Atheism is a religion(?)

[toddaa]

At least, that's what some theists charge. The problem is the word faith. Faith means to believe in something without proof. And so we often hear the argument that atheists have just as much faith as theists because they believe there is no god, despite presenting no evidence to support their belief.

There's just one problem with that argument.

I do not believe in a God, but I also do not believe there is no God. If you think that makes me an agnostic, then you'd be wrong. Agnosticism's position is that if there is a God, He is unknowable. I don't believe this either. Maybe I'm dense, but anything unknowable isn't really worth wasting my time on.

So, what am I?*

Well, that's a hard question to answer. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of an all knowing God is incomprehensible to me. I've never adequately understood what this thing is that I supposedly have put my fervent faith in its nonexistance.

I used to believe in this thing that Christians pray to. I prayed night and day to it. I'm even pretty sure that at one time I devoutly believed in it. But the more I prayed to it, the less I comprehended it. Then one day I stopped praying. Nothing happened. In fact, I came to realize that whether I prayed or didn't pray had very little to do with my life. It occurred to me that maybe I was praying to the wrong thing. I tried to find another thing to pray to, but they were all very silly things. Being raised to pray to a particular thing, I was taught all the horribly silly problems with the competing things. That's when it occurred to me, maybe that thing I had been praying to all my life was just as phony. The most stunning revelation of my life was when I realized that my religious beliefs were largely due to the geographical location of my upbringing.

That's when I stopped believing. Thankfully, I have found that spirituality does not require a belief in a supernatural, all powerful, all mysterious, utterly incomprehensible deity.

(* - I used to call myself an atheist, but I prefer the term Taoist Pantheist. I'd rather define what I am, rather than what I am not. Still don't get the God thing.)

[Lone Pawn]

1. I'm going to be a total ass and say

I hope you're pronouncing it 'Daoist.' ;)

[kliljedahl]

6. Yep, you're right

You are a total ass. But that is the proper pronunciation.

http://www.kliljedahl.net

[toddaa]

8. Wade-Giles v. Pinyin

I'm horrible about mixing the two interchangeably. Not speaking Mandarin, they both work about the same as far as I'm concerned.

[Lone Pawn]

9. Self-Delete

Question already answered.

[Nomad559]

2. Is baldness a hair color?

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

12. : )

nt

[toddaa]

17. Discordianism

Now there's a religion!

[Discord]

20. You rang???

:crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

21. I thought you were starting your own religion, damn!

There goes those faith based charity dollars...

[Zhade]

3. No, but some believers say it is to piss off atheists.

It doesn't bother me, because I know 1) it's not accurate and doesn't apply to me, and 2) their baiting attempts are not worth my time.

I'm essentially where you are, except I was NEVER able to believe, no matter how much I desperately wanted to. I'm not saying there's no god; I'm saying I don't see evidence for one, and never have. This example illustrates why the "active disbelief" argument some believers try to foist on all atheists is simply arrogant and incorrect.

Does this mean I'm not open to the possibility? Not at all. I just remain unconvinced and unmoved by any arguments for any god. I do feel there is more than we know, but that it is spiritual only in the sense that we don't yet understand how to measure it.

[Biology]

4. you may be a humanist

A humanist neither believes nor disbelieves in a deity. They accept scientific method as a basis for knowledge, and realize that everything else represents belief that may, or may not, eventually be shown to have merit.

[blogbear]

5. Many folks aren't 'religio politico'..even in judeo-christian geography..

[Bellamia]

7. "Second hand" Religion

is what many of us were brought up in, that is, we didn't choose it ourselves. Your experience of searching for answers is one that many of us have had. As adults we get to choose our beliefs, look into other religions than "ours", find what seems right for us, be it Taoism or whatever. For that I am grateful. I hope you are too. God Bless, whoever or whatever you believe he she or it is.

[Jeebo]

10. Atheism is a religion in the sense that ...

... it is a part of the religious-freedom issue, because for us to have religious freedom, we have to be as free NOT to believe a religion as we are to choose which religion to believe. In every other sense, it's not a religion, it's the ABSENCE of religious beliefs.

My $.02 worth.

Ron

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Atheism "could" be a religion, sort of...

but it often would be better to call it a belief structure.

A "religion" is more than a simple belief in some being. It encompasses at least a minimal cosmology and ethic. There are rites and rituals that identify and unify the religious community.

"Hard" atheists insist absolutely that there is no god, but there aren't that many hard real atheists around. That position is rationally as untenable as insisting there is a god. Neither one can be proven true or false, so both positions hinge on non-rational belief. I would return his argument that belief in God is ridiculous with the simple observation that belief in no god is equally ridiculous. But, I wouldn't go so far as to say he has invented a new, godless, religion. That's merely a debating device intended mainly to piss him off.

"Soft" atheists think as you do-- there may or may not be a god, but you prefer to wait for some solid evidence before believing.

There are various kinds of agnostics, with most of them thinking along the lines that whether or not there is a god it simply makes no difference at all to us anyway, so why bother.

Belief in a supernatural all-powerful entity isn't such a bad thing, and can be quite comforting when the universe appears insane. The problem comes when we try to define that entity, and then insist our definition is the "true" one.

We are, after all, a spritual species, and we find spiritual nourishment and comfort in some very strange places. One of the reasons I became a Quaker was because of our refusal to sign on to creeds and doctrines, but simply to "wait upon God" and pretty much see what happens. We don't define God and leave God's substance as a mystery, but we do accept that "there is that of God in each of us" and we have the concept of the Light-- all of which starts to sound pretty close to Pantheism, Transcendentalism, and a whole bunch of other -isms.

[beam me up scottie]

13. "Soft" atheists

prefer to wait for some solid evidence before believing?
"Hard" atheists insist absolutely that there is no god?

What am I, easy over?

Where did you get this stuff?

"Belief structure"?

Is there some atheist's instruction booklet out there that I don't have? Can somebody please send me a copy? I really need to find out exactly what I'm supposed to be.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. The discussion's been going on for at least 2,500 years...

and that's just the Western traditions.

The instruction book's pretty big by now, so better start reading.

[beam me up scottie]

18. I knew it!

And here I was just thinking it was as simple as just not believing in deities.
I had no idea I had to take lessons. They never told me that when I signed up for this chicken outfit.

[toddaa]

15. Pantheism

It's a remarkably flexible word for those of us who prefer to let nature happen, rather than forcing it. In Taoism, this principle is called wu wei or doing nothing. You're right, though, it's all isms. We just want to belong. Being together is much more important than being alone.

If there is a God, his prophet is Eric Dolphy.

[YankeyMCC]

22. Not quite

There is a difference between "hard" and "weak" atheism.

Hard atheism insists that there is no god. This puts the burden of proof on the atheist in discussion.

Weak atheism is a definition that simply means someone is without a theistic belief. Thus putting the burden of proof on the theist in discussion.

Even someone who makes the statement that there is no god because they see no evidence can be categorized under the "weak" definition because they are not making an absolute statement. "they've seen no evidence". A negative can not be proven the burden of proof is on the theist. Of course that borders on the silly because proof is contrary to faith. If you could prove something faith would have little value.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm

But the point is don't confuse these definitions with a categorization of individual beliefs. Atheists are without a belief in god the "hard" and "weak" definitions have to do with positions in discussion and where the burden of proof lies.

[beam me up scottie]

14. I too resent being defined by what I am not.

I dislike the word atheist for that very reason, but since I haven't come up with an acceptable substitute, that's the word I use.
Excellent post.
:hi:

[Zhade]

25. I find it interesting...

...that some believers here will spit nails if you assert they believe certain things (Jesus' divinity, the 'Virgin Birth', etc) by their affiliation with Christianity, but they have no problem deciding for atheists what atheists believe (or, to be more accurate, DON'T believe).

It's wrong to assume all Christians believe the exact same things, just as it's wrong to assume all atheists share the same perspective outside of lacking a belief in any gods.

I suspect those believers who (poorly) attempt to define atheism for atheists do it not out of sincere belief that we believe as they're asserting, but to anger and hurt atheists, who they don't like.

Pretty childish, if you ask me...!

[followthemoney]

19. God is a word that has not been uniquely defined

There are many contradicting definitions. I will wait for the decision to be made in the traditional human method. When all of those with different definitions finish killing each other off and only one definition is left I will decide if I like that definition. If not, I will kill him.

You can't reasonably believe or disbelieve in a thing described by an undefined word.

[H2O Man]

23. Perhaps if the word "faith"

creates problems, there would be a better way to define theism and atheism. Possibly "belief system" works. Of course, a belief system can contain faith, but it certainly does not need to.

Perhaps a more progressive task for us, rather than remaining focused on the things that separate atheists and theists on the democratic left, would be to concentrate on that which we have in common. We likely share many common values: most atheists and theists love their families; want to have a safe and comfortable place to live; want college education to be available to the middle- and lower-income citizens; want good jobs available; want a clean environment; and have a "live and let live" attitude in our personal lives.

We also have a common enemy: the religious right, which has an extreme social/political/economic/cultural agenda. This common enemy threatens each and every common value listed in the previous paragraph. It does not make any difference to the religious right wing republicans if you are an atheist and I am a theist. They pose an equal threat to each.

Hence, rather than DUers engaging in divisive threads and word games, as several of the threads on the religion & theology forum certainly are, we should be working in together for our common good. It doesn't matter to me if anyone else calls the universe "God" or views it in terms of science. What does concern me is that the religious right wants to force their definition down all of our throats.

[Zhade]

26. I second that motion!

I'll work with kickass believers like you, Bouncy Ball, and many others I've seen here any day.

As long as the common goal is to lift everyone - believers and non - up, I could care less what your motivations for doing so. The good works outweigh the differences between you and me.

[trotsky]

24. I think it helps believers cope with the existence of non-believers.

Thinking that someone simply doesn't believe in the trappings of religion is uncomfortable for many believers. So they feel a need to label atheists and other freethinkers as "believers" in something, whether by just outright calling atheism a religion (or faith) itself, or by creating a new religion like "scientism."

Putting those you do not understand into a box you CAN understand is a useful cognitive tool.

[onager]

27. I like this quote about that...

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god.

He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." (John McCarthy, AI Researcher)

[arwalden]

28. Precisely...

... for many with a limited cognitive abilities, they label atheists by using language that fits in with their narrow world-view.

<< Putting those you do not understand into a box you CAN understand is a useful cognitive tool. >>

Yes, it helps them to mentally categorize these things and concepts... and I understand their desire or need to do so. But I'm not convinced that such methods actually help them to understand these things.

Unfortunately their inaccurate language and labels and compartmentalizing the ideas, concepts, and facts that are incompatible with their myths are doesn't lead to any greater understanding. It only reinforces their misunderstandings and misconceptions.