I agree -- to a point. It is true that athiesm is not a religion. But then, based on your arguments above, neither is theism! Theists believe one thing in common: there is a god (or gods). That's all. Beyond that, they may have nothing in common.

Theists break down into many groups, and most or all of those groups can accurately be labeled a religion. Similarly, would it be fair to say that atheism breaks down into many groups, most or all of which can accurately be labeled a religion?

I suspect so. The secular humanists in one group over here, the existentialists in another group over here, and so on. Of course, most atheist will resist these categorizations, but it may not surprise you to realize that most theists would do the same.

Despite the popular image of a monolithic religious right, pulling levers zombie-like for the Republican party, even when you drill down into a sub-sub-subr group like "evangelical Christians," you still find quite a lot of diversity.

So I agree -- atheism is not a religion. It is many religions.

I don't think 'theists' would resist being separated into categories like Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. In fact, they do so quite readily. Each of these religions has all of the characteristics of religion that I list above.

None of the major atheist groups (excepting Buddhism, etc.) share these characteristics. Yes, there are people who may self-identify as 'secular humanists', but they have no god, no church, no priests, no sacred texts, no cohesive spiritual vision, no founder, etc.

The one thing they do share, apart from not believing in god, is a common belief system (sort of). That doesn't make it a religion or a faith. The whole point of my post was to argue that to say a religion need only be a belief system and nothing else makes a mockery of the concept of religion. Religion constitues so much more than that.

Well done, Pete. One of the best posts I've read here at BC. And a difficult topic on top of it all.

One thing that I would like to have seen is some speculation as to why the faithful insist on labeling atheism as a religion. What's their angle? I have a few ideas but I would like to get your perspective on this. I do agree with your comment that religionists weaken their claims to faith by arguing that belief in science is equivalent to faith. They know not what they say.

The quote by Rev. Bill McGinnis is a fine example of sloppy thinking.

One quibble concerning your moderately conciliatory position. You say

Religion has been central to the history of humanity and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to be.

Lots of things have played a role in the history of civilization. Religion, where it has done good, might be looked at as analogous to scaffolding under which a (somewhat) civilized society has been constructed. Eventually the scaffolding will be torn down. Slavery, just to take an example, has also played a crucial historical role in the building of civilization. We don't need that anymore, either.

Well, whether we need religion and whether we're going to have it are two separate matters. Considering that the vast majority of the world's population follows a religion (as defined in my article), it's safe to say that religion will underpin our civilization for a very long time to come. And that's not all to the bad. Religion has always been a force of both good and evil; of both terrible ignorance and sublime illumination (in the non-divine sense).

I hint at why some religious folks insist on labeling atheism as a religion at the beginning of my post. It has to do, I think, with self-validation, and is the sign of a quite weak and trepidatious faith. The same could be said of atheists who insist that religion is concomitant with stupidity.

And there's part of the issue. Religious folks are rightly offended when they're told they are a bunch of slavering idiots (whether or not it happens to be true in any given case). The impulse for some would be to turn around and say, "oh yeah, well you're idiots, too, and you just don't know it".

Then there are those who simply cannot comprehend the possibility of a non-faith-based world view. They then assign a faith proposition to atheism based on an extrapolation from their own experience.

Of course, there's great variety among atheists (and religious people, too). There are some who choose not to believe in god, and some who simply cannot. Like Freud, they lack the 'oceanic feeling'. Religious naysayers may err in assuming that all atheism is willful rebellion.

Thanks, Pete. You keep making comments that I wish I had made, such as

They then assign a faith proposition to atheism based on an extrapolation from their own experience.

I believe you've captured something there.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
--Rush

True, but a choice isn't a religion. I chose to eat a donut this morning. Am I a member of the Church of Donuttery? Mmmmm...worship!

Damn, we need to get to work making atheism into a real religion. Let's get some holidays and scriptures going. Otherwise the government might take away our legal status as a protected religion.

Perhaps we could have 'God is Dead' day around easter time.

Dave

Wait a minute. What's going on here? I thought atheists were humorless nihilistic curmudgeonly pessimists. You know ... like me.

IMHO, the religionists who constantly seek to frame atheism as a religion do so in order to couch their arguments legally as an issue of freedom of religion.

To wit: by calling atheism a religion, they can now argue that the government's approach to separation favors one religion (atheism) over another, thus giving them a leg to stand on in court when trying to do things like placing the 10 Commandments in public buildings.

To my thought, freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion, if a person so chooses.

So Suss in #6 nails it in a way.

Nice staw man Bill McGinnis. I think you should learn a bit more logic before you make extreme claims. What theist seem to forget is that their extraordinary claims need extrordinary evidence. To them, there is no need for logic as a medium because their religion prevents them from questioning.

Great article, Pete...
I am actually a Christian, but I agree with you that atheism itself is not a religion. People can be religious about their atheism, just as people can be religious about anything they do or give credence to.

Trey

Michael,
You're making a bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think? Of course there are many theists that need more logic, but there are plenty of atheists that do to. There is this sort of bias against faith in our culture and in western culture that says scientists, atheists and agnostics should be taken seriously, but if you believe in the supernatural (especially in any specified way), you're opinion and arguments lack logic.
Of course, Michael, you and I both come to this argument with a definite presupposition and no amount of so-called logic will keep us neutral on this issue.
The claims of an atheist are no more or less evidenced or "extreme" (to use your word) than a Christian, a muslim, or a Jew.

According to your description, if you are an American, you are part of a religion.

There Is No God
This doesn't apply but then you said belief in God wasn't necessary for a religion. More on that later.

There Is No Common Belief
American's certainly have common beliefs. While there are differences, the vast, overwhelming majority subscribe to the beliefs listed in the Bill of Rights. We commonly believe in the rule of law, private property, and that bikinis should be a privilege not a right.

There Are No Laws
Ummm .... I'm pretty sure this one is obvious.

There Is No Church or Ritual
We have lots of rituals. We vote every two years, we pay taxes (tithe), we go to war every eleven years (roughly), and we argue endlessly over the designated pitcher rule. We have what amounts to the equivalent of churches with the White House, Capitol Building, Supreme Court, etc. Even the monuments stand out like religious sites requiring pilgrimages every few years.

There Is No Unified Conception of Spirituality
There is a unified concept of being an American. What that means exactly is up for debate but so is the concept of spirituality amongst religions and even in defined religions themselves.

There Is No Scripture
Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Gettysburg Address, I have a Dream; the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..... should I go on?

There Is No Priesthood
President, Senators, Representatives, Justices, etc.

There Is No Tradition
Mom, Apple Pie, Norman Rockwell ... come on! Actually there are many things that can be called traditions in America. Heck, don't we all hate the French?

There Is No Founder
While you may not be able to say there is a founder, you can't argue that there is a clear cut set of founders. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin ... you could probably limit the amount of true founders to under 20 substantial men.

There Are No Holidays
There is one holiday expressly to celebrate America ... July 4th. There are two holidays to celebrate their military heroes. There is one to celebrate the workers and one to celebrate a couple of their founders.

There Is No Identifying Clothing
But according to studies we all are obese. Do clothes from the Big and Tall store count as identifying clothing? Actually, this one can't be used in all cases anyway. What are the different identifying clothes that separate a Methodist and a Baptist from the Atheist that lives next door?

There Is No Concept of the Afterlife
This does vary a little from American to American. Some believe that after America there will be a One World Order run by the UN. Others believe the world can't survive without the shining beacon that is America and will crash into chaos and anarchy without it. Others, granted a minority, believe that a comment the size of Texas will come towards the Earth and only a valiant attempt by some space faring oil drillers will have any hope of saving us. If they fail ... The point is although the beliefs may vary, all Americans have some vision of what life after America will be like.

There Is No Creation Myth
There is a universally accepted belief in the creation of America. It may not be called myth but then most religions believe their creation story is fact too.


So you see there are three hundred million members of the religion of America. Some of these even claim to be Atheists, which I have clearly shown is impossible. Actually, I think you definition of religion and what makes it up is much, much too broad in some areas and too focused in others. You are picking and choosing those areas that best suit your argument. I hope the silliness above illustrates that point.

All that beings said, while I do not believe you made a good case, I do agree somewhat with your argument. I agree that atheism is not a religion if you consider religion to be a regimented group that has hierarchies, etc. However, I can name many people that claim to be Christian but hate the very thought of "religion". Would you classify these people who hate organized religions as "religious"? Is religion nothing more than believing and subscribing to some organized groups idea of whatever religion should be about?


It might be better to skip the word "faith" as well. I would instead choose to use the word "belief". In this regard, atheism shares many similarities with believers of various religious faiths. If you take out the dogma, which you try so hard to pigeonhole all religions into, the similarities jump out much more clearly. You "believe" until proved otherwise that there is no God (for whatever reasons). If God showed up and parted the Red Sea in front of you, I hope you would be willing to reconsider. Belief is the word that makes atheists similar (in some regards) to believers of various religious faiths. Religion is a bad comparison all the way around, even amongst the "faithful".

Of course it depends on what the claim is. The atheism vs. faith argument is bogus to a point. The scientific argument requires evidence and the religious one does not because of the very nature of what they are.

It's as if religion and science exist in different intellectual dimensions--the rules of one don't apply to the other. The problem is when people try to force the 'truth' of one dimension on the other. Christians demanding that Creationism be taught is science class is a perfect example of this conflict.

There are plenty of religious people who have no problem with rationality and science--in fact, many scientists are themselves religious. They just have different standards of evidence for different kinds of truth claims.

In reference to D'Oh's comment (#10) ...

The Constitution actually says ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see anywhere in there a case to be made for freedom FROM religion. What I see is that Congress can't prevent the free exercise of religion or establish an "official" state religion. Where again does it say that you are free from all signs, symbols, references, and allusions to religion?

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I do not believe that this implies the absolute removal of all references to religion in anyway shape or form. It simply means that you can't be treated differently because you are a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or cattle rustler.

Bringing it back on topic, can an atheist even complain about this at all since you are part of NO religion? If you look at it logically, you don't even have this right UNLESS you are part of a religion.

Bummer for you guys ....

Bobby, you seem to imply that all belief is religious belief, which strikes me as degrading to both sides. Religious belief has a certain character: it is concerned with the spirit and, in most cases, with god. Americanism, by contrast, is concerned with America.

Your version of America is, to use your term, a little too narrow. This country is hugely diverse, with millions of different beliefs in conflict with each other. We're not all as similar as you claim.

Of course, to an extent, you could argue that nationalism shares many things in common with religion. The one glaring difference is its purpose, which is rarely spiritual or epistemological in nature.

Now you have to ask yourself, do you have a close, personal relationship with America?

Pete,

My point was that your definition of religion (more specifically what religion isn't) was too broad. Almost anything can be lumped under it, including half the religions of the world.

As to my definition being to narrow, I disagree. You state that ALL religions have certain aspects to them that you then list in the negative. You are encompassing an incredible wide variety and "hugely diverse" spectrum to use your words and completely understate the problem. Half of these religions hate the others and their beliefs are almost always mutually exclusive. Yet you claim they all fall under the same category of "religion".

Thus I claim that all Americans can fall under the same category. Yes, its very diverse. Yes, they believe different things. Yes, they are in conflict with each other. How is this different than all the religions in your argument?

Belief is belief, no matter what. I believe that my next breath will contain enough oxygen to sustain me. I also believe the moon will follow a set, predictable orbit from now until tomorrow at 2:55 PM (after that who knows?). I might believe that God is a big pink bunny with fuzzy black slippers. You might believe there is no God.

We can argue whether beliefs are verifiable and then argue again over how verifiable and under what conditions. But we can't argue that these are in fact beliefs. You can't classify beliefs as spiritual, scientific, or whatever. I belief simply implies a "faith", for want of a better term, that something is true. In some cases it might be more of a "hope" that something is true.

For example, you enter a room in which you have never been before. You see a chair in the middle of the room which you have never seen. You sit in the chair and it holds your weight. Why did you sit? Because you "believed" the chair would hold your weight. A visual inspection of the chair seemed to show it in good condition. You had put your weight onto similarly shaped chairs in the past. Other people have told you about sitting in chairs. Based on this evidence, you sat. Now was it possible that the chair looked good but was rotten? Yes. Was it possible that someone had sawed the back legs to collapse as a practical joke? Yes. But you "believed" based on the best evidence available that the chair would work so you sat.

Belief is belief the only thing different is the evidence used to support it.

Are you implying with your last line that religion requires close personal relationships? According to your first point, not all religions even need a God. How do you have close personal relationships if there is no God figure? So, no, I do not have a close personal relationship with America. But according to your definition, its still my religion.

I was making a joke with my last line. Sorry to raise your hackles.

It was my hope that my defenition of religion would encompasses not just half but all of the major world religions. That was the whole point. And then I showed how atheism fails to meet each of the criteria.

You are right to say that all Americans fall under the same category. Namely, they are Americans. All brown dogs are brown dogs. That doesn't make it a religion unless 'religion' is a meaningless word.

I strongly disagree with your statement that "belief is belief". There are all kinds of different beliefs out there. One kind is "religious belief". Atheism is not such a belief for reasons I outlined. To equate atheism with religion is to destroy the meaning of religion (purportedly in the attempt to bolster it...).

The belief that a chair will support your weight is based on visual evidence and experience. It is a practical, banal belief. To say that belief is the same as a belief in a perfect and redeeming savior is absurd. Hence the use of 'faith' to describe such a belief. And hey, I didn't invent that distinction.

"One thing that I would like to have seen is some speculation as to why the faithful insist on labeling atheism as a religion. What's their angle?"

They want to drag atheism down into the same mud rasslin' pit that they are in.

Sorry if it appeared my hackles were raised. Not so.

I did indeed misspeak at the start of my last post as well. Touché. I meant to say that you could include almost anything under it including all religions. My bad.

You aren't arguing that beliefs are different. You are arguing that the belief can be verified in different ways. What if the perfect and redeeming savior suddenly showed up on your doorstep and proved it to you with visual evidence and experience? Would your belief in him still be different than the belief in the chair? Both beliefs would then be proved with the same method. How are they different?

The only thing that separates beliefs is the proofs or evidence that can be used to support them. In fact, the evidence is usually the same. We separate "religious" beliefs because we feel it is unlikely that they will be proved in a visual, verifiable, reproducible manner. However, IF they were proved in that manner by God showing up, they would cease to be different than the belief that the moon orbits according to set physical laws.

Thus the belief in and of itself is not different. The evidence is. In that regard, atheism is very much like a "religious" belief (let me again go on record as disliking the term religion as an application of spiritual faith. Many would say they hate religion but believe very much in God, etc.) Atheism can't be proved anymore than religion can. Can you prove to me that God doesn't exist? In a verifiable, reproducible manner? No more than I could prove to you that God does exist.

Sure it seems likely based on what you know that a God may not exist. But you can't prove it. You believe it based on the best available evidence to you AND your own personal bias. I might look at almost the same evidence, introduce my own personal bias and come to the opposite conclusion. In fact, we can probably use the exact same facts in our attempt to prove each other wrong.

In that manner, your "belief" in atheism is very similar to a "belief" in a God. You are correct that atheism is not a religion but in many cases neither is a belief in God. I'm simply defining the argument different than your original post. Religion is the wrong way to compare their similarities. Belief is the better case.

Bobby - Very interesting.

Pete - You write well. I don't agree with a lot of this article, but you represented your cause admirably.

I wonder, if you break atheism down to its major "denominations", would you concede that some are belief systems? Marxism is a shoo-in. It has a founder, a creed, rituals, icons of its saints, and holidays. Darwinism is a tougher call, until you try to disagree with a believer. Nihilism has a pretty consistent ethos, and body art is both a uniform and a ritual for its followers.

Also, would you accept the statement that atheism is a creed?

In reference to #20 ...

Not all "the faithful" do insist on such a label.

However, I think the term is just being misused by both sides. As I have tried to lay out, religion is a bad way to compare. In some cases, neither side fits into the religion mold.

I think the more appropriate term is to say that both are based on a belief system.

Besides, maybe they don't want to drag you into the mud. Maybe they want to pull you up for some spiritual square dancing?

To #23: Even if you could say both are based on a belief system (which I don't agree with), you'd have to set the standard for "belief system" so low as to render it meaningless, which is evidently not the point religious people who see atheism as a religion (or belief system) want to make.

To #22: I just don't think the idea of atheist "denominations" means much. Certainly these denominations aren't as well defined or coherent as actual religious ones are.

Marxism (or Soviet Communism) was certainly a religion, but not because of atheism. There's an excellent book of essays by communist apostates that came out in the 40s or 50s (I think) called The God That Failed. What made the Soviet system a "religion" was its faith in the perfectability of man through the process of dialectical materialism. It took many precepts of Christianity and stood them on their head (just as Marxism is an inversion of Hegel's philosophy of history). So, yes, the Soviets tried to prop up their movement with the religious skeleton of Christianity, but athiesm was only a part of that.

In addition to The God That Failed, Darkness at Noon illustrates this point nicely. Arthur Koestler is one of the contributing essayists for TGTF, by the way.

I wouldn't call atheism a creed because a creed, to me, is a positive belief. I believe in god the father almighty, etc. Atheism is, necessarily, a negative belief.

To #24 ...

Explain to me how atheism is NOT a belief system?

Then, explain to me how particle physics is NOT a belief system? Quantum mechanics? The fact that Brit and K-Fed were doomed to fail?

Science in general is based on beliefs. You might argue that these are proven beliefs, verifiable beliefs, but then we are arguing about evidence and not the belief itself.

If the word "system" makes you uncomfortable, I gladly remove it from our discussion.

That way you can just prove to me how quantum mechanics is not based on beliefs.

And how does that set the standard for belief system low? What exactly is the standard and who is setting it? Does a belief system need more than one adherent to be a belief system? Does the belief system need to be judged valid by a committee or some group to be considered to meet the standard? If it just misses the standard can we call it a belief system in training?

To #25 ....

Ding, Ding, Ding ....

We have a winner. I belive you actully said that "Atheism is, necessarily, a negative belief". Essentailly, you are saying that atheism is the belief in no God.

How is that different than the spiritual believers belief in a God?

RE: # 22

Pete,

I think your grasp of the "religious" world is way to monochromatic. You seem to think that religions encompass these big blocks of everyone believing the same things. Even within similar faiths the "coherence" of groups is vague at best.

Let's take Christianity for the sake of argument, although you could apply this to ANY religion.

The major groups break down fast ... catholic, orthodox, protestant; you could even dive into Armenian if you wanted. Then take one of those groups. Protestant breaks down into a myriad of "denominations". Some are so different as to barely be recognizable as protestant. If you take one denominations, say Presbyterian, you can break that again into at least three and maybe as many as five national categories. The Baptists are worse than that. Even strong denominations like the Southern Baptists (largest protestant denomination in America) are loosely organized. Even though their Creed as it were says they are against women pastors, at least 150 churches with women pastors belong to the demolition. Going back to Presbyterians, even the individual church, can have incredible variety in belief. Presbyterians are known as big sovereignty of God types, some would be good old fashioned Calvinists. However, you can have committed faithful members of a Presbyterian church who don't believe in the sovereignty of God. How is that possible if these "denominations" have the coherence and definition you think they do?

I don't think that religions are defined as well as you think they are. I believe in fact they could be very similar to the atheist breakdowns that you use to illustrate atheism not being a religion. In fact, these breakdowns surface constantly as people alter their beliefs and swing from church to church to Temple.

If I can, I'll look into the books you mentioned. I'm always up for a good read.

To answer 24 & 25 together, it is my contention that "atheism" as a whole is not a belief system because there's no system. It is a single belief about a single unknown. After that, atheists believe any number of things that may or may not agree with what other atheists beleive.

The difference between that and the "spiritual believers' belief in a God" is what is at the heart of this thing we call religion. It's all those other things I list in the post. It's all these things that atheism lacks.

Furthermore, the belief in god posits all kinds of things (in most cases) about the existence of the spirit and the soul, in the afterlife, etc. This is not true of atheism.

Would you argue that there's no difference, to give an absurd example, between believing that all human souls are the remnants of aliens executed on earth volcanos by a bastard named Xenu and not believing this?

Do both positions require the same leap of faith? Of course not. If so, then the concept of belief is entirely relative and nothing means anything. And that's a position I don't think most people would be too eager to take.

I don't think that all religions are monochromatic and, having grown up in the church, I know well what you're talking about. But despite the differences between all the religions and sects and splinter groups, etc., they have certain things in common. Those are the things I list atheism as lacking. Not all religions have all these traits, but they're pretty consistently present in religious groups and congregations. This is just not true for atheism.

Do read Darkness at Noon. It's one of my favorite novels.

RE #21: I think the belief in god and the belief in the sturdiness of a chair are totally different things. The former belief is not expected to be confirmed by the scientific method. It doesn't need to be confirmed at all, hence the faith. The latter is a belief that must stand up to rational scrutiny and can easily be confirmed.

Now, if Jesus shows up on my doorstep and offers some scientifically verifiable proof of his existence and divinity, then and only then are these two beliefs similar. That hasn't happened yet.

Great quote about the color black-- makes perfect sense- great analogy!

...Bernie

bernie needs to learn how to read.

People can be religious about their atheism

Not just religious about it, but downright fanatical. Which IMO defeats the whole concept of atheism. If your atheism originates in a hatred of organized religion rather than a lack of belief in deities - which is often the case - then you're not so much an atheist as a disaffected religionist. Real atheists ought to have a more laissez faire attitude. People should have the right to believe whatever claptrap makes them happy and keeps them from killing each other.

Dave

"People should have the right to believe whatever claptrap makes them happy and keeps them from killing each other"

true. it's just too bad that people like to kill each other over religion.

Old-Time Religion the song was sung in 1941 at what accademy award winning movie and who wrote the song?

"Aunicornism is, necessarily, a negative belief". Essentailly, you are saying that aunicornism is the belief in no Unicorns.

How is that different than the spiritual believers belief in a Unicorn?

People can be religious about their atheism

Again, this depends on what you mean by 'religious'. Does that mean to believe something strongly? Or is it a specific way of believing something? I would be careful with this.

Now, people can certainly be dogmatic about their beliefs (atheist or otherwise). I've already commented on the folly of that. But if 'dogma' and 'religion' mean the same thing, then haven't we lost something?

Pete - I'm not sure you can separate Soviet and Chinese communism so easily. The two countries often worked together. Mao was supported by Stalin, and certainly used similar methods. The Russians tinged communism with a Christian hierarchical structure, where the Chinese approach resembled an Emperor's court, but the systems themselves were deliberately and explicitly atheistic.

I could build on Bobby's groundwork of nationality-as-religion, but in the case of communism the similarities to religion are obvious. China has a "sacred" book and uniforms. The iconography of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Kim, and Che are well-known. Communism is more than a religion, as you note, but it definitely is a religion. You can't subtract points from it because it's all-encompassing.

By ignoring communism, you've eliminated something like 80% of atheism. If I talked about religion, leaving out Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, you'd be right to call foul. I notice that you skip Buddhism yourself. So we're talking about the non-Hegelian non-Buddhist atheists? I'll put out two bags of Doritos, but I won't open the second one unless all of the non-Hegelian non-Buddhist atheists come by.

I don't skip Buddhism. I mention it several times. It is an atheist religion. It's also not at all typical of non-religious atheism, which is the topic of my post and what is meant by O'Reilly, Coulter et. al. when they talk about atheism.

I do think that communism has many things in common with religion as I define it. But the mystical or 'supernatural' thing communists put their faith in was not atheism. It was dialectical materialism. It is quite easy to imagine communism without atheism, but it is entirely impossible (nonsensical, even) to imagine it without the dialectic. That, in my opinion, is the core belief of the communist 'religion'.

That said, neither Soviet nor Chinese communism is really pertinent to the debate at hand. Again, when fundamentalists talk about atheism as a religion, they're not talking about communism. They're talking about secular humanism and people who believe in evolution, etc.

Mr. Blackwell writes:

One of the biggest selling points for the "atheism is a religion" trope is the common misperception that atheists know that there is no god. Certainly there are some who would say so, just as there are Christians who have no religious doubt whatsoever, but these are not (I hope) majority views. Insistence on the absolute correctness of your position is not a sign of either faith or rationalist purity; it's a sign of hubris and epistemological immodesty. (Emphasis mine)

Are you listening, Christopher Rose?

Of course I'm listening, Clavos, but I'm certainly not persuaded.

As you appear NOT to be listening, let me reiterate: I wish there were a god or gods, it would make a lot of things both easier and more satisfying on a spiritual level. However, with all the best will in the world, I can't find any plausible evidence for the existence of any deities at all.

I don't feel either "hubris or epistemological immodesty" in saying that, rather a sense of disappointment that the old time stories are nothing more than that.

I don't insist on the correctness of my position either, indeed, I find it a tad lamentable. However, the universe is what it is and no amount of naive, simplistic creation stories or appeals to faith could persuade me otherwise.

Atheism is absolutely not a religion, as has been shown above quite convincingly. It is an attempt by faithists to frame a discussion by defining non-believers thusly, to include them within an entirely unconvincing explanation of the miraculous universe that contains us.

The final nails in the coffin of religion are the amount of hatred it promotes and the way it allows mean hearted people to attack others, all in the name of championing deeply held but entirely superficial views that do nothing to explain our common reality or address the sense of awe and interconnectedness that never ceases to amaze and humble me.

Dear Pete,

Nice article. Thanks for writing it.

You're a brave man to enter the dangerous whirlpool of Semantics -- followed by a bunch of articulate morons who defend their flimsy, imaginary Raft of Faith by suggesting that --Atheists Who Prefer Science and Curiosity in THE QUEST for Empirical Data-- are made equally blind and dogmatic by their "beliefs".



And speaking of "If there is a God, will you please make him shut the fuck up"...

Bobby Sprinkle: "We have a winner. I belive you actully said that "Atheism is, necessarily, a negative belief". Essentailly, you are saying that atheism is the belief in no God. How is that different than the spiritual believers belief in a God?"

Atheism is not a "belief" in no god; it's a temporary working conclusion based on intellectual honesty coupled with a glaring Lack of Evidence.

Faith/Religion is wishful thinking based on intellectual dishonesty, a lack of curiosity, and a conclusion drawn DESPITE the Lack of Evidence.

PS: Yer ALL condemned to trace an eternal elliptical orbit in the lowest spiraled streets of Semantics Hell.

Have a nice day.

Atheists rule, by God!

Atheism is not a "belief" in no god; it's a temporary working conclusion based on intellectual honesty coupled with a glaring Lack of Evidence.

For many, certainly. But this does not have to be the case. A person who doesn't believe in god because their dog told them not to is an athiest, too.

It took me years to understand that I didn't believe in god. It wasn't an easy struggle but a necessary one. When I was in Church and others would talk about their feelings about god or that feeling of power that was so palpable as to be almost tangible, I would know that I had never felt that; more than hadn't felt it, I couldn't help but think that it was impossible to feel and believe they were lying to themselves. My "faith" place deep inside me was empty. When I was 8 years old and mother told me I was going to be baptised into my faith I ran away because I knew it was a lie and I couldn't say it out loud.

Not believing in God isn't something that I do one day a week. Where I go to some building and listen to some revered Atheist talk about why NOT to believe in god. I don't believe one set of dogma or another I only know what's right or wrong inside myself.

And accepting that there probably isn't a God isn't easy. Believing in a magic man who will make everything right and just in the end is easy. But believing that some very bad people will never be punished, that justice will never be served for some, is sometimes overwhelming. And it's not that I absolutely believe there is no god. I think that anything is possible. There might turn out to be a Big Foot or Loch Ness Monster but I think it's highly unlikely.

I don't "believe" in anything in a faith way. I just don't think there is anything out there. And no matter how hard I have tried in the past to believe, I know it's a lie and I couldn't live a lie.

Thanks for bumming us all out, A.L.

:-)

A.L. Harper -- I left the church the day I realized there wasn't a passage in the Bible that said something like, "And lo, Jesus saw a gigantic fucking *lizard in the road!"






*no dinosaurs in that Cosmic History Book -- [quote courtesy the late, great Bill Hicks]

The fact that Bill Hicks died the way he did is proof that there's no god. Or that god doesn't have a sense of humor. The existence of Scientology strongly suggests that if there is a god, he has a very fine sense of humor, indeed. QED: no gee oh dee.

I would think that intellectual honesty would lead one to agnosticism at best. That's where it led me.

I find no epistemological proof of God or lack thereof, either way. I don't believe that God exists as depicted in the Bible, but I've no reason to think that there's not a creature of some kind in the universe whose relationship to life on Earth is NOT at least tangentially similar to a God's.

But then, it's entirely possible, even likely, that atheists have had experiences that have led them to conclude with certainty that there's no God. Experiences, that is, which I have not had. So intellectual honesty is a hard thing to gauge because even intellect is subjective.

Speaking of intellect-this thread is one of the most intellectual that I've ever had on Blogcritics. Aside from the silly potshots that pop up everywhere, most of the comments here are honest, thoughtful, and address the subject at hand.

Perhaps we should all take pictures of this page or save it to our PCs so that we have proof that such conversations CAN exist on this site.

Agnosticism is a position where you neither believe in the existence or nonexistence of god, usually because the truth is thought to be "unknowable".

Atheism is not believing in god. That doesn't meany you know there's no god. It just means you believe there is not.

By your definition, everyone on earth who hasn't met or seen god personally would have to be an agnostic.

Sorry, Pete. That definition was actually a response to the one posited in Comment #48 (i.e., Shark):

Atheism is not a "belief" in no god; it's a temporary working conclusion based on intellectual honesty coupled with a glaring Lack of Evidence.

I should have been more clear.

"... such conversations CAN exist on this site."

HERESY

hahaha a redneck trailer trash must have wrote this,
religion is a set of believe based on super natural superstition. by that, atheism is NOT a religion because it does not believe in the super natural.

The fact that Bill Hicks died the way he did is proof that there's no god.

i always thought that the fact that egg nog wasn't good for you was proof that there was no god.

Wow. I've been gone all night and most the next day. Where to begin?

First, although it probably doesn't warrant an actual response, SHARK ...

"Faith/Religion is wishful thinking based on intellectual dishonesty, a lack of curiosity, and a conclusion drawn DESPITE the Lack of Evidence."

Not knowing all those of faith at all, I'm curious how you can draw these conclusions. You make blanket statements about millions of people with little or no backing. Just because you have seen one, two, or even a million dishonest, non-curious, wishful thinking believers doesn't mean that I or the next guy are. I refute everything you said in this quote. I defy you to show otherwise.

Now onto more genial debaters ...

Pete ....

In #30 you write that you don't believe all religions are monochromatic. That may be but you are treating them that way. In fact you are rolling up all religions together. It isn't fair to say all religions do such and such but you can't say that atheism does because the forms of atheism are different and atheists believe so differently. According to you the only common theme among atheists is a belief in no God. You say religion is all the same. However you roll up all religions but leave forms of atheism separate. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we ....

Let's compare forms of religion with forms of atheism and see how it shakes out. I'll just pick a couple of your first list to keep things short.

There Is No Founder

You say that no one founded atheism. Well no one founded all religion either. Each form of religion had its own founder just like each form of atheism had its founder. Christ could be compared to Marx, L. Ron Hubbard to Darwin, etc. I may not have the best examples but you get my point I hope.

There Is No Tradition

You say that religion has common traditions and history but religion doesn't have one common tradition, it has many. So each form of religion may have a tradition but so does each form of atheism. Marxism, Communism, Nietzschism, etc. all have common traditions within themselves. It is true that there traditions aren't common across forms but neither is the Hindu tradition common to the Orthodox. The point is that each form has its own traditions.

There Is No Scripture

Again, all religions may have scriptures but they aren't the same. Every form of atheism also has its scriptures. A Marxist may not recognize the works of Huxley as divine scriptures but neither does a Muslim recognize Dianetics as divine either. (Note: This is a slight cheat on my part as Huxley really labeled himself an agnostic)


I could go on and on. The point is, as I stated before, that you are treating religion as a unified body but not atheism. They are both very clearly filled with widely differing views on a whole host of subjects.

Atheists actually may be more monochromatic than believers as you define them. At least atheists are unified in their belief in no God. According to your definition belief in God isn't required to be a religion. Therefore you can't even say that all religions are unified in their belief in God.


In #29 you claim that belief in God posits all sorts of things which atheism does not. I disagree. Why does belief in God posit afterlife or soul? You are picking a couple of religions and using their philosophies selectively to say something about all religion. I would argue that Buddhism is essentially atheist in that most Buddhists would deny the existence of a God. Yet, they certainly believe in something similar to the soul.

As for your absurd example, to make it even more absurd, in the absence of any evidence at all, I would posit both beliefs are the same. You can only make one sound ridiculous by using an assumed amount of foreknowledge and evidence that you have worked up over time, education, experience, etc. If you didn't have those to back you, what would make either proposition more believable? Again, the belief is no different, the evidence is.

Finally, in # 31 you argue that "The former belief is not expected to be confirmed by the scientific method. It doesn't need to be confirmed at all, hence the faith. The latter is a belief that must stand up to rational scrutiny and can easily be confirmed." A couple of things about this...

I think you are again letting your previous life, experience, knowledge, etc, interfere with the examples. You may think the chair should stand up to rational scrutiny but you don't subject it to that. You just sit in it. You didn't test the wood, use weights to tests its load limit, have several people sit in it to verify the results. You gave it a cursory examination and then sat based on "faith". What you are saying is that the chair COULD stand up to the scientific method if the appropriate tests were done and the results were verified. Well I argue that God could do the same thing. You COULD subject God to the scientific method if he allowed it, the appropriate tests were applied and the results were verified.

I would further argue that a belief in God with no confirmation is ridiculous. All beliefs with no confirmation are not worth much. The point is that the confirmation is subjective, based on personal experience, past history and bias. For instance, I could argue that my belief in God is confirmed the same way your belief in the chair was. I have had people tell me about God and what he does. People have told you about chairs and what they do. You have used chairs in the past. I have experienced God in some manner (dream, visitation, feeling, support, lightning bolt, whatever ... enough to confirm it for me). Nothing in your visual examination of the chair contradicts your "faith" that it will hold you. Nothing in my experience or knowledge of science contradicts the presence of a God. Thus your belief that the chair will hold you would be based on roughly the same categories of evidence that my belief in God is based on.

Clearly, this is not objective, scientific proof that can be reproduced in a lab for all to see. But it is proof nonetheless. I hold that rational people can believe in God. I do not hold that rational people can believe in something that has never been confirmed or proven to them. A rational person is also open to being proven wrong. Bias becomes huge here but as you say, if Jesus showed up at your door ...

P.S. When Jesus does show up at your door, let me know. I'll be curious to see what proof he provides for divinity.


# 36 ....

The movie was Sergeant York with Gray Cooper. I have no idea who wrote the song.


# 48 SHARK ....

I can't believe I'm referring to him again ... You are confusing religion with Christianity. Why didn't you convert to Buddhism or Hinduism when you realized there were no lizards in the Bible? You can't argue that all religions are wrong because one is. You can't argue that there is no God because the Bible is wrong. What about the religions that believe in God but not the Bible? I guess as long as there were lizards its ok?

BTW, you are seriously screwed up in your timelines. Were such a quote to appear in the Bible it would read "And, lo, Cain saw a gigantic fucking lizard in the field!" There was probably no Jesus or roads during dinosaur days.


# 50 Michael West

I disagree slightly. Intellectual honesty doesn't necessarily lead on to agnosticism. You leave out personal experience from the mix. Intellectual honesty should leave you open to being proven wrong but not necessarily into the "unknowable".


I too have greatly enjoyed these conversations.

Briefly on your first point with more to come: It's actually the opposite. The O'Reilly/Coulter position is treating atheism like it's a unified whole and a religion. My argument is against that. It is not a religion. I don't believe it's a bunch of diverse religions either. More on that in a little while.

Mr. Rose,

You have said repeatedly that you know there is no god. In fact, you imply it once again in your #42 when you say:

However, the universe is what it is and no amount of naive, simplistic creation stories or appeals to faith could persuade me otherwise.

And you say:

I don't feel either "hubris or epistemological immodesty" in saying that...

I didn't mean to imply you FELT hubris; rather I'm saying you're guilty of it in the way you present your beliefs.

I'd like to remind you once again that I'm not arguing with your position of nonbelief. I don't believe myself. In fact, if anything, you seem to have a more spirtual position than I, judging from what you write about the "interconnectedness" you feel, which I can't even understand, much less contemplate.

You describe the universe as "miraculous," and I suppose that's true if one believes in miracles. I think it just "is" (as you essentially also point out in #42, as quoted above).

Finally, I think we agree more than we disagree, except that I think I'm more nihilistic about matters religious than you.

Bobby (re 57):

You have misread, I believe: I'm not the one who used the word "unknowable" to describe my agnosticism. Pete Blackwell used it (#52), and even then he qualified it as being "often" the reason given for agnosticism.

From my point of view, agnosticism simply means, "I don't know." And the reason I don't know is not that it's unknowable, it's because there is currently not enough evidence to determine either way. (Nor is there evidence that it's "unknowable," for that matter.) If I saw evidence that there was a God, or that there wasn't, I would probably change my thinking. But there isn't, so I can't.

#47 Pete - I'm sorry I bummed you out. I think people think it's easy not to be religious or spiritual that there are no morals involved. I just go out and shag anyone I want to and treat people bad and covet my neighbour's arse (Ok I do that, but he has a very nice arse) but that isn't how it works. I'm a good person. But I'm a good person because I am socially responsible NOT because I'm afraid I'm going to go to hell.

hey y'all
here's a comment from holland(europe, that is)
seems like everybody around here is really focussed on describing what and what not atheism really is.
Am I right? Definitions, semantics, all that.
I don't want to say it's not important to define what one's talking about, but here's my point:
I watch the news, only two groups around in the world, muslims and christians.
I happen to disagree. Many people, way more than you might think, don't fit in either category.
Time we bundle our voices and let the religious guys and girls know there's a lot of people that don't dig their backward shit anymore. They want to do their thing, fine. They want to tell me what to do or not do, not fine.
And hey, semantic fans, I think it's perfectly OK to obey the law, just keep in mind, different countries, different laws. Some US people have problems grasping that concept seems.

OK, back to number 57.

If belief in a supreme being who created the universe and the worship of that being in a community of fellow believers is the same thing to you as believing that a chair will hold your weight, then atheism is a religion. So is assuming a glass will hold water or believing that you won't melt if you go out in the rain. Every time you go outside assuming you won't simply float off into the stratosphere, it's a supreme act of faith.

The only problem is that you've defined 'religion' out of existence. It then becomes an incredibly banal and even worthless thing. I can't bring myself to think that you--or anyone who genuinely believes in god--would (or could) think such a thing. It is most definitely not the point the atheism-is-a-religion crowd is trying to make. Quite the contrary.

I stand by my post and my comments thus far. While I agree that there is a great deal of variety in religious practice (and say so in my original post), all religions conform to the majority of the categories I laid out. Atheism as a whole doesn't, but neither do any of the discrete atheist niches. (Putting Marxism aside, which is a faith primarily in the proposition that history is governed by dialectical materialism, not because of its atheism.)

There's really no such thing as Nietzscheism, per se. There are people who read his philosophy and admire his thinking, but no coherent congregation has sprung up in the name of it. There are no churches of Nietzscheism, etc.

The same goes for Darwin, although he is far more well known (but probably not more widely read). There is a good reason why he looms larger: he is a scientist. Not only is he a scientist; he was the first one to pull at the biological thread that led to the hypothesis of evolution. He provided a rational explanation for the way life develops. That's a pretty big deal. Still, while I've met plenty of people who admire Darwin, I've never met anyone who worships him or believes that his works on evolution are the first and last word on the subject.

When it comes to belief in god, you're playing a bit of a semantic game with the words 'confirmation' and 'proof'. You say, Clearly, this is not objective, scientific proof that can be reproduced in a lab for all to see. But it is proof nonetheless. I would have to say that's not proof at all, unless, as with 'religion', 'proof' has no meaning. It is 'evidence', and very subjective evidence at that, but it neither proves nor confirms anything.

Except to yourself, which is the key.

Proof is what you use to convince other people of the validity of a hypothesis. This word has no meaning if each person must experience the proof themselves in a subjective, and thus unconfirmable, manner.

Religion, whether it's man made or divine, has always been a palliative against fear of the unknown. Because they exists partly to serve this purpose, a great number of religions actually embrace the unknown. Fear becomes mystery, the void becomes spirit. Religious belief in the face of ambiguity and paradox--in the absence of proof--is praised as a sign of true faith.

I'm not here to argue with that notion. My point is that this is something qualitatively different from atheism, however you want to break it down.

If gays can marry, why can't atheism be a religion? It depends what the meaning of the word is is.

If atheism is a religion, is bald a hair color?

No, but could it be considered a hairstyle?

I feel the same way about non-denominational being called a denomination?

If gays can marry, why can't atheism be a religion?

Is that comparison supposed to make sense?

No.

Just checking.

Pete: My compliments on one of the best religious posts I've seen, and the excellent discussion that followed.

A few months ago I tried my hand at an explanation of agnosticism, and why it is not atheism and not antireligion. It's not as well done as your piece, but I think it complements it quite well, similarly undermining the simplistic portrayals put out by certain commentators for whom religion is a cudgel to be wielded with abandon.

Both are also evidence that mainstream believers have more in common with mainstream atheists and agnostics than they do with extreme elements of their own faith.

one other thing that the "atheisim is a religion" crowd seems to miss is that their is a large group of people like me who are not only atheistic in their beliefs but...hmm, how do i put this?....religion plays no part in our daily lives.

i hate to even use the word "group" because it comes close to conferring some sort of organization. there is non. religion exists, completely outside of my world.

the question is not whether or not Atheism is a religion.

Atheism, pure and simple, is reactionary philosophy. It's irrational at it's very core. There is no issue, concept, or scientific proof that a thinking person with Faith cannot agree on with an Atheist. I like how Atheists perch comfortably in this thread because they have a new premise that basically states this brilliant come back "chya right."

The quote "Atheism is a religion" is meant to galvanize emotions and thought, not to be taken literally. My retarded cousin knows that atheists don't go to church. Cmon.

It's clear that "atheists" (whatever and whoever you are) just have personal issues that cloud their ability to think rationally. They think that Faith = irrationalism because it's a convenient face-value answer for all da religious "haters" out there. It's so much more complicated than this thread.

No matter what happens in our lifetime. You 'tards will keep arguing these points, and nothing will come of it. No greater truth will be reached. Until you learn to smile and love the blue collar baptist that lives down the street, your opinion carries little weight. Moreover, you KNOW you believe in God, you just hate that big all-encompassing thing called accountability. Everything else is a rationalization of why you shouldn't feel guilty for the shit you make everyone else clean up. C'est la vie. (sp?)

Jesus Christ, can't you believers get ONE thing through your thick skulls? See SHARK #43, and I quote,

"Atheism is not a "belief" in no god." NOT. Read it again.

it's reactionary philo whether belief is involved or not. It is an inferiority complex to a supposed threat. Typical. Its origins and discussions derive from an active and irrational distrust of people who claim publicly to have Faith. No matter how you slice it, it's just another way for folks to point the finger at other "hypocrites." The sad thing is that there is no such thing as Atheism.

Atheism is simply a "side." Cmon guys. You rail against other idiots that are outspoken about Faith. Neither side seeks truth, only justification FOR said truth. The actual truth is much more buried and mysterious than you baffoons would like to reveal in this thread.

Clavos, sorry, not getting your point at all. I've stated my views, nothing more nothing less, don't see the relevance of hubris at all.

Oh Dear Gawd; I'd rather have molten lead poured into my eyes than read another word game couched in the form of a doctoral thesis written by BobbySprinkle.

SHARK said: "Faith/Religion is wishful thinking based on intellectual dishonesty, a lack of curiosity, and a conclusion drawn DESPITE the Lack of Evidence."

Sprinkle addresses SHARK: "I'm curious how you can draw these conclusions. You make blanket statements about millions of people with little or no backing... I refute everything you said in this quote. I defy you to show otherwise."

Here goes, babe:

1) wishful thinking = living beyond the limits of your earthly existence; reuniting with loved ones, being "forgiven" your earthly transgressions [ie. guilt assuaged] -- finally finding "eternal happiness" -- which eluded you on earth.

2) intellectual dishonesty + lack of curiosity = giving up on pursuing and/or finding potential solutions to questions re. the nature of Universe and some/all of its inhabitants by ATTRIBUTING unexplained events (etc) as acts of "God" -- and then acting like that's actually a realistic, satisfactory, and sufficient Answer.

[see "creationist" vs Darwin for more; see also "infinite regress" argument]

3) Conclusion Drawn DESPITE the LACK OF EVIDENCE = see any religion's claim for the existence of a "god". SHOW SHARK 1 tiny smidgen of indisputable evidence, and I'll not only "convert", but I'll give Pope Benedict my next male child.

========

As Richard Dawkins [et al] points out, if you claim there's a giant teapot orbiting the earth, it's not up to me the atheist to prove it doesn't exist; it's up to you, The Looney BELIEVER to prove that it exists.

========

An agnostic is an Atheist with No Balls.

========

And here's my final, argument-ending, brain-freeze-inducing question to all believers in a "god" --

WHO MADE GOD?


=======

~NEXT!!!

======




PS: Next departure for the Circled Streets of Sematic Hell occurs in ten minutes; please stow your brain in the overhead compartment, and don't be caught without an Arbitrary Dictionary.

Dear BobbySprinkle,

I'd love to convert you to my "Religion" --

...in which we believe that

BREVITY IS A MAJOR VIRTUE.

Thanks in advance,
Witnessing Shark

Conclusion Drawn DESPITE the LACK OF EVIDENCE = see any religion's claim for the existence of a "god".

Of course, lack of evidence that there IS a God ≠ evidence that there ISN'T a God.

Therefore,

Conclusion Drawn DESPITE the LACK OF EVIDENCE = see any claim for the nonexistence of a "god."

Sorry, Shark, old boy; with no proof either way, the best you can do is formulate a belief.

MJW #79:

Bingo!!

Well (and succinctly) put.

Christopher:

I knew you wouldn't.

Kurtz: "The numbness ... the numbness."

Michael, old boy ... oh, forget it.

I don't know what you're bitching about, duane. I didn't say that atheism WAS a religion. I don't think it is.

I do think it's a belief, though. That's not the same thing as a religion. It's a belief. I read Shark's position and I am, in my comment, disagreeing with him. And you've not given me much reason why I shouldn't.

Sorry, Shark, old boy; with no proof either way, the best you can do is formulate a belief.

'tis true. Claiming that there is definitively NOT a teapot orbiting the Earth based on a lack of evidence isn't intellectually honest.

One should simply say, "I dunno. I doubt its existence (disbelief) because a teapot in space seems unlikely."

So, there is NO burden of proof. As a believer, it's not my responsibility to prove to atheists that God exists in any sort of mumbo jumbo explanation. If you don't believe in God, it's not my problem. It's yours.

And of course people believe in God because it's convenient and reassuring, but these aren't the only reasons. There are thousands of reasons that will never be articulated. I, however, rarely feel assuaged by an idea of Heaven. If anything, I fear the possibility of God, because it seems the power he yields is Just. And justice for any of us means pain.

Regardless, I'll repeat this again for people like shark who is particularly emotional about this subject. Faithists are not irrational. Big bang? no prob. millions of galaxies? no prob. children dying all over the world? no prob. Evolution? no problemo. I STILL believe in God, and that's your problem. (it seems)

Re #75: The concept that belief comes from emotion and emotional needs would neccessitate that the belief would desist if that emotion dissipated, or the emotional need was fulfilled. People seem to use this argument quite frequently without considering the implications. Human emotion and emotional circumstances change far more rapidly than our belief systems. I could be feeling intense distrust for religion one day, have a great experience with the honesty of another religion the next, and were my atheism based entirely on my emotional paranoia this would neccessitate that I subsequently convert to the second religion (and then back away when/if my distrust were to return).

Likewise, if you are to argue that atheism stems from guilt, then there must neccessarily be no atheists that live according to religious values. Because of the wide variety of religions available to us, the liklihood that we couldn't manage to continue to live our life the way we already do and conform to a set of religious standards somewhere out there is fairly minute, particularly if you're talking about the entire atheist population of the world. I happen to know based on comparing myself to sociological data collected that I am in the top 50% with regards to Christian lifestyle within the American population. If I were to just add church I would probably be considered a good, or at minimum, adequate christian. I very strongly doubt I am the only example of this.

I do not mean to criticize your logic based on your religious belief though. This is a form of logic that is often used similarly by atheists to accuse the religious of having purely emotional reasons for their faith, when in fact the rationally requisite implications of such a claim are absurd.

Belief almost always comes from more than just emotion. Emotion, due to its shifting nature, will never be fully responsible for a lifestyle or belief.

Sorry, Michael. I apologize for being a shithead. Must ... find ... coffee.

I reread your comments, and I think I more or less agree with you. I do think that you're misreading Shark. He's right on the money.

Let's start with the old chestnut

Of course, lack of evidence that there IS a God [is not the same as] evidence that there ISN'T a God.

which is usually stated in more general terms thusly:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And again, the burden of proof lies on the side of those making extraordinary claims, not with those who are skeptical of such claims.

This is obvious, and does nothing to detract from Shark's plain-as-day comments.

Again, any rational atheist does not say "There is no God."

Trying to sidestep the quicksand of semantics to which these arguments usually devolve,

Absence of belief is not belief of absence.

Part of the problem is with definitions. You can find a definition of atheism that says

"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities."

I have always adopted the first of these two. Atheism is simply the absence of belief. Some people call that agnosticism. I think the definitions are fuzzy. That's part of the problem with discussions like this.

I want someone to tear down the definitions and put them back together so that the difference between atheist and agnostic is clear. Technically, I might fall into a new category -- "militant agnostic." I have no belief in deities, I make no claim that there are no deities, and I think you're fooling yourself if you believe in deities."

What we may have is a semantics problem, Duane.

Look at it this way.

1) "I do not believe in God."

2) "I believe that there is no God."

Do those two statements have two different meanings? Or are they the same thing?

Put another way, this is really where I disagree with Shark. He says (emphasis added):

Atheism is not a "belief" in no god; it's a temporary working conclusion based on intellectual honesty coupled with a glaring Lack of Evidence.

Semantically speaking, this is not a conclusion, because it has no evidence to support it -- only a lack of evidence to refute it. It is a temporary working hypothesis. A guess, if you will.

Now, whether a "hypothesis" and a "belief" are the same thing, we can probably debate that all day.

Michael, that's it exactly.

The two statements convey distinct meanings.

So the first one, I presume, means "I don't think there's a God but I'm not prepared to believe there isn't one?"

Again...that makes it a hypothesis. Not a conclusion.

Michael, statements like

"I don't think there's a God but I'm not prepared to believe there isn't one?"

is so full of traps that it's not easy to confirm or deny. If I say, "I don't think there's a God," it could be construed as a conclusion based on a weighing of evidence. On the other hand, taken literally, "I don't think there's a God" is an exact expression of absence of belief.

To clarify.

Melissa: Is it cold outside?
Skippy: I don't think so.

Melissa assumes that Skippy's reply connotes a conclusion based on some kind of evidence. She goes outside, and it's freezing.

Melissa: I thought you said it wasn't cold!
Skippy: I didn't say that. I haven't been outside today.

Skippy has an absence of belief based on his lack of experiencing coldness outside. He's being literal.

I get what you're saying, Duane, but once again, I'm going to use the word "hypothesis."

Melissa: Is it cold outside?
Skippy: I don't think so.

In your example, Skippy has not been outside today. We don't know what he's basing his statement on, but there's an implication here that he does not have any evidence on which to base his not thinking that it's cold outside.

So it is, at best, a guess. A hypothesis.

Michael, Skippy is a literalist. When he says, "I don't think so," he means "I do not think in that way," which means that there is nothing in his experience at that moment that would cause him to think that it's cold outside. An atheist, my kind of atheist, says "I do not believe," which means there is nothing in his experience that would provide sufficient grounds to believe. Only in the colloquial sense does "I do not believe in gods" equate to "I believe there are no gods."

However, like anyone else, atheists usually speak colloquially, and believers usually hear colloquially, so the atheist should be aware of the popular connotation of the phrase "I do not believe," when his intention is to denote in a precise manner something different, namely, that belief in deities is absent from his worldview.

It requires no hypothesizing.

Beatrice comes over to see Skippy and Melissa, and says, "Hey, if you eat kiwi fruit every day, you can increase your IQ. What do you think of that?" Skippy says, "I don't believe that." Melissa says, ""I don't believe that." Skippy is being a literalist again, taking the position that the effect of a daily kiwi ritual is not part of his world view. He makes no hypothesis. Melissa, the colloquialist, is saying that Beatrice is wrong. She makes a hypothesis.

A proper atheist (in my opinion) makes no hypothesis concerning deities. The belief, one way or the other, is simply absent. Ask the atheist, "Do gods exist?" and he should say. "Beats me." It's the only intellectually consistent response. If an atheist says, "Gods do not exist," he puts himself into the position of having to prove the assertion, which he can't. From a logical standpoint, I think strong atheists are as misguided as believers. If the atheist says, "I doubt that gods exist," then you have the start of long, long conversation (argument), if that doubt is founded upon anything substantive.

Likewise, if a person of faith says, "Gods do exist," I say, "How do you know?" If someone struggling with their faith says, "I'm pretty sure that gods exist," I say, "Based on what?" and there's another argument.

Only the rational atheist, as opposed to a strong atheist, is freed from having to prove or justify his position. But it's not just convenience. It's the only sensible position ... as far as I know.

Likewise, if a person of faith says, "Gods do exist," I say, "How do you know?" If someone struggling with their faith says, "I'm pretty sure that gods exist," I say, "Based on what?" and there's another argument.

what if a person of Faith answers, "I don't. I just believe based on my subjective experience."

Then, does the Faithist still have a burden of proof?

also, duane, by your definition, it is possible to distinguish a strong faithist from a rational faithist.

Henceforth, we could deduce that rational faithists and rational atheists are more congruous in principle than the "strong" of both philosophies.

Ask the atheist, "Do gods exist?" and he should say. "Beats me." It's the only intellectually consistent response.

Then I think we have another semantics problem. Because as far as I'm concerned, answering "Beats me" to the question "Do Gods exist?" Is the definition of agnosticism. Because "Beats me" is a colloquial way of saying "I don't know." And there's really no distinction in that regard.

If an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, then his answer to the question "Do Gods exist?" should by any reasonable standard be at least "I don't think so," if not "Absolutely not."

In other words, Duane, I think that your definition of an atheist is most people's definition of an agnostic. "Beats me" is certainly not the same thing as "I don't think so." Not by a long shot.

Duh, who needs a new alias, says:

what if a person of Faith answers, "I don't. I just believe based on my subjective experience."

Let's hear the subjective experiences.

Michael: Because as far as I'm concerned, answering "Beats me" to the question "Do Gods exist?" Is the definition of agnosticism.

I've already pointed out the problem with definitions in #86.

Let me quote myself:

"Part of the problem is with definitions. You can find a definition of atheism that says

'Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.' "

There lies the problem.

But let's at least admit that what this or that is called is not the main thing. It's just us and others trying to establish lines of communication.

"Beats me" is certainly not the same thing as "I don't think so."

Well, yeah. If someone says, "I don't think so," and means "I believe deities do not exist," then there is a need to justify the belief. I mean, if you want strict logical consistency. And I often do.

I'm wondering if being atheist means that you have no concept of spirituality? What is the difference?
It seems that Buddhists believe that a persons belief in god is an attachment, thus illusion. However, they have a very healthy understanding of spirituality.
Any ideas?

Duane, you're right. I should have referred more closely to #86, particularly where you say,

Atheism is simply the absence of belief. Some people call that agnosticism. I think the definitions are fuzzy.

Which largely resolves a lot of the discussion we've been having since. My apologies for not paying more attention the first go-round.

My definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" are a little bit more cut-and-dried than yours, but probably not by a lot. In some respects it is an issue of semantics again, depending on what we mean by "God."

While I've no objective evidence either way, subjectively, it seems like vanity to suppose there's no being in the universe higher than humankind.

However, I am convinced that if there is such a higher being, it has little or nothing in common with the irrational, unjust, and unstable monster described in the Bible.

Michael: However, I am convinced that if there is such a higher being, it has little or nothing in common with the irrational, unjust, and unstable monster described in the Bible.

That seems like a perfectly sensible poisition to me, not just because I agree with it. I can imagine other sensible positions, but I haven't heard any yet.

....

which is a nice segue to Mohjho's #98 ...

Should we only have sensible positions? Or are faith and spirituality, which purport to knowledge of something beyond the senses, beyond logic, beyond rationalism, essential to a person's ... ummm ... actualization?

Mohjho: I'm wondering if being atheist means that you have no concept of spirituality?

What is your concept of spirituality?

Well, Pete, I admire your persistence in sticking with this issue, but I'm afraid that the tangle of suggestion, hope, dream and bullheadedness makes it impossible to deal with. There are two levels of shifting responsibility involved: first, the faithists shift the god-proof responsibility from themselves to others, thus creating the whole idea of "atheism". As if "atheists" are the odd ducks, as if it is their burden to justify themselves. Second, they make it the "atheists" responsibility to prove this or that about themselves, like whether or not they cling to one of those tenuous "belief" systems. It's a good trick if you can get away with it. But it is just a trick.

For myself, post #98 hits it on the head.

Someone asking me: "Do you believe in God?"

is roughly equivalent to the question:

"Does the color red smell like 7+6?"

It is an illogical and meaningless question, asked from a frame of mind which assumes a reality that (to my mindset) doesn't exist.

I've always thought rationalizing belief in God with "proof" does cheapen the concept of faith as a human experience. I seems similar to the question "How do you know your mother loves you?" Sure there is evidence, but really, don't you just *know* (or don't as the case may be)? It's that indescribable feeling - a feeling I've never in my life had about God's existence.

Well anyway... thats what I believe. ;)

So you'll be a faithist then, Aaron?

I seems similar to the question "How do you know your mother loves you?" Sure there is evidence, but really, don't you just *know* (or don't as the case may be)?

I don't know. Perhaps people whose mothers DON'T love them still think they just *know*. Besides--the whole reason we search for evidence on the God issue is because human emotional reactions aren't quite trustworthy.

Excellent stuff.

My favorite quote about the "Atheism is a religion" BS is:

"Atheism is a religion is like not coleecting stamps is a hobby."

--WKW

you guys are talking in circles. It's mildly entertaining to read.

You either believe in God or you don't. It really IS that simple.


also, most Faithists are agnostic by principle. A thinking Faithist will compliantly admit that their is no scientific proof for the object of worship.

A Faithist cannot be scientifically dishonest. I accept and love all science. True science yields truth. Science cannot refute truth or vice versa. It can only disprove false and "religious" doctrine based on assertions on that which can be physically observed.

Science is one of the great tools of God. Science was created by
God. Any man that observes the cosmos is observing the great creation.

But what do I know??? nothing. I never claimed to. I'm not making assertions. I believe that God exists for subjective and emotional reasons.

Oh, and, I like how you guys reword "belief". A "working conclusion" hahaahaha. funny stuff. "working conclusion." nice one.

also: of course Atheism is not a religion. This "defense" against such a claim is just as delusional and strange as anyone who truly believe Atheism is indoctrinated.

Either way, disbelief is belief, even if it IS based on a "lack of evidence." Your "working conclusion" is still a belief.

Why is that hard to understand?

Comment on this comment.

It's not hard to understand, nugget. What doesn't make sense is your implication that any belief at all is a "religious" belief. I never said atheists were nihilists. They just aren't practicing a religion by not believing in god.

What doesn't make sense is your implication that any belief at all is a "religious" belief.

I think you're misreading my post. Most people understand that Atheists are not practicing a "religion" by not believing in God, but they ARE practicing belief. They are practicing a Faith, not a religion. Yes I agree. Now you and Shark must admit that you are Faithists. You DO have Faith. Your "temporary working conclusion" is rooted in a belief or preference for that conclusion versus OTHER conclusions likewise with a lack of evidence.

Atheists hate the word "believe" because:

a) they hate the connotations and stereotypes that flood the mind when it hits the ear. Worst-case generalizations do not aid in your understanding of anything. I'd suggest you pay attention to thinking Faithists, not the crazy ones.

b) they think it does not apply to them.

Agnostics have it right because ANY conclusion, whether it's temporary or working is NOT based on any proof. It's based on a LACK of proof. Therefore you cannot make a conclusion. The rhetoric swallows itself.

more breaking info: I'm an agnostic who just happens to believe in God. An agnostic cannot say for sure whether or not God exists, so I don't, but I will say that I believe in God. There IS a difference.

Pete, you are confused with the semantics here. People say "Atheism is a religion" because atheists typically havn't thought too much about the implications of their often dogmatic assertions. I think you took the stab literally and at face value, so you felt the need to defend your philosophy. This is understandable and I don't blame you. Extremely religious people are guilty of the same thing. They want to prove that God does exist by trying desperately to make him a physical reality. They crave the miraculous to justify their beliefs. In reality, they are sticking it to detractors and possible threats.

Faith is tricky. On the surface it can reek of lackluster philosophy, one that has been ill-conceived and created out of mere convenience. Faith in principle, however, does not negate curiosity. A person with Faith can be just as curious as the most restless atheist objectivist.

Again, the difference is almost too simple. You either believe in God or you do not. You cannot say that you've reached a "temporary working conclusion.." That's a classic oxymoron.

"temporary conclusion" = hardly conclusive.
Case in point. You don't believe in God and that's ok. I do. Physical evidence has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Sorry, Rev. Bill. A newborn out of the womb is not practicing the religion of atheism - he is simply nonreligious. And there's no reason this nonreligiousness can't continue into his adult life.

Indeed, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, not playing hockey is not a sport and not practicing a religion is not a religion.

Nugget, first off, I never said anything about a "temporary working conclusion". You're confusing me with another commenter on this thread.

I don't think most atheists have a problem with the word "belief". To the contrary, since atheism is the belief that there's no god. What many if not most may balk at is the term "faith".

The two cannot be conflated. Faith is a type of belief, but belif is not the same thing as faith. If it is, then the whole concept of religion is meaningless (even to the believers).

If I believe that the Bears will humiliate the Rams on Monday night, is that the same thing as saying that I believe in a supernatural being who created all life and, indeed, all of existence? I hope not, for your sake.

It's also not true that believing in god and not believing in god rest on the same burden of truth. An atheist does not need to resort to supernatural arguments to get to his or her point of belief. The lack of evidence in the existence of god is enough. A religious person may acknowledge that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god but believes nonetheless. That is the definition of faith.

As a person claiming the existence of a supernatural being, the burden is on you to prove that he exists. It's not my job to prove that he doesn't. It's as if I told you