Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

[lixluke]

If you prefer the term godless for those who do not believe in god(s) and the term atheist for those who assert that no god(s) exist I'm fine with that.

Why would I ever want to consider people who lack the belief in God as Godless when the WHOLE PURPOSE of pointing out correct definitions is to prevent that from happening? To prevent people with a lack of belief to be associated with being Godless. Did you even read my last response? The ENTIRE post was about nothing other than preventing people who 'lack a belief' form being associated with Godlessness. The word atheism's association with "Godlessness" is the WHOLE REASON why people should stop refering to the lack of belief as "atheism". Otherwise, who cares?

That theism, just like atheism, isn't a mere lack of belief. If somebody were to try to mix theism in with lack of belief that there is no God, I would see them in the same way as people who try to mix atheim in with the lack of belief that there is a God. I'm not going to deny that theism is a lack of belief that there is no God. Just like I'm not going to deny that atheism a lack of belief that there is a God. But both are more than mere lack of belief of something.

So it's not about being rigorous. I'm seeing a thread FULL of people posting "No! Atheism is not a religion! It's a lack of belief in God!". That's like going around telling people that "Theism is a lack of belief that there is no God." It's not about being "rigorous" per say. That's the same thing as saying somebody posting in a thread to tell others that 'atheism isn't a religion' is being rigorous.

The term itself, no matter how we define it, is going to get associated with Godlessness. The issue regarding the misuse of the term stems from people trying to apply Godlessness to themselves while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that they believe there is no God. They say nonsense like:
"It's not that I believe there is no God. It's that I simply lack the belief that there is a God. Yet I still want to be known as atheist."

So here we have somebody who claims to lack the belief in God. As well as claims to lack the belief that there is no God. A person who is truly undecided or apathetic about the matter is just as much 'with God' as he is 'without God'. Yet the only reason he would want to refer to himself as 'atheist" is because he wants to be considered Godless (associated with Godlesslness). The fact is this person isn't undecided on the matter. He really does believe that there is no God.

There is NO OTHER problem with the misuse of terminology than people who want to be associated with Godlessness while at the same time refusing to claim that there is no such thing as God. Those who lack the belief are nether with God or Godless.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Those who lack the belief are nether with God or Godless.

What arrant nonsense.
Maybe you should look up the definition of the word "lack": a deficiency or absence.
Anyone who lacks something is without that something.

 

[lixluke]

What arrant nonsense.
Maybe you should look up the definition of the word "lack": a deficiency or absence.
Anyone who lacks something is without that something.

Yes. And that was explained clearly.

 

[tfrxsis]

A person who is truly undecided or apathetic about the matter is just as much 'with God' as he is 'without God'.

I believe I understand what the confusion is.

If we frame 'belief' as a statement of probability on a binary question of God's existence:

• lixluke is of the opinion that an agnostic has assigned even odds on the existence of god.
• Contrary positions (drawing apon James R and Raithere, who voiced their opinions here most concisely) seem to agree that people who do not assign odds are agnostic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes. And that was explained clearly.

But incorrectly:

Those who lack the belief are nether with God or Godless.

Wrong: they're godless.
Since they lack the belief they lack god.
It's that simple.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

A-sexual signifies 'without' gender just as A-theism signifies without diety.

You're half right, got the "A" bit right, but you dont know what the word Theism means.

it is stictly defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (check your dictionary)

so A-theism - to use the strict dictionary definition of the word - means:

"without beleif in the existence of a god or gods"

There is no 'A' that is used to described somebody that doesn't believe in something. It's absurd to do so. All 'isms' are a belief.

no doubt given the previous proof you will retract the above statement.

 

[lixluke]

You're half right, got the "A" bit right, but you dont know what the word Theism means.

it is stictly defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (check your dictionary)

so A-theism - to use the strict dictionary definition of the word - means:

"without beleif in the existence of a god or gods"



no doubt given the previous proof you will retract the above statement.

We have been over this a hundred billion times, and here it is again. Then people wonder why we make such a big deal out of it. Over and over again, people pop in with this whole "without belief" idea.

Atheism is NOT without belief.
Somebody who IS without belief is not WITH belief.
Somebody who is Godless is not without belief.
In order to be Godless, you must be WITH belief.
Atheism = Without God (Godless).
Theism = With God.

Those who are neither are neither. Stop trying to impose Godlessness on people who are not Godless (Atheist).

 

[Dywyddyr]

We have been over this a hundred billion times

Correct.
And you're STILL ignoring the evidence that says you're wrong.

Atheism is NOT without belief.

It can be, as shown many times in this thread.

Somebody who is Godless is not without belief.

With no belief you have no god.

 

[lixluke]

With no belief you have no god.

That's like saying with no belief, you have a God. In order to have no God, there must be a belief. If you don't have the belief, then you're just as much Godless as you are with God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That's like saying with no belief, you have a God.

I see you have problems with English.
No belief (in god) = no god.
The same way no money = no money.

In order to have no God, there must be a belief.

How can you have a god if you have no belief in his/ her/ its existence?

If you don't have the belief, then you're just as much Godless as you are with God.

So if you have no money you're just as rich as you are with a million pounds?

A lack (of belief in this case) is a deficiency, an absence.
An absence means it isn't there.

 

[lixluke]

How can you have a god if you have no belief in his/ her/ its existence?

Claiming that atheism is a lack of belief is just as absurd as claiming theism is a lack of belief. If atheism is not a lack of belief, then those who lack belief aren't Godless.

 

[Doreen]

Just to mess it up further: one who does not believe in God might have a God anyway. The existence of things is not (always) dependent on belief.

Unless God is like Tinkerbell.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Claiming that atheism is a lack of belief is just as absurd as claiming theism is a lack of belief.

You have already been linked to sources, and given quotes, to show that atheism INCLUDES the position of lacking belief.
And before you start your usual rant about Infidels (or whatever it's called: you can't seem to make your mind up on the spelling) the link and quote I gave dates back to the early 1940s, comfortably pre-internet and pre-infidels.

If atheism is not a lack of belief, then those who lack belief aren't Godless.

Which doesn't relate to this -

Those who lack the belief are nether with God or Godless.

Those who lack belief lack god.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Just to mess it up further: one who does not believe in God might have a God anyway. The existence of things is not (always) dependent on belief.
Unless God is like Tinkerbell.

They have god but they're totally unaware of it?
Like you could have cancer but not know/ believe it?

 

[Doreen]

They have god but they're totally unaware of it?
Like you could have cancer but not know/ believe it?

Sure. The latter is quite possible. I hope that wasn't meant to show how silly the idea is. Sometimes they find cancer on the autopsy table in people who died of something else. Or perhaps you were just enjoying the God is like cancer similie.

 

[lixluke]

Just to mess it up further: one who does not believe in God might have a God anyway. The existence of things is not (always) dependent on belief.

Unless God is like Tinkerbell.

That's not what we're talking about. If there is God or no God, there is nothing anybody's belief can do about it.

What we are talking about is completely different. "With God" simply means the belief that the universe is with God. "Godless" simply means the belief that the universe is without God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

"Godless" simply means the belief that the universe is without God.

Or simply NOT believing (i.e. lacking the belief) that the universe is with god.

 

[Raithere]

Those who lack the belief are nether with God or Godless.

You seem to be confusing a lack of belief in god's existence with a lack of belief about god.

No matter how much you holler and repeat yourself the fact remains that the term atheist does (and always has) included "disbelief in god(s)".

In general use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
By those seeking religious tolerance and understanding: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
In philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
By people calling themselves Atheists: http://www.atheists.org/Agnosticism:_The_Basis_for_Atheism
By the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

~Raithere

 

[synthesizer-patel]

We have been over this a hundred billion times, and here it is again. Then people wonder why we make such a big deal out of it. Over and over again, people pop in with this whole "without belief" idea.

Atheism is NOT without belief.

depends how you mean.

Belief is defined as the acceptance of a premise or principle that has no immediate proof or evidence.

Most atheists reject religion and/or the existence of god because it is a premise that lacks any immediate proof or evidence - or because they find the factual standpoint that nature runs on natural laws and processes preferable to a non-factual explanation of nature.

So to say that atheists "believe" god does not exist is an oxymoron - there is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore to reject the god hypothesis on that basis does not fit the definition of a belief.

Atheism is therefore a lack of belief - or an alternative TO belief - but it is most certainly not an alternative belief.

QED

That is not to say that that all atheists are lacking in any beliefs - they may have many - but there is no obligate connection to atheism with say a belief in UFOs, extraterrestrial life, or homeopathy.

Somebody who IS without belief is not WITH belief.

that doesnt make any sense

Somebody who is Godless is not without belief.

That may be correct in some cases - but godlessness is not the same as atheism.

Atheism = Without God (Godless).

It has been conclusively proven that this is an incorrect definition of atheism - therefore any conclusions that result from it are null and void - any further arguments based upon this faulty premise can be safely ignored.

 

[lixluke]

depends how you mean.

Belief is defined as the acceptance of a premise or principle that has no immediate proof or evidence.

Most atheists reject religion and/or the existence of god because it is a premise that lacks any immediate proof or evidence - or because they find the factual standpoint that nature runs on natural laws and processes preferable to a non-factual explanation of nature.

So to say that atheists "believe" god does not exist is an oxymoron - there is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore to reject the god hypothesis on that basis does not fit the definition of a belief.

Atheism is therefore a lack of belief - or an alternative TO belief - but it is most certainly not an alternative belief.

QED

That is not to say that that all atheists are lacking in any beliefs - they may have many - but there is no obligate connection to atheism with say a belief in UFOs, extraterrestrial life, or homeopathy.



that doesnt make any sense



That may be correct in some cases - but godlessness is not the same as atheism.



It has been conclusively proven that this is an incorrect definition of atheism - therefore any conclusions that result from it are null and void - any further arguments based upon this faulty premise can be safely ignored.

Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is a belief. To define atheism as a lack of belief is incorrect. This has already been discussed comprehensively many many many many times.

You seem to be confusing a lack of belief in god's existence with a lack of belief about god.

No matter how much you holler and repeat yourself the fact remains that the term atheist does (and always has) included "disbelief in god(s)".

Yes disbelief. Not lack of belief. Atheism is the antithesis of thesim. It involves those who believe there is no God. People who lack the belief in God or about God are not atheists unless they also believe there is no God. Those who believe there is no God consider the universe to be Godless.

Those who lack the belief do not, by necessity, consider the universe as Godless. It is nonsensical and completely pointless to define them as atheists or Godless.