Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

Only if you practise it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What "it" would there be, to practice?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems to me that you've tied yourself into semantic knots here and I'm unsure of how to help you untie them. First of I'll I'd suggest dropping the "with God" and "Godless" terms. They add nothing towards understanding the subject and only make things more confusing.

Secondly, regarding your statements here it might be helpful to point out that unless has a positive belief in god(s) existence, one is necessarily lacking a positive belief in god(s) existence. This, despite whatever additional refinement to the classifications you may wish to add to it, puts Atheists in the same group as all other non-theists.

So the question then becomes; Are all non-theists atheists?

You position seems to be; No, that there are non-theists that also do not possess the belief that god does not exist. In this we agree. There are both supernatural/metaphysical beliefs that do not entail gods and those who take the Agnostic position...

Technically, agnosticism is an epistemological position rather than a belief about gods' existence. It's often used as a middle course between theism and atheism but it's not really a belief about the existence of god(s), only about whether or not one does know or can know about god(s). The position of both Hume and Kant was that god (and indeed the answer to all metaphysical questions) was unknowable. Thus the purely agnostic position is really the suspension of judgment about the question of god's existence.

This changes the question. Because now we must ask whether or not all Agnostics are true agnostics in a suspension of belief. I can quickly point out that this is false, in referring to agnostic Theists who believe in god(s) existence without claiming to having positive knowledge of god(s) existence. In fact, it's a tenet of Christianity that one believes in god through faith rather than reason or knowledge (yes I know different sects interpret this differently, let it suffice that some believe it explicitly).

What you seem to keep missing though is that there are also agnostic Atheists who, rather than believing in god despite a lack of knowledge about gods' existence, take the logical position of not believing in god because of a lack of knowledge about gods' existence. For further clarification this can be contrasted against the strong Atheistic position which is that god(s) categorically do not exist.

Note that this is logically equivalent to not believing there are any naturally purple geese. While there could conceivably be such a thing as a purple goose, no one has ever seen one or shown any evidence of such a creature. It is therefore illogical to believe that purple geese exist until and unless one or convincing evidence of one is brought forth. But this is not the same as making the assertion that purple geese cannot, never have, and never will exist.

Taken in light of theists' astoundingly broad and mercurial definitions for god and humanity's limited scope of knowledge it is a rather practical and logical atheistic position to simply assert a lack of belief in god. It is also most correct as it is the most inclusive... all atheists lack a belief in god, some just go one further an assert god's nonexistence.

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no such thing as agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. At least in the realm of proper standard usage. They are contradictory uses of terminology. Theism and atheism are beliefs because they are definitive positions. Agnosticism is a definitive position that one cannot possess a definitive position on the existence of God.

It is correct that atheism does not include everybody who doesn't abide by theism. But the whole point boils down to using terminology to impose Godlessness on all non-theists. This is simply not acceptable.

Say you don't claim any definitive conclusion that there is no God. Perhaps you lean towards that side without claiming any belief (definitive conclusion). You might call yourself atheist/Godless or even agnostic. You might call yourself agnostic-atheist. That's fine. But in all seriousness, that terminology doesn't exist in proper standard usage. There is actually no standard terminology for that type of claim. Why? Because your not actually taking a definitive position regarding the existence of a deity. Essentially, you're an agnostic period who leans towards atheism. As for Godlessness, you might lean towards it, but as long as you hold onto your agnostic position, that is all you're doing. You are not taking the position that the universe is indeed Godless.

 

Most of the well-known writers and intellectuals who call themselves, and are called by others, "atheist", do not fit your definition of atheist.

The standard way most people use the word "atheist" is to refer to someone like Richard Dawkins, who does not claim to know, for sure, that there is no god of any kind anywhere. His lack of belief in a god is not a definite position, in other words.

Many people also use the word to refer to people whose religion lack deity - some Buddhists, most famously, but many others as well. They call these atheistic religions, and their believers atheists. You appear to want to call them "non-theists", but that is not a word in common or standard use. And it seems a strange word for, say, the schools of Buddhism that declare all human ideas illusions - the idea of a deity along with all the rest. They disbelieve in human knowledge, perception, thought, etc - is that the same as disbelieving in god?

 

Lix may simply not have the willingness or mental faculties to understand the distinction at this point in time. You can't make him understand.

 

"If atheism is a faith, then not playing chess is a hobby."

-- New Scientist, 2589:21, 3 February 2007

 

That's an odd conclusion Ice.
Dawkins lack of beleif in God is most certainly a definite position - it is his position of the existence of god that is not definite (although he does conclude that he finds it highly unlikely.

Again this disproves Laxluke's pretence that Atheist = Godless (at least as far as Dawkins goes).
Dawkins concedes that - unlikely as it is - there may be a god - therefore he may not be godless - however dawkins still chooses not to beleive in god.

Ergo, Atheist does not necessarily equal godless for everyone's favourite celebrity atheist - but instead means lacking beleif in god

Once again......QED

Three words come to mind

Game

Set

Match

 

Ask them:

http://www.atheists.org/

I have no clue what a club for people who don't collect stamps does.

 

Of course it's not the same. Non-theism is just a way of refering to anybody that isn't a theist. It's not a word like atheism or theism. Once again, there is no term for somebody who doesn't have a belief. Anybody that simply lacks a belief in anything aren't labeled. There is no reason to label them. All you're doing is reiterating something that we already went over as if it's something brand new.

Please review Athe-ism thread describing proper derivation of 'a' and 'ism' in 'atheism'.

Then check the LIST of the various categorizations of people who are labeled because they have a belief.

Everybody lacks a belief in something. If you simply don't believe in a particular idea without necessarily beleiving in its antithesis, you're not going to be labeled.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist because he beleives there is no God. Pretty much most of the people running around claiming that they don't necessarily believe there is no God yet wanting to call themselves atheist (belief that the universe is Godless) actually believes there is no God.

Why else would they want to call themselves atheist/Godless? Because they beleive there is no such thing as God. The real question as posed in many threads is: Why do people who believe there is no God want to claim that they don't believe there is no God?

If you were to present something to me that I consider to be fake, I'm not going to say 'I lack the belief'. If you were to tell me there was a vampire in my closet, I would say there isn't. I'm not going to say that I lack the belief that there is a vampire in my closet. So what's the deal with these atheists who want to be called atheists because they are atheists (people who believe there is no God), but trying to act like they lack the belief that there is no God.

It's because they are religious. They follow the garbage on infedels.org religiously. The religious aspects of atheism are the self-righteousness, the hatred of anything that has to do with religion, imposing the doctrine of infedels.org, usage of terms such as strong/weak atheism, associating atheism with science, blaming religion for war, etc.

When is atheism not religious? When somebody simply states that there is no God, and doesn't act like a jackass about it.

 

Pure crap.

 

An astute observation.
I suspect it's more the latter than the former, but given his myopically vehement posts, it's difficult to decide.

 

OK. So why then would somebody "claiming" that they don't believe "there is no such thing as God" want to be labeled under the idea that there is no God (atheism/Godless)? Maybe it's because they really do believe there is no God, but want to convince themselves that they don't? Perhaps they are also running around convinced that they are Elvis Parsley?

 

One more time: atheist does NOT exclusively mean "believing there is no god" it ALSO includes "not believing".
As has been pointed out to you, with links and quotes.
I see you're back to persistent trolling.

 

Point.

I blame lack of sleep.

I don't see any religious practice there - what am I supposed to ask them about?

Organize for the common defense,

if there were numerous and powerful organizations of stamp collectors threatening and abusing people in the name of stamps over the years, arranging the world for the convenience and benefit of stamp collectors at everyone's expense, etc.

 

Links to bootleg dictionaries and Wikipedia don't count.

 

Meh! happens to the best of us

You set me up nicely for yet another crushing take-down of laxluke's increasingly pathetic and desperate attempts to defend the indefensible.

he's posted since but I really couldnt be bothered to read it because I'm already pretty certain what it says (something like waaaa! waaaaa! waaaaaa! right?) - has he posted anything new or just regurgitated the same tired old bullshit?

 

What does count? The way the term is used by native speakers?

 

The fact that if you don't believe that X is true or X is false, then you cannot be labeled under either. You cannot label somebody as with God or Godless when they are neither. All that is going on is atheists trying categorize people who don't possess that belief with those who do. They are not Godless. They don't consider the universe to be without God.

 

Ahh to live in such a dichotomous world.