Honestly I don't know why I even bothered.

http://www.teenageforums.com/showthread ... post413648

Well he's clearly a moron of the highest order.

Sometimes you just have to let it go.

The "atheism is a religion" argument is just so ridiculous, i'm always torn between irritation and laughter, usually end with a mix of the two. Those that argue my lack of belief is a belief are almost certainly willfully ignorant and no amount of rational argument will help.

I mean, it's not exactly the most complicated, in-depth conundrum facing society. If the point doesn't get through after the first reply, then it probably never will.

Wash your hands and just keep walking.

And thus, atheism =/= areligion. Just as theism =/= religion.

Ergo, atheism = religion.

A != B, C != D, therefore A == C.

I look at it carefully, and that's really the way it's argued.

If people are failing basic logic in broad daylight, there's really no point in talking to them. They can't even coherently argue their own side, so how can you expect them to take in someone else's argument?

Defining atheism as a religion just seems rather silly to me, as it then means you must classify your religious beliefs as everything you don't believe in... which then gets into a stupidly long list.

Just as a matter of interest, how do we explain people making this mistake? Exactly at what point are they being silly?

dglas wrote:Just as a matter of interest, how do we explain people making this mistake? Exactly at what point are they being silly?

Saying that a lack of belief constitutes a belief, i.e. you wouldn't be labelled according to your lack of belief in any other number of deities or fantastical creatures, but apparently Yahweh is a special exemption to that.

And saying that atheism is a religion, when it has no formalised doctrine or set of beliefs outside 'we don't think deities exist' and if a single lack of belief constitutes a religion then almost anything constitutes a religion.

Plus why are they labelling us like it's supposed to be a bad thing? Aren't these people generally the same people arguing religion is a good thing, but when prescribed to us suddenly becomes very, very bad? It seems odd that religious people try so very hard to attach things like faith (which they are supposed to think are good qualities) to atheists in the context of being very bad.

I actually consider atheism as a religion. The reality is we all have beliefs - they are part of the human condition. An atheist will ask "where is the evidence of a god?" thereby demonstrating their belief in reality as the big poobah. The rites etc are all about supporting that reality based evidence. Burning incense or praying just doesn't cut it, but a bit of good science sends them into raptures.

The struggle here is not against religion. It is to hold rational thinking and scientific evidence in higher regard. None of us are arguing over the hard evidence, it is just that a depressing number of people think prayer or voodoo or worse is equally valid. And they expect us to accept their beliefs, or at the very least not try to enlighten them.

Mojzu wrote:

dglas wrote:Just as a matter of interest, how do we explain people making this mistake? Exactly at what point are they being silly?

Saying that a lack of belief constitutes a belief, i.e. you wouldn't be labelled according to your lack of belief in any other number of deities or fantastical creatures, but apparently Yahweh is a special exemption to that.

And saying that atheism is a religion, when it has no formalised doctrine or set of beliefs outside 'we don't think deities exist' and if a single lack of belief constitutes a religion then almost anything constitutes a religion.

Plus why are they labelling us like it's supposed to be a bad thing? Aren't these people generally the same people arguing religion is a good thing, but when prescribed to us suddenly becomes very, very bad? It seems odd that religious people try so very hard to attach things like faith (which they are supposed to think are good qualities) to atheists in the context of being very bad.

Indeed. The OP should ask him if someone is an atheist because they don't accept Zeus/ Odin/ Vishnu/ Ra, etc., etc.?

At what point are they an atheist? If they reject every religion? If they reject any form of deism?

The guy he is arguing with is proceeding from the idea that God exists/ God doesn't exist is a 50/ 50 proposition as to how likely it is. Also, as we all know, he is arguing that a lack of belief is a belief. I think of atheism as more passive than aggressive. Not, "I actively do not believe in any deity because I have faith that none exists" but rather, "I do not actively believe in a deity unless I see positive evidence that one exists." Nor can it be sophist evidence. Using sophistry, you can 'prove' that Zeus exists.

If the guy is speaking more of a generic deist 'god', then it gets trickier. But most atheists think the evidence doesn't support the existence of a god. Rather, that things would be diffeerent if there was a god. Everything that is claimed to require a god has been shown not to. The evidence doesn't support it. That's the opposite of believing something the evidence doesn't support, which is what deists and theists do.

Oh I also meant to agree with your point. Is not believing in Zeus a religion? Is not believing in Odin a religion? As you said, the guy probably means that only not believing in Yahweh constitutes a religion.

I don't agree with the sentiment, but I can see where people can make a shallow comparison.
Like religion, atheists have been coming together in a sort of congregational manner among a few other things... but like I said, it's a shallow comparison. There's a lot more to religion than coming together under an idea and you can still be an atheist and not be a part of what people call "new atheism".

I really get irritated by this type of reasoning. Especially when it plunges all the way down to pure semantics; "you believe there is no God, therefore you have a belief, and that system of belief constitutes a religion". Right. It's just so exhausting. I mean, their whole purpose is to make disbelief sound equally credible as belief. That 50:50 chance, as already mentioned, is just false and laughable.

I've had to go through the same arguments on another site... these days, if anyone starts a "what religion are you?" thread there, and puts Atheism in the poll, one of the atheists there will usually just throw up a token "Atheism isn't a religion" post more as an inside joke now. It doesn't spark the arguments it used to. Although, honestly, I don't think we've ever gotten the theists to actually accept that atheism isn't a religion... at least not all of them.

Steve wrote:I actually consider atheism as a religion.

How does that work? What has been scrutinized as a corollary from atheism to religion with fundamental doctrines, etc.?

Steve wrote:The reality is we all have beliefs - they are part of the human condition.

If this is your explanation for the above consideration, you may be insinuating religion as a meaningless term (having thereof beliefs). The fact that an atheist lacks thereof belief in god's existence is just that — a lack thereof belief.

Steve wrote:An atheist will ask "where is the evidence of a god?" thereby demonstrating their belief in reality as the big poobah.

Demonstrating a belief? Belief is superfluous if our source for our empirical observations and demands for empirical evidential support is reality. It is in correspondence with the evolutionary naturalistic process, the observational phenomena is overwhelmingly supported by a plethora of scientific papers. Accepting this phenomena is accepting an observable part of reality, not believing it. Making this helpful distinction will prevent equivocations.

Steve wrote:The rites etc are all about supporting that reality based evidence. Burning incense or praying just doesn't cut it, but a bit of good science sends them into raptures.

What?

Steve wrote:The struggle here is not against religion. It is to hold rational thinking and scientific evidence in higher regard.

And religion is just that distressing force that can and observably has hindered such necessary regard of rational skepticism, scientific evidential support, and reality-based worldviews.

Steve wrote:None of us are arguing over the hard evidence, it is just that a depressing number of people think prayer or voodoo or worse is equally valid.

Speak for yourself? Calilasseia has done considerable work on arguing over evidential support and distinctions. Cognitive dissonance is expected when confronting reality-based corroboratory facts.

Steve wrote:And they expect us to accept their beliefs, or at the very least not try to enlighten them.

Like you said, they gather such cherished beliefs to be in par with critical acceptances and or disingenuously depress the intellectual footing of scientific observations and theories with their own non-answers, supernatural explanations, etc.

Steve wrote:I actually consider atheism as a religion. The reality is we all have beliefs - they are part of the human condition. An atheist will ask "where is the evidence of a god?" thereby demonstrating their belief in reality as the big poobah. The rites etc are all about supporting that reality based evidence. Burning incense or praying just doesn't cut it, but a bit of good science sends them into raptures.

The struggle here is not against religion. It is to hold rational thinking and scientific evidence in higher regard. None of us are arguing over the hard evidence, it is just that a depressing number of people think prayer or voodoo or worse is equally valid. And they expect us to accept their beliefs, or at the very least not try to enlighten them.

And you shouldn't try to enlighten them unless they agree to a discussion Otherwise you are just an atheist counterpart to a "preacher" who also believes he or she has the enlightenment to pass on.

I really agree with your first paragraph. Religion is more a grouping with many different sects and there are of course even atheist religions. And in my case I am not an atheist an I also have no religion. So having no religion isn't a class that belongs only to the atheist.

Moonwatcher wrote:Oh I also meant to agree with your point. Is not believing in Zeus a religion? Is not believing in Odin a religion? As you said, the guy probably means that only not believing in Yahweh constitutes a religion.

Polyatheism?

Anyone who claims that atheism is a religion is either logically challenged or desperately proselytising for their own religion.

Viraldi wrote:

Steve wrote:I actually consider atheism as a religion.

How does that work? What has been scrutinized as a corollary from atheism to religion with fundamental doctrines, etc.?

Atheism is an opinion. As brief as it is, I think that qualifies. All religion is just a matter of opinions. Atheism is entered in the box where others write their religion.

Viraldi wrote:

Steve wrote:The reality is we all have beliefs - they are part of the human condition.

If this is your explanation for the above consideration, you may be insinuating religion as a meaningless term (having thereof beliefs). The fact that an atheist lacks thereof belief in god's existence is just that — a lack thereof belief.

All meaning is opinion. It is personal. Nothing is meaningless. A mistaken thinking such as "the sky is pink", is not a mistake to the one thinking it. Thoughts, opinions and beliefs change as we examine them. Truth is that which doesn't change.

Viraldi wrote:

Steve wrote:An atheist will ask "where is the evidence of a god?" thereby demonstrating their belief in reality as the big poobah.

Demonstrating a belief? Belief is superfluous if our source for our empirical observations and demands for empirical evidential support is reality. It is in correspondence with the evolutionary naturalistic process, the observational phenomena is overwhelmingly supported by a plethora of scientific papers. Accepting this phenomena is accepting an observable part of reality, not believing it. Making this helpful distinction will prevent equivocations.

We see the world as we are, not as it is. Science builds models of reality, and we test those models against reality, but we never see reality directly.

Viraldi wrote:

Steve wrote:The rites etc are all about supporting that reality based evidence. Burning incense or praying just doesn't cut it, but a bit of good science sends them into raptures.

What?

Does "Eureka!!" ring a bell? Wouldn't you love to have an equivalent insight? But raptures are over rated... The value is in the insight.

Viraldi wrote:

Steve wrote:The struggle here is not against religion. It is to hold rational thinking and scientific evidence in higher regard.

And religion is just that distressing force that can and observably has hindered such necessary regard of rational skepticism, scientific evidential support, and reality-based worldviews.

Steve wrote:None of us are arguing over the hard evidence, it is just that a depressing number of people think prayer or voodoo or worse is equally valid.

Speak for yourself? Calilasseia has done considerable work on arguing over evidential support and distinctions. Cognitive dissonance is expected when confronting reality-based corroboratory facts.

Steve wrote:And they expect us to accept their beliefs, or at the very least not try to enlighten them.

Like you said, they gather such cherished beliefs to be in par with critical acceptances and or disingenuously depress the intellectual footing of scientific observations and theories with their own non-answers, supernatural explanations, etc.

People here like deride the subjective as a mere epiphenomenal sideshow. I laugh, as the subjective is the only truth they can ever actually know. Science is laying bare objective reality at an explosive rate, but there is no end to the discoveries in sight. Everything we know as science today will likely one day be seen as wrong. Yet despite this that knowledge is so much more useful than the visions of entrails etc.

I loved The God Delusion as religions like to lay claim to the objective truth. The only truth we can ever fully know is via our own subjective truth. Each person has to find it for themselves. I think Einstein found it through science. I haven't found it yet, but I have explored the territory some, and these comments are based on those explorations.

The reason Richard wrote The God Delusion was because so many people denied the validity of scientific evidence and he was appalled at the consequent unnecessary suffering. What he is attacking is not their religion, it is their low opinion of scientific evidence. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

However, there is a huge elephant in the room. Why do we care? The fiasco with the RDF forum has rattled my estimation of Richard on this issue. He seems to be a little insensitive to what he is doing.

I think the most you can say is that atheism is a religious viewpoint and should be treated the same as other religious viewpoints in matters of law. There are many good analogies that make the point, my favourite is: atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair colour.

dglas wrote:Just as a matter of interest, how do we explain people making this mistake? Exactly at what point are they being silly?

In short, it's in classifying nothing as a thing.

Steve wrote:

Viraldi wrote:

Steve wrote:I actually consider atheism as a religion.

How does that work? What has been scrutinized as a corollary from atheism to religion with fundamental doctrines, etc.?

Atheism is an opinion. As brief as it is, I think that qualifies. All religion is just a matter of opinions. Atheism is entered in the box where others write their religion.

It's not necessarily even that. Atheism can just as easily achieved by having no opinion at all. A person with no opinion on the existence of deities does not positively believe in them, and is therefore a de facto atheist.

For me, Buddhism is a useful religion for explaining the theist/atheist/religious distinction. One can be a buddhist and an atheist, and yet, one can be a Buddhist and a theist too, since a personal belief in the existence of gods is neither here nor there as far as Buddhism goes.

From wiki:

On one occasion, when presented with a problem of metaphysics by the monk Malunkyaputta, Buddha responded with a story of a man shot with a poisoned arrow. The man's family summons the doctor to have the poison removed, and the doctor gives an antidote:

"But the man refuses to let the doctor do anything before certain questions can be answered. The wounded man demands to know who shot the arrow, what his caste and job is, and why he shot him. He wants to know what kind of bow the man used and how he acquired the ingredients used in preparing the poison. Malunkyaputta, such a man will die before getting the answers to his questions. It is no different for one who follows the Way. I teach only those things necessary to realize the Way. Things which are not helpful or necessary, I do not teach."

So theism/atheism aren't taught within Buddhism, because they're not seen as relevant questions, but Buddhism remains a religion.