Atheism: A religion or not?

[craigatron]

That's because atheists 100% do not believe in god. If they did believe in god then they wouldn't be atheist.
If they are not sure whether they believe god exists they are agnostic. Where did you even find this agnostic atheist stuff? It doesn't make sense at all.

[RVictim87]

I think he found this on the bowels of the internet.

Or just dictionary.com:

aˇtheˇist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disˇbeˇlieve: to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

either an atheist who was teased or an atheist that joined a cult like following and is questioning his beliefs.

Growing up, many of my friends were atheists. We took it as a badge of honor. There was no teasing, just many fun philosophical discussions with those of similar and dissimilar points of view.

This being said, given that you're an assistant here, I wouldn't have expected such a rude attack on me though.

That's because atheists 100% do not believe in god. If they did believe in god then they wouldn't be atheist.

The point isn't what is *your* definition of atheism. You have to ask atheists what their definition of atheism is - that's the only way you can ever attempt to understand any significant sociological/philosophical concept. If you can't understand them, you can't classify them. To do so without understanding is rather bigoted and one-sided.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent and outspoken atheists, wouldn't even say that he 100% does not believe in the possibly of God. Dawkins has his own 1-10 scale, but his is a 1-7 (one being a strong theist, seven being a strong atheist). He classifies himself as a 6 - a de facto atheist.

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

So, to think that atheists believe 100% that there is no such thing as the potential for a god is to be 100% inaccurate in your definition. This is not how atheists define atheism.

[craigatron]

severine already cleared this up I think but she has a tendency to say lot's of stuff, so I'll simplify.

*ahem*

Or just dictionary.com:

aˇtheˇist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disˇbeˇlieve: to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

yes, that is an atheist. Someone who does not believe in god.

And as we know an agnostic would be unsure if there is a god or not.

now.....

The point isn't what is *your* definition of atheism. You have to ask atheists what their definition of atheism is - that's the only way you can ever attempt to understand any significant sociological/philosophical concept. If you can't understand them, you can't classify them. To do so without understanding is rather bigoted and one-sided.

*My* definition of an atheist is......

Or just dictionary.com:

aˇtheˇist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disˇbeˇlieve: to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

as you can see once again it clearly states that an atheist is someone who does not believe in god.

So, to think that atheists believe 100% that there is no such thing as the potential for a god is to be 100% inaccurate in your definition. This is not how atheists define atheism.

These people you describe would be more accurately termed agnostic if they believe there might be a god because.....

Or just dictionary.com:

aˇtheˇist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disˇbeˇlieve: to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent and outspoken atheists, wouldn't even say that he 100% does not believe in the possibly of God. Dawkins has his own 1-10 scale, but his is a 1-7 (one being a strong theist, seven being a strong atheist). He classifies himself as a 6 - a de facto atheist.

Richard Dawkins may be 'outspoken' and I must admit from that word I am already dubious. I know not who he is, but from your brief description of him I would say he sounds a lot like he is agnostic but would like the label and to be heard.
I say he is agnostic because you say he says he is not sure about the existence of god and, as we well know

Or just dictionary.com:

aˇtheˇist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
disˇbeˇlieve: to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

[Shine]

Richard Dawkins may be 'outspoken' and I must admit from that word I am already dubious. I know not who he is....

Wait. Really? I'm honestly suprised you're not familiar with the name. O_O

Anyway... Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who can sometimes be found at ground zero of the fight over wiether or not creationism should be taught in school. Thus his reputation for being "outspoken". As a scientist what he knows is based on things that can be observed/tested ect. I think that it is reasonable to state that this serves as the basis for his atheism. If hard evidence of a great creator showed up then his position would have to reevaluated.

Otherwise blind devotion to something would make his disbelief a belife... and at that point a religion.

RVictim87:
"Growing up, many of my friends were atheists. We took it as a badge of honor."

Braver than me. Unless evolution comes up I keep my mouth shut on my opinion of the Judeo-Christian god.

[craigatron]

just went and checked him out, yes, turns out I am aware of who he is and some of the stuff he has done. I now know a little more about him having read.
I stand by my statements about him. If he is an 'outspoken atheist' and stands up and shouts, more people will buy his books. If he is unsure on whether god exists he is agnostic.

[Shine]

I knew you must have some idea. Craigatron is on my list of intelligent informed Alers.

For the sake of argument (and that is what we are here for isn't it?) I propose that there is a difference between stating that you are unsure if there is a god, and stating that you cannot say for an absolute fact that there is not a god because there is still so much we don't know about the observable world.

[Blah]

Otherwise blind devotion to something would make his disbelief a belife... and at that point a religion.

umm no. Having a belief does not equal a religion.

Athiests disbelief in god is in and of itself a belief. You believe in something despite having no evidence to support the belief, once you have evidence, you no longer believe, you just know it to be true. Athiests believe despite no evidence proving that god doesn't exist, that he doesn't exist, in the same way that thiests believe he does exist despite the lack of evidence there as well. Agnostic is the only one of the 3 that uses no belief as they openly state there may or may not be a god, we can't know from evidence we have, so I choose to not discount either.

On another note, within the term of agnostic there is still wiggle room, because you can lean one way or the other, but yet again that becomes a belief. "I don't know if there is a god or not because of the complete lack of evidence in either direction, but because of the complete lack of evidence, I tend to believe that there is a very low probability of there being a god, or there would be at least some evidence of existance."

[Shine]

Athiests believe despite no evidence proving that god doesn't exist, that he doesn't exist, in the same way that thiests believe he does exist despite the lack of evidence there as well.

The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies.

If I start a cult those that don't sign up are not making a decision not to believe despite lack of evidence that proves I'm wrong. They believe I'm nuts based on the fact that I can't provide quantifiable evidence that I am not.

[craigatron]

I knew you must have some idea. Craigatron is on my list of intelligent informed Alers.

For the sake of argument (and that is what we are here for isn't it?) I propose that there is a difference between stating that you are unsure if there is a god, and stating that you cannot say for an absolute fact that there is not a god because there is still so much we don't know about the observable world.

Why thank you very much :-)

I agree with what you say there, it's intellegent and rational to be open to accept an idea if you are proven wrong and you cannot be certain it's true. However, an intellegent a reasoned atheist would not say there 'might be a god.' They would say 'there is no god, but, if I'm proven wrong I'll hold my hands up and admit I was a fool.'. I don't think that is the same as saying there might be a god or that they believe in one.
er, thats mostly just what you said in a slightly different way....

Oh, your cult point is quite interesting. It's not as much a statement as it is not getting involved. I literally just crawled out of bed (well Im still in it) and I can't find the words yet...
But that is a difference. A religious type would be unwavering and unaccepting of the possibility that there might not be a God and unreligious atheist is willing to be proven wrong.
I suppose not all theists are religious when you think about it. There is no reason you would have to follow any religion just be cause you believe there is some form of creator. I mean, some theists that believe in a god of sorts might be willing to accept there is a potential they might be wrong.

[Blah]

The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies.

If I start a cult those that don't sign up are not making a decision not to believe despite lack of evidence that proves I'm wrong. They believe I'm nuts based on the fact that I can't provide quantifiable evidence that I am not.

True, the one making the affirmation has burden of proof, unfortunetly we don't live in a world where people can claim ignorance of religion anymore, and while there isn't any concrete evidence of a diety it has been the dominant view for over 2000 years. I wasn't claiming their belief was on the same level, just that they were both beliefs. The statements "I believe there is a god" and "I don't believe their is a god" are both beliefs, one flies in the face of the complete lack of evidence, the other flies in the face of billions of peoples shared belief that has held for a long time

[VaanDiablo]

Atheism lacks a couple of important characteristics that would make it a religion, one we do not have faith (which is required by every religion) and two, we not hold a set of beliefs or structure.

Our one belief is that we do not believe there's any supernatural figure in the sky that magically controls people's destines and unless you have prove regarding that supernatural figure actually existing, we'll continue to deny his existence.

Faith, a set of beliefs and structure are important factors within any religion and we lack these three factors that would make us a religion and because of that, we don't fit in those categories.

Our one belief is that we do not believe there's any supernatural figure in the sky that magically controls people's destines and unless you have prove regarding that supernatural figure actually existing, we'll continue to deny his existence.

On a different note.

I said it (by "it" I mean beliefs) plural because I was unsure on wether or not to distinguish between higher powers and "God". Now, I could argue that by the fact you're calling "God" "him" you're sort of accepting the realisation of "God" through the use of giving "God" a physical attribute such as a gender, but I'm not going to because it's full of personal holes and will probably viewed with distaste anyway, therefore making all of anyones rebuttals entirely redundant to me. By me saying that, people can and probably will think "Then what's the point of you saying it, hurr durr?" and I'll be content in knowing the answer is "To waste your time, derp."

But!!!!!... Irrelevant to my time-wasting activities I'll just ask you this; Atheists lack faith? So you don't have any faith in your assumptions of there being no "God"s nor higher powers being true? If you don't have the faith that your beliefs are correct then you don't have those beliefs at all - you're a poser.

The statements "I believe there is a god" and "I don't believe their is a god" are both beliefs, one flies in the face of the complete lack of evidence, the other flies in the face of billions of peoples shared belief that has held for a long time

"lack of evidence" swings both ways, don't forget. Nobody on the internet has proof of me shoving my hands down my pants and tearing off my bear-cock with a manly roar at some nearby butch lesbians, but that absence of proof also means you lack the means to say it's untrue.

No proof for, nor against.

[Whitefox]

I believe this topic has run its course and is mostly circular discussion at this point

I judge it completed and will move it to that subforum for prosperity