[Locked] Atheism is not a religion

Um yes, something is needed to be believed.

Atheism is not a religion but there are religions that are atheistic.

Let me cut to the chase.

I believe the main instigator of the 9 pages of groundless, illogical, and downright childish (near the end) debate stemmed from Kalistean's adamant "opinion" that:

"A set of beliefs, including the nonbelief of a deity/purpose of life, is considered at worst a personal religion. While most religions are associated with worship of a higher deity and revolve on the purpose of life/creation of the universe, a religion of any sort does not have to. Such belief stems from the premise that nothing can ever be known as fact, which makes everything a belief."

The key issue regarding the topic at hand is with the first sentence of his opinion where it defines religion as something so broad as to take any sort of belief and coin it as religion. The rest of the argument is moot.

I've never heard anyone calling their set of beliefs a "personal religion" of any sort. I don’t. Nor does that make sense. It would be akin to saying that everyone has a personal religion when NO ONE considers it as such. If that was the case, we’d have a billion “personal religions” running around when that clearly is not the case. Chlor, Fayex, unmut, rueaku, and Noutakun mentioned this and were either refuted without basis or promptly ignored.

Having a set of beliefs or a belief system, e.g. personal values, morals, outlook on life, is what most people refer to as their own personal “philosophy”, or “identity”, or “ideology”, not their own personal “religion”. To use religion in that sense does not apply. Why? People don’t treat their own beliefs with religious conviction that delineates philosophy/ideology from religion, of which you, Kalistean, have confused the two. What people also failed to notice in Wikipedia’s definition of religion is that it acknowledges the fact that the word “religion” can be used interchangeably with “belief system”, but the usage of “religion” with overriding priority over “belief system” is not only arrogant in thinking but also wrong.



On top of that, Belief system can be defined as the following, “Life stance, religion, world view, philosophy, or ideology”. While you, Kalistean, believe that a belief system firmly equates to religion, that is ultimately your opinion, and given the presented information up above, such opinion cannot be considered as fact. However, if one were to treat his or her own belief system with a fervor bordering cult-like or zealous, then yes, in that case it would be more apt to classify such “belief system” as “religion”. However, I believe I speak for the majority here that we don’t treat our belief systems as religion of any sort because we don’t follow our beliefs with a religious conviction.

To bring the point home, Atheism is more in line of a philosophy than a religion. Reason being is that most Atheists tend to use the argument that since there is no empirical evidence to prove the existence of god or supernatural claims, therefore god or supernatural events do not exist. That line of reasoning is what humans call “rational argument”, which is how philosophers and philosophy work to answer questions regarding human nature and the universe. However, not all atheists follow that train of thought or ideology as there is no set definition of Atheism that people follow. Some Atheists are irreligious or skeptical of religion while other Atheists froth at the mouth at the mention of the word “religion”. Simply put however, the very nature of Atheism is that of a philosophy/ideology with roots in the scientific method (empiricism), but it does not have an organized following and is widely interpreted (and misinterpreted). While there are those who treat Atheism with a literal religious and zealous fashion, most Atheists do not. Therefore, Atheism cannot be called a religion.

Thank you! I've been trying to say that so many times, but was ignored T.T

Um what?

Pretty much everyone has a personal religion. Denying that is stupid. That is because everyone has their own set of beliefs and opinions on how the universe works, was created, and why it exists. The only way for someone TO NOT have a set of opinions and beliefs about it is to just not care. At all. Which a normal person is incapable of doing.

Religion is hard to separate FROM philosophy for a good reason. Religion is pretty much philosophy that is answering a particular portion of questions.

And I never said that belief in no deities was a personal religion. I said in the loosest of sense that I would consider it to fall under the definition of religion. But I would say it is best not to, and to state that instead, Atheists would have a personal religion and that Atheism is not a religion.

I suppose I can see how you would get confused that I was saying that. However, it would most definitely be a part of their personal religion without any doubt but would not be the only portion of it.

Even considering science to be the only factor and believing there is nothing else in this world but it would be a type of personal religion because you would still be forming opinions and beliefs that determine how you personally feel about the universe and all the jazz with it.

*epic facepalm* that's what we've been saying the whole time... words cannot begin to describe the failure in arguing for so long yet having the same opinion...

I stated that at the beginning.

Then why were you arguing... no never mind, I'm done with this for good. You win for now. T.T

I can tell you did not understand my argument because you jumped at the chance to defend yourself rather than thoroughly reading what I wrote because everything I’ve written refutes your arguments.



I don’t have a personal religion. I have a belief system. You are forcing your preconceived notion on others that everyone must have a personal religion. Most people don’t call it a personal religion but rather a system or set of beliefs. I also state in my argument why people don’t treat their belief systems as religion or personal religion. For the record, I don’t give a darn how the universe was created. I’m not a scientist or a philosopher or ideologist. The fact that the sun rises and sets everyday is all I care and I go about enjoying life. Don’t force your opinion as fact on others because that’s unsightly.



Religion and philosophy are closely related yes, but are also very distinctly different. I mention in my argument that philosophers use the human faculty of “rational argument”, which also uses empiricism. Religion has nothing rational about it (because it cannot be proved through concrete, empirical evidence), which is why religion is never accepted as fact by the educated and scientific community in the first place.



You mentioned that any belief, whether it is belief or nonbelief of deities, equates to a religion of some sort, personal religion or religion. Reread my argument regarding the treatment of belief systems with religious conviction and how widely Atheists can interpret Atheism. I can guarantee that most people don’t treat their belief in Atheism as a personal religion unless it borders on religious-worshipping levels. Again, you are forcing others to succumb to your notion that everyone treats their beliefs as a personal religion or a religion of some sorts. And again, I argue that is not the case as the key issue is how people treat their belief systems, and it is not of religion for the majority. I also argue that Atheism is a philosophy/ideology with roots in science, and I prove that the very nature of Atheism is not of religion, thus most people don’t treat it as religion either, which further disabuses you of the notion that people treat it as a religion of any sort.

Um, so you are not wanting to accept that you have a religion.

That's cool, doesn't make it any less true that you have one.

But you can call it a belief system if you want instead.


Wait, what concrete empirical evidence in Philosophy? Most of the evidence for philosophy is in the form of thought experiments and the like. That's not empirical.


I didn't say a belief equated to a religion directly. Please REREAD my statements.

That I've made multiple times.

How you treat your belief systems? Umm, no? It's what your belief system is about, not how you treat it. How you treat it is just how important it is to you. Religion doesn't have to be important to you for you to have it you know. It just means you're not a very religious person.

I personally don't feel it to be a religion, more like the rejection of religion.

This is rich. You are doing exactly what I say you are doing, which is making the blanket assumption that everyone “has a religion” and making it fact without basis. The argument here is that everything stems from fact that everyone has a belief system. Beliefs make up religion, life stances, philosophies, ideologies, and world views. Religion does NOT make up your belief system unless you a) understand the religious beliefs and b) believe that such religious beliefs are superior to your own beliefs and subscribe to such beliefs. You do NOT come with an inherent “personal religion”; you create a set of beliefs which can be treated as a personal religion or adopt religious beliefs. The key word “belief system” encompasses “religion”, not the other way around. I mention that in my argument that you so carefully skimped over.



No. I said concrete, empirical evidence for religion, not in philosophy. Philosophy can incorporate empiricism, especially in the philosophy of science, but that’s not the point because you misread my statement.



Guess what? After reading your previous arguments, I’m laughing at myself for not catching it. The topic is asking if Atheism is a religion or not. Whether or not it is religious is another point of contention. I’ve proved that Atheism is not a religion, and most people do not treat it as such or in any religious manner because it deals with “God” or “religion”. Atheism deals with a religious subject, yes, but that does not automatically make it religious by nature, which you are implying but not saying. And because Atheism is not a religion by nature, it cannot be considered religious. Dealing with a religious subject matter does not change the nature of dealing with said subject to being religious. If I study religion for a case study, does that make me religious? No, because the purpose of the case study is of an educational manner and nature even though the subject matter is of a religious nature. Same thing with Atheism in that it studies religion insofar as the nonexistence of deities, but the objective of Atheism is not religious in nature but that of a philosophical/scientific approach in nature.



As I mentioned before, this topic is not about how this or that is religious. It’s the debate on whether Atheism is a religion or not, period. How people treat Atheism is just as important since there are the few that treat Atheism in a religious manner like a religion even though Atheism by nature is not a religion. Dealing with a religious subject matter does not make it religious by nature whatsoever, a relevant but separate argument altogether. Being a religion and being religious are two discrete concepts. A concept being religious does not automatically make it a religion, like saying a dog that has catlike features is catlike, but it is not a cat. However, a concept/belief system that is a religion is automatically religious; it is analogous to saying a cat is catlike by default. Since Atheism is not a religion, therefore Atheism is not religious.

Let me make a final note about this argument itself. Kalistean, no matter how you argue your position, as long as you are not arguing coherently with proper support and logic and not arguing the issue at hand you have already lost the thread of argument, which makes it moot. It’s the main reason why there were 9 pages of arrant bull that related to the topic on hand but in reality were arguing something else. The way you argue by making the supposition that everyone has a religion and forcing others to accept it without just cause or factual basis is a completely erroneous way to argue well, and that's only one part of why the debate went downhill. This is in no way an insult of your intelligence, Kalistean. I’m simply stating my observation of the flow of this thread and that the degeneration of debate quality that started on page five is due to faulty debating skills.

I see what you're saying.

And I'm going to tell you to reread what I wrote, but you didn't get it.

China called, they want their wall back.

Everyone is just misunderstanding everyone else now, this debate has run its course.

1-grab a latin dictionary
2-A= lack of
teo= god
3-do the math
4-????
5-PROFIT!

It's why we can't have nice things.

@Kalistean: it's not my responsibility to correct my own arguments unless you prove to me that your arguments are more logical and correct. It is incumbent on the person refuting to present a counterargument against the current argument. I will not guess at what you consider an inaccurate analysis of your argument because your argument (from what I saw and picked out) is spread between 14 pages worth of arrant nonsense, separate points, and personal attacks.

If you have any issues with my argument, speak up. I feel that your argument (if we take the first page as the core of your argument) has already been disapproven by me. If you don't agree, refute me. Then I'll take it from there. I am not and will not treat you as if you were the reigning authority on this matter, which in my opinion gives you the attitude that I need to correct MY argument to suit YOUR feeble attempt of a counterargument of two sentences. And that's laughable.

Don't forget newborn babies.