Atheism as a religion

[White Crane Feather]

As a non-believer and non-spiritualist I hate to agree with you but:

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

So, according to this (if you trust Wikipedia), belief is not delusional.......but certain Christians like the Westboro Baptist Church members and certain others......maybe.......so if someone wants to say it is their opinion that the believers are delusional then they are entitled to state it.......belief and delusion are not mutually exclusive.

Sure... They are entitled to say it. That dosnt mean they are not committing a logical fallacy.

[xSilverMistx]

For the most part, the definition of Atheism is not believing in deities. I can't really call myself an Atheist because I've been doing a lot of thinking about life. I don't believe in God/Gods in the way others believe them, but I don't worship or believe in a specific God/Goddess. It's possible there could be something out there who is responsible for life, but religion is centered around deities most of the time and set of beliefs, which sometimes makes a person narrow to think about other possiblities.

I don't think of Atheism is a religion at all. Most Atheist I know are Atheist because they don't agree with organized religion in the first place, other the fact they don't believe in a higher being. Same with me. I don't label myself, because I don't personally know what's real, other than proven scientifically.

Edited June 10, 2012 by xSilverMistx

[ranrod]

Following a religion is not delusional since no one knows if those people are right or wrong. They're following a hunch lacking evidence, but it is a possibility that they are right, even if it's 1 in a trillion. You cannot disprove something that doesn't exist so if they wrong, we'll never know. If they're right, they'll know when they die.

Beliefs or dedication alone don't constitute a religion. Atheism is not a religion.

[Arbitran]

Attack... Insinuation.....no one gets to hide behind their opinion. It is a logical fallacy to invalidate a position because you consider it delusional. Sorry if pointing out simple logic here hurts a bit. But it has been my point all along that those who claim to be logical are not really using logic now are they?

I was not attempting to invalidate theism through my statement of opinion; that would indeed be a logical fallacy, and I'm surprised that you would think that I would even think to do something so pathetic.

[Arbitran]

Sure... They are entitled to say it. That dosnt mean they are not committing a logical fallacy.

Statement of opinion does not in any way constitute a logical fallacy. You seem to misunderstand logic on this particular point.

[ranrod]

Statement of opinion does not in any way constitute a logical fallacy. You seem to misunderstand logic on this particular point.

Well in my opinion you are wrong because you're a pooh pooh head....wait, is that a logical fallacy? Maybe opinions can contain fallacies after all.

[Arbitran]

Well in my opinion you are wrong because you're a pooh pooh head....wait, is that a logical fallacy? Maybe opinions can contain fallacies after all.

Fair enough. I did no such thing however.

[White Crane Feather]

Statement of opinion does not in any way constitute a logical fallacy. You seem to misunderstand logic on this particular point.

You wrote

"Oh, I've listened to more than a few Dawkins debates; it has 0% to do with dogma, 100% to do with refuting delusion."

Is this not insinuating that Dawkins opponents (theists) are delusional? Are you not perpetuating the often used ad hominim that theistic beliefs are delusional? You even gave some very specific numbers related to what Dawkins was doing in his debates to illustrate your point.

The only reason to express that someone is delusional ( even if it's your opinion) in these kinds of discussions is to emotionly invalidate the other side.

I'm sorry. It's clearly what it is. I don't blame you a bit for feeling that way about some beliefs.

My point was and has always been that many atheists are rarely very logical while claiming that theist are illogical. Im sorry you were an example. Its an easy trap to fall into when you are emotional about something.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Seeker79

[Arbitran]

You wrote

"Oh, I've listened to more than a few Dawkins debates; it has 0% to do with dogma, 100% to do with refuting delusion."

Is this not insinuating that Dawkins opponents (theists) are delusional? Are you not perpetuating the often used ad hominim that theistic beliefs are delusional? You even gave some very specific numbers related to what Dawkins was doing in his debates to illustrate your point.

The only reason to express that someone is delusional ( even if it's your opinion) in these kinds of discussions is to emotionly invalidate the other side.

I'm sorry. It's clearly what it is. I don't blame you a bit for feeling that way about some beliefs.

My point was and has always been that many atheists are rarely very logical while claiming that theist are illogical. Im sorry you were an example. Its an easy trap to fall into when you are emotional about something.

I'm sorry you have to use an ad hominem in attempting to chastise me for having allegedly done just that. Emotion has nothing to do with anything here; Mr. Dawkins and myself happen to share the opinion that theism is a false belief, the symptoms of which can be readily compared to delusion. This is not an attempt to necessarily belittle theism; I simply deny it. I do hold the opinion that theistic beliefs are delusional in nature; that does not intrinsically cause this opinion to become ad hominem. I do not 'emotionally invalidate' theism either; I simply don't believe in deities, and regard the believe in them to be a delusional belief ('delusional' meaning it is a belief which is held despite the fact that superior evidence suggests that it is false). This does not need to emotionally or intellectually invalidate or belittle theism (I apologize if you felt that it did); I have merely stated, factually, that Dawkins and I share the opinion that theistic beliefs are delusions. I forgive your callous use of myriad ad hominem assertions in your attempt to refute my entirely factual and logically-sound statements, in any case.

[ranrod]

You wrote

"Oh, I've listened to more than a few Dawkins debates; it has 0% to do with dogma, 100% to do with refuting delusion."

Is this not insinuating that Dawkins opponents (theists) are delusional? Are you not perpetuating the often used ad hominim that theistic beliefs are delusional? You even gave some very specific numbers related to what Dawkins was doing in his debates to illustrate your point.

The only reason to express that someone is delusional ( even if it's your opinion) in these kinds of discussions is to emotionly invalidate the other side.

I'm sorry. It's clearly what it is. I don't blame you a bit for feeling that way about some beliefs.

My point was and has always been that many atheists are rarely very logical while claiming that theist are illogical. Im sorry you were an example. Its an easy trap to fall into when you are emotional about something.

To be fair, saying, "I listened to a debate and this is what I think about it..." is a fair statement. You may argue there are problems with his assessment of it, but you may not argue that he has an opinion about it.

[S2F]

I have seen it said that atheism is a lack of belief in God and a belief that God doesn't exist. Would there not be a difference between those two mindsets? The reason people are so vocal about their beliefs is to find validation among their peers. To feel like there are those that share the same views, to belong to a group. When a group is formed centered on a belief (yes, even the belief that God doesn't exist) then religious ideologies aren't too far away. Conversely, the lack of a belief doesn't necessarily take an antipodal position to the belief in question. It simply is a disagreement that doesn't have the vested interest that many beliefs have, especially religious ones. These two stances could explain the reason for the schism in atheism (if you'll pardon the rhyme ).

*Edit: clarification

Edited June 10, 2012 by Slave2Fate

[White Crane Feather]

I'm sorry you have to use an ad hominem in attempting to chastise me for having allegedly done just that. Emotion has nothing to do with anything here; Mr. Dawkins and myself happen to share the opinion that theism is a false belief, the symptoms of which can be readily compared to delusion. This is not an attempt to necessarily belittle theism; I simply deny it. I do hold the opinion that theistic beliefs are delusional in nature; that does not intrinsically cause this opinion to become ad hominem. I do not 'emotionally invalidate' theism either; I simply don't believe in deities, and regard the believe in them to be a delusional belief ('delusional' meaning it is a belief which is held despite the fact that superior evidence suggests that it is false). This does not need to emotionally or intellectually invalidate or belittle theism (I apologize if you felt that it did); I have merely stated, factually, that Dawkins and I share the opinion that theistic beliefs are delusions. I forgive your callous use of myriad ad hominem assertions in your attempt to refute my entirely factual and logically-sound statements, in any case.

Actually only one. But no matter. Someone did post the definition of delusion didnt they? Dosnt matter which way you spin it, dance, sing, or whistle about it. It was what it was. And is quit common actually. when debating opinions don't get to hide from fallacy. Especially when one argues that their opinion is more logical

Am I being callouse with the use of logic? Yes I am!!!! I'm playing a game that has been played to me many times. I decided to play it for a while to understand the petty use of logic so that I can avoid my own use of fallacious remarks, make a point about the useless fillebustering people use by engage in constant use of digging for fallacy, and to point out that atheists, and materialists are no more logical than anyone else.

In all honesty, I would characterize much of fundamentslist religious beliefs as delusional myself. Upon saying that, however, I would be guilty of the same fallacy. If I want to make a point about their beliefs and remain in the realm of logic , I should not use an ad hominim or I cannot not claim my own opinion as logical.

[White Crane Feather]

To be fair, saying, "I listened to a debate and this is what I think about it..." is a fair statement. You may argue there are problems with his assessment of it, but you may not argue that he has an opinion about it.

No I may not. His opinion is an opinion. But he cannot claim that it is a logical opinion while using fallacious constructions of stateing his opinion. There is a problem with this if considers religous beliefs to be illogical.

[White Crane Feather]

"I have merely stated, factually, that Dawkins and I share the opinion that theistic beliefs are delusions. I forgive your callous use of myriad ad hominem assertions in your attempt to refute my entirely factual and logically-sound statements, in any case."

I'm glad that you pointed that out, because it was my original assertion the Dawkins is in near constant guilt of the ad hominim fallacy. They are neither factual and defiantly not logically sound. I will accept that it is factual that you agree with him. But Dawkings is a champion of aggressive illogical atheism. Atheists are the first to point out that there is no evidence, so I am confused about the constant use of the idea that there is some affirmative evidence against theism. What exactly is it? No strawmen please.

[Dash--]

Delusional <yep there's that word again.

As a theist,I accept the fact that everything I've experienced could be a delusion.Hell i invite it!

But it does not change the fact that my experiences or delusions have changed my life for the better.

Ya know,I could have been an atheist.I understand the logic.I understand the charges to provide empirical evidence,but I can not unbelieve the experiences and inspirations that ground me.Nor do I wish to.

I am commited to my (in)sanity.

May all your experiences be easily explained

[Beckys_Mom]

Delusional <yep there's that word again.

As a theist,I accept the fact that everything I've experienced could be a delusion.Hell i invite it!

But it does not change the fact that my experiences or delusions have changed my life for the better.

That has to be one of the most well written and thought out posts I have read in over 7 long years of posting.. especially coming from a theist... Well said and good for you... If only al the rest of the religious said this to those that called them delusional... Heck next time a religious or an atheist calls me delusional.. I am nabbing that line lol

[Viral]

I think the problem here is that people don't recognise one thing. Atheism is the 'lack' of a belief in God. Let us say a child is born tomorrow and hears no mention of God, never even considers the possibility, that child by the stringent definition of the word is an Atheist. Has that child picked up a belief structure that there is no God, has that child been taught that there is no God? Well, no, they have just never crossed with the concept. This person 'lacks' a belief in God and is therefore by the definition of the word an Atheist. To be a Theist you have to be taught and accept within the realms of possibility that there is a God. A default position is not learned.

I know so many of you take issue with people claiming it is the default but I fear the definition of the word states this to be untrue. If it was, as many of you claim, not the default position then Theism needs to be taught first and Atheism becomes little more than a rejection of God as opposed to the lack of one, which includes ignorance of.

Atheists do not need to be arguing on the internet and talking about how religion is evil and corrupt and all that b******s, an atheist can be someone who lacks no knowledge on religion nor the arguments against it.

[Beckys_Mom]

I think the problem here is that people don't recognise one thing. Atheism is the 'lack' of a belief in God. Let us say a child is born tomorrow and hears no mention of God, never even considers the possibility, that child by the stringent definition of the word is an Atheist.

You have that so wrong ....That is not what atheist is... Atheist is someone who chooses NOT to hold the beliefs in Gods or God... An infant who hiss never heard of God is not the definition of atheist... Atheist doesn't not mean - Someone who has no clue or never heard of a God before... No.. Atheist only means someone who does not see evidence for God and therefore does not hold the belief....

Atheism is a path choice made... Not because you may never have been told of God.. . Fact is they have been told there is a belief in God... They look for heir own evidence and if they do not see evidence, then they chose to lead an atheist path... That is atheist summed up..

Atheists do not need to be arguing on the internet and talking about how religion is evil and corrupt and all that b******s,

And a theist does need to go on line and argue the toss non stop with others who are not following their path? If they are so confident with their own faith, then why would they need to argue ? And it is not just atheist they argue with, they argue with each other and other faiths too.... Ever think of that? Fact is both sides go on line to argue. Humans will argue.. its a fact of life .. Look Your post is lacking knowledge and it lacks understand to what Atheists are about ... You should have asked some atheists why they are atheists ..and gained more of an understanding.. Or even look up the term Atheist.. Because the description you gave is so wrong...

Edited June 10, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Viral]

You have that so wrong ....That is not what atheist is... Atheist is someone who chooses NOT to hold the beliefs in Gods or God... An infant who hiss never heard of God is not the definition of atheist... Atheist doesn't not mean - Someone who has no clue or never heard of a God before... No.. Atheist only means someone who does not see evidence for God and therefore does not hold the belief....

I'm sorry but by the very definition of the word, not what you claim to be nor I claim to be applies to your argument. The Oxford English Dictionary describes an Atheist as "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God". Now, lacking a belief is not rejecting a belief, many Atheists are aware of Theism and do indeed reject it and that also applies to the dictionary definition, as does lacking the knowledge of religion.

Atheism is a path choice made... Not because you may never have been told of God.. . Fact is they have been told there is a belief in God... They look for heir own evidence and if they do not see evidence, then they chose to lead an atheist path... That is atheist summed up.

No, that is some atheists summed up. It's the same as myself saying "Theism is a belief in God therefore everyone must know of Atheism to be Theist because otherwise they know no better". Do you then agree that accepting God is only applicable when one knows and disagrees with Atheism? So if the two are linked one cannot be Theist without rejecting Atheism? One cannot be Theist because they know no alternative?

However I don't think you believe that which also means you don't believe the two are mutually exclusive, hence Atheism exists without Theism and in turn Theism exists without Atheism.

And a theist does need to go on line and argue the toss non stop with others who are not following their path? If they are so confident with their own faith, then why would they need to argue ? And it is not just atheist they argue with, they argue with each other and other faiths too.... Ever think of that? Fact is both sides go on line to argue. Humans will argue.. its a fact of life ..

I worry you missed my point here, an Atheist is not exclusive to people that come here and argue just as Theists arguing on the internet are a minority too. I'm not saying people shouldn't argue just that your idea of Atheism should not be completely built up from people you argue with (as it evidently is).

Basically, even if you disagree your problem is semantic, you and everyone else who holds the viewpoint on the word misunderstand the meaning of said word. Whether you agree with it as an appropriate definition is fairly redundant in what I'm arguing, however if the argument is about the definition being wrong, I'm more than willing to discuss that as well.

Look Your post is lacking knowledge and it lacks understand to what Atheists are about ... You should have asked some atheists why they are atheists ..and gained more of an understanding.. Or even look up the term Atheist.. Because the description you gave is so wrong...

It seems the civility of your post ends here, I may advise you to be more polite in your posts in future. Also, I am an Atheist myself and a good 90% of everyone I know is an Atheist so I can say I'm fairly clear on "what Atheists are about". I find it funny how you say Is should look up the term as my whole post was about the term. I worry that it's maybe you who is unclear on the definition. I'll post the Oxford definition again for you.

The Oxford English Dictionary:

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God"

- See, not a rejection, a lack of. Someone who lacks knowledge of the existence of a God includes anyone who doesn't know of God.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist?q=Atheist

I wonder what you propose is a default stance, though? Do you believe a child who is born with no knowledge will create his own God? Do you believe they will never consider such a thing and thus lack a belief in the existence of God? Or perhaps do you believe the child will be agnostic and question the idea of a God?

I find it hard to believe he or she will ever consider such a thing and thus, by Oxford's definition be an Atheist.

[Euphorbia]

*Snip*

Atheism is a path choice made... Not because you may never have been told of God.. . Fact is they have been told there is a belief in God... They look for heir own evidence and if they do not see evidence, then they chose to lead an atheist path... That is atheist summed up..

*Snip*

Hi BM,

From birth to about the age of twelve, I was just a semi-normal kid. I had no beliefs in anything religious. I had heard about god and the bible but had never gone to church, read the bible, or had any friends that were religious. Life was great without the pressure to believe or not believe. Then of course in middle school one meets a wider range of people and for me that included religious people (kids), that told me I was going to hell if I didn't believe in their god. This of course bothered me and scared me a little bit and so I thought about who I really am. This of course wasn't a quick look into my life but one that took probably an entire school year to figure out.

What I realized was that I was an atheist and not someone that could ever believe in god. There was no choice.....none! Being an atheist is simply who I am (or at least part of who I am). Granted it is based on my life up to that point and the fact that my parents and siblings never went to church, but it was never a choice. Through the years my stance has been strengthened and will never change.

Some people however who were once religious and then became atheist did so by choice. They questioned their beliefs and came to what they felt was a logical choice for them.

So atheism is not always a choice! I know there are those on UM that will disagree with me on the choice thing but my opinion is firmly set.

Just my two cents.......

[Beckys_Mom]

I'm sorry but by the very definition of the word, not what you claim to be nor I claim to be applies to your argument.

You sadly will not get it.. not not..not ever.. you carry on thinking it is something we are born with.. I stick to it is a choice just like believing in god is a choice we all make... To believe or not to believe due to evidence or lack of evidence.. thats how the choices are made.. like it or not you fail to see this

Theists arguing on the internet are a minority too. I'

Oh now I have seen it all... You don't seem to look far... I see them al the time arguing.. Many sites..many of them wil argue with each other and other who are not the same.. Being biased is not working.. I say BOTH sides argue the same...

I am not going to dig into your post further.. I will stand by you have not given the correct definition of atheist.. you misunderstand what it means... Nothing you say further will convince me you have it right.....

[Beckys_Mom]

Hi BM,

From birth to about the age of twelve, I was just a semi-normal kid. I had no beliefs in anything religious. I had heard about god and the bible but had never gone to church, read the bible, or had any friends that were religious. Life was great without the pressure to believe or not believe. Then of course in middle school one meets a wider range of people and for me that included religious people (kids), that told me I was going to hell if I didn't believe in their god. This of course bothered me and scared me a little bit and so I thought about who I really am. This of course wasn't a quick look into my life but one that took probably an entire school year to figure out.

What I realized was that I was an atheist and not someone that could ever believe in god. There was no choice.....none! Being an atheist is simply who I am (or at least part of who I am). Granted it is based on my life up to that point and the fact that my parents and siblings never went to church, but it was never a choice. Through the years my stance has been strengthened and will never change.

Some people however who were once religious and then became atheist did so by choice. They questioned their beliefs and came to what they felt was a logical choice for them.

So atheism is not always a choice! I know there are those on UM that will disagree with me on the choice thing but my opinion is firmly set.

Just my two cents.......

Not going to church is a choice made... You are atheist because of not believing in God... If you say you are atheist because you just do not bother.. then the term atheist doesn't really fit in in my view... It just mean you are neutral ... Atheists from what I have read on here and spoken to in real life al lsay - We are atheist because we do not hold beliefs in God or Gods... <-- all by choices they made

PS - There is no choice for the kids who are made go to church .. they don't get to make the choice, they naturally follow what the parents do... You said your parents never went near a church, so you didn't give God or beliefs a second thought... That is still your choice not to bother with it... And it is your choice to class yourself atheist now too ...Do you hold a belief in God? If the answer is no, you obviously have your reasons ... all still a choice

Edited June 11, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Viral]

You sadly will not get it.. not not..not ever.. you carry on thinking it is something we are born with.. I stick to it is a choice just like believing in god is a choice we all make... To believe or not to believe due to evidence or lack of evidence.. thats how the choices are made.. like it or not you fail to see this

Are you going to reply to the meat of my arguments or merely try to scratch at the skin? Did you even acknowledge that I wrote for you the official definition for the word and not only that but provided you the link in case you were reluctant to study.

Oh now I have seen it all... You don't seem to look far... I see them al the time arguing.. Many sites..many of them wil argue with each other and other who are not the same.. Being biased is not working.. I say BOTH sides argue the same...

I am not going to dig into your post further.. I will stand by you have not given the correct definition of atheist.. you misunderstand what it means... Nothing you say further will convince me you have it right.....

Funny. I was not aware the majority of Theists spent their days arguing on the internet, how silly of me.

If you refuse to answer then I have two questions for you:

1) If someone knows nothing of Atheism and knows no alternative but God, are they a Theist?

2) Are you saying Oxford are incorrect in their definition? For this is not my definition.

I wont waste my time writing more as you seem to feel the urge to ignore large parts of people's arguments.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Viral

[eight bits]

Viral, but also generally

Let us say a child is born tomorrow and hears no mention of God, never even considers the possibility, that child by the stringent definition of the word is an Atheist.

Unless, of course, the child figures out that there is a question of God, in which case there is no reason, at least none in your hypothetical, that the child would incline more to a negative answer than an affirmative one.

It is speculative that a human being who is able to acquire language would be unable to formulate a foundational question on their own initiative. It is also diffiult to see how you could assess anyone's opinion about the question of God, except to ask, in which case, the question is now available for the person's consideration.

Once a question is posed, any person might proceed to entertain a prioristic answer to it, which is just about the only kind of answer anybody has to the question of God anyway.

I understand that many atheists are convinced that belief in God is a childhood condition that spreads only by contact with affected adults, but there is really no evidence of that, nor is it in any sense obvious or apodictic. People invent new-to-them concepts all the time. Sometimes, they think one of their invented concept is plausible.

I know so many of you take issue with people claiming it is the default but I fear the definition of the word states this to be untrue.

Speaking for myself, the issue I would take with the proposed, or "stringent," definition is that it is uninteresting, a solution to which there is no known problem. Why on earth would someone care how anybody answers a question which, by hypothesis, the person answering doesn't understand?

If I were an an atheist apologist, I would also be worried about the derisive rebuttal, "Yes, I fully agree that many atheists are childish and don't know what they're talking about." You gain nothing by recruiting babies into your ranks anyway. It's not like their "expert opinion" carries a lot of weight, and it certainly doesn't prove the contagion theory of theistic prevalence.

Edited June 11, 2012 by eight bits

[Euphorbia]

Not going to church is a choice made... You are atheist because of not believing in God... If you say you are atheist because you just do not bother.. then the term atheist doesn't really fit in in my view... It just mean you are neutral ... Atheists from what I have read on here and spoken to in real life al lsay - We are atheist because we do not hold beliefs in God or Gods... <-- all by choices they made

Not going to church was not a choice I made. I was simply never taken to church. Never given a bible. Religion never came up as a child.

Yes, I am atheist because I don't believe in god. That doesn't mean it was a choice though. My being heterosexual wasn't a choice either. It's simply what I am. I also like Rocky Road ice cream over vanilla......not by choice.......it just suits me better......

I don't want to argue with you on this issue out of respect for you, just please trust me that not everything in one's life is a choice that was pondered on and then had a decision made on like......I'll pick choice A.......