[Locked] Atheism is not a religion

You're still trying to say I'm talking about Scientific Naturalism, I am not. Please stop acting like it's important to the conversation at hand. It is not.


And yes I can tell you. He doesn't believe in Ganesha.

Edit: And a deity has aspects in all three portions my dear chap. Is it a complete view? Nope. But no religion is a complete view of things no matter how you hash it because it is constantly evolving so arguing that basis doesn't work kiddo.

This reminds me of a debate I once had about whether black was a color or not since it's the absence of color.

I believe it's a color, others believe it is not.

No, black is not a color and Atheism is not a religion. Or is having no pet also having some kind of pet? Is void also some kind of matter? This kind of logic is obviously flawed.

Btw, black is the absence of light, and colors are part of the visible spectrum, so black by definition can impossibly be a color.

@Kalistean
You are making an exhibition of yourself. Please recap what you just posted. If your IQ is not below 80 on the Wechsler-skala, you will grasp your logical flaws eventually.

Haha, you sure are funny man.

Black is a color or not depending on who you ask and how you go about it.

Ask a scientist, and you'll get the reply that it is not.

Ask an artist and they will tell you it is.


I don't have flaws in my argument kid. Maybe you should, you know, understand what I said better if you're going to try and insult me. And btw, keep the insults on the down low cause they don't have much place in this forum.

Atheism isn't a religion, as far as I know.
Thought it was common sense, but I guess not.

^That is pretty much how I look at it.

Yes, I meant to say absence of light. My bad.

OT:

I believe God did not create the universe, therefore it seems to me that it falls under this definition. However, when I then looked up the the definition of atheism (lack of belief in deities) it conflicts with my way of interpreting the religion definition.

Whether or not atheism is a religion is debatable and I don't think we'll get a solid answer on this one.

I have actually asked quite a few artists (people who had studied it, no hobby-artists), and all agreed that black isn't a color.

Because you asked a few artists it means all artists think that way? :/

I had looked up on google a long time ago about whether or not black was a color and I found very mixed answers.

No, but it is taught on all universities that way...

You've been to every university that has ever come up with this debate over the color black?

I think he's just talking out of his butt now.

Really Kalistean, I expect better from you.

What, you wanted me to cuss? I was trying to keep it toned down for this forum.

No. I didn't expect you to turn to idle insults. Never mind. I totally saw that one coming.

I mean, if he's going to sit there and try to talk out of his butt about something I'm going to tell him he's talking out of his butt about something.

I mean, I could totally go "I have artist friends who tell me they see black as a color and white as a blank slate and not a color." But I'd just be doing what he's doing.

But it would be pointless, because that was never the point of the comment so really, why bother?

I say it is largely up to context.

As for myself, nothing irritates me more than people who define Atheism as a lack of beliefs. Be specific. A lack of believing in deities I'll accept, but Atheism is not exclusive of all beliefs. I still don't believe in killing people, but I've never accepted morals as being defined by religious context. I don't need some religious implication to know what I choose to believe and not to believe.

As for whether Atheism is a religion or not, I fail to see arguing the point regardless of which view a person has. Atheism can be viewed as either quite easily and people could argue and counter-argue their points until they are blue in the face. At the end of the day, no one is going to be correct, or at the very least likely to convince the other party to the contrary.

I read constantly about people who assert that atheism is a religion or belief system that can be equated with any other. Some assert that the link is clear between atheism and other belief systems, and that it is considered a religion under U.S. law. Well, the law can be, and often is, wrong. As interpreted by human beings, a lack of a full understanding as to the nature of a given subject can result in oversimplification and error of conclusion, for example:

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on “separation of church and state.”

But this is like saying that “black,” (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. A few years ago, the car I drove was a big, old Chevrolet, whose color was black. In common practice throughout the world, “black” is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, “Atheism” is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

In addition to such religion/atheism associations, there are more disturbing associations, such as the association of atheism with the mass murders of historical record. Again, an emphatic no – a misunderstanding, willful or otherwise, results in this conclusion. I’m here to attempt to set the record straight.

I would define religion as a system of beliefs that depend on revealed wisdom from a supernatural source. Often, rituals are built that reinforce the shared approach to and understanding of the revealed wisdom. The beliefs are shared through adherence to these rituals and common belief in the accuracy or †˜truth’ of a particular supernaturally-based worldview. Adherents of a particular religious tradition †˜know’ that what they believe is the truth because it has been presented by a deity and reinforced through the deity’s representatives.

Conversely, an atheist believes what he knows to be the truth because there is ample evidence to support the belief, and that’s the key issue – not belief, but the reason for that belief, which is evidence. An atheist does not succumb to the intellectual trap of believing solely based on authority, and certainly would not adhere to a system of beliefs based on the word of earthly representatives of a supernatural force. I wouldn’t assert that atheists don’t believe in anything – I for one am optimistic about the ability of my fellow humans to be charitable and kind to one another, and I see evidence of that every day. They don’t believe in a doctrine that demands supplication and obedience in exchange for a reward after death. The promise of post-life reward is meaningless – I’ll be dead, and so will the individual who promised me this signing bonus.

The key concept is faith, not belief. Faith allows a person to accept revealed wisdom as truth without the necessity of evidence. Evidence (or science, if you will) is the antithesis of faith, the proof that nature works in a certain way that does not require supernatural intervention. Any assertion that a congregant can make for evidence of revealed religious truth can be countered by alternative explanations that are consistent with the applications of the laws of physics as mankind knows and understands it. If given the choice between †˜trust me’ and †˜here’s the proof’, I will always choose the latter. Atheism does not require faith, it requires only consideration of a series of interlocking theories and postulates about how the universe works that explains the operations of said universe elegantly, efficiently and logically. No ghosts required. The addition of the concept of divinity to everyday events complicates them needlessly. The simplest explanation is what’s right in front of you. Atheism is the absence of faith – a refusal to believe without evidence.

I absolutely do not know what happens to a person after death beyond the biological process of decay, nor do I expect we will have an answer to that – you can’t exactly ask. What I do know with some certainty is that, based on my understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, and so on, I will not have an immortal part of me represented by an indefinable energy source relocate to a place where all the good folk (or bad folk) before me have also gone, where I would †˜live’ for eternity. No proof, no faith, no chance. To me, that is a fantasy created by someone who is squeamish about dying and likes to think they’ll be up and around playing tennis among the clouds rather than nourishing the soil. My truth works better for me. Sure, I’d rather not die, but I recognize it as inevitable, and that makes me more aware of how important it is to leave a legacy, be it children, a work of art, fond memories of close friends, what have you. I cherish each and every one of my close friends and my family because I know that someday they, and I, will be gone.

Which brings us (sort of) to morality – the moral code, if you will. I absolutely resent that someone thinks I am morally lacking because I refuse to prostrate myself before a god or goddess and act according to received doctrine. I would consider myself to have a very strong morality, in fact. I have volunteered extensively, I have friends for whom I would do pretty much anything and for whom I would give everything to protect – and all without the promise of a grand prize behind door #2.

The linking of historic genocides to atheism reflects an ignorance of history, or atheism, or both. Just as an example, Hitler had no intention of creating a state without religion – in fact, he wanted to replace established European religions with re-treaded versions of Norse mythology that †˜proved’ that Germany was home to the Master Race. The German Volk would not be religion-free, but would bow to the religion imposed by the state. In all other cases of historic genocides, and in cases of smaller conflicts, the problem is not an immorality bred by a lack of religion, but an immorality bred by the desires of some to be the object, or the benefactor, or the representative of the people’s religion. Morality is not the exclusive possession of the pious, it exists in all of us, and in all of us it can be twisted into greed and hatred.

I am not in need of †˜saving’ from my happy, contented life. I do not need a do-over by being †˜born again’. I own my mistakes and have learned from most of them. If I can be confident, secure and happy in my life, and enjoy the fellowship of others based on what I can see and feel rather than building layer upon layer of doctrine to explain it based on the existence of a supernatural force, who can say I’m wrong?

†˜There is probably no god’ is as accurate a statement from my perspective as †˜the sky will be blue tomorrow’ (depending on the weather forecast, of course). There is no evidence to support the existence of a deity, and I don’t need to set aside some karma for when I die. I want to be remembered for who I was, what kind of a man I am, rather than how closely I stuck to the †˜script’, how well I could ignore proof that contradicted my beliefs, or how many ways I could sing the praises of an apparently insecure deity.

Atheism is not a religion, and not a measure of faith. It is a confidence that things are what they seem to be, and a resolve to avoid falling victim to superstition. It is a commitment to influence the here and now rather than a desire to ensure a place in a mythical afterlife. It is a respect for others, not a lens through which to judge others and find them wanting – in fact, it is a way to find the true potential in others, if they would only take off the philosophical training wheels.

It may be a worldview that is unpopular, and sometimes intellectually demanding, but it is ultimately more rewarding, because it recognizes the importance, or the primacy, of life, of friendship, of kindness and of love – for one another, not for structures, official representatives of a higher power or for scriptures.

Keep your gods, I’m good. Or at least, I try to be.

You are bursting of ignorance. Black and white are not colors because they are either the presence or the absence of light. This means that if you mix black to f.e. blue, you can only get a darker blue, but not another color. Whereas if you mix yellow to blue, you get green. I have just talked to an academic artist on behalf of this.

I would ask you to switch to using the IB-section in future please. Thank you!