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

[Svartalf]

You can try to take hitler and stalin in a three way match, want the steel chair?

[Svartalf]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

and a guy who never had to reject a formerly held belief because he came across with the concept of gods, and that concept had so little merit it got rejected. where do you classify that?

Also, where do you place people who do not necessarily reject the existence of your god, but definitely state that if it exists, it is not to be worshipped, except maybe by masochistic jews?

[Svartalf]

You should work on your person problems then.

So should you...

I have pompous well under control. Your turn.

Well, you still have data retention up when it's a team effort.

[Svartalf]

n the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion

legal treatment has nothing to do with the real nature of things

or there would be no such thing as adhesion contracts where one party writes the contract and the other's only negociation and input is whether to sign it or not.

[egbert]

It's semantics. You are saying rejection of beliefs constitutes its own belief, others are saying it doesn't. You aren't going to convince anyone and they aren't going to convince you. Then again I suppose that's how most these discussions go

[Svartalf]

No, it's not. It's a philosophy. Religions have rituals, dieties, leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights.

It's neither a religion, nor a philosophy.

Atheism is the belief that there are not gods, or the lack of any belief in any gods, or at least the position that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that any gods exist. No philosophical position is necessitated by atheism - one may be a nihilist, objectivist, existentialist, Epicurean, or whatever, and still be an atheist.

There is no philosophy of atheism.

But atheism may be practiced as a religion, and often is.

and religion is often practiced by morons who haven't the most basic understanding about what they are subscribing to... anything meaningful to add?

[Seth]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

and a guy who never had to reject a formerly held belief because he came across with the concept of gods, and that concept had so little merit it got rejected. where do you classify that?

Doesn't matter how long you entertain the notion, once you've become informed of a theistic notion or concept, and you form a belief about that theistic notion or concept based on analysis of the information you have gained, the belief exists and a religion may be built around that belief.

Also, where do you place people who do not necessarily reject the existence of your god, but definitely state that if it exists, it is not to be worshipped, except maybe by masochistic jews?

That's positive anti-theistic belief, and it produces the same result.

A religion may be constructed around ANY belief because it is HOW you practice what you believe that determines whether it's a religion or not.

Environmentalism, for example, is a religion.

[AshtonBlack]

Atheism is nothing more than an idea about the existence of deities.

Correct. It's a belief. And holding a belief is an essential predicate to engaging in religion. It is how you go about observing that belief that determines whether you are doing so religiously or not.

Despite being atheist I do not practice any rituals attributable to atheism--I simply am not convinced of the existence of a deity. That's all. I think my level of apathy regarding the possibility of a deity negates atheism being any kind of practice on my part, and therefor in no way can I be considered religious or practicing a religion--there are some remnants of catholicism in my psychology that I am happy enough to allow to continue to exist. But, I don't practice Catholicism either--ergo I am not religious in that regard.

Then you may not be a religious Atheist, but merely an atheist.

proof that atheism is not a religion.

me, I'm waiting to get any reliable data on deities before I start believing in anything. I regard it a agnosticism (not knowing), but for all practical purposes, the differences with atheism are negligible, except I deem atheists make a leap of faith I know better than to meddle with.

I consider myself to be a de facto atheist. I live my life like there is no god, however I still remain open to the possibility, but only with evidenced based rationality. Technically agnostic, true, but none of that is any way religious.

[Svartalf]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

and a guy who never had to reject a formerly held belief because he came across with the concept of gods, and that concept had so little merit it got rejected. where do you classify that?

Doesn't matter how long you entertain the notion, once you've become informed of a theistic notion or concept, and you form a belief about that theistic notion or concept based on analysis of the information you have gained, the belief exists and a religion may be built around that belief.

Also, where do you place people who do not necessarily reject the existence of your god, but definitely state that if it exists, it is not to be worshipped, except maybe by masochistic jews?

That's positive anti-theistic belief, and it produces the same result.

A religion may be constructed around ANY belief because it is HOW you practice what you believe that determines whether it's a religion or not.

Environmentalism, for example, is a religion.

wrong. rational analysis of the stuff behind theistic belief leading to rejection of that belief is not a religion per se, unless you've got a group who'll feel united by that commonality
also, define anti theistic? the jewish god never stated anybody else was to worship it, and given that OT shows abundantly it is the nastiest bastard in its own creation, I don't see what kind of sane being would actually worship that.
but there's no proof of it not existing (though no proof the other way either and no need to factor its existence in daily life either)

[Svartalf]

Don't demean yourself that way Gawzilla, we still like you even though you are a

Lame Seth is lame. Why do you bother? You talk all day long and say nothing, and then applaud yourself, thinking you're a wit. You're half right.

Perhaps, but that's still 100 percent more wit than you demonstrate.

demonstrate? you realize nothing can be demonstrated in matters of faith, right? either you believe, or not.
and honestly, between zilla and you are the one most wingnutty of the two

[Seth]

A religion may be constructed around ANY belief because it is HOW you practice what you believe that determines whether it's a religion or not. Environmentalism, for example, is a religion.

wrong. rational analysis of the stuff behind theistic belief leading to rejection of that belief is not a religion per se, unless you've got a group who'll feel united by that commonality

What in the definition of religion as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" requires a "group who'll feel united by that commonality?"

also, define anti theistic?

"Opposed to theism?"

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular. The concept allows a distinction to be drawn between the simple indifference or apathy towards theism, atheism, or agnosticism (cf. apatheism), and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. Hence, Stefan Baumrin defines an "antitheist" as "one who actually espouses atheism and would try to convince theists of the error of their ways. A mere atheist might think, or even write, as in a diary or a wellworked manuscript to be left in a locked desk drawer these words but would never broadcast them." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

the jewish god never stated anybody else was to worship it, and given that OT shows abundantly it is the nastiest bastard in its own creation, I don't see what kind of sane being would actually worship that.

Er, someone who doesn't want to experience being turned into a pillar of salt or destroyed by the wrath of that god perhaps? If you believe in a god, even a jealous, vengeful, cruel, evil god (Baal, Odin, Zeus), Pascal's wager applies. Even more so if the god actually does exist. "Fear of God" is a meaningful term.

but there's no proof of it not existing (though no proof the other way either and no need to factor its existence in daily life either)

Unless the putative punishment or reward is to be handed out in the afterlife. In that respect, if one truly believes in (a) god, deciding to worship in the prescribed manner is an entirely rational and reasonable thing to do, and to the believer, it is those who refuse to worship who are the irrational, delusional ones.

Indeed, much of evangelical Christianity is aimed at the conversion of atheists not because they are atheists but because Christians don't want anyone to be left behind to suffer the eternal torment of not standing with Jesus at the End Times. While it is true that some evangelicals rant and rave about the punishments to be levied upon the unbelievers, apostates and minions of the devil, most apostolic Christians genuinely wish nothing but the best for non-believers and want little more than to bring the word of God and the salvation of Jesus to them, so that they can be saved from eternal hellfire and damnation. Generally, it's a benevolent and altruistic motive which is usually seen by atheists as something malicious and of evil intent. Nothing is further from the truth, in my experience.

I tolerate my sister's expressions of her Catholic faith, and her prayers and desires that I come to God because I recognize that she is doing so out of love and concern for me, not because she thinks I'm evil. She just wants me to enjoy what she enjoys from her faith, and hopes that I will be with her and her family in Heaven one day. It would be irrational and hateful to characterize her love and concern as anything but beneficent in intent.

Since her expressions of faith neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, I'm satisfied to allow her whatever beliefs she may have, so long as the manifestations are peaceable.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

and honestly, between zilla and you are the one most wingnutty of the two

[Hermit]

Atheism is a belief that gods do not exist.

Not for most atheists.

[Neoatheist]

Ok Seth, here is the problem with your reasoning. You are saying that we have a philosophy with regards to the existence of gods. Sure, I'll give you that. I believe that gods do not exist. That alone however is the only thing that makes me an atheist. Anything else that I attach to that is my own personal philosophy. Atheism alone is not my personal philosophy. I do however consider myself a Secular Humanist and don't particularly care if you call that a religion. I would agree with you on that. It's not that I despise the idea of having a religion per se. I just despise the glorified ignorance associated with faith based religions.

Now, what exactly is the point to all of this.

[Seth]

Atheism is a belief that gods do not exist.

Not for most atheists.

I completely disagree. I think it's perfectly obvious that almost all atheists have made a conscious decision to reject theistic god-claims, sometimes in virulent and confrontational way. The obfuscatory resort to the textbook definition is merely a common ploy by atheists to deflect any association with religion. I maintain that it is sophistry for anyone who argues against religion/theism, particularly those with obvious and well-known political, social or religious opinions regarding theistic claims to honestly try to maintain that they have a simple "absence of belief in gods."

Today certainly, as in the past, atheism has a significantly militant branch, including this forum, Ratskep and RDF, where the battle lines of opposing atheism actively are quite clearly drawn and anything but a simplistic "lack of belief."