So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[AshtonBlack]

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Rejection =/= Belief.

[egbert]

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Rejection =/= Belief.

I don't believe you = I believe you're wrong

[charlou]

I don't believe you = I don't believe you're right


Subtle, but important difference.

[AshtonBlack]

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Rejection =/= Belief.

I don't believe you = I believe you're wrong

Not at all.

I don't believe you = The 'facts' you have asserted do not represent enough evidence to convine me.

[Svartalf]

Technically, you can describe nonbelief as the belief that the rejected thing is worthless/false/inferior...

ProBlem is that if you posit an actual belief, that would have to actually entail that all non believers actually agree on enough points to be able to be regarded as a group, which, beside the fact they reject organized religion, they don't...

ergo, unbelief isn't a crypto belief

Nothing in the definition of religion requires agreement on anything. One person may make a religion of a belief upon a completely different basis than another. In the case of Atheism, the core belief, which is held by all Atheists is "there are no gods." Other details of the belief/practice system simply split the larger group into sects of Atheism. There's Dawkinsianism, and Dennettism, and Myersism and all manner of nuance and difference in belief, but they all hold in common the fundamental belief "there are no gods."

The definition of religion is
a) something that binds a group together
b) a commonality of beliefs and/or practices that gives them an identity, especially as it differenciates them from outsiders

Problem is that the dynamics of atheists show that the definition, neither clause, fails to apply to them. Even when they band together to try and get strength in numbers to resist attacks from religious nuts, they are more fractious than communist trends, and have even less common ground between them.

And again, you posit a core belief, without accounting for the fact that the is no such thing, since there are as many approaches to denying the divine as there are atheists, and the fact that this point fails to bind them together effectively.

Also, "there is no god" is not a proper description. there may be people who hold to that like a chretin to its creed, but others just go "gods have no place in our world", or even "gods are fucktard who don't deserver worship even if they really are out there"

[Svartalf]

Radical acts of violence against corporations and research institutions by ALF, for example...

So all atheists are members of ALF?

So Melmac is home to the Atheist Liberation Front?

[AshtonBlack]

Radical acts of violence against corporations and research institutions by ALF, for example...

So all atheists are members of ALF?

So Melmac is home to the Atheist Liberation Front?

Fuck off, Atheist Liberation Front!... Splitters!

[charlou]

Problem is that the dynamics of atheists show that the definition, neither clause, fails to apply to them. Even when they band together to try and get strength in numbers to resist attacks from religious nuts, they are more fractious than communist trends, and have even less common ground between them.

Well put.

Also, "there is no god" is not a proper description. there may be people who hold to that like a chretin to its creed, but others just go "gods have no place in our world", or even "gods are fucktard who don't deserver worship even if they really are out there"

The bit I've bolded ... I hold that all things are natural, even things we don't know about or can't explain, that there is nothing supernatural, that therefore there is no supernatural entity - no god.

[Robert_S]

I have a strong belief that a red hot poker stuck up my ass would be painful and damaging and I would take great pains, or inflict great pains on others, to avoid it. What's my religion?

[Svartalf]

A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, would it be fair to say that since most atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god thingy because such an entity has not been proven to exist to their satisfaction, they, erm, lack belief? Most atheists do not say "there is no god". Not even Dawkins, whom you like to invoke, says that. They say "I believe it when I see it". No matter how unlikely most atheists regard the existence of a god, there are not many who go to the extent of saying: "There is no god. I know that."

By my definition of god, I know there is no god.





My Adumbledorism is the active "I don't believe dumbledore exists" variety. If dumbledorists want to invoke their belief in dumbledore to infringe on my life I may actively oppose it. Is my Adumbledorism therefore a religion?

Well, I don't. There's just not enough evidence of any being there for me to be assed to kowtow to it... especially since, even assuming there are gods, we have no way of knowing which set should warrant worship.

And if there are people who profess the jedi religion, or want to live like klingons, who can say that Albus dumbledore is fictional? maybe rowling's books are just the Last Great Revealed Truth?

[Svartalf]

I have a strong belief that a red hot poker stuck up my ass would be painful and damaging and I would take great pains, or inflict great pains on others, to avoid it. What's my religion?

thermopokeroproctophobia

[hiyymer]

Atheism and rationalism are not necessarily interconnected. Implict atheists do not have to be rationalists, do they?

No, but they often are. Let me put it this way. I am technically an atheist. I think I understand what gods are and what function they serve in our experience. It is my opinion that life as we live it is irrational. We don't get to choose our motivations. So God told me to do it is a perfectly fine model of the life intention that compels us. It's just that a god is not something that is transparently real to me; no emotional connection. I actually have no desire to make the world a better place, so I am not sure if I have a religion at all. Rationalists generally believe that having good reasons and spurning "superstition" are shoulds. I have no such delusions. Rationality is simply a tool to make nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs or whatever moves you. So do I have a religion? I'd be interested in your opinion.

Do you adhere to your belief set with devotion, as a matter of ethics or conscience?

No. I adhere to what I want. I don't need reasons and I don't need to make other people wrong.

[camoguard]

@Seth, you must have overlooked my posting on Friday. So here's a bump with a link. My post

[Feck]

You are all A-unicornists that must be a religion too but Seth says you have to be Tolerant of me (You Can't PROVE I don't have a magic unicorn)

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, it is in the interest of organized religion to falsely and artificially classify atheists as members of an atheist religion, just so they can lump them together and think of them as just a rival religion, which obviates the need to think about their actual views, or to rethink their own world view in the face of this "abnormal" attitude.

Yes, and there's an "I know you are, but what am I" nyer nyer nyer ness about these kinds of "arguments".

I've always thought it was a weird argument on the part of the theists...it's like they're saying we're as bad as they are....