[Locked] Atheism is not a religion

Things about beliefs and such tend to be opinions.

Mostly the fact that believing in the lack of deity does explain things about the origin and purpose, or rather what they believe isn't the origin and purpose.

Like I said. It's a very loose sense of the term only that Atheism could be consider. And even then it shouldn't. But I also won't deny the similarities.

Though if you are talking about what sort of religion an atheist has, that's mostly just their own personal set of beliefs.

i don't think there are any atheists that follow religions. Perhaps you're confusing atheism with being agnostic but I don't believe anyone can call themselves a "Atheist Buddhist" for example. We probably wont come to any real agreement on this so as I said this debate is pointless.

Actually, you can be an Atheist Buddhist. Buddhism does not actually have diety, it has a founder, that being Siddhartha Gautama more commonly known as "The Buddha". Siddhartha Gautama is a teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering (or dukkha), achieve nirvana, and escape what is seen as a cycle of suffering.

Nirvana literally means "blowing out" — referring, in the Buddhist context, to the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion. Buddhism, as seen by Buddhists, is a path one must walk on in life to achieve Nirvana, filled with trials, tribulations and very well thought answers to ones own suffering.

You do not have to believe in Reincarnation to refer to yourself as a Buddhist. As many still follow along the moral guidelines. I know many Buddhists who do not believe in reincarnation, yet, even by a Buddhist who does believe in reincarnations standards, are still Buddhists. And now, we come to the Buddhist belief in Karma,

Karma is a Sanskrit word from the root "Kri" to do or to make and simply means "action." It operates in the universe as the continuous chain reaction of cause and effect. It is not only confined to causation in the physical sense but also it has moral implications. "A good cause, a good effect; a bad cause a bad effect" is a common saying. In this sense karma is a moral law.

As I have stated, many who consider themselves Buddhist's in the western world do not actually have faith in reincarnation, yet still follow the moral laws and guidelines to achieving Nirvana.

By my definition, Atheism is the complete lack of faith in the existence of a supernatural power or diety. Faith is the willingness to believe without being shown evidence of beforehand. Edit - The actual definition is the lack of belief in a diety/supernatural force. In this sense, because there is neither a supernatural power, nor a diety guiding the person on their Buddhist journey, one can be an Atheist Buddhist. If one were to put faith in reincarnation, one could not be considered a Buddhist.

One does not exactly need to follow every single word to the letter when choosing to follow a certain religion or philosophy. For example: I do not espouse justice, only reason and ethics, yet I am still considered a Secular Humanist because I believe the Secular Humanism ideals are correct and they are as close to my beliefs as possible.

your post indicates that it is in your definition, surely you must realize that it means little in terms of the rest of the world correct? Atheism is defined as a belief that no higher power or unexplained spirituality exists; that is the accept definition. Regardless of what you believe it should be, the definition is clear. Atheism is a belief in science, and factual proof; nothing else. Religion is faith in something more than cannot be seen, the two cannot coexist in one rational.

But Atheism isn't 'what' they believe, it is the denial itself.

I do realize what the actual definition is. I also explained why Atheism cannot be considered a religion in Post #1,608,684

My definition also includes everything you have already explained here as well, you can find out what I define as Atheism in full in Post #1,610,414. What I stated earlier was my short, concise definition of Atheism. And by the way, believing in science and factual proof also follows along the lines with lacking faith.




Buddhism has been known to be one of the most accomplished moral guidance systems in the entire world, and there have been many people that have actually claimed to reach "Nirvana". However putting faith in that would, by my definition, make someone not an Atheist.

But, let's look at it from another perspective, from the perspective of my friend, who is an Atheist Buddhist (even by my definition). The reason he decided to call himself a Buddhist and trudge along the path to their "nirvana", is because he saw the effects the religion had on those around him while he was touring in India. He explained them as kind, caring and always happy. That right there, would be considered evidence (though not scientific) that the Buddhist philosophy does actually work, and then, without requiring faith, he could believe in the Buddhist philosophy. Therefore, by my definition, that would make him an Atheist Buddhist.

He could put faith in the Buddhist Philosophy but not believe in their gods and still be considered an Atheist Buddhist without first being shown evidence if you're using the actual definition for Atheism.

it is entirely possible for someone to be an Atheist Buddhist.

You seem to be an intelligent person who could hold up an argument without resorting to name calling or derogatory terms. Perhaps you would like to point out what you believe is wrong with my definition of Atheism is in Post #1,610,414 and what you agree with. Oh, and I do bash believing in god a bit, you may find that entertaining if you are an Atheist yourself. I will understand if you are not willing to read such a long post, I am not assuming you will either.

No, it is a belief kid. An alternative/counter belief to theism that believes in deities.

i would counter that statement with it's not a belief, it's a disbelief. Atheism offers no answers, it only inhibits an answer they don't believe.

droomy, ill take time to respond tomorrow, your reply is long.

Actually:



My opinion on the matter: Atheism isn't a religion. Might elaborate further later.

Must......Have......Last.....Word.......Can't.......Resist...

There is no proof in any way shape or form (unless using circular logic) that god exists.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative, therefore, the burden of proof is upon the religious to prove god exists.

They cannot.

THEREFORE, god does not exist, and you can know that for fact.

PS, I am not saying Stephen Hawking is so smart that he can prove god does not exist just randomly, he has actually stated that he has deduced mathematically, that god is completely unnecessary for the creation of the universe, and that god does not exist.


There. Last word has been had. Now I can leave this discussion and never return. Goodbye.

Such arrogance! Such ignorance! Such stupidity!

Have you even read "The Grand Design"? Stephen Hawking did not state that he mathematically deduced that God does not exists. Stephen Hawking however did state in his book "The Grand Design" that based on the "M-Theory" and his own mathematical calculations which assume the "M-Theory" is correct, god does not exist. As his "M-Theory" (key word being theory, dumbass.) has not been proven to be fact, that leaves the idea of "God doesn't exist." being left unproven also.

Furthermore, simply saying that you had the last word in a thread does not mean you had the last word in a thread.

P.S. I suggest you leave this section of the forum and never return. You are more of an I/B/ person. A section filled with ignorance would suit you quite well indeed.

It's amazing how much you all get bent out of shape over this.

I always assumed atheism was lack of belief. (I do not give a damn if it is or not, keep your fucking opinion to yourself.)

But then again, maybe I was wrong, I never bothered to look up an actual definition.

The most random topics go on for the longest time. Keep it up, and you will even beat "2012: real or a scare tactic"!

But reflect please; Has anyone of you learned anything by this discussion? Or is it just a time-consuming quarrel?

Not to mention the fact that even proving that God is unnecessary for the creation of the Universe would not in any way prove he doesn't exist.

I actually learned a lot from this. I think it was a pretty good discussion until around page 5. Than things took a turn for the worse. It really helped me to reflect on the meaning religion. It was quite good for me, thogh maybe not so much for others.

I suppose whether or not Atheism can be considered a religion is entirely dependent on how you define the word, and, before someone tells me I'm repeating what someone else said, I only read the first post. 13 pages in this topic? tl;dr

Anyway, if you're like me, and you define atheism as either "the belief that there is no god" or "the lack of belief in a god", then as far as I'm concerned, no, atheism is not a religion. Given that religion has been previously defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" in this thread, it should be clear that using this definition of atheism, it does not fit those criteria. How, you might argue?

One belief (or lack thereof) does not constitute a set of beliefs.
Yes, it concerns the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", but only insomuch as to deny or disbelieve that it was created by some omnipotent, invisible being.

HOWEVER, if your definition of atheism means you adhere strongly to the big bang theory as your preferred method of creation, and you take any and all opportunities to tell others that religion is dumb and their beliefs are uneducated, I've got news for you: congratulations, you're practicing the religion known as Atheism. Why is atheism a religion based on how you define it? Let's look at it this way. Who else takes the opportunity to tell people their religion is dumb? Religious people. Who else takes the opportunity to criticize people for their beliefs and why they're inferior to those of the critic? Religious people. Granted, this comparison is dramatic and only for the purposes of my point, as I'm aware not all people of religious viewpoints are bullheaded about their beliefs, just as not all atheists are egotistical psuedointellectuals who will jump with joy at any opportunity to "disprove" religion to someone who believes in it.

Let's face it. Most people who want to disprove religion aren't doing it because they believe it will help the people who are practicing it, whereas most religious conversions come from an earnest desire to improve the lives of the converts. Most people who want to disprove religion have had bad experiences with it, and like a moody teenager, are simply rebelling from it, trying to show their utter disapproval just so people know where they stand.

And, before anyone asks, I'm not atheist anymore. If I had to categorize myself, I'm agnostic, leaning more towards the fact that there isn't a god. I choose to be agnostic, however, because just as I can't prove god exists, I can't prove he doesn't--and it's entirely hypocritical to sit there and assert there is no god without having proof of non-existence while you debunk the theories of people who claim there is a god without proof of existence.

If by evidence you mean opinions and such.

Though this discussion is pretty much "What is the best way to define things in your opinion."

Of course, there are certain things that simply aren't right of course.

In any case. There's probably never going to be an answer people will agree works at all.

Anyways, I'll just stick with the best way I see at explaining it off. Which is pretty much what I stated originally.

I think someone have said this already but, the concept of religion needs a god (or messiah, chosen one, whatever); if there is none, well, there is no religion. That's the simple answer.

But, of course, believe what suits you best.

A religion doesn't need a deity. Just most do.

This has already been stated multiple times.

Well, need something to believe, or someone/something from whose faith is originated.