"Atheism is religion," they say

[Schweinrich]

If atheism is religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[tjt]

Bald is not a hair colour...

 

 

If atheism is religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

 

I like these one-liners a lot. I think they would be effective... not at convincing the person that atheism is in fact not a religion, but rather in helping me determine if the person is capable of thought. It's like a non-intimidating-greeting-card explanation of an advanced topic. Either they get it, or they don't. If they don't, no point in engaging further into a trap of word salad and a conversation that includes too many counts of the word "belief." If they get it, the one liner just opened up a great conversation!

[TheAuger]

Both knowledge and faith are subsets of belief.  Religion presupposes faith in a (undetectable) deity, but not knowledge of a deity because knowledge requires empirical, verifiable evidence (therefore, faith).  

 

Atheism has no such faith.  It is rather the logical conclusion with knowledge, reason, and evidence (and the lack of knowledge and evidence) applied to the question of the existence of a deity.  It is a belief, yes, as faith is also a belief -- but atheism is not a religion.

 

The two knock down retorts are pretty good -- ''bald is not a hair color'', and ''not collecting stamps is a hobby, if atheism is a religion''.  "If atheism is a religion, then silence is a sound".  If he wants more, then truth is discovered by simply defining 'religion'.  (ironchariots.org has some other interesting arguments).

 

Beyond that, atheism is not even a coherent set of beliefs, but just a simple and reasoned 'no' in response to god propositions.  That's all it is!  Keep it simple.

[James Dean]

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.

 

"GOD" is not an axiom, is there a clearer axiom you work with, just so we're all on the same page...? Something along the lines of "god exists?"

[TDB]

A friend of mine has gotten religion and has been sending me "evidence" about the shroud of Turin. I've been trying to figure out what sort of evidence he could give me that would actually change my mind. It seems a lot like historical evidence for a square circle.

But this also shows that I am not being rational about it. I became an atheist at age 14, and I did not have particularly good reasons or philosophical methods to apply to the idea.

On a slightly different tack, Buddhism is a religion, and Taoism, but involve no gods. Can an atheist have a religion? How do you draw the line? Can an atheist be a conscientious objector on purely philosophical grounds? Could we get some tax immunity by claiming atheism as a religion?

There are some prosocial aspects of religion (community, mutual aid, trust), how can an atheist find an equivalent?

[Jonathan Walliser]

Atheism is not a religion in the traditional sense I agree. But for many who are militant atheists they turn to science and make it their main argument and suddenly "science" is their entire belief system. I get tired of that, people that parade science in from of them as a shield that deflects and attacks from religion. Science can not give answers one way or another to spiritual/metaphysical matters, and atheists who try to use science to do that just makes me laugh. There is no way to know if "God" exists, the entire idea of God is irrational. If God was real I am sure that he/she would show up and settle the debate for everyone.

 

What I consider a religious belief is when someone believes in something so strongly they shut out conflicting or new information and defend what they believe tooth and nail. I do not think someone who is very intelligent would do that, having your worldview shattered is part of intelligent growth. I see this dogmatic and close minded type of behavior from both camps, religious people and atheists. I am myself an atheist, but I question much and do not make a easy convert to anything lol

[spunts144]

Firstly, let me start off by answering the question.Upon engaging the inquisitor regarding their thesis which claims that an atheist is a theist, I take a deep breath and proceed logically without ever delving into science or definition. My argument follows my simple answer:"I'm an anti-theist." I think, and understand, that theism is pointless. A waste of time. A waste of energy, and a waste of resources. Completely devoid of intellectual insight.Why? How can it be important to anyone when it holds no value as a resource? Completely illogical. Why bother in the first place? Thus, the discussion can begin. I continue: Theism is an attempt to connect with humanity. Everything else pretty much follows from here.If you really want to make them mad, tell them that we are gods, for if there was a god, it's a pathetically lame excuse for a god given the parameters for an omniscient creator. We can create complex objects like computers and phones using materials and complex processes of human creativity. We are the epitome of creation and intelligence, and order, for we can comprehend and discuss all that we observe. We are Earthlings, far superior to any divine being. Evolved via the absolute, best route, and boy is the modern man a sight to behold; chin resting in his palms.~<3

We are great, we are intelligent, we are above any divine being, for we posses the capacity to empathize with a insect. There is no reason for theology. There is only reason for understanding, for connection. Have pride and faith in humanity, not a god, nor any supernatural belief, for it distracts you from the true beauty that begs you beset your gaze upon it and merely observe it in all it's glory. It's within every human beings capacity.

To discuss theology is pointless. Humanity is not perfect, I admit.

In the end, all of it, we, are all just star dust.

This perspective is not driven by belief. It's only driven by all the purest humanity I can muster in my own capacity. I simply can't do any better. Honestly, all you have is a brain. No brain=zed. Life is only as rich as the connections we keep. I'll never be richer with material. We must have faith in humanity. If we can't believe in our own capacity, what the hell is the point in anything?

[TDB]

What I consider a religious belief is when someone believes in something so strongly they shut out conflicting or new information and defend what they believe tooth and nail. I do not think someone who is very intelligent would do that, having your worldview shattered is part of intelligent growth.

What sort of evidence would I need to show you to convince you otherwise? Maybe some books on biases and cognitive science?

regarding their thesis which claims that an atheist is a theist

Not (religion = theism)Disproof by counterexample: Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism.

[Jonathan Walliser]

What sort of evidence would I need to show you to convince you otherwise? Maybe some books on biases and cognitive science? 

 

convince me that there are not atheists or christians who are so dogmatic about what they believe that they become close minded? You cannot provide me any evidence of that because I could easily go on youtube and find you many examples of each one. I agree that all atheists are not like this and not all christians are, but the ones that are happen to be the ones that everyone hates

[TDB]

convince me that there are not atheists or christians who are so dogmatic about what they believe that they become close minded?

No, convince you that intelligent people share this flaw. Maybe even you and I may not be immune.

[Jonathan Walliser]

No, convince you that intelligent people share this flaw. Maybe even you and I may not be immune.

 

I agree with you there

[Bipedal Primate]

Atheism is a non-belief

Religion is a belief

 

A non belief is the opposite of a belief, therefore Atheism and religion are opposites.

 

If Atheism is a Religion then where the crap is my tax Exemption? I demand 20 years of my tax money returned. Does anyone else smell all that hypocrisy floating around our State funded Churches? And if it means I don't pay taxes anymore than, sure, right, whatever, atheism is a Religion, [cough cough].

 

» warning « this post contains sarcastic material that may be offensive to some viewers

[Frosty]

If people are making this kind of argument there's literally no point in talking to them, the odds of you having a constructive conversation is pretty much zero.

[Dragonwriter]

I have a problem with the idea that atheism is a "non-belief," because framing the discussion that way presumes that non-belief is possible. Which is to say, it presumes that it is possible for certain ideas to be beyond doubt. I disagree with this concept, firstly because to my mind it seems logical that doubt is omnipresent in all human thought, even if it goes unacknowledged - there is no knowledge or idea that is so true as for it to be universally and completely impossible to be wrong. But more than that, I find this proposition disturbing, because real truth - absolute, inviolable, universal truth that is completely beyond all doubt - such as the "truth" implied in the stament "atheism is a non-belief" - is possibly the one and only thing that could be used as a reasonable justification for the initiation of force. Any person or group claiming it, therefore, is automatically not just suspect in my eyes, but quite frankly dangerous.

 

Now, atheism as a form of "minimal belief"? Atheism as an outlook/worldview that takes as it's goal the minimization of "leaps of faith"? Atheism as a type of skepticism, where the lack of belief in the idea of God or other deities/supernatural beings/forces is couched in a (very logical) lack of evidence? That makes total sense to me, and I completely get it. I may not necessarily choose to share that worldview myself, but I completely understand it and respect it.

[Marius C.]

The way I look at it is that if someone makes a claim for something, they have the burden of proof. I don't have to automatically believe their claim without proof.

 

Now, they can come throw a book around and say that that is all the proof I need to believe in the claim; but given the hundreds if not thousands of inaccuracies, fallacies and total lack of logic behind that book, I am going to say that I need a better proof than that. Eventually, if any of the arguments used to prove the accuracy of that claim can be refuted and no logical/rational counterarguments can be made against it, then I can consider that there is no proof to support the claim. Therefore, it's only right that I don't believe in the claim.

 

I am not signing up to a belief or faith in "non-belief" when I say that I have not been convinced by the claim. I am simply saying that I refuse to believe in something that can't be proven. If it's a religion to not believe in things that are not proven, then all sane people make part of that religion, because to some degree or another everyone has refused to believe a claim that was not proven at least once in their lives.

[hannahbanana]

A friend of mine has gotten religion and has been sending me "evidence" about the shroud of Turin. I've been trying to figure out what sort of evidence he could give me that would actually change my mind. It seems a lot like historical evidence for a square circle. 

If you've ever read A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there's a pretty funny quote about how proving god exists actually proves god DOESN'T exist:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

 

On a slightly different tack, Buddhism is a religion, and Taoism, but involve no gods. Can an atheist have a religion? How do you draw the line? Can an atheist be a conscientious objector on purely philosophical grounds? Could we get some tax immunity by claiming atheism as a religion?

Although I am not so sure about Taoism, I know that there are a few different forms of Buddhism, some of which are religions (have divine figures) and some of which are philosophies, and do not involve gods at all. So it depends on which form people are talking about. An atheist can have a philosophy (and many of them do) which can help set goals/values in life or how to achieve them, but they would not involve a divine being.

 

There are some prosocial aspects of religion (community, mutual aid, trust), how can an atheist find an equivalent?

I'm not so sure if all of those aspects are ultimately good. Yes, you can form a community centered on a religious belief, but is it really good if it is all based on a lie? Not to mention the countless situations where as soon as someone shows doubt in the belief, many people of that community turn on them and become hostile. That makes me think that it might not have been a good community in the first place.

[TDB]

Although I am not so sure about Taoism, I know that there are a few different forms of Buddhism, some of which are religions (have divine figures) and some of which are philosophies, and do not involve gods at all.

You seem determined to define religion in a certain way and ignore how the word is used. Okay, let's play it your way, say people are wrong to use the word religion if no divine being is involved. Let's coin a new word, noigiler, as a category that includes religions and similar beliefs and practices that deemphasize empirical evidence and involve moral traditions, superstitions, metaphysical beliefs, social practices, rituals, etc. etc. but do not necessarily entail belief in a supreme being.

 

There are some prosocial aspects of religion (community, mutual aid, trust), how can an atheist find an equivalent?

I'm not so sure if all of those aspects are ultimately good. Yes, you can form a community centered on a religious belief, but is it really good if it is all based on a lie?

You're quibbling. I am not defending any existing situation, I am pointing to benefits that people claim to receive, and wondering, is there a way for an atheist to make a similarly beneficial arrangement, minus the god part? Of course, if all these benefits and satisfied needs are simply imaginary, it will be hard to accomplish.

Not to mention the countless situations where as soon as someone shows doubt in the belief, many people of that community turn on them and become hostile. That makes me think that it might not have been a good community in the first place.

Sounds like it will be easy to improve on them, then. Have we?I am just asking the question. It seems to me there are certain psychological, social, and economic benefits to belonging to a church and participating in their activities. (Actually I am an introvert and I always hated going to church, but some people see it this way.) Should an atheist regard these benefits as atavistic, imaginary, a necessary sacrifice to living in truth, or is there an alternative that would deliver the goods without the gods? Also, since we are deeply concerned with issues of conscience, I am wondering how to leverage that. Both society in general and the government have come to tolerate some deviant behavior from religious persons on grounds of conscience. My impression is that atheists do not get a millimeter of tolerance in this area. Why does this make sense? Why is my conscience less relevant if I disbelieve in gods? How can we make this point, that conscience is conscience? One (perhaps ineffective) way to try would be to establish an atheist religion (noigiler if we must), and claim all the rights and legal privileges that other religions have.Hypotheses:* no such benefits exist* benefits exist, but are too intimately connected to belief in god* benefits exist, but can easily be captured by other sorts of group membership* benefits exist, and only a special sort of group could capture them

[joel2342]

I think what people mean to say when they make that statement, is that atheism represents the same over-indulgence in certainty that religion does.

[hannahbanana]

First, I feel I should apologize a bit; it seems I misunderstood some of the things that you were meaning to say in your previous post, and that I didn't pay close enough attention to some parts of your comment that were key to understanding. I will do my best to understand your questions better this time

You seem determined to define religion in a certain way and ignore how the word is used. Okay, let's play it your way, say people are wrong to use the word religion if no divine being is involved. Let's coin a new word, noigiler, as a category that includes religions and similar beliefs and practices that deemphasize empirical evidence and involve moral traditions, superstitions, metaphysical beliefs, social practices, rituals, etc. etc. but do not necessarily entail belief in a supreme being.

In this case, I was using the textbook definition:

re·li·gion

noun

noun: religion

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

 

which does specify the belief in a higher power or being. But I see now that  you mean more the practices and historical traditions etc. of the religion, and not the god itself, correct? I'm quite alright with using "noigiler" as a substitute.

 

You're quibbling. I am not defending any existing situation, I am pointing to benefits that people claim to receive, and wondering, is there a way for an atheist to make a similarly beneficial arrangement, minus the god part? Of course, if all these benefits and satisfied needs are simply imaginary, it will be hard to accomplish.
 

This is an interesting question. I cannot claim to make any over-arching statements about this because many people have different experiences. However, I find from my own experience as an atheist that although I was once a major contributor to and participant of my own church (I was in the choir, youth group, bell choir, lector, etc.) I do not miss that community at all. I view the community I formed in my church the same as I view any other community I might form, be it a book club, sports team, or even this forum. And from that same token, I can recieve the same benefits that I may have recieved from a church community from any of these other communities, even though I am an atheist. I even have some friends in these various groups that are atheists too. Although we may talk to each other about atheism, we feel no need to form an exclusive group (there are only so many times we can say "god doesn't exist" to each other before agreeing and talking about something else, hahaha). So I guess as a short answer, I would agree that we can form an equivalent community, I just don't personally see the need on making it exclusively about atheism.

 

Sounds like it will be easy to improve on them, then. Have we?

 

Do you mean to improve on these pre-existing communities that are hostile towards people who change their minds, or do you mean creating new communities that do not suffer from the same mistakes? I'm sorry, I just want to be completely sure what exactly you mean by that before answering.

 

I am just asking the question. It seems to me there are certain psychological, social, and economic benefits to belonging to a church and participating in their activities. (Actually I am an introvert and I always hated going to church, but some people see it this way.) Should an atheist regard these benefits as atavistic, imaginary, a necessary sacrifice to living in truth, or is there an alternative that would deliver the goods without the gods?

Also, since we are deeply concerned with issues of conscience, I am wondering how to leverage that. Both society in general and the government have come to tolerate some deviant behavior from religious persons on grounds of conscience. My impression is that atheists do not get a millimeter of tolerance in this area. Why does this make sense? Why is my conscience less relevant if I disbelieve in gods? How can we make this point, that conscience is conscience? One (perhaps ineffective) way to try would be to establish an atheist religion (noigiler if we must), and claim all the rights and legal privileges that other religions have.

Hypotheses:
* no such benefits exist
* benefits exist, but are too intimately connected to belief in god
* benefits exist, but can easily be captured by other sorts of group membership
* benefits exist, and only a special sort of group could capture them

I mentioned earlier in the post as to how I felt about the social benefits, that I believe you can access these benefits from any other community (or even from a couple of well-developed friendships, for that matter). The other aspects that you bring up is something entirely different, and a very good point at that. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to me that people see atheists as people with no morals or conscience, because we do (I hope ). In that case, it would seem most beneficial to try to find exemptions to things that go against those morals, like religious groups do. For example, if I am against the use of force, I should be able to object from military service. I believe that at least in the US, you are able to be a conscientious objector without necessarily using religion as a reason (I knew someone who gained his exemption from reading Henry David Thoreau at his hearing). I'm not so sure what could be done in regards to the economic side of it though. Since much of it (like tax exemption) is political in nature, I would imagine a lot of it has to do with the fact that almost all people in politics now and throughout history are religious, and atheists are not really viewed upon in a good light, unfortunately.

 

I hope this was a little clearer than my  last post, and I really do apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you or belittiling your statements.

[MMX2010]

I think what people mean to say when they make that statement, is that atheism represents the same over-indulgence in certainty that religion does.

 

It's more illogical than that. 

 

It's implying that atheism/science is over-indulgence in certainty because it uses so much scientific evidence to support itself, whereas religion is "proper" indulgence in certainty because it doesn't rely on scientific evidence to support itself. 

[joel2342]

It's more illogical than that.  It's implying that atheism/science is over-indulgence in certainty because it uses so much scientific evidence to support itself, whereas religion is "proper" indulgence in certainty because it doesn't rely on scientific evidence to support itself.

I see, well the only people I've heard make the comparison were agnostic. I was raised by pentecostals (which is odd because i'm from montreal, very secular). The christians that i've met seem to see their faith as obviously true and above logical consistency. Atheism is incomprehensible to them, like the biproduct of an an alien robotic species. They wouldn't make the "two sides of the same coin" argument.

[Marius C.]

Saying that you have to have faith in science is like saying that you have to have faith in what you can observe and confirm.

 

If you need to have faith to believe in something that you can observe, then why debate anything? This entire conversation could be a figment of your imagination and unreal.

 

This conversation is either real, observable, and thus worth having, or it's a figment of your imagination like your shower debates, that no one else can observe and thus exists only in your mind. And there is nothing objective about the latter part.

[joel2342]

Saying that you have to have faith in science is like saying that you have to have faith in what you can observe and confirm.if you need to have faith to believe in something that you can observe, then why debate anything? This entire conversation could be a figment of your imagination and unreal. This conversation is either real, observable, and thus worth having, or it's a figment of your imagination like your shower debates, that no one else can observe and thus exists only in your mind. And there is nothing objective about the latter part.

I agree 100%, but I'll try to make the case from my agnostic point of view.I like to hold ideas in my mind that are both possible in themseves, but contradictory in relation to each other. I know i know, Jung wouldn't recommend it, but it's how my mind works. Easy example, perception is local, reliable/ perception is non-local, fictional. So yes, in making this statement on this forum I'm accepting the realness of it. The word belief has always struck me the wrong way though, it feels more like a leaning to me. I hear what you're saying though, it's mastubatory to quote the matrix or Descartes conversationally because the conversation itself is based in certain logical assumptions. Abstract absolute doubt is useful as a thought excercise. It helps me to think with zero boundaries and no ego regarding any concept or problem I'm focusing on.

[Marius C.]

I have seen this before -- the idea that "I accept and respect your point of view and therefore I expect you to do the same about my point of view." There is this idea that if someone comes and puts a $5 bill in your pocket, you now owe them $5... or that if they agree with a completely rational point of view, you now simply owe them by believing in their irrational point of view.

 

One point of view is completely logical and provable; the other one is a mere choice to believe in fantasy.

 

The problem you are facing as an agnostic is that you know that there is absolutely no evidence of a god existing, and therefore you have no reason to believe in one; but you choose to reserve the possibility that one might exist, as a backup, in case you are wrong. It is like answering a multiple choice question with "it's X, but it could be anything else," thereby allowing yourself to be right under any circumstance. If you are self-aware, you can probably test this hypothesis by seeing how you respond when people ask something that you are not certain of. If you tend to throw fragments like "but maybe not" or alternating between responses, then your agnosticism is probably a symptom of the same problem.

[joel2342]

Nah I don't feel like you owe my ideas your respect. The God defined by Christians, muslims and jews can't logically exist, but I do think that some sort of universal hierarchy/source is possible. I think agnostism is about bridging the concepts of infinity and the finite.

[DCLugi]

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.

Perhaps I've misunderstood but finding something attractive and better than drugs can't be a very good method of discerning truth.

[regevdl]

I never use that phrase but this is a question to the atheists, is it fair to say that atheism is an ideology?  I ask because maybe that's where people lump it into 'religion' in the sense that it can attract 'collective' support so you have 'groups' of people who subscribe to this and it's neither religious nor political and knowing the nature of people....they have to label things/groups/people in order to know how to proceed.  If I have a better understanding, it will help me articulate that to others who I might come across that would probably use those arguments.  Thanks!

[jacbot]

I am from the Cargo-cult, and I pray 5x a day in the general direction of  boeing headquaters in chicago.

My god is real and has funky superpowers like  flying with wings and dropping of goodies like good tasting food (cargo).

[Marius C.]

That's an interesting idea, regevdl. And it gets a lot closer to the truth than "religion" ever will. But I wouldn't look at it as an ideology either.

 

Attracting likeminded people does not necessarily require an ideology. The concept of “attracting” likeminded people does not rely on a dogma. I look at it more like a natural selection of interpersonal relationships. It is normal for us to become closer with someone who has a similar thought process, and distance ourselves from people with significantly different thought processes.

 

Atheism is the result of a specific thought process. It is not the deciding factor that influences who we will have relationships with and who we will avoid having relationships with. Decisions made based on labels are made by those of “little minds,” because it requires a lot less effort to produce a label for someone and jump to a conclusion, than having to listen to the person and identify their thought process.

 

Atheists don’t need to go to church or gatherings to confirm to each other that there is no god. They do not need support groups or drinking clubs to keep them onboard with the idea that there is no god. Atheism is not an ideology that people follow. It is a conclusion derived using logic and reasoning on the topic of deities.

 

If you have your math right, you will reach the same conclusion whether or not you have seen it before. The same is true about atheism.

 

The problem is that a lot of us come from having been forced to believe in the wrong conclusion, when all the formulas and calculations we knew could not produce that result.

[cynicist]

I never use that phrase but this is a question to the atheists, is it fair to say that atheism is an ideology?  I ask because maybe that's where people lump it into 'religion' in the sense that it can attract 'collective' support so you have 'groups' of people who subscribe to this and it's neither religious nor political and knowing the nature of people....they have to label things/groups/people in order to know how to proceed.  If I have a better understanding, it will help me articulate that to others who I might come across that would probably use those arguments.  Thanks!

 

I think that's a great question. There are many people who use the label as a substitute for having their own identity and in order to feel superior to others. It's sad because by doing so they are diluting the credibility people will give to those who are just describing their belief. (or lack of) That's a separate issue from whether it's an ideology though, for that we need to start with the definition. I think the dictionary.com one is pretty accurate:

 

Ideology - the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

 

I'm not sure how atheism could fit this. At best you are talking about one belief (and many would argue even that) and it's not exactly something that guides ones actions. A belief in god might spur a visit to the church but not believing in a god doesn't say anything about how I should behave. 

[regevdl]

Good point actually.  Atheists aren't really spurred in a common direction to act in a certain way, as you pointed out.  Many I have come across do have the same high moral standards as religious people (that don't use their religion as a political or social weapon).  your response actually helped.  thanks!

[TDB]

First, I feel I should apologize a bit;

No need.

I would agree that we can form an equivalent community, I just don't personally see the need on making it exclusively about atheism.

It wouldn't be exclusively about atheism, it just would not exclude atheists by necessarily including god stuff. Subtract god from church and you get philosophy (right and wrong, how to live a good life, conscience, mutual aid) and enough socializing to keep it going, maybe. 

Do you mean to improve on these pre-existing communities that are hostile towards people who change their minds, or do you mean creating new communities that do not suffer from the same mistakes?

New communities.

I mentioned earlier in the post as to how I felt about the social benefits, that I believe you can access these benefits from any other community (or even from a couple of well-developed friendships, for that matter). The other aspects that you bring up is something entirely different, [...] I believe that at least in the US, you are able to be a conscientious objector without necessarily using religion as a reason

That is a pleasant surprise if it is true.

I'm not so sure what could be done in regards to the economic side of it though. Since much of it (like tax exemption) is political in nature

Ultimately, rejection of the idea of the state means that we are entitled to opt out of pretty much anything, so in a way, achieving this goal is identical to ending the state. Once people had a choice whether or not to pay for imperialism and mass incarceration, I don't think those phenomena would last long. So yeah, it won't be easy.

[Brook Warren]

What word would you use to call someone who lacks any belief in the existence of deities?

My understanding is that this is the most general definition of the word atheist.

To assign any further general meaning to the word atheist is invalid and fallacious.

 

So, to say that atheism is a kind of faith, is invalid.

 

The word faith in regards to religion means something specific.  The most general application of it is belief in the existence of a deity or deities.  Does anyone disagree with that?

 

To say that atheism is a kind of faith in the sense that the word faith applies to religion, is completely invalid.  To say atheism is a kind of faith, because the definitions of faith include something that applies to religion and something that absolutely does not apply to religion but does apply to atheism, is deception.

 

You might as well say, "Ripping is certainly not a watering, but it is a kind of tearing."

 

Unless a person is willing to admit that he doesn't know what the word atheism means, the only thing I see left is this:  The point of making a statement like "atheism is a kind of faith" is to try and equate the religious believer and the nonbeliever; the blindly convinced and the unconvinced; people who accept and people who do not accept.  This is utterly intellectually corrupt.  But it is a kind of admittance that the person is wrong in the first place, and it's as if as long as everyone is wrong, then somehow everything is ok - so follows the self protecting and validating claim that everyone is wrong.

 

Basically, I'm making the claim that when a person says: "Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of faith."  What they are really saying is: "Atheism is certainly not a religion, but it's a kind of religion."

 

Hear is an analogy for the most general definition of atheism:

 

If a sealed cardboard box is placed before people, and shaking it doesn't make any sound, and the exact cardboard used to create it is used to make another box, and both are weighed and shown to have the exact same weight... and scanning or whatever else, basically any amount of attempts made to detect that something is in the box fails to detect anything, and then there is a group who claims:

 

1) "I believe that box contains gahd."

 

And another group claims:

 

2) "I see no evidence that that box contains something called gahd. In fact, I see no reason why you even thought of claiming that it did."

 

Group 1 is exercising blind faith.  Group 2 is unconvinced in Group 1's claims.  You could call Group 1 boxgahdists, and group 2 aboxgahdists.

 

And then someone would show up and say:

 

"Well aboxgahdism is just another religion.  They have faith that god doesn't exist in the box."

 

Even if an aboxgahdist says, "I'm pretty confident that there is not only nothing called "gahd" in that box, but given that there is absolutely no evidence at all for something called "gahd" to exist, then I am pretty much certain that it doesn't exist. In fact, if it is so undetectable how could the even be describing this object?  Thus I'm even perfectly safe in saying that what they are describing doesn't exist because they have no way to know what a true description of it could possible be."  Then the aboxgahdist is still not religious.

 

So maybe my little scenario is a little weird, but let's upgrade it to the Christian scenario:

 

God is a him.

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

God is undetectable.

Event though god is undetectable, someone at least at some point detected him in some way.

The descriptions and behaviors of god closely follow bad fathers and bad authority as demonstrated all throughout history.

God has characteristics that have somehow been communicated to believers, and these characteristics contrast from religion to religion.

 

It's not the expression of a religion to say that there's no reason to believe in Christianity.  Sure, I agree that it is a belief to be convinced in a proven premise and then exercising logical deduction from that premise.  But belief and religious belief don't mean the same thing, just as faith and religious faith don't mean the same thing, just as "convinced about the validity of a theory," and "blind belief in a deity" do not mean the same thing.  Possibly most importantly: evidence and "lack of evidence" don't mean the same thing.  The important thing is that believing "logical deduction from a proven premise "is valid is in direct contrast of what is required to accept religious belief.  Religious belief is founded on the lack of need for logical deduction from a proven premise.

 

In fact, religious belief guarantees that you must attack things you are convinced about in your own head, and even verbally to others.  In other words, things you believe must be purged and denied because your religions says you must.  Not because of arguments, or evidence, or logic.  Whether you have derived something from logical conclusions or you have witnessed something out in the world, it must be purged and denied if your religions says so.  So to the religious believer, faith outranks conviction, evidence, and reality.

 

Please don't equate atheists and theists.

 

Thanks.

[Mike Fleming]

Athesim is, by defintion, not a religion, it is simply a lack of religion.

 

However, the mainstream atheism movement is indeed a religion.  They have extended their reason for being far beyond the remit of not believing religion and have extended it to rationality and skeptcism and such.  Supposedly.  Only for the majority their claims to such rationality are as false as religion and they just want a group that they can be a part of and engage in religious thinking about the state.  And claim intellectual superiority over the traditional religious believers.

[cynicist]

They have extended their reason for being far beyond the remit of not believing religion and have extended it to rationality and skeptcism and such.  Supposedly. 

 

Yeah it seems as though they think that discovering the truth about god and being in the small minority of people who have rational conclusions in this area, somehow translates to them being rational in ALL areas. (like an extension of the superiority they feel towards those trapped in religious thinking) It is annoyingly common and I think it's where the 'smug atheist' meme derives from.