Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[dblack]

I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

 

[Tuatara]

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

I'm an atheist and I belive in crocodiles, dragonflies, the sun and magnets. I don't belive in gods. It's really that simple.

 

[asaratis]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

That would be Hawking, you idiot!

 

[PratchettFan]

The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.

lol, or something like that.

And you insist that atheist means agnostic, when it clearly does not.

I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence, whether it's God or Big Foot,

and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.

Yes, we get it. Theoretically ANYTHING is possible. That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.

Correct. But it is still a belief because the decision is arrived at with no evidence to support it. I'm not saying it is an unreasonable belief, but a belief it is.

I really don't see why this is such an issue. We all believe one way or the other. I believe the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is a complete myth. There is no truth to it whatsoever. I get other people do believe it, but I don't. I don't have to couch that belief through strangled syntax to turn my belief in non-belief as if that somehow changes anything. You believe there is no God. I really don't get why accepting that is such a problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Silly, yes. Still you cannot identify the rituals, customs, practices or shared worship of a supernatural entity that typically identifies a religious belief.

Believe it or not, I cannot identify any of that crap for lots of different religions. The fact that I cannot identify them does not in any way mean that Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion I am unfamiliar with does not exist.

In other words, if you want to prove that atheism cannot be a religion in any way, shape, or form, you have to go after it through someone else, I am not stupid enough to play your game

It seems your tactic of cutting and pasting from on-line dictionaries is of little help when the argument requires the act of thinking.

It seems you think knowing trivia involves thinking. It doesn't, it involves memory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You as a student can pray all you want. We don't stop muslims from praying 5 times a day so why would we stop you?

But the teacher can't initiate it.

Then you agree with me, the Constitution does not ban prayer in public schools.

 

[PratchettFan]

The sum total of hard evidence for the existence of supernatural beings is ZERO.

It is only because of humanity's vested interest in there actually being supernatural beings that we see so much shit thrown at atheists for their having reached a very sensible and reasonable conclusion based on the above truth.

The sum total of hard evidence for the non-existence of supernatural beings is ZERO. So why is your conclusion sensible and reasonable and mine is not? They both have exactly the same evidentiary support.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

Agnostic is not sure either way. Too wishy washy for me. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't know if there is a god. To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes. But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.

Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.

The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.

lol, or something like that.

Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.


There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.

You are correct to say that no faith is required to acknowledge a lack of evidence. I acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that God exists AND that there is certainly no evidence to support the claim that He does not exist. You are incorrect to say that believing that no deities exist is not based on faith. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Therefore, Atheists have faith that God does not exist.

It is not a belief that no deities exist, as if one has to make a leap of faith to get to such a belief. It is the choice not to believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence,

and furthermore, something for which there is no good argument that it does exist but we've just not discovered any evidence to support its existence.

It is the choice not to engage in an exercise in faith in order to manufacture the actual existence of something that is otherwise just imaginary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I notice in the definition of atheist it says "rejection of belief in deities".

So most "atheists" will even admit that they can't say 100% for sure there isn't a "god" or "creator". We understand this could be a computer simulation or we could be inside a giant snow globe for all we know. Or our universe could be the product of some huge being that shit us out one day.

But you guys aren't talking about generic "god". You're talking about a deity that came and spoke to your ancestors. As far as that goes we are atheists because it sounds like a completely made up story. But again I can't say 100% sure because I wasn't there. But logic and reality tell me its all bullshit.

I'll say it again, you would have to be a god yourself to know 100% for sure that nothing made us.

BUT, as far as a deity who came and talked to Moses or sent Jesus, that's just hogwash.

No one cares which god you believe in buddy. I'm sure it's dumb one.

And if you just believe in generic god, who cares what other people believe? It doesn't matter, does it? If god never came to earth and said if we don't believe in him we will go to hell, what does it matter if something created our universe? Do you worship air, the sun and your parents? Because without them you wouldn't exist either. Those are your creators silly.

What guys are you talking to? I have repeatedly refused to define what I mean by god, yet you keep insisting that you know. Tell you what, prove you can read my mind by telling me about my beliefs.

Alternatively, you could shut the fuck up and stop trying to shove your beliefs down my throat.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You completely ignored the post I was responding to. But if it makes you feel better to think you destroyed something, have at it.

Did I? Can you prove that?

The fact is that you posted complete drivel.

 

[percysunshine]

.

Are people still arguing about this stuff? It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the existence of a super-natural being....by definition.

Grow a logos for Christ's sake.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What are you even talking about?

Good job ignoring the posts I was responding to once again, by the way.

This is the post you responded to:

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

FYI, -ism is not a doctrine.

And keep pretending I am ignoring the post you are responding to, I know it is the only way you can convince yourself that you are actually making sense.

 

[PratchettFan]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there some reason you skipped right over 'or lack of belief'?

Maybe everyone should just admit atheism has more than one meaning and see if some agreement can be reached on which to use.

Did you notice that, in order to skip over the phrase "Lack of belief" I would have to read the definition backwards? In other words, I didn't skip over anything, oh he who thinks he can outsmart the village idiot. You can sit there and try to redefine atheists as being agnostic all day long, it won't change the fact that there is a difference between the two, If you don't have a belief you are not an atheist. If you believe in a generic god you are neither an agnostic or an atheist. I really do not understand why agnostics want to pretend they are atheists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

You cannot be an agnostic atheist and claim to be rational.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

Claiming to be an intelligent progressive is an oxymoron.

Progressives believe in euthanasia, want people to die off at age 75, and believe in the magic of good intentions over results.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Watch and educate your sorry self

I don't learn from YouTube videos, or whatever the source of that one is. In fact, I block all videos on this site so that I don't have to listen to drivel. If you actually have something to say to me you think I need to know try typing it out, I can process it faster than you can type it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By your measure, everything is a belief. Fine.

But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion. If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.

Not everything is a belief, and I never said it was. That does not change the fact that atheism is, by definition, a belief. I also never said that every belief is a religion.

But feel free to continue to argue with those straw men, we all know those are the only arguments you ever win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This explains everything

I very much doubt that any video explains everything.

 

[percysunshine]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

You cannot be an agnostic atheist and claim to be rational.

I can claim to be a winning Super Bowl quarterback.

.