In what sense Atheists "can" be considered religious.

[genericname85]

so i am an atheist and i constantly hear christians insinuate that atheism is a religion. which is of course wrong because atheism is merely a conviction. convictions are not a religion. i also rejected this insinuation because i always defined "religion" as "following a diety or worshiping someone".

however recently in a discussion with a christian, i found out about myself, that i actually pursue the truth with great devotion. and the pursuit of "anything" with great devotion is litterally also defined as "religion". so i still am an atheist and now i understand even better why i am a religious atheist.

i am an atheist, because i follow the truth with great devotion. i don't follow what "i want to be true". i follow what is evidently true and i depart from what is not evidently true. i think this method is the best method for anybody to conduct themselves by objectively measurable outcomes but well, some people don't apply objective measures to their lives which will lead them to suboptimal results, which is of course exactly what they chose, for a reason that i can not understand. they are still free to make that choice for themselves but not for others, which is why religious indoctrination is morally wrong and incriminates christianity and which is why government must be secular.

so anyway, that's really all i wanted to tell my fellow atheists. you may not care much about truth and not really pursue it and if you do not, then you can easily reject someones claims to be religious but not if you're pursuing the truth like i and many others do. however some methods of pursuing the truth won't lead you to the truth... they will lead you away from the truth and christianity is one of those methods.

So chose your method of pursuing truth wisely. atheism "can" be a bad way of pursuing the truth. christianity is always a bad way of pursuing truth. that's the difference and as an atheist you must concede that.

[thomual]

This sounds more than a monologue than an actual question but it is wrong.

While I appreciate that you were willing to listen and learn about how devotion to an ideal could be considered religious, but that is a secondary, metaphoric definition of religion.

You're not religious because you are devoted. You are religious because you believe in things that cannot be proved. You have Faith in the unknown.

You don't believe in a dirty, but you do have Faith in things that are NOT fact. Yes there is evidence, maybe even strong scientific evidence with corroboration, but not fact.

a fallacy that "Believers don't ground their belief in fact. " Historic, archeological, and scientific evidence DOES point to a Devine power. It just also points towards atheism. Its all in how you interpret the data. Its about your underlying assumptions.

Atheists believe in things like spontaneous speciesation, alien DNA, and million year Stelagtites, all of which require a great deal of Faith to believe in.

[genericname85]

it is not a "question". it is a mytake. so it is a monologue. you know you can not only ask questions on here, you cann also create polls or write a so called "mytake" which is just you blathering about some shit that you want to blather about :D this is what this is. not more and not less.

i agree that this is the secondary definition. in fact that is what i said in this take. but it underlines the importance of understanding what someone is talking about before judging.

yes i am not "religiously" evoted to truth, cause simply by me caring for evidence, it is not believe or faith based and therefore not in accordance with the mainstream definition of religion.

[genericname85]

that was just me saying very long windedly, that we agree xD

[thomual]

If I could thumbs up both your responses I would.

[Desire-for-Greatness]

Atheists are more religious than theists.

They're more passionate about the topic of God's existence and often get really emotional and angry when discussing such topics.

Why such passion about something you don't believe exists?
And if you're right then there are no consequences after death.

So why are you so passionate about the subject? Could it be because you're afraid that God actually does exist?

That's the most logical explanation to your behavior.

Oh by the way a Finnish university research experiment using brain imaging showed that atheists feel fear when they hear the word "God".

Look it up.

Now I'll wait for the emotional dislikes and replies to flood my comment further proving my point.

[genericname85]

i sort of have a passion for truth, which can be considered as "religious" if you use the less prevlent definition of religion but not by the main definition of religion.
however by that definition, god doesn't matter at all, so there you go. as soon as god matters in your definition, atheists are automatically not it.

so yes. i can have all the passion for truth in the world. that doesn't make me religious at all once god is part of the definition of religiousness.

i know that you want atheists to be "the same" so you can assume they are "as right as you are" but they are actually not "the same". they are the opposite. they have no faith in a god while you do have faith in a god. that's the difference.

[izzie_morris]

atheist, agnostic, and theist are religious terminology. I never understood why religious terminology such as atheist could be used for a non religious (god believing) person... but it is used for that. if you're using religious terminology i guess you could consider yourself part of it. i always prefer when people just say they aren't religious and avoid using the "atheist" terminology because it also comes with less angry connotations.

[genericname85]

you define non religious as "god believing"? xD that's rare. never heard that.

[genericname85]

in what sense is "god believing" not religious?

[Ámayas_20]

@izzie_morris I think you're getting confused here, atheist and theist are used to describe if someone does or does not believe in a god. Agnostics and gnostics exist as both theists and atheists, being agnostic is just saying while I believe X I believe I could be wrong whereas being gnostic means saying I believe and know X.

An atheist by definition doesn't believe in any gods, goddesses, deities, or higher powers of that sense. So no you could not use atheist to describe someone who believes in a god but does not follow a specific religion however you would call them a theist.

[izzie_morris]

sorry i wasn’t clear but wasn’t defining non religious as god believing, i was defining religious as god believing. so i was saying i’m unsure as to why religious terminology such as atheist is used for someone who doesn’t believe in god

[thomual]

Issue that's because it can't be used that way? Anybody who uses the words that way has no theological education. They are ignorant, and don't have the words to describe concepts that they have never studied.

[thomual]

Izzue you are only using about 60% of your technologies correctly.

You have correctly defined Theist

You have correctly defined Athiest.

Your definitions of Agnostic and Religious are close, but slightly incorrect. An Agnostic believes in a higher power, but does not know what that is. It could be described as spiritual, but not religious.

If you are a skeptic, but no not believe in any spiritual powers you are non -religious or undefined. If you BELIEVE in theories that are unproven, and use those to declare there is no God. You are an Atheist.

Atheism is defined by its beliefs, not by what it DOESN'T believe.

Religious means you follow an established religion, not that you believe in God. If you believe in the Christian God, but refuse to choose a denomination or attend church, and you interpret scripture however you like, you are a "non-religious Christian"

You're also misusing the word, "Gnostic". That's something totally different.

I have a minor in Theology and world religion studies.

[thomual]

I'm sorry there are 3 people involved in this discussion. My first comment about words that can't be used that way was in response to izzie, about genericname85. Izzue, this is NOT a correct usage of the word Athiest.

My comments about Theists, Atheists, Gnostics, and agnostics, is directed to Amayas_20. Those words are NOT defined correctly. Ghosts believe in God but the word Atheist, has taken on a new meaning that is NO LONGER the opposite of theist. Don't ask me why its just not how theology defines these words and you would have to study it to understand that.

Its like calling someone gay. At one time that might have just meant "happy" but now, though using the word correctly, he taken on a new meaning entirely to the point where it is inflammatory, accusatory, and in appropriate to call a person happy using that word. Atheist is the same. Also the prefix "A-" means against, not without.

My comment about the incorrect definition of Religious was directed at Izzie

[Anonymous]

religion is based on a belief. Being atheist, you BELIEVE no higher power exist.

[genericname85]

Being atheist means you do "not believe" that a higher power exists, because there is no evidence for it.

Believe is accepting as true what is not proven to be true. atheists may do that but they don't do that with god, which is the entire point of the atheistic position.

"not believing" is a position or a confession. not a believe. what i said is that you can act religiously without believing. that is only possible, if you define "religion" very close to "passion"

the lack of a believe is not a believe. stop twisting words into meaning exactly the opposite of what they actually mean.

[Opinion Owner]

you BELIEVE your stance that you DONT believe in God. No?

[Opinion Owner]

and there’s literally atheist churches popping up. AA is defined as a religion too

[genericname85]

if i write as a reply to you now that "i do not believe in god", that is verifiable evidence for me not believing in god because you and everyone else reading it can actually confirm and therefore verify it. so therefore, me not believing in god is not something i "believe", because for believe, verifiable evidence must lack.
it is something that i can do right here and right now, demonstrably verify to be true by saying:

"i do not believe in god".

you can now read that i said "i do not believe in god". you and everyone else that reads this can now verify that that is true by reading it. therefore neither you, now anybody else can now believe it is true. you can now only know it is true, because now it is evident and therefore the OPPOSITE of believe.

[Opinion Owner]

What IVY LEAGUE university did you go to? How many years have you SAT in a university classroom and completed exams about religion? OR, better yet. Do you have a philosophy degree?

[genericname85]

the defining characteristic of a believe is the lack of evidence. the defining character of atheism is the presence of evidence as a condition for acceptance of truth, so therefore atheism is the opposite of believe.

[genericname85]

no i do not have a degree in philosophy but i do have a degree in sociology and i did also minor in psychology and i visited some philosophy lectures for fun xD

[genericname85]

it was at an average german university, which is by comparison objectively better than or comparabel to most American ivy league universities xD

[genericname85]

sorry. i have a degree in social science xD that's a big difference. got hung up in translation.

[Opinion Owner]

LOOOOOOOOOOLL

[Opinion Owner]

okay

[iOoko]

is not believing in fairies also a religion?

[thomual]

No. Belief is the the key word, not unbelief. But Athiests aren't defined about what they do NOT believe. If you believe in nothing, you aren't an Athiest. You're non-religious. If you believe in something, but you don't know what it is, you're an Agnostic.

[thomual]

So to have Zero education in Theology? Science is FILLED with lack of evidence. Anything that is theory and not law is a defined by a lack of evidence. Guess what? Macro-Evolution is A THEORY! Which means it takes faith to believe in it. No amount of evidence changes that. In contrast, there is MOUNTAINS of evidence for intelligent design. But you would say that's not Science because its not scientific Law?

You've chosen where your faith lies, and it has nothing to do with facts. You ignore the facts that support your faith in theories that support your Religious convictions.

[I-am-a-nobody]

@thomual
You nailed it.
He rejects certain evidence, but accepts other beliefs by faith.

[iOoko]

@thomual an agnostic doesn't know whether religion is true or false. he doesn't necessarily believe in something other than god. agnostic means not-knowledgist in greek. a atheist doesn't believe, a theist does an agnostic doesn't know

[Love2Jackit]

What a way 2 define what u believe in is really of no truth. As for the part about Christianity and truth. Well u are one those nonbelievers. If u can't find some way 2 define the truth about something. Well that's the reason u are atheist. Cause u believe thier is no higher power. I got a question for u who do u think sacrifice thier life for us. It sure wasn't the Devil. His way of manipulating the truth is quiet simple. Proof of that is what u can't see u don't believe it exist. Just cause u can't see God. That don't mean he doesn't exist. What the true believe is God test u everyday. Reason being he knows what sacrifice is like. Along with reason for making sacrifice. That's why we should never question is thier a God. But u great atheist always got 2 question something. Well not if u would take the time 2 think about things. Then u would find the truth about why u think thier is no God. Cause the real reason is the Devil plant a seed in ur mind. It's called doubt yes every thing u can't justify 2 exist. Then ur way is being a atheist. That's good u think the way u do. Cause the Devil always has plenty of room in hell for more souls. The truth of the matter is an atheist. Always think they are right in what they believe is the truth. Which is really a false hope of the truth. Remember the other being the Devil always will u have questioning things. That's his way of getting ur soul. By u being atheist he doesn't even have work 2 get ur soul. He's already got it. Next and final point. It's easy 2 do bad things. It's even harder 2 do good things. That's why believing in God is hard for some people. Cause in thier minds they do no wrong. Well guess again wait I forgot in ur world. Meaning truth is defined as u want it 2 be. Which means thier is no wrong or right. It's what u perceive 2 believe in.

[genericname85]

i do have a method with which i find out what is true or not. it is called "the scientific method". you might have heard of that before. and since nothing in christianity is true if i apply that method, i am not a christian.

there's a lot of ways to know that dont involve seeing, feeling, hearing or touching the thing you want to know directly. however by none of those ways christianity can be proven to be true so therefore it is not evidently true and i only acept things that are evidently true.

you're just making a huge bunch of wild claims that you back up by different wild claims and no single piece of evidence for what you claimed is in what you just said so everything you just said is not evidently true.

[WadeDanielSmith]

"The Multiverse described by String Theory is so perfect it could only come into being if it were in fact Created by a pre-existing Intelligence." - Dr. Michio Kaku, 2018.

Dr. Kaku was formerly an Agnostic. I think he still identifies as an Agnostic, but he's basically stating here that there must be a pre-existing Creator, even though he started out disbelieving in God. String Theory has actually already made valid predictions in the real universe, such as predicting and describing "Dark Flow" as the mechanical collision between our universe and another braneworld or another universe.

String Theory was originally proposed to try to explain away the Big Bang without God, but it was proven in 2008 that no space-time continuum can ever be self-eternal. That means both the Universe and the Multiverse were created, and because they are maximized and not random, as no true randomness exists in nature, then that means they were in fact created by a Maximized Intelligent Creator, namely an Almighty Self-Eternal God.

[genericname85]

this is nothing but the age old watchmaker argument that has been around since 1802 and has been wrong since then.

and it doesn't become any more right when a doctor uses it. it is still wrong because the as with every scientific finding that we ever found in history, we thought it may only be explained by god untill we found how to actually explain it.

Dr. Kaku may be an expert on string theory but his assertion that "it only could come into being if it was created" is bullshit. because that doesn't logically follow from the facts. I don't know much about Dr. Kakus expertise and i don't doubt everything that he says but the quote that you presented is wrong and has been known to be wrong for over 200 years and if a scientist still brings it up in 2018, he's doing a disservice to the scientific community.

[genericname85]

it's an argument from ignorance combined with a non sequitur. maybe also argument from personal incredulity, cause he doesn't know how it came into existence. and that's what he really should say, cause he has nothing to back up the claim that there was a pre-existing intelligence.

[Cryptic-Game]

The BBC has declared it is.

http://www.BBC.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.

Despite their definition, religion is any belief concerning God, the universe, morality and life. either in the positive or the negative. Thus, it's a religion. However, I am a believer that nobody is an atheist and not due to not wanting to be but the proposition is impossible. I think it is totally clear that all people are aware that God created both the seen and unseen worlds and are without excuse and I don't think if they faced God in their personal afterlife that they'd be shocked He existed.

This stems to Satan and his power. He is so powerful that he realizes that maybe some people are reprobates that don't acknowledge God but these people who truly feel and think deeply that they're atheist are so far into reprobate status that there is no coming to the knowledge of God's existence. maybe it is possible people can be this but this is only so because God turned them reprobate. Otherwise, all have an innate knowledge of God's existence.

[genericname85]

1. the BBC has no power to declare this at all.
2. atheism is still not a religion, i just explained that.
3. if anybody ever would show anything supernatural actually does exist, then we could finally start taking those claims seriously and would not have to continue to dismiss them due to the lack of evidence for it.

we've found better ways of "knowing" since the bible was written and that you still kling to the bible and are wrong about everything that your claim is not the fault of atheists. it is your fault.

[Cryptic-Game]

But you have the power to declare atheism isn't a religion?

So if you don't want to be religious, don't make a decision based on if God does or doesn't exist, how the universe came to be, life's origins or moral vs immoral actions. Otherwise, you're making a religious proclamation. Then be true to your word.

The world we live in seems real to us because we are the ones living in it. If we were living in a supernatural world after death, then that world would be real to us since we'd be living in it.

[genericname85]

I have no power to change what words mean. I have the power to look up what they mean and use them correctly.
The world seems real to us, cause it is real. We can still get it wrong, cause it's not always intuitive and in order not to be wrong we have to look at what's real and look how it works instead of pulling stuff out of our ass and assuming that to be truth without any evidence for it. That's how you make believe that the supernatural exists even though you have no freaking idea if it actually does exist.
If something makes some sense, that doesn't mean it's true.

[Cryptic-Game]

Don't you assert the afterlife doesn't exist? You are pulling up things too since you don't know it doesn't.

Definitions are defined differently by certain organizations. How do you define religion?

[genericname85]

i am asserting that "afterlife" has not met the criteria that you and i should use to determine if something "is true". and that is objectively true, not my believe or opinion. we have objective methods to find truth, because our opinions don't matter for the truth. you are however not interested in truth, because you rather want to believe. and the word believing means that you accept something as true even though it is not evidently true. that is not opinion. that's what believe means. and when i say, what you believe is not true, that is not my opinion, that is objectively true, because that's what the words mean.

i define religion as "the belief in or worship of a superhuman or supernatural controlling power or entity, usually a personal God or gods." according to that definition, atheism is not religious or a religion.

but if i define religion as a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion, that means an atheist can act religiously. it still doesn't make atheism a religion.

[Cryptic-Game]

You are making a decision on morals, God, life or the universe. That's a religious stance. Doesn't matter if in the assertion or the negation.

No. We don't know if the afterlife is true or false. Assuming it is false is just as wrong for you as it is wrong for me to assume it is true.

[coastisclear]

I’m a Christian and I used to think atheism is just non faith as you said.

But all humans religion or not need a purpose in life. This also extends beyond family, friends, career, romance, even military.. etc. it’s the feeling you made a difference about something bigger than you. More often than not I find many atheists being intensely liberal because they are all about change.

Not saying you are a Democrat. But I noticed that many atheists are diehard supporter of the left and THAT is literally religion to them.

[genericname85]

atheism is still "non faith", so you have been right on this. i don't know why you would correct yourself when you're already right with something xD

i would totally agree that a "purpose" (or in better words "a big long term goal to work towards") in ones live is an incredibly important thing to have. i personally know, that there's better ways to derive purpose than faith but well faith is better than not having a purpose in the short term. long term though, i claim that you will find a purpose, if you ditch faith. humans tend to find purpose automatically if they actually look for it instead of complaining, that they don't have purpose :D also defining purpose how i put it in brackets above helps a lot xD

your argument for "atheists are liberal" is wrong in general but it is true for the USA in particular. so you are right considering you are probably refering to your own society. the reason for that is that the usa currently is politically very far right and every political position that is more to the "center", seems to be left in comparison with the status quo.

since atheists are more "reasonable", which is a direct consequence from "not having faith", they tend to have less extreme positions politically so since america is currently extremely right wing, American atheists seem "left" in comparison, even though they are probably more in the political center.

[genericname85]

and when i say "probably", that doesn't mean "i believe". it means "it is probable". i have extensive knowledge in this field to back up my estimations, because i'm a social scientist by profession. so this is not just an educated guess. it is measurable :)

[coastisclear]

Do you really believe that American society is all far right just because Trump is president?

[genericname85]

no i think the American society is overall far right and that's why trump is the president.

[genericname85]

not every single state is far right of course. i understand that.

[coastisclear]

Or more accurately do you really believe that everybody who voted for Trump is far right? Many of them are moderates who absolutely hate the radical left (but don’t really like Trump)

[genericname85]

no, i do not believe that everyone who voted for trump is far right.

[genericname85]

actually i must correct myself, cause i kind of adopted your false terminology, to reply to your statement. i "know" not all people who voted for trump are far right. i don't "believe" it.

[coastisclear]

Trump rose because the left created an environment for him to do so.

[genericname85]

well surely the alt left have pushed the popular opinion to the right a bit in recent years. that doesn't change the fact that i meantioned before.

[Aaron_Stone]

Once you attach yourself with ideology you become part of a group.
Religion is also a group whose ideology is based on GOD.
If you're associating yourself as atheist your also become part of a group. So they are pretty much same just ideology is different.
I never associate myself with complete ideology. I take part of everything that seems logical and rarional to me.

I would rather be individual who verifies legitimacy of idea instead of blindly following wrong ideas, just because I follow ideology of a group.

[genericname85]

Atheism is not an ideology. It is a conviction as I said and as I said, you don't subscribe to a set of worldviews as you become an atheist. That is not what you can insinuate about atheism in general

you had read what I said, you would know that what I said that I follow what is evidently true and distance myself what is not evidently true. So it is exactly what you described you would rather do instead of following an ideology.

[Aaron_Stone]

If that's how you consider atheism then your right.

[Aaron_Stone]

*you're

[Aaron_Stone]

but as i said earlier religion is group of people following ideology based on GOD.
so atheism can't be considered religion if it doesn't involve ideology followed by group.

[genericname85]

i don't consider that atheism xD i declared in my fist sentence, that atheism is not a religion by definition.

i said what i do as an atheist is follow the truth and that can be defined as religion as religion can be defined as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion." so yes i know and understand the definition of religion that you used and by that definition, no atheist is religios. but by the other definition that i just showed you and that i also used in my take that i wish you had read to save me the time writing this answer, an atheist can religiously follow the truth. this definition that i used has nothing to do with the worship of an ideology or a god, so therefore that definition can fit an atheist but it does not fit "atheism" as i also said in my take xD

[Aaron_Stone]

then by your definition of religion,
for engineer innovation should be called religion because that's what innovator follows with great devotion. your definition of religion is flawed.
Just because you think your self made definition of religion is right doesn't mean it is right.🤣
You're contradicting yourself from start.

[genericname85]

well if you follow engineering with great devotion, then yes according to this definition i gave, engineering would be a religion. you got it. that is exactly what i said and i don't see where that is logically incoherent. maybe you can show me.

you can disagree with the definition and say that this is not a good definition for religion. that's totally fine but you can't accuse me of contradicting myself, if i do not contradict myself.

[Aaron_Stone]

I disagree to definition itself that's why further conclusion of atheism as religion seems flawed to me.
But that's your opinion I can't blame it.

[genericname85]

well first of all, i didn't say "atheism is a religion". i said "atheists can act religiously given the definition of religion that i used". i try to be very precise in what i say and i have corrected this now for the second time so please stop saying that i said atheism is a religion xD. you can disagree and you do. there is nothing wrong with that at all but if you say it's "flawed", i would prefer that you point out where exactly it is flawed and why, so that i can see what you mean and hey, maybe i would agree. but if you just don't like the definition, be honest and say that that's the reason you reject it. it is a totally valid reason to reject it.

some words have more than one definition and this is one of the definitions of religion. i don't really "like" it either, cause for me "religion" always means "worship of god (s)" but well if it isn't defined that way, it's not logically incoherent for other things but "worship of god (s)" to be considered "religion". and to be super clear: i do still not call atheism a religion. i call an atheist that follows truth like me or like in your example: an engineer that is passionate about engineering, religious.

[Aaron_Stone]

seems like You didn't read what I said, I clearly said I disagree with definition itself so there is no point in arguing about your conclusion.
Its like arguing about a thing we remember which you call apple and I call banana.

[genericname85]

"I disagree to definition itself that's why further conclusion of atheism as religion seems flawed to me" is exactly what you said. you didn't just disagree, you said it's flawed. if you quote yourself, at least quote yourself correctly xD
you are correct that if you already disagree with the definition, you also disagree with what follows. that is logically coherent and i have no objection to that.

however we have still 2 elephants in the room here that wouldn't be in the room, if you had not brought them up. you accused me of:
A: being logically incoherent, which i still don't see how i am
B: accused me of using a flawed definition which you haven't pointed out the flaw of.

so you can either explain yourself or be like "never mind, i didn't mean it".

[thomual]

This is the best reply I've read so far, although not 100% what I would call accurate, its pretty close.

[genericname85]

@thomual yes. i agree. but we're not quite at 100%, that's why i'm pedanticly discussing still xD you would think people would spend their time actually doing something that's "fun" right? ^^

[thomual]

To Genericname85. Atheism, though ideological and a conviction, is most definitely a Religion.

In its current form, it has professional Athiest Theologians, who debate and write books against Faith believers. They actively fight religion, and preach beliefs like Aliens planted DNA on Earth, rock layer theory, Lightning as the source of life, and Rock formations under the capital building that took millions of years to form.

Its organized, its Faith based (though not blind), and it has patron Saints and religious texts.

[Anonymous]

Anti theistic atheism is more of a negative sentiment than it is a religion. Many militant left wing ideologies incorporate anti theism into their systems.

While “atheist” is just a fancy word for “non believer”. It doesn’t mean that the atheist has anything against religion, since many atheists get along with religious people. Atheists are also more open minded than their anti theistic counterparts.

Atheism isn’t a religion, even though there are “atheist churches”, they are considered fringe even by atheist standards.

[genericname85]

I wish people would stop dragging everything into the political area. This is really annoying to me.

You are right. Atheism is not a religion which is exactly what I said in my very first sentence. You didn't read more than my headline.

[Opinion Owner]

Your second paragraph says otherwise

“ however recently in a discussion with a christian, i found out about myself, that i actually pursue the truth with great devotion. and the pursuit of "anything" with great devotion is litterally also defined as "religion". so i still am an atheist and now i understand even better why i am a religious atheist.”

[genericname85]

"i am an atheist that is religious". not "Atheism is a religion". you even quoted the right words. now you just gotta read and understand xD

[Opinion Owner]

You contradict yourself

[thomual]

This is 100% completely wrong. You don't know what these words mean. A "non-believer" is not automatically an Athiest. There are tons of other categories like Agnostc, Spiritual, Pagan, Satanist, and non-religious.

This is not how educated people speak and if you've heard it used by a religious or non religious person they were an ignoramus. Don't believe their hogwash. Atheism has little to do with unbelief. It is saturated with belief in the unprovable. It has Theological platforms that it clings to religiously, and yes, it is organized. In Accedemia as well as in, "fringe churches".

Science is for everybody, not just Athiests. Only anti-God Theology based on science is for Atheists only.

[Opinion Owner]

@thomual I don’t know if you are replying to me but if you are, I don’t know where you got that you information.

It’s widely accepted that non believers and non religious folks are atheists. Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve. Spiritual people may or may not believe in a higher power. Paganism and
satanism are religions.

However there are many so called “satanists” who don’t even believe in the entity their church is named after but simply support the church due to it’s liberal teachings.

It’s true that any religious or non religious person can support science, I never said otherwise considering the fact that Christians contributed a lot towards science.

[emptygracey]

Definitions and labels are stupid when it comes to religion because it's all based on belief and belief is the most subjective topic in existence. I call myself agnostic because I don't necessarily dismiss the idea of a higher power, but I certainly don't believe in it the way religions preach about benevolent gods or whatever.

[genericname85]

there's lots of shit that may fit the label of "higher power". gravity is probably one that could fit that definition...

definitions are not stupid at all. definitions show us what words mean. without knowing what the words mean we could not have this discussion at all right now. in fact i would even say that definitions and the understanding of them is what separates us from all the animals on this planet (even though we are still animals too).

[emptygracey]

I think you misunderstood. I said definitions and labels specifically with regard to religion, since belief is subjective definitions are almost always useless

[genericname85]

i think the mainstream definitions are actually quite usefull. for example the definition of believe or faith acutally tells us that neither of those are actually concerned with what's real or true. so it is quite hilarious when christians make any truth claims or claiming that god is real because those claims are the opposite of truth or reality xD

[Anonymous]

My father, who by definition is an atheist, claims he isn't because it is a religion. Which barely makes sense. Yes, atheism is believing in the absence of a deity, and not all religions are based on worshipping a deity, but that doesn't make it a religion

[genericname85]

Atheism is not "believing in the absence of a god" it is "not believing the presence of a god", which is not a minor difference in meaning.

And as I said atheism is not a religion so we don't even disagree. Maybe read what people say before you actually comment ;)

[Opinion Owner]

I'm sorry, I did read your post, I just figured I would put in my perspective. didn't know youd get offended😂

[genericname85]

well if you wanna have a "perspective" on something someone said, you should not missrepresent what they said :D that way you won't offend them. i'm ok with being offended by the way ;) by offending, you find truth. it's a great tool.

[iOoko]

i've heard secular activist aronRa say that the goal of the association he was part (american atheists or something) of was to render the word atheist useless the same way you don't call someone who doesn't play musical instruments "amusicistic". if such a word existed we would be consider it a stance toward music and that's exactly what happens to atheism. there should be a need for the word at all

[genericname85]

@iOoko if you actually listened to Aron Ra, not to what certain people may have said about him, you would know that he actually does the exact opposite. he fights for the ending of the missrepresentation of what atheism is. and the people who claim that his definition renders the word atheism useless don't want to accept the definition (which is by the way the standard definition) cause according to this definition what they claim about atheism is wrong.

so litterally people hate being wrong so instead of correcting themselves, they forbid people from telling the truth so that they don't have to correct their position.

if you do not believe in music, then you are amusistic. that is of course a horribly stupid thing to say and this is why christians love to assert that atheism says that, which it doesn't, which is exactly what Aron Ra says xD

if i tell you that you are wrong by claiming that you hold a position that you do not hold, then i'm a lying charlatan. and that is EXACTLY what christians and appologists specifically do. specially appologists actually openly say that this is what they do. they defend their believe against everything that is evidently true. they don't want truth. they want their believe. that's why they don't want to listen what aron ra says. they rather missrepresent what he says so that hey can say that what he says is wrong.

[iOoko]

aronra did say that in one of his speeches and there's nothing wrong with it. i agree with him. he doesn't believe the definition is useless but he wants it to become that way. i'll illustrate it in a way you're probably already familiar with:
religious people are already atheists toward all religions but one yet they only call themselves according to the religion they do have rather those they don't have. when people understand this the word atheist will become much less frequent as it will be the default.

[genericname85]

he does not call them atheists. he sais atheists don't believe in god. and he says christians don't believe in a huge bunch of gods, so in that sense they are atheistic. that is not wrong. and it doesn't muddy the definition of atheism.
it just shows the absurd position of accepting one god but not another god. cause there's no mechanism with which you could know which one (s) of them are real. so he says that to show that picking one god is stupid. not to try and change the definition of what atheism means.

[iOoko]

he doesn't challenge the definition of atheism and i didn't say he does. he wishes for a world where calling yourself an atheist in terms of religion will be of the same lane as calling yourself an amusicist in terms of music. the definition remains the same. the example i gave wasn't to prove religions are stupid though i can be used to do that, it was supposed to show how the same way a christian doesn't call himself an atheist toward islam an atheist shouldn't need to do that about either christianity or islam, or any religion. i don't think we even disagree, you just don't pay attention to what i say

[genericname85]

@iOoko there is a big difference between calling "atheism religion" and claiming that an atheist can act religiously in some sense. there's also a big difference between saying christianity is atheistic and saying that a christian can act like an atheist in some sense.

can we agree on that?

[iOoko]

i never said atheism is a religion and i wasn't just saying christians can act like atheists. what i said is the following: the same way a christian isn't defined by what they don't believe neither should be an atheist so the word itself is sort of funny. i'll loosely quote asimov: i am an atheist but i'd rather call myself a humanist and a rationalist than an atheist because those illustrate what i believe in rather than what i don't believe in.

[genericname85]

@iOoko ok sorry, i only just realize that you didn't. i didn't realize i wasn't talking to the original commenter anymore.

[iOoko]

oh that happens to me a lot. i was confused

[OddBeMe]

None. Religion implies belief. Atheism is non-belief. There are sects of Buddhism that don't believe in any actual gods so there could be a special definition of an atheistic religion. But in actuality, atheism is a-theism. A-belief, like atypical: not typical.

[genericname85]

that is exactly what i said. atheists can still act religiously if you define religion so loosely that it excludes god. that's the point i'm making here. but atheism is not a collection of homogeneously thinking individuals. that's why what can be said for an individual atheist can not be said for "atheism".

[OddBeMe]

Yeah but it’s not like the term Christian. That implies religion.

[genericname85]

well yes. that's probably why atheism is not a recognized as "religion" by any government in the world xD

[theChineseWASP]

I don't think atheism is a religion however I do think it is a belief system. For example feminism is a belief system.

[genericname85]

feminism is an ideology, not a belief system. atheism rejects the system when it comes to the question of god belief so it's not a belief system.

an atheist can still believe stuff. for example if you told me that you have 2 arms and 2 legs, i would "believe" that. i would accept that as true without evidence and still be an atheist. but i will still always reject claims regarding a god untill there's evidence that there is a god.

[Mister_E_Alaska]

A = lack of & theism = god
Atheism literally means a lack of belief.

[genericname85]

That is correct and that does at no point conflict with what I said, which leads me to the assumption that you didn't actually read what I said other than maybe the headline.

[Daniel3035]

Atheism is a belief itself doesn't matter what it is in just so long as there is a belief then there is a religion because that is what religion is a belief in something.

[genericname85]

so if you believe that you have to take a piss, is that religion?

[Daniel3035]

That's a different context of belief ie verb in law the belief has to conform to something which is the nature of a role model or something that holds a way of guidance.

[genericname85]

well it holds a way of guidance because if you believe you have to take a piss, you're likely to go to the loo instead of pissing your pants right?

i am making the argument here basically, if you reduce the meanding of religion and believe so much that it basically says everything and therefore nothing, then yes atheism also does that :D

[genericname85]

but you can reduce the meaning and legitimately do that. it's not fallacious. it's just not accurate.

[Daniel3035]

Nope, that would be understanding of a consequence rather than guidance.

[genericname85]

ok so you are for the destinction between different kinds of believes, that's good. i agree. though a definition of religion/believe that rejects that distinction would still be logically coherent even though it doesn't say much xD

[genericname85]

i do agree that it is dumb. but i can't say it's wrong. that's my issue.

[Daniel3035]

It's not really for me to say in law the decision is considered by judges.

[genericname85]

yeah well jusdges gotta know somehow right? xD cause they're also just humans.

[thomual]

Ok guys there is a difference about calling something religious and calling it a religion. If you believe you have to take a loss every day at 4pm, you are religious about peeling at 4, but that doesn't make it your religion.

Yes the word is used this way but not very commonly, and its more of a simile than literal usage of the word.

In the same way a religion that you make up on your own might be your personal religion, but it is not an organized religion. And weather or not they are, "religious" about their made up personal belief is another thing entirely.

What you need to understand is that public schools do not teach Theology, and rarely teach Philosophy. Colleges offer Philosophy as an elective, and only some colleges even offer world religions or Theology.

These are entire educational disciplines that you, and 98% of Americans have practically zero education on. And this is why the terminology is so confusing. If people actually studied Theology they wouldn't jeopardize words the way you guys are complaining about.

I HAVE studied philosophy, Theology, Sociology, Psychology, and World Religions and I can tell you they're completely different disciplines.

Hardly anybody has used the terminology correctly in this thread.

[Daniel3035]

Mmmmm debatable XD some of the things you see though you'd consider if they are.

[Daniel3035]

@thomual Dear sir thank you for your unwanted opinion? Professor of Philosophy? Degree?
However, I am British and here in school religious education now known as religious "philosophy" is compulsory so I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "you, and 98% of Americans have practically zero education on." I would add I scored an A* on it as well.
However, what you've failed to realise is I am talking about the Law and in the Law, your ideas of theology and philosophy don't exist. What I am saying is what a court of law will apply to a real-life scenario eg a group of people "pleading insanity" who call themselves a cult is that a religion apply the law.
Now I understand you wish to push your ideologies onto other people however please do it elsewhere.

[najekim]

According to most, an "Atheist" does not believe in a supernatural personified religious being entitled "God." But many do believe in a "higher power" called Nature. I took the shortcut bypassing religion and believe in the power of Nature.

[genericname85]

i would say that you do not believe in the power of nature. i would say that you "know" about the power of nature because you can show, prove, verify, measure, test and demonstrate the "power of nature" in a lot of different ways. because "nature" is a collective term for every thing that is not human or made by humans. so it addresses the physical real world and that applies to all standards of "knowing shit" :D

[apropos1]

Yikes. As with anything else... If you let some thing consume your life and it leaves you verbally attacking and mentally denegrading people because they have a different angle of approaching things... Unfortunately very much like religion

[genericname85]

At no point did I even talk about or condone the verbal attacking of people or any of that sort. I don't know how you read that into what I said.

[apropos1]

You didn't.. i implied a comparison. Of like thoughts. I apologise that I wasn't clear

[genericname85]

I don't get what you're saying then xD

[apropos1]

I'm really not good at communication it seems. I am sorry and I wish you well

[MeatPuppet]

Although atheistic religions or cults are theoretically possible, atheism itself is not religious. Atheism is a lack of belief in god-s. That's all it is.

[QueenOfBaku]

It cannot be considered as a religion. A religion must have a book and a prophet

[genericname85]

that is true for one of the definitions of religion. it has different definitions though and as i just stated, a religion can be defined as "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. so if truth is a special interest for you that you pursue with great devotion, falls under the definition of religion. that still does not mean that atheism is a religion, which i also said. but that does mean that you can be religious while being an atheist.

[genericname85]

so if truth is a special interest for you that you pursue with great devotion, that falls...***

[QueenOfBaku]

I agree

[apropos1]

Says whom? I don't believe any native American religions had prophets or books... I never read of the Greeks codifying thier torturous practices for posterity.. most of the world just learned how to read.. if you say religions have to have books and prophets, would you be a little more spot on to say that it can only be a religion if it causes war and hypocracy?

[thomual]

False. A religion is defined by its beliefs, not by the presence of a prophet or text. But even if that was true, Atheism would still be a religion. Its patron is Darwin, and its text is called, "The Origin of Species".

[Luukku]

We are human too.(some) Christian say we are devils because we dont believe god. So we are considered Religous because we are human.

[genericname85]

well they must assume that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe is evil, cause otherwise they couldn't continue to believe that what they believe is good.

[OfDeath]

You can pursue something "religiously" but that doesn't mean you have a religion.

[genericname85]

which is exactly what i said in my take ;)

[pizzalovershouse]

can't say I'm not good at these types of things to know enough to make a excellent comment

[MrTaboo]

According to Webster; Religion- commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

[genericname85]

Which Webster did you quote that from. When I look up the Webster dictionary, it doesn't say that.

[genericname85]

either way this is irelevant because i gave my definition of religion in this take so i don't know why you would quote a definition that i did not use. you know how you spot a shitty definition? if the word it's trying to define ends up being part of the definition xD you can't define words with themselves.

[MrTaboo]

It's just the second search result.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

[genericname85]

ok thanks. i see. "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." that would be the one close to the one i am applying.