we know, you can't proove what we don't know yet.So in searching for Truth you necessarly have to admit that your verion of Truth is limited, incomplete, and for all you know, might be full of mistake until the next truth..."The search for Truth" is the absolute human axiom to me, it is the quintessence of intelligence, which is to me the quintessence of life.

So saying it is an axiom is not bad at all, it's more of a compliment i think.

Like alexakarpov said axioms are the basis of logical reasonning, and abstract logical reasonning is , i believe, one of the most complex practice of intelligence.For me, a christian like alexakarpov that acknowledges contradiction is remmarcable.And prooves that religion is far more that just violent dogma.I would even go further, I would say that the practice of philosophy is a logical emergence in an intelligent system and that this is also true with religion.Because hope and faith (illogical, unreasonnable) are ridiculously powerful tools in any human endeavour, good or bad. It is so obvious I will not give examples. We would not be here without it.My friends, we are facing the apocalypse, yet we fight.I will not make the list of the threats ahead of us.Stefan is a beautifull exemple of keeping on fighting , helping callers,  knowing that millions will go unhelped to screw up their kids.A simple look at the maths would discourage any logic advocate to fight.When I look around me and listen to the philosophical trends, well they are not good. I live in a country (France) where people don't know what libertarianism or capitalism really  is, and EVERYONE loves social security but hates taxes , yet pay 50%.In this environment, I still believe that Bitcoin will change the world. Which is totally unreasonable, it is plausible but i have no evidence. All I have is an argumentation, in a world where right now, not many people are interested in money creation, and where Occupy claims more regulation from the state...So we are quite f****d, excuse my french.But bitcoin gives hope, so i believe...

Hope, the faith that good must win,that truth must preveiled.Because it is the only way, yet we are loosing.

But I can't accept that defeat, I won't, we won't.And that's faith. It's my religion, my thoughts to the innocent victims are my prayers.

My hope that we'll win besides the maths is a contradiction. It is faith.Yet i am an atheist, because I scientificaly know that God doesn't exist .What I mean is that even if being atheist is not an act of faith in itself, something else might be, like the search for Truth that drove me to atheism. 

[Livemike]

Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of faith. Just like in mathematics, you either hold the Axiom of Choice to be true (as most mathematicians do), or you do not. Neither group is "religious" in their choice - it's a matter of taste, I'd say.

And that's not very different from believing there is God, or believing there isn't. God, by definition (I ask that you trust me on that) is impossible to "prove", deduce, demonstrate, catch, reveal, or otherwise "force" into existence. Neither is He a subject to disproving. He is an unfalsifiable proposition - just as the Axiom of Choice. You can or you can't - you do or you don't. If God actually is, or if God is not - doesn't matter in this regard.

 

(sorry, I am an anarchist AND a Christian, so I had to chime in).

 

There is no faith required for atheism.  There is no evidence for any gods.  There is no evidence for Skrull* infiltrators trying to conquer the Earth for their Empire.  Non-skrullism does not require, and is not a, faith, neither is atheism.

 

* An alien species in the Marvel comics universe.

[alexakarpov]

There is no faith required for atheism.  There is no evidence for any gods.  There is no evidence for Skrull* infiltrators trying to conquer the Earth for their Empire.  Non-skrullism does not require, and is not a, faith, neither is atheism.

 

* An alien species in the Marvel comics universe.

 

I agree, there's no evidence of God. More than that - there cannot be; more than that - there shouldn't be. I don't want it; it would be stupid and pointless and wrong, to have a God which can be deduced, discovered, observed. That entity would have to be of the same... level with the observer, discoverer, deducer. Who'd want to worship or have faith in that joke?

 

Not me. If there is God - as I freely chose to believe, at the age of 28, being a complete atheist - then He better be a mystery. Well I'm in luck - that's what real Christianity* had in store for me all along.

 

---

* - most of people who call themselves Christians are kind of like those keynesians, who call themselves "economists".

[Slavik]

How do you respond to someone who says to you "well, atheism is your religion"?

 

I suppose the burden of proof is on that person, but is there a quick response that the atheist can use to end it ASAP? I find this 'atheism as religion' to be quite an annoying perspective and don't have the patience to slowly and gently talk someone out of their ignorance.

Religion is believing in a super powerful entity (creator) what have you.   Atheism is accepting that no such thing as creator exists.  How would I personally respond?  Well I would ask the person to define the term "religion"  then I would say that atheism is accepting that there is no deity "accepting" being the operative word.  Accepting is abiding by logic and evidence, where is believing can be heavily subjective   

[Sumeet]

If there is God - as I freely chose to believe, at the age of 28, being a complete atheist - then He better be a mystery.

 

This is a fascinating statement. So... you aren't certain a god exists, but when you were 28, you freely chose to start believing this because of the fact that it can't be rationally proven?

[AustinJames]

Atheism cannot be a religion any more than "not believing in leprechauns" can be a religion.  If "not believing in unicorns" is a religion, I suppose you could argue that atheism is a religion. The only true and consistent definition of "atheist" is a person who acknowledges and admits the self-contradictory nature of the concept of god.  Just like a person does not believe in leprechauns because there is no evidence of leprechauns existing, an atheist employs a consistent logic to not believe in god.  A leprechaun is actually much more believable, logically, because while it is against evidence, against physics, and against logic, at least the concept of a leprechaun does not contradict itself.  It is very difficult (and definitely non-traditional) to define god in a way that is not self-contradictory as a square circle.

 

To answer your question, as to what I do when religious people in my life assert that my atheism is just as much a faith-based belief as their religiosity? I laugh.

[alexakarpov]

This is a fascinating statement. So... you aren't certain a god exists, but when you were 28, you freely chose to start believing this because of the fact that it can't be rationally proven?

Define "certain", I suppose.Epistemologically, faith in God has very little in common with certainty, or knowledge, of things like "the Earth is kind of round", or "when launched at angle A with initial velocity V, a ball of mass M will land L meters away from the starting point".It is somewhat closer - though also deeply different - to a statement like "this roulette will stop with the ball on 24 red". The difference, of course, is that you have the mathematics of probability, to quantify exactly what is the probability of you being correct; no such thing with God. But picking that number is a choice; an act of will. You don't hold your prediction as a certain truth, but you act as if it was (you bet money on it).Faith in God is similar. Normally, you have no way to establish whether you faith is true - though, of course, sometimes things happen in your life, which, to you personally, suggest that it is true. Therefore, in a normal case, there is no certainty about truth - but if you live as if it were true, then you are personally true to the faith; same as a gambler can not claim to be a winner, unless they did bet on 24 red, and lived through that commitment.Sorry for sidetracking. No, I didn't chose to believe because it can't be proven - but, most certainly, I found the lack of even a possibility of proving God logically to be appealing. This God, offered to me, was a mystery entirely beyond human intellect and human power. That idea seemed to me - still seems - very attractive and important. And, well, all the other nice things. Especially this meaning of life stuff - just wanted it so badly, and human achievement and human interactions, or drugs, didn't sound attractive enough.