[Locked] Atheism is not a religion

Are you saying a newborn baby instantly believes in God? How can that be? "Having no opinion on the matter". That's exactly what I'm saying Atheism is. You, however, think it is actively opposing the belief in a higher deity. What would make you see Atheism as, "lack of belief in a higher deity?"



Hmph, if you’re going to start making excuses, you shouldn’t have jumped into the argument in the first place. And helping Kalistean find “truth” isn’t helping humanity? Kalistean isn’t human? Tch.

If you are saying Atheism is having no opinion on the matter. Then you are pretty much wrong about what it is.

First of all, I am not making excuses, I'm explaining my beliefs. Thank you for brushing them aside so lightly though, it truly says a lot about your personality. At one point I did see you as an intelligent individual, but if all you're going to do is point out err in my beliefs, I can't see you as any higher than Kalistean. I'm sorry. Second of all, in my opinion, truth can only be found by oneself. And, of course, being a Humanist directly relates to what I feel is better for society Humanity, going by that, the removal of Kalistean from society may indeed be more of a betterment than having him find "truth". I'm also a bit of a Darwinist you see.

This is actually a very debatable topic: Is a lack of belief really atheism? Most dictionaries say "The rejection of belief" or "The belief that there is no God."* some people say that "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."*2

I personally don't agree with this "most inclusive" view. I claim that you need to make the conscious choice of not believing that there is any gods. Because if you're oblivious to the concept (as a newborn would be) you're simply oblivious and unable to make a stand in any direction.

But I've had this discussion once, I'll not have it again, just thought I'd state my opinion.

*Oxford Dictionary, Longman English Dictionary.
*2Wikipedia.

Well... by definition Atheism isn't a religion in itself. Truthfully its just a way to describe those who reject the belief in the existence of deities. It is a category that religions that do not believe in deities fall under, however, Atheism is not actually a religion.

So I ask you, what would make you see it like that?



If you’re going to go play a game and then say, “Oh, I have a broken leg, not my fault”, why would you have played at all in the first place? In the end, if you know you have a “disadvantage” yet still play, you cannot really use that as a way to say “I would’ve won otherwise”. I believe everyone has potential. Stephen Hawking is severely paralyzed, yet he’s acknowledged as one of the most intelligent men on Earth.



You’re right, this is a debatable topic, even I’m still debating it. But I’ll leave you alone, I guess.

Because it's a distinction. You are acknowledging something if you say you believe it doesn't exist.

This is different than not having an opinion. If you had no opinion on the matter, it means you wouldn't even acknowledge it was there.

HUGE difference.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Please make it clearer.

You didn't exactly point out what you were referring to in the beginning of your post. The fact that I admittedly do not have the moral capacity to be a full-time humanist? You do realize that's like saying that "Your acts generosity, caring and selflessness are not enough in this world where damn near no one gives a fuck about anyone but themselves." Or the fact that I said I didn't cite my sources because, instead, I felt it was more important to have a roof over my head?

I'm sorry that you know, I care about sleeping in a bed at night, being warm and sometimes lack the morale capacity to help someone I have grown to dislike.

It is clear. Am I using too big of words for you or something?

You think something. You acknowledge.

You don't think something. You don't acknowledge.

Ooo ooh. *thumps chest*

An atheist is someone who rejects the belief in the existence of any form of deity, so by rejecting it becomes the opinion that a deity does not exist.

Kalistean is actually right. You cannot have an opinion on something you have no memories of, however; as soon as you have some sort of memory stored, that means you acknowledge that it is a thing or existence. As with Atheism, it is up to choice whether you choose to believe in god or not.

Atheism cannot be explained as: "I don't believe in a deity." As that does not actually explain you are an Atheist. Why? Because it could be inferred that you are simply undecided on which deity to follow or that you are undecided on the existence of one, etc. Thus, this is the incorrect way to explain Atheism.

Atheism can be explained as: "I believe that there are no deities."

It can also be explained as: "The belief that there is no deity or supernatural force guiding us."

Atheism is a belief.

Edit: Interesting fact: Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in God.1

1^ a b Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T. ed. The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 0-521-84270-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&pg=PA56.

Hrm, I wonder why that would be. What use to be their most prevalent religion over there. Shintoism?

Maybe the main organized religion was rejected at one point, and there wasn't one to fill in the gap so many of them pretty much just didn't pick one up.

I’m referring to both. I†˜m having trouble understanding what you†˜re saying. It seems at first you seem to be saying you don’t have the moral capacity to be a “full-time humanist”, and because of that the good that you’ve done doesn’t matter anymore because no one cares. I…have no idea how you got that. Please explain more.

“Mayhaps I would have cited a few sources had I not bills to pay and a job to work. The tabs I had open are gone now and I do not save my history (for privacy reasons).”

This is an excuse, regardless of whether it’s justified or not. You mention something about importance; then why did you argue against Kalistean in the first place? All I’m saying is if you’re not going to go all the way and cite your sources to prove your point, you should not say, “I would’ve cited my sources, but blah blah blah”. This is exactly like saying, “I would’ve won otherwise, but blah blah blah”. In both cases, the end result is that you ultimately didn’t. So, effectively, you joined a fight, gave up, and then tried to save face/make an excuse, and pretend you still won.



Oh, this is much better. Yes, when you come up with a concept or an idea, you acknowledge the concept or idea exists.



When you say “I don’t believe in a deity”, that either means you like polytheism or you don’t believe in deities. Yes, that is being undecided on the existence of one. Imagine a man who has been raised his whole life without religion. He accepts that there is an idea of a higher deity, but he doesn’t believe in it. He lacks a belief in either way. He does not openly say God doesn’t exist, nor does he say God exists. He is simply being in a world where, coincidentally, God cannot be sensed using the five bodily senses. He is an Atheist.

Really? Cause to me it sure sounds like he's Agnostic. Of course you could be going with the Agnostic Atheist division. But that would still mean he believes there is no deities or higher powers.

And no, going "I do not believe in a deity" doesn't mean you like polytheism.

Seems we actually agree on something here.





No where did I mention anything saying that what I had said previously was not an excuse. This is the post I made directly after your seemingly arrogant comment.

I think we also agree that Neostriker should just leave while he's behind.

Hrm, I think things would be better for the thread if we just leave off the whole bit about the citations. The only point I wanted to make about them was really just don't expect something from me that you don't really adhere to either. I'm perfectly fine arguing points without citations necessary.

Though if you feel you wish to cite something to help make the point, then by all means. I'd do the same as well you know.

Having a set of beliefs and principles does not make you a religious person.
Having an opinion about the origin of everything does not make that theory a religion.
Religion is an institution, and may or may not have any relevance with a probably inexistent deity, or more.

I think people are confusing faith with religion.

Just to be clear: My own definition of Atheism is the absence of faith, not the absence of belief in a deity or the belief that a deity or supernatural force guiding us does not exist. This is because I believe my definition is more accurate than the one given within dictionaries.

Isn’t Agnostic the belief that neither can be proven? What I’m saying is that it is not necessary to prove God does not exist, because that is already how it is. When an Atheist “proves” something, he is actually just disproving what Religion is claming. He is remaining “how it already is”.



I am starting to get tired. Being nice is tiring. This is in response to your first bolded statement. You think abandoning someone will help humanity? It doesn’t do anything. In the end, all you get is an abandoned person, and a humanity with one less person. Arrogant…pffft. And I thought I was being nice. It seems you think I’m saying you have to help everyone or something. Pffffffffft, as if I ever said that. What I was saying is that if you weren’t trying to help Kalistean find “truth” when you joined this debate, then what were you doing? Just trying to show him he’s “wrong”? That’s what a child does, you ignorant fool. In the end, all you would’ve gotten was a caressed ego and one person who just lost everything he believed in. Or, are you trying to say, not everyone is “human“? Were you saying Kalistean was actively dis-contributing to mankind? Then I go back to my Stephen Hawking example. I don’t care if anyone is “dis-contributing” to mankind, if they are, I will then show them how to contribute. This is providing I care. I simply can’t care about a random stranger. Kalistean is at least someone I know. Yes, that random stranger has to make me care first. Why is that wrong? If they’re not asking for help, or trying to make someone care, then they themselves have given up. If they’ve given up on themselves, then they’re not worth living. That’s what I call suicide. If they are trying, and no one cares, then keep trying. As if everyone in the whole world won’t care.

This is in response to your second bolded statement. Oh, so you are saying you’re a dick. You jumped into that debate merely so you could prove him wrong. And good luck with being limited. And now, here you say something about the reason of whatever. Then tell me, who won? And right there, you admit it’s an excuse.

In case you didn’t notice, I bolded where you said, “First of all, I am not making excuses”