"Atheism is a religion"

[Ryushikaze]

The other day on another message board, I was discussing Solipsism, and another poster remarked that it was "is in the top three runners for "craziest religion on earth". Right up there with scientology and atheism."

Upon pointing out that Atheism was not a religion, fulfilling none of the necessary requirements, I was met back with twp responses.

One person decided Terry Pratchett was a good source on Atheism, and quoted Feet of Clay at me.

""Atheism is also a religious position."
"No it's not! Atheism is a denial of a god."
"Therefore it is a relegious postion. Indeed, a true atheist thinks of the gods constantly, albeit in terms of denial. Therefore, atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he or she would not bother to deny."

Nevermind the fallacies involved, but even accepting Terry's point that it's a religious position, it's not a religion.

The other person's response was slightly wierder, and was in response to the former.
"that is *the best* summation of atheism as religion that I've ever seen. I was going to go into an argument on the nature of true Faith, and how atheism is the Faith in nothing. Not a lack of faith, but a faith that there *is* nothing."

I found it interesting he is declaring the Atheist position, really. If I did the same in reverse, I'd be accused of all sorts of things.
In any case, I explained the rationalist position (no reason to believe in nothing that has no evidence of existing) and compared god to ghosts and spacewhales. No response yet.

However, this anectode merely brings me to the point of the post. I've been wondering, how often do you come across people fronting the "Atheism is a religion" claim, and what sorts of arguments do they use?

[Nephtys]

Atheism, is by definition, lack of Theism.

It's not a type of religion. It's a lack of religion.

[Zadius]

I've been wondering, how often do you come across people fronting the "Atheism is a religion" claim, and what sorts of arguments do they use?

Often. They want to paint atheism as a 'faith' itself in order to counter criticism of their faith. Basically all that needs to be pointed out is that it takes absolutely no faith to deny that something exists when there is no evidence that it does.

[2000AD]

Isn't Atheism to religion, like 0 is to numbers?

[Zadius]

Addendum: They'll often try to change the definition of 'faith' from "believing something without sufficient evidence" to "believing something without absolute proof".

[Zadius]

Isn't Atheism to religion, like 0 is to numbers?

No, atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colors.

[Sriad]

Isn't Atheism to religion, like 0 is to numbers?

No, atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colors.

That's exactly what I was going to post, and it's really the best quote to toss at the philosophically dense.

Also, Discworld is a bad source to use in some sorts of philosophical discussion since it's satire and you can go and visit the gods there if you're determined.

[mr friendly guy]

Other stupid arguments include atheism is a religion because its got theism in it (I kid you not, some dumbshit from SB.com said it). Seriously, this is like saying impossible is possible because its got "possible in it" or turbolasers are Lasers because they have "laser" in it.

Another one is to use equivocation, and use a different definition of religion than the one usually use to describe religions like Christianity.

For example the definition of religion is

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Usually the definition of religion when we say Islam is a religion is definition one. Definition four is used say "he practices martial arts religiously". They use that definition to therefore say atheism is a religion even though its the wrong definition.

In short they are dishonest fucks.

[Superman]

I think someone on this board once said something to the effect of saying "that's like saying illiteracy is a form of literacy."

I think that's a good analogy.

[Zero]

Terry Pratchet's little thing stating that atheism is a religious position is true (the part about atheists actually having faith is bullshit), but that doesn't mean it's a religion. Atheism does take the position that there is no God, which is a religious position, but it isn't a religion itself because there's no belief or reverence in any supernatural beings, and there's no core ideology or philosophy that it follows.

Atheism can be a religous position without being a religion.

[mr friendly guy]

Terry Pratchet's little thing stating that atheism is a religious position is true (the part about atheists actually having faith is bullshit), but that doesn't mean it's a religion. Atheism does take the position that there is no God, which is a religious position, but it isn't a religion itself because there's no belief or reverence in any supernatural beings, and there's no core ideology or philosophy that it follows.

Atheism can be a religous position without being a religion.

Wouldn't that be having a position on religion as opposed to being a religious position. Wouldn't a religious position imply that the person having it is religious?

[CJvR]

Isn't Atheism to religion, like 0 is to numbers?

Rather like denying the existance of any number at all.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

No, Atheism is not a religion. It simply means no god. However, I think an Atheist can HAVE a religion, just not one that involves gods. But then, really, without all the spiritual stuff, it's just a philosophy anyway.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This depends on the type of atheist, for they come in many flavours. The weak atheist will simply not accept the concept of a deity and not follow any religious cult. The strong atheist will actively go out of his way to deny God and attack religion, some would say with a religious fervour.

For the weak atheist, it is far easier to show a lack of religion than for the devout strong atheist who makes it his mission to disprove the unfalsifiable.

[Rye]

This depends on the type of atheist, for they come in many flavours. The weak atheist will simply not accept the concept of a deity and not follow any religious cult. The strong atheist will actively go out of his way to deny God and attack religion, some would say with a religious fervour.

Not necessarily, "weak atheists" tend to say "I don't believe in god, but I won't say they're not real," because they've bought into the "you can only conclude something isn't true if you're omniscient" propaganda from the theistic.

Strong atheists have actually concluded that gods aren't real. They could say, "no, invisible magical men are not real. They are made up. I conclude this from evidence of human imagination x y and z, and how there's no evidential basis for supposing a god in the first place (not that you even have a coherent definition of a god as a concept)." And well, they'd be right. That's why I'm a strongly atheistic pantheist, I can always update my views with new information, so it's hardly "dogmatic" or religious as much as consistent.

For the weak atheist, it is far easier to show a lack of religion than for the devout strong atheist who makes it his mission to disprove the unfalsifiable.

He wouldn't have to prove anything other than it's okay to say intangible homosexual rugby teams that go around sodomising everyone undetectably aren't real. Once someone accepts that, there's no reason it can't be extended to gods. He could also show that Antigod has as much likelihood of being real as God, and to accept one as realistic and not the other is inconsistent. If you accept both as being as realistic as one another, and give either of the concepts any weight, you still cannot reasonably conclude god is real.

Atheists can have religions, just not theistic ones, obviously. Atheism however, is no more a religion than theism is.

[defanatic]

The list about half way down this page sums it up.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Not necessarily, "weak atheists" tend to say "I don't believe in god, but I won't say they're not real," because they've bought into the "you can only conclude something isn't true if you're omniscient" propaganda from the theistic.

That sounds all too like another form of agnosticism. What's the real difference there? The way I've always found it defined was as weak atheism being an acceptance of no omnipotent deity, but leaving it at that, while the stronger atheist not only doesn't believe in God/s, but argues for their non-existence etc.

Though this isn't the first time I've got into this topic over vague or erroneous definitions. There was one debate at IIDB.org which went on for pages over what makes a theist, agnostic and atheist. I couldn't list how many variations people come up with for what makes these.

[Rye]

That sounds all too like another form of agnosticism. What's the real difference there?

Atheism just covers an absence of theistic beliefs, there are people that don't believe but will go out of there way to not say "God isn't real," saying "I don't believe in gods" instead. They may have yet to come to a conclusion about the plausibility of such beings, just not believe in any till they're known to exist. Sort of like aliens, I don't believe in any specific species, but I also won't say they don't exist (though I may say specific species don't exist, and they don't visit the Earth).

The way I've always found it defined was as weak atheism being an acceptance of no omnipotent deity, but leaving it at that, while the stronger atheist not only doesn't believe in God/s, but argues for their non-existence etc.

Atheism and theism are about belief or absence of it, weak atheists claim they just don't have theistic beliefs, while a strong atheist will conclude that theistic beliefs are, in fact, wrong/delusional. Weak atheists would not tend to use the d-word, even though it's totally applicable.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, and justification for claims with certainty, going by Huxley. An agnostic and an atheist are not necessarily different people. An atheist could be agnostic because he doesn't know with "certainty" that god doesn't exist, like teapots and intangible rugby players, and still not believe in them. As such he'd be an agnostic atheist.

There are agnostics that claim god's existence or nonexistence are purely unknowable, and they conflate this with rationally concludable. These people tend to act all virtuous because they refuse to commit to a conclusion and generally piss me off.

Though this isn't the first time I've got into this topic over vague or erroneous definitions. There was one debate at IIDB.org which went on for pages over what makes a theist, agnostic and atheist. I couldn't list how many variations people come up with for what makes these.

IIDB is full of dirty pagans like God Fearing Atheist anyway.

[Lagmonster]

However, this anectode merely brings me to the point of the post. I've been wondering, how often do you come across people fronting the "Atheism is a religion" claim, and what sorts of arguments do they use?

I've found, from experience, that the finest retort to anyone who tries to define the atheist position so as to make it look foolish or self-contradictory is to bring up Santa Claus. Just repeat their arguments back to them with with Santa Claus or leprechauns or dragons.

Invariably they will come around to making your argument FOR you - arguing all the rational reasons why faith in the existance of Santa Claus is senseless and why believing that he doesn't exist isn't a religion or a faith or anything of the sort. Unless they're just dishonest little fucks looking to win at all costs, in which case they'll lay claim to all kinds of personal belief bullshit and you should just abandon ship.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Now that clarifies it better than I've seen it elsewhere, I'll have to make a note of this for future reference. I'd also agree that fence sitters are the most annoying people in these debates. Mike has often gone ranting about them as have I, because, dammit, it's just weak to take the middleground like some sort of golden mean fallacy.

[mr friendly guy]

Looking at the site defanatic linked to

I think the reasoning is that if atheism is a faith or religion, then atheists have no cause to criticise other faiths or religions.

This seem like the sort of theist mind I have seen especially at SB.com. By obstufuscating, and confusing the issue they seek to make atheism based on faith instead of reason. Hence their argument goes that since both are based on faith, one is no better than the other, and you can't criticise the other logically.

Ignoring the fact for a moment that this argument is in the same vein as an ad hominem tu quoue (but applied to philosopies rather than the debaters per se), thef argument is based on the premise you must be omniscient to draw that conclusion, hence if someone is omniscient they will disprove atheism because they are God.

That line is of course bullshit for several reasons

1) As Rye pointed out, why do we need to be omniscient to draw a conclusion. I can conclude who won what sporting event by looking at the score. This conclusion is accurate without needing to be omniscient.

2) Since God has other attributes besides omniscience, such as omnipotence and being the creator. Logically it does not follow that someone who has one attribute must have the others.

3) Lets humour their bullshit, and assume that you do need to be omniscient. Well since we can't have absolute knowledge, the next thing to do is go with which one is more probable.

Since this type of solipsm bullshit argue that logically both theism and atheism are equally valid (from our limited knowledge) because both are based on faith, I will extrapolate this to say that for every theistic possibility there is an equivalent atheistic one. For example the possibility of God as defined by Christianity is matched by a possibility of God not existing; the possibility of some other creator as defined by Sikhism is matched by a possibility of that creator not existing.

The probability of atheism therefore will be 50%, the possibility of theism is also 50%. However the possibility of one particular from of theism is less because it shares that probability with rival theist beliefs. In short using their bullshit against them, atheism has a higher probability and logically we still choose the most probable explanation even if its not 100% guaranteed.

[Ryushikaze]

I actually applied that against someone before, friendly. At that point he start equivocating, getting flustered, and refused to discuss 'mythological creatures' alongside 'religion'. That was when I told him he had given me enough evidence to conclude that attempting to have an actually rational discussion was a waste of time.

This was, of course, merely the straw that broke the back (The same person once accused me of 'assuming' a population figure for the exodus event because it mentioned a number and I quoted a number twice as large as that. Nevermind that the number was for the adult males and my doubling was actually being highly conservative with my ratios (50% men, 50% women and children).

Some people will just refuse to be rational when it comes to faith. Bringing other religion's gods into the discussion seems to be a good way of exposing it.

[Patrick Degan]

Just get any of them to debate the reality of Santa Claus, then kick 'em in the balls with the resulting logic.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

"No it's not! Atheism is a denial of a god."

Sheesh. If they really think like that, just retort with "Theism is a denial of atheism".

[Sans_Deity]

No, atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colors.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

-Matt