zataxs:

What is atheism?

@KAG, You can be an avid football fan. But not everyone likes football. If someone else does not a fan of soccer is it right to say she a type of of football fan who does not like soccer?
She is simply *not* a fan.

The two - beliefs and football fanaticism - are not necessarily or so easily analogous. That is, your analogy doesn't quite suit the subject.

It is important to remember that being an atheist does not mean you *believe* in evolution. it does not mean you believe in the big bang or that you believe that you must arrive an conclusions based on empirical evidence. No, it simply mean you are an not a christian, muslim, buddhist, or follower of any other religion.

You're right about everything else but your conclusion. There are theists that aren't religious. In the same way, there are religious atheists and atheistic religions. I'll give the examplesI gave previously: Humanism (the religion) and atheistic Buddhism.

Uyi Iredia:

then materialistism and a worldview that is hinged on the fringes of science and technology (i.e it appeals to science as it's adjudicate) >>>

So calling atheism a religion doesn't really change anything? It's just a game of semantics and generalisations, I take it.

you did not deal comprehensively with my essay

I did it the justice it deserved. Was there something I missed that you wanted me to address? I'm also assuming that you agree with everything else I wrote.

@KAG
What you have is not just a problem of definitions but a problem of understanding.
So when we are busy trying to define things for you, you are not getting it because you are not after the dictionary explanation of terms.
That's why you think the analogy of footballers is wrong ha ha ha

So let me clarify this for you and the many religious people out there
1. in the strictest sense of the definitions of these words, atheism is not a religion the same way theism is not a religion. this are properties of a bigger component. the same way red is not a car, it is just the colour of the car. so the assertion being brought forward here is wrong.
2. so let's try to define what these people who call themselves atheists. I think to help you advance your case let's pick an exciting bunch, who we will for now call freethinkers, here are some common things you are likely to find about them.
a) a belief in empirical evidence that are tabled and open for examination like evolution
b) a lack of belief in Gods, god, or any other supernatural thing or being, sitting on top the sky dictating terms. no evidence of such a being exists, therefore this is just a reinforcement of point 1.
c) a good understanding of all major modern religions and a good number of little known or ancient ones. It is well known that atheists tend to spring up as sections of the society get a better understanding of "their" religions.
d) a lack of affinity to cultural practices sometimes intertwined with religion that don't make sense. like believe in existence and need to kill child witches. This really again is in point a.
e) tendency to be irreligious. therefore back to point a.

3. humanism is not a religion. It can be better defined as a view or way of life or philosophy.

4. a religion MUST have the following attributes
a) the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods .e.g. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Jesus, Muhammed
b) Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times e.g. Cross, Mecca, Shroud of Jesus
c) encouragement of feeling like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the presence of the supernatural e.g. Amadioha the snake, holy water, etc
d) communicating to the supernatural, usu, through prayer or other ritual .e.g sacrificing,

There seem to be this desire to justify doing certain things.
maybe you want some false sense of confidence. That hey, we are all in it. We are all practicing religion or something like that.

sadly. not everyone is. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Zataxs, your problem could simply be that you have an unjustifiably narrow understanding of what religion truly means, or what it might mean to describe someone or some action or experience as 'religious'. You need not have such a constricted view of the subject.

Qualifying atheism or certain aspects of atheism to possess some religious stripe, is neither here nor there. It doesn't make much of a difference to me when you realize in the end that there is a world of difference between Theism and Atheism.

actually the right word is broad.
but let's get narrow
the point here is simple atheism is not a religion and that's it, the rest are extras

zataxs:

@KAG
What you have is not just a problem of definitions but a problem of understanding.
So when we are busy trying to define things for you, you are not getting it because you are not after the dictionary explanation of terms.
That's why you think the analogy of footballers is wrong ha ha ha

Really? Perhaps it's more likely that you aren't reading my posts. That's clear based on little facts like you repeating my arguments back to me in different words. And, no, the football analogy is not wrong because of my supposed lack of understanding. It just doesn't make sense when compared to religious beliefs.

So let me clarify this for you and the many religious people out there
1. in the strictest sense of the definitions of these words, atheism is not a religion the same way theism is not a religion. this are properties of a bigger component. the same way red is not a car, it is just the colour of the car. so the assertion being brought forward here is wrong.

Yes, I said as much. Thanks for repeating my earlier point: "atheism is no more a religion than theism." Was I too subtle?

2. so let's try to define what these people who call themselves atheists. I think to help you advance your case let's pick an exciting bunch, who we will for now call freethinkers, here are some common things you are likely to find about them.
a) a belief in empirical evidence that are tabled and open for examination like evolution
b) a lack of belief in Gods, god, or any other supernatural thing or being, sitting on top the sky dictating terms. no evidence of such a being exists, therefore this is just a reinforcement of point 1.
c) a good understanding of all major modern religions and a good number of little known or ancient ones. It is well known that atheists tend to spring up as sections of the society get a better understanding of "their" religions.
d) a lack of affinity to cultural practices sometimes intertwined with religion that don't make sense. like believe in existence and need to kill child witches. This really again is in point a.
e) tendency to be irreligious. therefore back to point a.

Nonsense: the only thing that defines atheists is your point "b". The other points are not necessary for atheism, nor, indeed, are they exclusive to atheists. Before you set out to point out that you haven't said any of those things are necessarily exclusive to atheists, merely, I would advise that you remember your point "b". Further, without really going into anymore trouble than you have to make utterances, I disagree that many atheists necessarily adhere to point "a", have point "c" and do point "d". The reverse is that many theists are defined by those points and are freethinkers in their own rights.

3. humanism is not a religion. It can be better defined as a view or way of life or philosophy.

Religious humanism is a religion. In the same way I disregard Christians who claim Christianity is not a religion, I disregard yours. That the founders of religious humanism called their "way of life" a religion is good enough for me to accept their word over yours.

4. a religion MUST have the following attributes
a) the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods .e.g. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Jesus, Muhammed
b) Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times e.g. Cross, Mecca, Shroud of Jesus
c) encouragement of feeling like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the presence of the supernatural e.g. Amadioha the snake, holy water, etc
d) communicating to the supernatural, usu, through prayer or other ritual .e.g sacrificing,

How don't religious humanism and atheistic Buddhism meet that criteria?

There seem to be this desire to justify doing certain things.
maybe you want some false sense of confidence. That hey, we are all in it. We are all practicing religion or something like that.

sadly. not everyone is. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Good to know. I'll be sure to spread the news. . . and, of course, I must smell said coffee.

[. . .this is old . . .]

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD. (Same with belief . . .)

2) Atheism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God makes it a belief-system.

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion.

imhotep:

[. . .this is old . . .]

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD. (Same with belief . . .)

2) Atheism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God makes it a belief-system.

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion.

I believe purple dinosaurs don't exist in your back garden; therefore, my apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden is my religion. Exciting logic. We must all be religioused out with the amount of things we believe are non-existent.

Look, if the topic is that old, then stop making the same basic mistakes.

KAG:

I believe purple dinosaurs don't exist in your back garden; therefore, my apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden is my religion. Exciting logic. We must all be religioused out with the amount of things we believe are non-existent.

Only . . . we were not talking about dinosaurs. . . remember?

KAG:

Look, if the topic is that old, then stop making the same basic mistakes.

Stick to God. . .don't introduce dinosaurs or unicorns . . .

imhotep:

Only . . . we were not talking about dinosaurs. . . remember?

No, we are talking about inconsitent logic. Actually, that's an understatement.

Stick to God. . .don't introduce dinosaurs or unicorns . . .

Why? Unicorns, gods and purple dinosaurs operate on the same general principle in your illogical syllogism (or what you tried to pass off as one).

KAG:

No, we are talking about inconsitent logic. Actually, that's an understatement.

. . . we are talking about YOUR inconsistent attempt at diversion. . .

KAG:

Why? Unicorns, gods and purple dinosaurs operate on the same general principle in your illogical syllogism (or what you tried to pass off as one).

Not a syllogism. Stick to the God subject and slug it out. You are getting evasive . . .

In my whole life have I heard such flawed logic. wait, This is worse that Noah's ark!

You said, Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion
so what is wrong with KAG's apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden
In fact if that makes you a NOTapurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgardenist


I believe that God has a round head, does that make me a GodHasARoundHeadist hahahahaha

Desperation.

zataxs:

so what is wrong with KAG's a[b]purpledinosaursi[/b]nihmotep'sgarden

Belief systems involving purple dinosaurs are not religions . . .except of course the purple dinosaurs are seen as God/gods.
Like I said, this is diversionary . . .an attempt to chicken out. . .

zataxs:

In my whole life have I heard such flawed logic. wait, This is worse that Noah's ark!

You said, Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion
so what is wrong with KAG's apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden
In fact if that makes you a NOTapurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgardenist


I believe that God has a round head, does that make me a GodHasARoundHeadist hahahahaha

Desperation.

Another Diversionary move. Get yourself out of the corner.
Stop introducing new variables.

The atheist's disbelief in the existence of God CANNOT disprove the existence of God.

The atheist can go on believing [/b]in his [b]disbelief. . .

Just like the theist can go on [b]believing [/b]in his belief in God's existence.

Hahahaha. Tryin to prove that there's no God is like trying to prove a swiss watch created itself from sand. Sand will remain sand even after one billion years. Sand wil never be a swiss watch. How much more nature in all its complexity?
You can quote theories disproving the existence of a Supreme Power from foolish and blind men,men revelling in the utter foolishness,men who think they're wise. One day,when you keep your appointment with the Grim Reaper,wisdom shall come in a great flood,but by then it shall be too late

@imhotep
This is what you said.

imhotep:

[. . .this is old . . .]

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD. (Same with belief . . .)

2) Atheism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God makes it a belief-system.

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion.

This is what KAG is saying.

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD purple dinosaurs in your back garden. (Same with belief . . .)

2) Atheism's Apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgardenism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God purple dinosaurs in your back garden makes it a belief-system.

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden is a religion.

This line of argument is called a reductio ad absurdum. KAG merely followed your's and Uyi line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. This conclusion is basically that any system of beliefs or lack there of qualifies as a religion which is absurd. Whether or not you like the conclusion is another thing, but I think it is fair.

Idehn, very well said.

@Ishilove

Maybe you have not seen an old swiss watch.

if you break your watch and throw the pieces in the gardens.

in 10 years , the iron parts of the watch exposed to the elements will turn to rust, it will blend with the soil and it will not be a watch anymore, its components will blend with the soil and plants may even absord parts of it and you may eat it and crap it. that is just 10 years. time changes a lot.

the bible discourages other wise ideas and other wise thoughts. Because with knowledge comes greater understanding, and new information replaces the old. so it is of course part of religion to despise "wisdom". You are very much in character of what the bible expects you to do.

as regards evolution, this is does not require blind faith to believe. we have observed extinction of animals and plants taking place. and we have seen many organisms that have changed to adapt to their new environments. we have seen man-made DNA actually give rise to life. so please.

to be frank, there is no added value in your argument. the complexity of something does not mean it cannot be formed by simple parts. it does not mean there is a creator, it does not mean there isn't one.

your inference on the stupidity of men, clearly shows your misunderstanding of everything. The bible was printed by men. and read by men and the text is in men's language. to be honest not the most intelligent of men wrote the bible. however, there were still men. there is nothing that can prove that there is anything supernatural about the bible, nothing at all. someone told you to read it, someone told you it is the god's book. There is no escaping the "humaness" of the bible. it has no value without humans. it is for humans and it is by humans. in the end just men. ha hahh

Idehn:

@imhotep
This is what you said.
This is what KAG is saying.

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD purple dinosaurs in your back garden. (Same with belief . . .)

2) Atheism's Apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgardenism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God purple dinosaurs in your back garden makes it a belief-system.

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden is a religion.

This line of argument is called a reductio ad absurdum. KAG merely followed your's and Uyi line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

This is no logical conclusion. IT IS EVASIVENESS. . .

Idehn:

This conclusion is basically that any system of beliefs or lack there of qualifies as a religion which is absurd. Whether or not you like the conclusion is another thing, but I think it is fair.

We were talking about belief in God not "any system of beliefs or lack thereof". KAGs injection of the purple dinosaur is his lame attempt to escape from a tight corner. We can all keep introducing white elephants and blue lions to buttress our points. . . but these will not do justice to the topic of this thread.

Summary ---> KAG should show us clearly how atheism (believing that God does not exist, even if one cannot disprove His existence) as a non-God centric belief system does not have the attributes of a religion. No flying horses, purple dinosaurs or golden owls please . . .

imhotep:

This is no logical conclusion. IT IS EVASIVENESS.  .  .
We were talking about belief in God not "any system of beliefs or lack thereof". KAGs injection of the purple dinosaur is his lame attempt to escape from a tight corner. We can all keep introducing white elephants and blue lions to buttress our points. . . but these will not do justice to the topic of this thread.

Summary ---> KAG should show us clearly how atheism (believing that God does not exist, even if one cannot disprove His existence) as a non-God centric belief system does not have the attributes of a religion. No flying horses, purple dinosaurs or golden owls please . . .

From the general non believer's perspective, the God concept is not something that merits special treatment. For me personally it is a non-concept entirely. Before one can validate any claim a coherent & sufficient definition of what it is being spoken of must be presented. A definition we can use to "know" said concept by and even distinguish it from other things. So far no such definition has been presented about the concept of God in this thread and until someone does so the question of existence is as meaningless as the word God itself. 

At least the concept of purple dinosaur in your back yard has a discernible and coherent definition and can be validated using said definition. I have never once heard a believer of God from any religion present a coherent and/or meaningful definition. They have always resorted using even more nebulous words such as "spirit" and "miracles" which are themselves lacking meaningful definitions. Another action, is equating God as a collection of random/vague concepts with positive connotations such as love, justice, goodness etc,  Or worst still, they have just defined God as not having a definition which is an oxymoron as you cannot define something as not having a definition. But maybe you can change that, I do not know.

Lastly I leave with some definitions of what a religion is from websters since no formal definition has been set forward. Let us just pick any one and see if atheism fits.

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

A necessary book reading for all >>> "Gods Of Management" by Charles B. Handy >>> I do not see how one can read this book and not quickly see how it fits in with my claims for what i believe Atheism as currently spread and practiced is - a religion and an alternate way of living

it still piques me that atheists do not see this >>> furthermore, the atheist world (a world without religion) will surely come up >>> only that it was the Bible before (the so-called) New Atheists ever saw the light of the day.

CAVEAT: The only hint i would give as to where the Bible preempts the death of religion is this: Read the book of Revelations critically

Uyi Iredia:

A necessary book reading for all >>> "Gods Of Management" by Charles B. Handy >>> I do not see how one can read this book and not quickly see how it fits in with my claims for what i believe Atheism as currently spread and practiced is - a religion and an alternate way of living

it still piques me that atheists do not see this >>> furthermore, the atheist world (a world without religion) will surely come up >>> only that it was the Bible before (the so-called) New Atheists ever saw the light of the day.

CAVEAT: The only hint i would give as to where the Bible preempts the death of religion is this: Read the book of Revelations critically

It is because you are essentially attempting to equivocate non-belief or disbelief with belief.

nonbelief(I am not convinced of the Existence of God)  & negative belief belief(God does not exist) =/= positive belief (God Exist)

It is as simple as that. Furthermore, you have not even presented any coherent/meaningful definition of God which makes me wonder what this debate is even about. As I said earlier, talking about "God" is meaningless if one cannot even say what "God" IS. In other words, if you cannot even say "God" is than how meaningful is it to say that a disbelief/non-belief in God is like a disbelief/non-belief in God? For me, the answer is not at all.

after reading the posts on this thread, one thing is very clear.
the bible, jesus, god actively and successfully blocks Christians from reasoning.
what is being discussed here is very simple and it has been broken down and explained to all very well.
But christians here are literally trapped in an endless loop.
literally creating their own definitions for words.

and even besides their flawed arguments and really weak evidence.
it is very clear that christians have no etiquette at all.
they quickly turn to name calling,
they are rude, obnoxious and self-righteous.

who ever was given the impression that christians are meek would be sorely disappointed.

also displaying your lack of knowledge in science. Basic principles that you can just look up from even a 12 grade science book, does not make you win this logical argument.

if you want a logical argument. then let's stick to logic and facts.

Idehn:

It is because you are essentially attempting to equivocate non-belief or disbelief with belief.

nonbelief(I am not convinced of the Existence of God) & negative belief belief(God does not exist) =/= positive belief (God Exist)

Non-belief [/b]in God = [b]Belief [/b]that God does not exist

Idehn:

As I said earlier, talking about "God" is meaningless if one cannot even say what "God" [b]IS. In other words, if you cannot even say "God" is than how meaningful is it to say that a disbelief/non-belief in God is like a disbelief/non-belief in God? For me, the answer is not at all.

Non-belief [/b]in an [b]undefined God = Belief [/b]that an [b]undefined God does not exist

imhotep:

Non-belief [/b]in God =  [b]Belief [/b]that God does not exist
[b]Non-belief [/b]in an [b]undefined God =  Belief [/b]that an [b]undefined  God does not exist

Not necessarily. Children are born with the absence of beliefs. For example they lack the belief in the conservation of energy/matter. However, you would not say they disbelieve the principle. It is simply that they have no conception of the concept. In that way disbelief and non-belief are distinct.

To your second point I believe this would be more appropriate.

Non-belief [/b]in an [b]undefined God =?=  Belief [/b]that an [b]undefined  God does not exist

Without a firm definition of God the relationship between these two statements are indeterminate. Furthermore, I would say in the absence of any definition of God, these distinctions just are not meaningful anyway. Like the child example above, how can you disbelieve something you do not have any conception of? In the same vein, how can you believe something you have no conception of?

imhotep:

[. . .this is old . . .]

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD. (Same with belief . . .)

Ok.

imhotep:

2) Atheism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God makes it a belief-system.

Actually, finding out that someone is an atheist is simply finding out one thing that the person does not believe.

imhotep:

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion.

Even if one were to grant that atheism is a belief system, that does not mean it is a religion. Belief systems are not automatically religions otherwise, it would mean cultures and beliefs about the effectiveness of certain economic systems are religions.

thehomer:

Even if one were to grant that atheism is a belief system, that does not mean it is a religion. Belief systems are not automatically religions otherwise, it would mean cultures and beliefs about the effectiveness of certain economic systems are religions.

All religions are belief systems. But not all belief systems are religions.

It is very easy to derail this thread by widening the scope of our examples.

To get to the root of the matter, we should limit ourselves to the God/no-God issue. . .

Idehn:

Not necessarily. Children are born with the absence of beliefs. For example they lack the belief in the conservation of energy/matter. However, you would not say they disbelieve the principle. It is simply that they have no conception of the concept. In that way disbelief and non-belief are distinct.

We were talking about disbelief, not ignorance.

imhotep:

All religions are belief systems. But not all belief systems are religions.

Ok. But you said atheism was a religion because it was a belief system not the other way around.

imhotep:

It is very easy to derail this thread by widening the scope of our examples.

The thread is on whether or not atheism is a religion. Though I dealt with it on a previous thread here

imhotep:

To get to the root of the matter, we should limit ourselves to the God/no-God issue. . .

If you wish to limit it to that, it's ok. But first, which God are you talking about?

imhotep:

We were talking about disbelief, not ignorance.

I am not sure this is the case. I have asked you to provide a definitions of God and religion and you have yet to do so. As far as the rest of us are concerned we are ignorant of what it is you are talking about when you say  "God" even more so when you say disbelief in God.

imhotep:

All religions are belief systems. But not all belief systems are religions.

It is very easy to derail this thread by widening the scope of our examples.

To get to the root of the matter, we should limit ourselves to the God/no-God issue. . .

This conversation is getting mired by its lack of clarity. You need to provide definitions of what you are talking about when you say "God" and "religion". So far the only justification you have given for calling atheism a religion is that it is a belief system which is not even true. We are not derailing the thread, we are merely using the definition you have thus far provided. If you are saying it is more than a belief system, then it is imperative that you define for us clearly what a religion/God IS . Otherwise, we will not be able to understand what you are saying.

Idehn:

I am not sure this is the case. I have asked you to provide a definitions of God and religion and you have yet to do so. As far as the rest of us are concerned we are ignorant of what it is you are talking about when you say  "God" even more so when you say disbelief in God.

There are many viewpoints (and definitions) on God, from the apophatic [/b]to the [b]cataphatic. It is beyond the scope of this thread to engage these viewpoints.

Idehn:

This conversation is getting mired by its lack of clarity. You need to provide definitions of what you are talking about when you say "God" and "religion". So far the only justification you have given for calling atheism a religion is that it is a belief system which is not even true.

Yes . . . a belief system that is centered on disbelief in God, whom it cannot define.

The atheist exercises faith [/b]in the non-existence of God (i repeat, whom he cannot define).

The atheist practices, almost without knowing, a form of [b]negative theology (a.k.a apophatic) theology.

Apophatic theology is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.

This is lovely to behold. . . For this path eventually leads to God. . .

This may be the reason why many atheists, while professing a disbelief in God, cannot help thinking and talking about God all the time. . .

For instance, check out the number of [b]atheists [/b]that are contribute consistently  to the [b]Religion [/b]section of Nairaland.

Truly, God is great.

imhotep:

There are many viewpoints (and definitions) on God, from the apophatic [/b]to the [b]cataphatic. It is beyond the scope of this thread to engage these viewpoints.

If we're going to talk about whether or not there is a God, we have to first agree on what entity it is that we are speaking about.

imhotep:

Yes . . . a belief system that is centered on disbelief in God, whom it cannot define.

No. In this case, the references are to the Gods as described in the Bible.

imhotep:

The atheist exercises faith [/b]in the non-existence of God (i repeat, whom he cannot define).
The atheist practices, almost without knowing, a form of [b]negative theology (a.k.a apophatic) theology.
Apophatic theology is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.

What other entities or objects do you actually come to know by being defined in the negative?

imhotep:

This is lovely to behold. . . For this path eventually leads to God. . .
This may be the reason why many atheists, while professing a disbelief in God, cannot help thinking and talking about God all the time. . .
For instance, check out the number of [b]atheists [/b]that are contribute consistently  to the [b]Religion [/b]section of Nairaland.
Truly, God is great.

Maybe they comment because of the things that they see religious people doing and have decided to speak out.