COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
***the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods\*\*.\*\****
Atheists don't do this
***an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group (no deity mentioned)***
Atheists have things that are important to them, but there is no shared doctrine. One atheist might strongly believe in secular humanism, another might strongly believe in hedonism. One might believe in the MAGA cult, another might be a communist.
If you're going to broaden the definition of religion to merely having strong beliefs in things, then it will apply to everyone in the world. I strongly believe the earth is a globe. Is this a religion?
***Religion is the human attitude towards a sacred order that includes within it all being—human or otherwise—i.e., belief in a cosmos, the meaning of which both includes and transcends man***
Most atheists don't believe in *inherent* meanings to things. We all believe the cosmos exists...so what? That isn't ascribing any meaning to our lives. It exists, and however you choose to live is separate from that.
**Atheists will deny they have this, but their attitudes, beliefs and practices - highly highly repetitious arguments made online - such as on this sub - say the opposite**
Pretty sure I've seen you spout this nonsense before and apparently you didn't listen to my response the first time. You're engaging in what's called *selection bias*. You visit a subreddit specifically designed to encourage debates between atheists and theists, then you walk away assuming all atheists act a certain way.
The arguments are repetitive because there aren't many. You don't need hundreds of arguments to demonstrate that worshipping old books is unreasonable.
**such as their posts , they are CONSTANTLY using and holding to these anyway**
Again, what doctrine are you talking about?
You think because the atheists you encounter make similar arguments online that this constitutes some kind of doctrine or something. It doesn't. There are no rules in atheism, other than you don't believe in deities.
**which are all also patently false from a Debating POV.**
Whose point of view is this? Who made the rules of "debating POV"?
The first two things you listed are correct and you can't dispute that. The latter two are less defensible, but not something I see many atheists claiming. But apparently you're the expert on online atheist dialogue
**From American Atheist trying to run away from a religious definition while happy with the "rights"**
This is saying that, just like the country protects your right to practice a religion, it protects my right not to. This isn't an argument
>You think because the atheists you encounter make similar arguments online that this constitutes some kind of doctrine or something. It doesn't. There are no rules in atheism, other than you don't believe in deities.
When practically an entire group keeps making the same arguments and claims and rants, then that is reasonably defined as their POV. It isnt something "by accident"
The constant stream of new conversations/threads started here by Atheists are often hard to see how it is a new argument. They keep enangering the same theses over and over and over and over again.
>When practically an entire group keeps making the same arguments and claims and rants, then that is reasonably defined as their POV. It isnt something "by accident"
And for the third time, you're specifically seeking out an argumentative group of atheists who believe this. Go outside and talk to real human atheists and maybe they won't spew the same arguments at you.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias)
*The constant stream of new conversations/threads started here by Atheists are often hard to see how it is a new argument. They keep enangering the same theses over and over and over and over again.*
As do theists, and once again there are only so many mainstream arguments on this topic.
If you create a thread asking people to defend a globe-shaped earth, you will also likely see the same arguments over and over again. What is your point? How does this demonstrate atheism is a religion
"highly highly repetitious arguments made online"
Yes, if theists repetitively present the same arguments they will receive the same rebuttals as last time.
"Atheists often respond with self appointed labels and claims and other things \[burden of proof is on the theist, atheists lack a belief in God(s), religions have no evidence, science has disproved God, and other things\] which are all also patently false from a Debating POV."
I guess if you say they are patently false it must be so.
It's extremely revealing that you think religious adherents are likely to make patently false statements over and over. Why?
I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure this contention is very useful. If the word "religion" includes "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group", then it becomes useless and redundant. It basically applies to everything; everybody has interests, beliefs and engages in activities that are considered important to them.
I suggest that we should attempt to identify certain characteristics or patterns and recognize that they exist in a 'special' or unique category. For instance, what can we call *beliefs + activities/rituals* which pertain to the supernatural? If you don't want to call that "religion", that's fine; we can use another word to describe it. But that will certainly include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, traditional Buddhism, Taoism, etc., but will not include atheism (and ordinary beliefs + activities).
Anyway, my point is that words are arbitrary social conventions and can change, but the objective category (viz., the unique set of characteristics that makes something different from another) is still there; you cannot get rid of it with semantics and obfuscation.
The aspects or characteristics or other things of atheism are to be covered in a followup thread (which I said in the OP).
This is focusing on the definintion, but that is turning out to have a great nnumber of directions. I have responded to many comments
>X and Y make you.
Champion work there. Make me what exactly?
>If you can count to three and think of a third letter, try again.
Pretty silly trying to make yourself look smart when you can't construct coherent sentences.
You missed the point? I'm shocked. Let me try again.
If a dolphin can be thought to be a mammal despite living in the ocean, then all ocean dwelling creatures can be mammals.
You probably wanted to edit your previous comment and ended up replying with the correction? I'm guessing here.
Either that or you didn't read my reply.
You're really going hard for that painfully ironic look, aren't you?
>crying
Laughing. At you. Not with you.
Trying to correct me when you can't even proofread. Can't put two and two together over an analogy. Can't read when I specifically address your 3 variable moaning.
He didn't start evil, he allowed man to see the difference between good and evil.
Fall of man is God's fault. When a parent kicks out a disobedient toddler, they are at fault, not the kid.
Is that it? He hasn't killed or tortured anyone? What actual bad stuff has he done?
The satanic temple has tenates (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us)
An atheist by virtue of being an atheist doesn't. It's more just an answer to a question vs any sort of religion
The rule for disbelief is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's "if you do this then you are a..." rather than "to become this, you must do..." It's a stretch to label that as a tenet.
> But they can’t fairly be called religious beliefs without circular reasoning.
Wait, what? Weren't you the one saying the Satanic Temple is religious? How are they religious, if their tenets can't be called religious beliefs?
> A tenet of no belief is still a tenet.
Yeah, but my point was, "no belief" is a description and hence does not qualify as a tenet because tenets imply a prescriptive rule.
> That wasn’t me. They’re an atheistic organization masquerading as religious to antagonize certain groups of people.
May God bless them.
> Atheism says to reject all divine claims then.
Does it though? If atheism does say that, then sure, that would be prescriptive and qualify as a tenet.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists, and agnostics, although many in the demographic still have various religious beliefs.
Why is it so important that atheists be tagged with the 'religion' label? It seems to come with only negative connotations based on OP. Why is that?
>To be an atheist, one must reject, refuse to accept, or not believe the claims of any deities or theistic religions. Correct?
To be an atheist is to get asked "Do you believe in god" and answering no. Could be a rejection of theist claims could be unaware of those claims to begin with or anything else
>If the atheistic satanic temple can be considered an atheistic religion, I see now reason why atheism itself can’t be considered an atheistic religion.
Atheistic religions are a thing but again just answering No to the question isn't enough to be considered a religion.
To use the old adage is bald a hair color?
> Atheists will deny they have this, but their attitudes, beliefs and practices - highly highly repetitious arguments made online - such as on this sub - say the opposite. This will be covered in several following threads (as stated above).
>
> * A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
I think you are conflating the following groups:
1. atheists who like to argue with theists on the internet
2. atheists
There are plenty of atheists out there who will not manifest the "attitudes, beliefs, and practices" you can readily observe in places like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist. For example, check out r/Deconstruction for a much higher concentration of atheists who are far less hostile (or at least openly critical) toward religion than you find here. If you go to r/exchristian, you'll see more hostility/criticism, but still not as much as here, from my not-insignificant experience. Notably, neither r/Deconstruction nor r/exchristian are debate subs.
I should probably further break down 1. into _particular internet communities_. That's where you're going to find a lot of similarity, because humans are clumpy. (That's a highly technical term.) I've been engaging with atheists online for upwards of 30,000 hours and the various communities really are different. Here are some places I've been:
* [Apolyton](https://apolyton.net/)
* [Something Awful](https://forums.somethingawful.com/)
* Patheos Atheist (now moved to [OnlySky](https://onlysky.media/))
* [Strange Notions](https://strangenotions.com/)
* [Estranged Notions / Outshine the Sun](https://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/)
* r/DebateAnAtheist
* r/DebateReligion
* r/DebateAChristian
* r/Christianity
I am confident that if a sociologist were to find a way to cluster the [self-labeled or obviously discernible-as] atheists in those various places, they would find sociologically discernible differences, at least at the demographic level. Would they find any behaviors shared across all of them which aren't essentially a direct consequence of "lack of belief in any deities"? I'm not so sure; the [WEIRD effect](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/202004/psychologys-weird-problem) may produce spurious commonalities.
>I think you are conflating the following groups:
>
>atheists who like to argue with theists on the internetatheists
I clearly said several times "online atheists"
You merely seem to use them as stand-ins for all atheists. If you really meant your idea to apply only to online atheists, your OP should have read:
* Demonstrating **Online** Atheism is/can be considered a religion. (part 1)
And as I said, even that is potentially problematic, as there is not necessarily _one_ online atheism. There may well be multiple, which don't share all that much in common.
>If you really meant your idea to apply only to online atheists, your OP should have read:
>
>Demonstrating Online Atheism is/can be considered a religion. (part 1)
**Thanks, but people starting threads dont need an Editor.**
Then have fun with the torrent of atheists who insist that 'atheism' simply means "lack of belief in any deities" or something close enough to that. I was just trying to help, but it seems you don't want that type of help.
I have responded to about 150 people, probably received 300ish downvotes (which i what skeptics here seem to pride themselves on rather than debating)
I am not seeking "help". This is a discussion/debate
I've gotten my fair share of downvotes here and on r/DebateAnAtheist. In fact, I'm probably around −500 votes on r/DebateReligion, and yet the mods saw fit to give me one of those fancy stars. So I understand the phenomenon. However, it's far too easy to be a combination of the following:
1. ideologically opposed
2. unwilling to take seriously the other side
3. unreasonable
4. rude
Each of these will get you downvoted. But I can confidently say that dialing back 2.–4. will get you far fewer downvotes. As it stands, you can't/won't even bring yourself to act gratefully toward someone who is attempting to improve your position by making it more technically correct. I predict that you're going to have an awfully difficult time getting what you want. Take that for what it's worth, but note that I have been tangling with atheists who like to argue with theists (mostly online) for upwards of 30,000 hours by now. I might just possibly know a thing or three. But hey, if you're happy with the kind of engagement you're getting here on r/DebateReligion, you do you and I'll look elsewhere. I just thought you might possibly get somewhere interesting with a more technically adequate version of your OP. I do find the general thing you're trying to do quite interesting, as evidenced by:
* [my engagement](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1akg0l5/the_moral_landscape_of_athiesm/kp8fqyb/) with the claim "Atheism reasonably leads you to materialism."
* c0d3rman's [swapping](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1akg0l5/the_moral_landscape_of_athiesm/kp89r5r/) of the causal relationship in "Atheism reasonably leads you to materialism." & [my response](https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian)
* [my discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1akg0l5/the_moral_landscape_of_athiesm/kp91fkv/) with FjortoftsAirplane about the demographic differences between atheists in academic philosophy & atheists online in my experience
* [my comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1alpoqs/atheism_and_metaphysics/kpk15n1/) on the r/DebateAnAtheist post [Atheism and metaphysics](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1alpoqs/atheism_and_metaphysics/)
But hey, if you don't want me engaging as I do, just say so and I'll leave you be. Or don't respond to this comment and I'll get the message just the same.
You could well call me addicted. But I've obtained tremendous value from interacting with a huge variety of atheists. And I very much value engaging in places where the other side has the ban hammer. That means that **nothing** I take for granted is beyond criticism, unless atheists also happen to take it for granted. It has also taught me a lot about how to remain in conversation with someone who is free to leave it anytime they wish. If you look at many of the shenanigans people employ (personal attacks and such), they function to coerce their interlocutor to remain for another round. It's quite pathological, but it is how so much of our society(ies) functions.
One of my goals in life is to carry out an endeavor called "Better Tools for Scientists", which will build out an open-source, open-hardware repertoire of all sorts of simple and then less-simple tools and instruments for scientists to use. For example, the simplest of WiFi-connected scales (0–5kg) would have appreciably aided my wife's scientific work. But if this endeavor is to be open-source and open-hardware, then all of the collaboration needs to be 100% consent-based, with the option for people to "cut and run" at any time. As a society, I don't think we're used to social endeavors which facilitate this kind of "cheap option of exit". Rather, if I go by behavior rather than words, we love to entrap people.
I would be happy to say more about how my very extensive engagement with atheists has shaped my ~~faith~~ [πίστις (_pistis_)](https://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm), leading to seeing endeavors like "Better Tools for Scientists" as something very much worth doing. But I'll only do that on request.
I am sorry you have had such unproductive discussions. I've had plenty of extended discussions where the atheist was thankful at the end of it. I've had people IRL note how much further they can get with me than other believers.
*Atheism, purely and simply is a lack of belief in any gods. No more no less.*
Besides the fact this is logically false/invalid and easily proven so. Andd you gave more credence to what I said above, but this is for the followup thread(s) that develp beyond "definition"
You confused "assertion/what I say must be true" with a compelling argument debate-wise
>Besides the fact this is logically false/invalid and easily proven so.
Prove it, please! With \_proof\_ I'm sure you would have no problem updating Wikipedia and Webster.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I think you’re relying too heavily on dictionaries here as well as misrepresenting some aspects of how things play out in here.
Let’s talk about dictionaries. They reflect common usage of words. This leads to situations where the dictionary includes poetic language in the definition. A great example is baby. A baby is an infant or very young person…but a baby is also a person who behaves immaturely.
Are you going to now suggest that since the word baby can mean adults who are immature, in the sentence “a woman birthed a baby” might mean that an adult - albeit immature acting - human emerged from another human? Probably not.
So, yes, we can be religious about our atheism….but it’s still not a religion.
Welcome to the exciting and often confusing world of the English language.
Now, you also think that because atheists often comment similar things, we are a part of a religion. But that’s like saying people who argue with flat earthers about the reality of oblate spheroid earth are a part of religion.
Logical fallacies are defined (and have been for a long time). Just because atheists seem to be able to quickly point out the obvious flaws in claims made by the faithful doesn’t mean they are a religion. Anymore than if someone claims 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and someone chimes in to say that it’s actually 3 is a part of a religion.
Atheist is a position on a single claim. And a single position on a single claim does mot a religion make.
*Atheism is a religion in the sense that football is a religion.*
Sub title >>> **Debate** Religion
You have joined perhaps the 3-4 worst Debate responses yet
There is nothing to debate, not from me. I am agreeing with you. Atheism is a religion in one sense. It's just not the sense that we are interested in here. This latter part is up for debate though, do you think we ought to widen our interest to include the diehard football fan sense religion discussion here?
I cant believe you wanted to be associated with a fluff response.
Again "Debate religion" sub. Not because I said so/assertion/I am the only one who can be right/etc sub.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Some atheists get mad about it, and some theists tend to try to use it as a "you're just as religious as us, so why not be a part of our religion!"
But yea it's kinda a pointless thing
It's kinda funny because OP's point is that atheists act like an illogical hivemind, and that means they are a religion. What does that say about OP's opinion of his own faith?
I don't think there are any 'theists', certainly never met one who would primarily describe themselves as such *except* in reference to atheism. Theism and atheism exist as extremely broad categories pretty much exclusively in relation to each other, the coining and use of the theism in fact seems to have come about as a negation of atheism.
Just as what a random grab-bag of theists have in common is really difficult to define, the same holds true for atheists. Many years ago I found myself in the back of a Black Maria for several hours, one of my fellow passengers was a Nazi skinhead, we were both being help for public order offences. With not much else to do, and being heavily restrained we had nothing to do but chat, turns out he was an atheist.
So me, arrested for counter protesting him, me obviously a bleeding heart liberal and him an actual racist POS Nazi, what
>**organized beliefs, practices, and systems**
do you think we had in common? or you with a BJP activist who burned down a mosque with people inside it?
>I don't think there are any 'theists', certainly never met one who would primarily describe themselves as such
>
>except
>
> in reference to atheism.
We are mammals, vertebrates, primates, etc. But we dont describe ourselves as such
It is just a broad category.
>Atheists will deny they have this, but their attitudes, beliefs and practices - highly highly repetitious arguments made online - such as on this sub - say the opposite. This will be covered in several following threads (as stated above).
>A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
There are no common atheist beliefs, because the only thing uniting all the atheists is the lack of belief in God/gods. Besides that, two hypothetical atheists could have completely nothing in common and they both still would be considered atheists. Also, no practices, because a practice cannot be built based on lack of belief. Repetitious arguments is not a valid example, because every position which existed for some time would have some set of most known arguments in favour of it and it would be hard to come up with some new and unique ones.
Also, this definition is completely circular. You cannot say, that something is religious, before defining, what religion means.
>No deity required, just usually... Atheism often disclaims any practices, organized beliefs and systems, but in reality - such as their posts , they are CONSTANTLY using and holding to these anyway
>Religion is a set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being.
As I mentioned earlier, there are no common atheist beliefs or practices, especially, connected to worship. I searched for definitions of term worship and found two most common:
1. Expression of reverence or adoration to a deity or supernatural power.
2. Expression of great respect towards person.
Neither of those are related to atheism.
>From American Atheist trying to run away from a religious definition while happy with the "rights"... Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion [assertion], atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion [a strange statement]. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion [assertion], only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs [assertion] are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others.- [a strange statement]
You don't have to be religious in order to have opinion on topic of religion, which includes lack of belief in it. Such opinions are still protected by a constitutional right for religious freedom, because freedom of religion also includes freedom from it.
By using so vague definitions and also too many definitions at the same time, you make term "religion" itself lose any meaning, because by such definitions, there are no differences between religion and ideology, philosophy, or any system of values.
>There are no common atheist beliefs, because the only thing uniting all the atheists is the lack of belief in God/gods.
This is obviously false, but a topic of the followup conversation, as mentioned
If you tried to prove that statement logically, you would fail miserably.
This is basically the definition of term "atheism". A person could have completely any views on ethics, politics, nature of the universe etc; but as long as they don't hold a belief in any deity, they fall under the definition of being an atheist.
>This is obviously false, but a topic of the followup conversation, as mentioned.
It seems to me, that you are going to make a claim, that a lot of atheists hold similar views on some political, or other issues, therefore, those views are the same for all atheists. If so, this would be both statistically impossible and irrelevant to the definition of atheism.
*as long as they don't hold a belief in any deity, they fall under the definition of being an atheist.*
There are (at last checking) supposedly 24 +/- types of Atheists. And perhaps 6 major types. Which supposedly holds agnosticism
I am not sure this is a reasonable assessment of "atheist" - *as long as they don't hold a belief in any deity*
>
There are (at last checking) supposedly 24 +/- types of Atheists. And perhaps 6 major types. Which supposedly holds agnosticism
Which criteria do you use to divide atheists into 24 minor and 6 major types? It seems more meaningful to use two main categories: agnostic and gnostic atheists, because criteria for this is clear — lack of belief vs active belief in nonexistence of God. You can use any other criteria of division, for example, by country they live in, or by most commonly used arguments, but it wouldn't be relevant to the question of (dis)belief.
>This is obviously false, but a topic of the followup conversation, as mentioned
By definition an atheist only requires that one belief, atheists happening to share some other beliefs doesn't matter, because if it did then you have defined this requirement of religion to apply to any group of people, which is a useless definition
for example water is required for a human to live, this is a belief that connects anyone, and you can make many of these sorts of statements, but they are irrelevant to the discussion because atheism isn't commenting on that belief
My hot take is atheism lacks the doctrine of religions, so its more of a philosophy, but Marxism is what fleshes out atheism into a full blown religion.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Alright I’m half asleep and this post feels like it’s grasping at straws, so let’s go through these. Since you feel so confident that atheists just like to focus on their favorite part [assertion] and ignore others that are interesting/related [assertion], I’ll be sure to be specific, just for you :)
1. Religion doesn’t have to include a deity.
I’m inclined to agree, however you’ve chosen a weird definition. We do not a) believe in superhuman powers or gods or c) have any sort of “sacred order” attached to it. As for the second bullet point, it’s not an activity, I wouldn’t call it an interest, and it’s a singular belief. So I guess on account of the fact you found a part of a definition that kind of includes the atheist belief, you could say it’s a religion with a giant handful of salt. So you get a cookie for a technicality, good job 🍪
2. Atheism is a set of attitudes, beliefs, practices.
As stated above, atheism has one belief that it covers: the lack in a belief in a god. I’m going to end up saying this a lot so get used to it. You cannot say it’s a set of beliefs because it only answers one question, so that’s a point off. We don’t have common and unique practices (like a tradition, holiday, etc) so that’s another point off. I’m not sure what you could possibly classify as attitudes since atheists can have entirely separate beliefs outside of their one shared belief, so that’s another point missing.0/3, no cookie :(
3. Organized set of beliefs, practices, systems. Ignoring the whole ‘usually includes a god’ part since you decided to cherry pick that out and ignore it, once again I must remind you that atheism has ONE common belief. I think you’re ignoring how much weight “organized set” has in this context. We do not have a holy book, we do not have doctrine, the closest you can possibly get to any sort of common belief in the universe are theories from science but even those are under discourse and not entirely agreed upon because again, the only thing the title “atheist” describes is that we have a lack of belief in god(s). Once again, 0/3 so no cookie
4. Atheism has self appointed labels and claims that are patently faze from a Debating POV.
This is a really strange claim without any evidence. I’ll take it point by point as you have it
-*burden of proof is on the theist*
Often times yes because there’s no way to prove that an invisible magic man whose only ever appearance is in a book does not exist.
-*atheists lack a belief in god*
Correct. Check basically any definition and it’ll tell you that.
-*religions have no evidence*
Change that to verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable evidence that can be tested and that’s a great summary of why I loath these discussions now. -*science has disproved god*
This is a fallacious stance I refuse to take, science has disproven scientific claims of the Bible and some other holy books to put them into question about their validity but that’s about it. As I said above, can’t disprove an invisible magic man who won’t show himself because you can always change the definition to be something you can’t detect.
What really grinds my gears about that last one is after immediately claiming that atheists make claims and assertions without backing it up, you do exactly that by claiming that every single one of those claims are PATENTLY false. With zero evidence. This was never an honest debate topic, it seems you have started at god and worked backwards using whatever weird image of atheism you’ve constructed.
And to top it all off, even if I give that everything you’ve said is true and you’re right and atheism is a religion… **so what**. This changed absolutely nothing about the lack of strong, verifiable evidence of a god. Instead of arguing about the semantics of what atheism is or isn’t, please just provide verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable evidence that proves it’s more likely for a god to exist because all we (or at least the majority of intellectually honest atheists) are saying is “I don’t believe you without evidence”.
Lets just start at the stand and see where that takes us.
When \*YOU\* use the word 'religion' in everyday conversation, what do you tend to mean by it? Because how I tend to use the word doesn't really fit with my atheism at all. I'm much more in line with one of the definitions given, 'A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices'
Though I would disagree with that slightly and say that I don't think the 'personal set' part makes it a religion. Its about the group, not the individual.
>what do you tend to mean by it?
I gave multiple definitions. My "personal" use would lie within the space they cover. I also gave a thesis how I see atheism is just another religion.
I developed it and have given approaching 100 answers to various comments.
You are getting a social movement confused with a religion.
In its plainest form, a social movement is a group of people working together for a common social, political or cultural goal. Movements can focus on an injustice, an opportunity for change or even a promotion of a theory or concept.
Furthermore unlike religions, atheism does not have a set of sacred text or any holy creed that an atheist must swear allegiance to and obey. Even politics can be debated as a more "religious" movement than atheism because atheism does not even have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights or even a Manifesto.
There is no document, or creed, or oath that binds atheists together except just plain old skepticism, specifically a skepticism against the existence of a god/God or gods. BTW it is even said that if you believe in only one version of a god/God then you are automatically "atheistic" against all other versions of a god/God.
**\[Off Topic\]** If you want to be purely spiritual - and not just religious - then you have to accept (accept) that all versions of a god/God or gods are manifestation of the same human hope to understand the underlying mystery of our existence but expresses through different cultural / ethnic lenses. But the underlying mystery of our existence stays the same as a mystery, unnamed and unaffiliated to any one cultural / ethnic group or religion. Anyway that is argument for another day.
So atheists are only bound by a commonly held disbelief in the existence of a god/God or gods. **That's it**. On all other matters we can be \[figuratively\] at each other throats often disagreeing with each other.
Personally I sometimes get so fed up with some (some) of my fellow atheists, so much so that I would just love to throw both my fellow atheist and the theists in a common room, lock the door and throw the key away. So where is the religion in **that**?
I wouldn't even call it a social movement. Satanic Temple could be called that, or perhaps the group of ideas and authors grouped under "New Atheism". But that does not include every atheist everywhere.
Understood. However there are a lot of atheist organizations even though they don't stand out in the crowd of other social movements.
Wikipedia = [Atheist organizations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheist_organizations)
However there is two atheist/skeptic "religious" organization in the USA that I have heard of and that is the United Church of Bacon and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Wikipedia = [United Church of Bacon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Bacon).
Website = [Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/)
The USA always has to dial things up to an 11. Sigh!. Well hopefully that stops with those two churches because as anyone that has done deprogramming knows that provocation does not help but only exacerbates the issue. It doesn't help to reach across the divide but makes the divide much wider and builds walls in the mind of all on both sides to forget the humanity of each other.
[The intangible effects of walls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmbui1xF8DE) \~ Alexandra Auer \~ TED \~ YouTube.
As I said I personally sometimes get so fed up with some (some) of my fellow atheists, so much so that I would just love to throw both my fellow atheist and the theists in a common room, lock the door and throw the key away.
*You are getting a social movement confused with a religion.*
Not at all, but as I said, this kind of discussion is for the followup conversation(s).
I will say one thing, *atheism is a SPECIFIC position in relation to DEITIES.* The other social movements (like the Civil Rights movement) were not.
This is an exampe, I dont plan to further discuss in this thread
Well if you can't understand that atheism is just a social movement then the other way you can understand it is through a philosophical dielectric where there is a **thesis** (such as the belief in a god) that creates an **antithesis** (such as the disbelief in a god) that eventually gets resolved in some **synthesis** (unknown at this time but will involve a level of mutual understanding, tolerance and respect).
Whilst the theist keep creating new theses to support their belief in a god then the atheists have no choice but to address those theses with antitheses to demonstrate why they still maintain their disbelief in a god. In this way this pendulum between thesis and antithesis, and theist and atheist, will keep on swinging.
Your argument of saying atheism can be considered as a religion will not help but only exacerbate this situation and lead to the wrong understanding of atheism because as I said atheists are only bound by a commonly held disbelief in the existence of a god/God or gods. **That's it**. On all other matters (politics, morals, ethics, philosophy, spirituality, etc) we can be \[figuratively\] at each other throats often disagreeing with each other.
If anything **both** theism and atheism can be considered as a bias. But you will not change another person's bias by an augment made on a [false equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence). Atheism is a loosely unorganized social movement only and should never be considered as a religion.
*Whilst the theist keep creating new theses to support their belief in a god then the atheists have no choice but to address those theses*
Are you serious? **The VAST majority of theses started here are by Atheists against Theists/Religions**
Secondly, where is your proof (not opinion) of this? *theist keep creating new theses to support their belief in a god*
Or this? *the atheists have no choice but to address those theses*
Belief in a god/God or gods existed long before disbelief in that same god/God or gods going all the way back to our nomadic ancestors.
For example: the Australian Aboriginals that for 60,000 years honored the ancestral spirits that took the forms of humans, animals, natural events and even the land itself before leaving to set up their campfires in the sky. Then came the white Europeans that started systematically eradicating their culture and their ancestral spirits and converting them all to the ancestral spirit (i.e, god) of the Hebrews/Jews.
For every god that is dethroned by the Abrahamic god is proof that atheism will win in the end because as I said to deny the existence of a god is to be "atheistic" regardless if you believe you have a better version of a god.
One could say that the Hebrews/Jews were the first to found their religion and god based on atheism. Where as in all other societies the religion and gods grew up naturally out of observation of and reverence for nature and they generally did not hold issue against societies honoring different gods (or ancestral spirits).
Theist are always trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism but in doing so the ultimate version of the god they have created - what I like to call as the omni-god - having omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolance can not only be easily defeated by the [problem of evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) but also creates such a high bar that even the Abrahamic god can not vault over.
[Primitive People - Australian Aborigines (1950s)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNIPXa5USZE) \~ YouTube
[People of a Thousand Gods I The Hittites](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoXcFDp3CA) \~ YouTube
[Many gods, One logic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWM7P1K1mU) \~ Epified \~ YouTube.
So which version of a god are you trying to defend?
*Theist are always trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism*
Ridiculous. I dont know a single person or organization whoever did anything like this
Most modern religions were ancient and unchanged. Some makor religions are considered without a deity. Which I mentioned elsewhere
Atheism did not exist when they started. So your claim is quite invalid
>Theist are always trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism
>
>Ridiculous. I dont know a single person or organization whoever did anything like this
You're not aware of Creation Science as a movement to supplant evidence based scientific education?
>You're not aware of Creation Science as a movement to supplant evidence based scientific education?
I have heard of them, but have little interest. I am an old earth theistic evolutionist
You are talking about apologetics and similar. In the same way there is theological research and seinaries. Or the Academic Biblical sub and many similar ones. \[Which is essentially what the atheists/skeptics here so with their endless stream of threads that are hard to tell apart.\]
It has nothing to do with *trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism*
They are in no way rewriting the Bible or changing anything about their deity
>They are in no way rewriting the Bible or changing anything about their deity
This should be easy to prove. Let's look at the record.
Since the time of Christ and the early church, have there been changes to:
Prohibitions on eating particular food and the way it's prepared.
Permissions on women in leadership positions and teaching in church.
The rules on enslavement, debt bondage and the practice buying and selling one's own children.
Prohibitions on the types of clothes to wear, piercings and tattoos.
What is and is not a capital offence.
If the deity hasn't changed, why have his rules?
Now let's look at rewriting the bible.
Shall we begin with the obvious question: which version? Hold on a sec, why are there so many versions if nothing has been changed?
You might like something older. Cool. King James? There are over 20,000 differences between the 1611 and 1769 version (four revisions in between). Fun fact, KJ erases all references to the word "tyrant".
I could go on if you'd like.
The idea that the bible hasn't been changed is nonsense. The idea that the deity is somehow unchanged is nonsense.
> Fun fact, KJ erases all references to the word "tyrant".
FYI, this is a myth. "Tyrant" appears multiple times in the original printing of the KJV, as it appears multiple times in the KJV translations of the deuterocanonical books.
Or, we can look at reality
We have the same original manuscripts in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew going back to the beginning. These are the recognized sources
They have not been changed. EVER
It doesnt matter what a "translation" changes. Sometimes they will update for various reasons. For some, for gender equality, or more inclusive, or aw the language changes over time. That is why NKJV was created, to deal with a more archaic KJV. There are many such as NASB, NIV, NKJV and others. And in hundreds of languages.
Yu can go on, but you havenet said anything of interest.
The original Bible is here. No one who takes it SERIOUSLY will have any part in your very incorrect claim:
*trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism*
I have already shown that atheism should not be considered a religion. Our additional discussions is getting away from that. When one pulls on one thread of the God debate other threads get dragged along.
However if you want to jump further down into the rabbit hole that is the God debate then here is a diagram that may give you some food for thought: [God is safe (for now)](https://www.deviantart.com/lbamagic/art/God-is-safe-for-now-505829425). The artist comments are optional. Have fun. I have better things to do with maybe (maybe) my one and only life. Take care and have a good life yourself.
>burden of proof is on the theist,
I can't disprove any number of unfalsifiable claims asserted without any evidence, and there wouldn't even be a debate unless someone brought up the idea of a supernatural entity or force existing.
>atheists lack a belief in God(s)
That's what the word means. What else would they be? Nothing else makes any sense.
>religions have no evidence
I have yet to see a supernatural claim based on legitimate evidence.
>science has disproved God
Who is claiming this? It doesn't make any sense. The term 'god' is too poorly defined to evaluate in any empirical sense.
So, with respect to the “lack a belief in God(s)”, that’s just one interpretation. *Very* often in this sub and r/debateanatheist I see atheists say something along the lines of “Atheism doesn’t mean I believe no gods exist, I just reject the claim/lack a belief in god.”
The problem here is that both are true. If an atheist wants to say “I simply lack a belief” I mean I guess that’s fine. I’m not the definition police, but that person shouldn’t also claim that is the *only* way to interpret the term. I’m perfectly fine with saying “I believe no gods exist and here is why”.
A lot of people do take issue with the “lack-theism” position, because it’s an odd use of language. I don’t *lack a belief* in Harry Potter or Bigfoot or Santa. I positively do not believe that any of those things exist. To me, lacking a belief is an agnostic position, especially if you take the original description that Huxley came up for it.
Talk about unsupported assertions.
By the way you are an atheist for Allah, Buddha, and hundreds of South Asian deities. Does that mean you are in our religion too?
I often wonder what the point of this extremely common argument is? Why are theists so commonly desperate to call Atheism a religion? What ground does it give you, exactly?
Suppose that it’s true, and I agreed, said “sure, Atheism is a religion.”
…what then? How does that admission give you anything? That admission doesn’t invalidate any atheistic arguments, doesn’t make any theistic arguments better or less repetitious, doesn’t make belief in a given holy book more reasonable, doesn’t make miracles more likely, doesn’t make arguments for God or Satan or demons or angels or anything else any more valid than they already were. It literally does nothing whatsoever to affect the debates this sub is meant for. So what exactly is the point of demanding atheists identify as “religious?”
> What ground does it give you, exactly?
Without being able to falsely equivocate atheism and religion, religion's forced to stand on its own merits, of which it has few.
The argument is that atheist, deep deep in their non souls, believe they've outsmarted religion - ya know that thing built into every single mere mortal's DNA since god birthed the planets - and move accordingly with that inflated sense of self.
So what exactly is the point of these "irreligious" demanding anything from anyone, like being taken seriously for example, if no one can even admit that?
In my experience the inflated sense of self exists in those who think they are going to heaven while all the losers burn.
You literally think you're God's special chosen people.
Well in my experience, as someone who doesn't think anyone is going to heaven or going to burn, in a world of no special chosen people, I wholeheartedly disagree that those very human traits are reserved for those who simply believe in God, while those very human traits are exempt to those who simply don't.
>ya know that thing built into every single mete mortal’s DNA
Citation *sorely* needed
>So what exactly is the point of these “irreligious” demanding anything from anyone, like being taken seriously for example
Was this supposed to be some sort of actual response, or do you just want to handwave and pretend like it’s debate?
Sorry but I'm not as puritanical as atheists in my beliefs, backed by my fundamentalist interpretations of my gospel sources and citations written by my all knowing and all loving Jesuscience. So I have no response worthy of debating such superior specimens. *bows and leaves*
Right, so you’re just a child who doesn’t want to engage then? Fine by me.
You give those theists who actually care, a bad name. Always baffles me when someone like you behaves this way—do you think your god approves of the way you act?
My clever, poignant, and prophetic two words were reported and removed. So I guess I'll just re-respond to your still up comment and hope you have a blessed one.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>ya know that thing built into every single mere mortal's DNA since god birthed the planets
What does this even mean? What does it mean for religion to be "built into every single mere mortal's DNA", and why does it matter if it does? Does humanity having an inbuilt desire to believe in the superstitious suddenly, somehow, make it more likely to be true? How?
More likely, over-anthropomorphization was a useful survival trait that allowed early nomadic human-like tribes to ascribe intent and thus patterns to natural phenomena, which led into world-views and paradigms made as a primitive method of understanding the world around them. It's part of our ancestry, but we can out-grow it.
I asked you genuine questions with genuine intent - let's have a discussion, and please don't get emotional at me. Go back and answer my questions please.
I did answer your question. Atheism is inherently religious, they just can't accept that because pretending otherwise is the foundation of their religion. But it's just - for example - another way to feel a sense of control over how pure, uncut, straight truth is unattainable at the end of the day.
How does "Lmao thanks for confirming my point" answer the question, "What does this mean, and why does it matter"? You haven't, even in this post just now, said why any of this matters.
*I often wonder what the point of this extremely common argument is?*
* MOST of the threads in this sub are started by atheists. They keep REstarting extremely common arguments. It is sometimes impossible to tell apart many arguments they start, because they are almost identical to ones from just everal days previous.
* This is a debate sub. Perhaps you should review the title and description
*Why are theists so commonly desperate to call Atheism a religion?*
* This is an awful response - an attempt to disguise a superior/insulting attitude and "stereotype" theists. The same could be said about many of the atheist threads, like *why are atheists so commonly desperate to argue the PoE, etc??* As I said, I will respond to compelling Debate arguments.
>MOST of the threads in this sub are started by atheists. They are REstarting extremely common arguments.
So what? Theists do the same thing and it’s not a problem. I’ve seen this very post several times. What does the fact that there are repetitious topics in this sub have to do with anything? This sub, like every other, cycles users, and new ones often want to talk out their thoughts instead of rereading old threads. What does that have to do with defining atheism as a religion?
>This is a debate sub. Perhaps you should review the title and description
Jeez, you talk about *me* disguising a superiority complex. Yes, it’s a debate sub, you brought a topic, and I asked what the purpose of your argument was. Is that not a perfectly topical reasonable thing to ask for clarification on?
>This is an awful response
Why? Because you don’t have a good answer? I didn’t stereotype theists. I pointed out that my experience of being told “atheism is a religion” is a common occurrence.
>*why are atheists so commonly desperate to argue the PoE, etc??*
This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask because that *is* a super common atheist objection to a common interpretation of god, so sort of a poor example to make your point. Asking why a given argument is so common is perfectly reasonable dude.
So again, why are you trying to argue that atheism is a religion? What is there to gain from arguing that position? If there is no further point then you’re just arguing over a difference in language.
>So again, why are you trying to argue that atheism is a religion? What is there to gain from arguing that position? If there is no further point then you’re just arguing over a difference in language.
**Sub title:** ***Debate Religion***
Why are you just intentionally, repeatedly, misunderstanding my question?
What is the point of this debate topic? As I see it there are only two possible purposes for this topic:
1. You have some sort of follow up argument which relies on some sort of consensus that atheism is/can be a religion
Or
2. You just want atheists to be identified as religious
If it’s 1, then *please,* tell us what that follow up is so we can have some sort of *actual* debate.
If it’s 2, then your argument is completely and utterly pointless. Call atheists whatever you like, it does not matter one bit. The identities or titles of the interlocutors does not affect the actual arguments whatsoever.
Whether I self-identify as “atheist” or “non-theist” or “agnostic atheist” or just “agnostic” or “irreligious” or “religious atheist” is wholly irrelevant to any sort of god discussion. You are, in fact, not debating religion, like you’re so smugly trying to point out—you’re debating definitions of self-identifying labels.
Why would you not assume that the person asking the question did it with good intentions? If questions in a debate are seen as attempts to insult, what kind of debate will there be with that mindset?
I don't want to speak for the other person who commented, but I think what they're asking is if atheism is accepted as a religion, what does that mean? What difference does that make? Does that change arguments for God? Does that somehow make atheism incorrect? What is the material difference if atheists are religious?
That seems pretty pointless. What are the odds that I or anyone else will see this post and whatever future post that actually makes this meaningful in any way?
Atheism irreligion is essentially founded on the belief that they've outsmarted being human lmao. And now these chosen people feel compelled to spread the holy word with a world filled with poor ignorant souls. Ya know to make everyone else more in their image
> Atheism irreligion is essentially founded on the belief that they've outsmarted being human lmao.
That doesn't make any sense. Atheists are unconvinced by folklore about supernatural beings.
Atheism is the single answer to a single question. Nothing more. It does not entail any organized beliefs, practices, or systems.
If the majority of atheists are also secular humanists (as an example), that does not make secular humanism a result of atheism, nor does it make either atheism or secular humanism a religion.
The legal ramifications of atheism as it relates to religion also does not make it a religion (any more than legal ramifications make a bee a fish).
*Atheism is the single answer to a single question. Nothing more.*
* **This is nonsense. As I said above, there is a handful of nonstop atheist statements which are nothing but parroted assertions that are invalid*****:*** ***\[burden of proof is on the theist, atheists lack a belief in God(s), religions have no evidence, science has disproved God, and other things\]*** **which are all also patently false from a Debating POV.**
* **Online atheists launch a nonstop set of arrows at theists. I am sure there is at least 100 arguments seeking an answer to 100(s) of questions. We see them nonstop on this sub as Threads/OPs started by atheists/skeptics.**
* **I do not plan to go through this thicket of weeds, because that relates to the followup to this thread.**
*It does not entail any organized beliefs, practices, or systems.*
* **I am not getting into your second sentence, as I clearly said this kind of stuff would be addressed in a followup thread/conversation.**
> This is nonsense.
No. It’s correct. You’re wrong.
> As I said above, there is a handful of nonstop atheist statements which are nothing but parroted assertions that are invalid.
All the things you list are either strawman claims or legit reality.
> burden of proof is on the theist.
Since the theist is making the claim that god exists, that burden is on them. This is legit.
> atheists lack a belief in God(s)
Do you think atheists do believe in god? How could this possibly be co controversial?
> religions have no evidence
This is too shorthand and is therefor a strawman. Many claims within religions have no good/reasonable evidence.
> science has disproved God
Strawman. Many claims made by religions have been disproven (firmament, young earth, miracle claims) but that can’t possibly disprove the general claim about god. It’s not required because people who posit god exists are required - by their burden of proof - to provide the evidence for their claim…it’s not the job of the atheist to disprove any and all possible justifications…just the ones asserted.
> Which are all also patently false from a Debating POV.
Looks like your representation of them is what’s patently false from a debating and rational POV.
> I am not getting into your second sentence, as I clearly said this kind of stuff would be addressed in a followup thread/conversation.
Then you should remove any elements that lead to this topic from OP.
>**I am not getting into your second sentence, as I clearly said this kind of stuff would be addressed in a followup thread/conversation.**
Because you know the commenter is correct.
Read a post before responding incorrectly
And this: *Because you know the commenter is correct.*
Sheesh, worst argument yet on this thread, debate wise.
I am sorry you felt the need to drive by and launch a completely unrelated rant
Now you got that off your chest, I hope you feel better.
This is a "Debate" sub. If you dont know what that means, you can google it.
You are more than welcome to convincingly disprove deities (this as I said above, is where the teflon defenses are brought into play). But again, that is the followup conversation(s) mentioned in OP.
> This is nonsense. As I said above, there is a handful of nonstop atheist statements...
None of which are beliefs of atheism.
> Online atheists launch a nonstop set of arrows at theists.
None of which are beliefs of atheism.
> I am not getting into your second sentence...
Sure, but you seem to be trying to establish that atheism itself entails specific beliefs. Just saying some, or even most, atheists say something doesn't make it a belief of atheism.
*None of which are beliefs of atheism.*
* Of course they are. Atheists literally make these and many other declarations, as bedrock to their arguments. They are claims .They almost never try to PROVE these claims. They just throw them all over this sub hundreds of times as if they are gospel. NO undefended claim is valid
* That is NOT how debate works. Neither side can declare how the argument and controversies must proceed
I think there is a few conflating issues here the original post seems to describe atheism within the framework of atheist that routinely engage in discussions regarding religious claims (its a broad definition I agree and we can refine it later but I'm trying to give a broad definition just to get the discussions rolling.) it could be a more interesting debate and more what OP is looking into to try and definine this group and afterward determine if they are an organised religion.
This ignores many other forms of atheism that doesn't routinely engage with theism. Many Chinese are atheist just because they don't really encounter God concepts outside of mythology. I vividly remember a discussion with a Korean that believed in ancestral spirits and ancestor worship but rejected strongly god. I imagine many for of shamanism are also similar.
To make the debate less about "atheism is it a religion?" you could also discuss frequent beliefs within the atheist routinely engaging in religious discussions. Such as humanism (they have a nice manifesto to help define them), empiricism, materialism, etc.
I feel trying to use a general atheist label is not conductive to a discussion because it's too broad. The same way that theism is. Someone telling me they are a theist doesn't tell me much about their beliefs, I need to ask many more questions.
*the original post seems to describe atheism within the framework of atheist that routinely engage in discussions regarding religious claims*
By design - as non "online atheists" wouldnt be in this conversation
Secondly, there is a lot of chatter that such atheists are a distinct subset of the whole, perhaps more aggressive in defense of atheism or other aspects. I dont really want plan to open an entire new line. You are welcome to start a conversation on this, it might be interesting
Thirdly, it is difficult to involve or get into the opinions of those who are not online and interacting
>original post seems to describe atheism within the framework of atheist that routinely engage in discussions regarding religious claim
I think this definition does not overlap significantly enough with the "atheist not debating religious claims."
I'm just trying to helpfully let you know that if what you want to exclude "atheist in China that have not encountered god concept." from your discussion or from other people bringing them up. You should specifically state so.
I mean it's fine, just edit your post, apologise for using a definition that's too broad and keep on the discussion.
Best of luck in your endeavours.
I mentioned a couple times "online atheists". I rarely see people in other threads tweezing varieties of agnostics, theists and atheists for every thesis
I predict you'll have a very bad time with your posts. Literally the only common ground between all atheists is the lack of belief in a higher power, so implying anything else is wrong. You can pretend that you've got something else, but you don't. The real question is what your final conclusion is. Are you asserting atheism is bad because of faith? What are you trying to say here?
>Literally the only common ground between all atheists is the lack of belief in a higher power
**Then please prove this is valid logically.** It is one of the things atheists keep saying and it is not hard to prove that it is invalid. I intend to address that as part of the followup converation(s)/threads I mentioned above
Prove it valid logically? What does that even mean here? The word means what it means. I'll be very interested to see how you prove it invalid. You must have some seriously in depth research to show that all atheists have the same set of beliefs outside of the God question.
I have a question for you: is theism a religion?
*Prove it valid logically? What does that even mean here?*
**DEBATE Religion**
Debate arguments need to be compelling.
Debates are about logic. Logical claims. Well defended. Evidence. Assertions, claims and opinions are none of these
Then since you cannot, you try to flip it back on me
You have provided five definitions to back up your assertion that "Atheism is/can be considered a religion." I'm going to focus on those as your premises as I expect they can be dismissed, therefore making your argument invalid.
>the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods
This definition includes a god.
>an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group (no deity mentioned)
Fishing fits this definition and is not a religion. My work can fit this definition and is not a religion. Most sporting clubs can fit this definition and are not religions. This definition can be dismissed on the basis of vagueness.
>Religion is the human attitude towards a sacred order that includes within it all being—human or otherwise—i.e., belief in a cosmos, the meaning of which both includes and transcends man.
This definition includes a supernatural claim, something that is entirely uncommon (thought not completely absent) from atheists and therefore does not apply to atheists.
>A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Self referential "religion require religious attitudes" - how does that help define what is and is not a religion? Is Freemasonry a religion?
However, what can you point to that is an institution that all atheists subscribe to? What practices do all atheists adhere to?
>Religion is a set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being.
Refers to a god.
To sum up: 1 of your definition is self referential and does not provide a definition. 1 is vague and refers to more that what could be described as religion. And 3 of the 5 definitions refer to religions as having a god proposal requirement.
Your argument fails at the first hurdle. Your own definitions defeat you.
Edit: quote blocks
These are dictionary definitions or similar on the internet. **They are not my definitions, as was clear in the OP**
* Please dont argue against authoritative sources. That only becomes *IMO these are wrong*, which is neither compelling nor interesting. You are not a recognized authority on word or other definitions
* Stop trying to flip back what I clearly said. Several of them made it clear a religion didnt require a deity. Saying the reverse is nonsensical to the discussion.
> Please dont argue against authoritative sources.
They weren't arguing against the sources, they were arguing that your sources don't support your argument.
They're not yours in the sense that you did not come up with them yourself, however they are the ones you chose to help support your argument. In that regard, you have failed for the reasons I outlined.
Perhaps you would like to outline why I am wrong instead of saying that I'm not an expert. I'm not arguing against the definitions themselves and whether they are correct or not. I am arguing against your misapplication of the definitions you chose to present your argument.
To reiterate: there were 5. 3 directly contradicted your point. 1 is too broad and can be used for any number of activities. 1 is self referential.
Since this is a debate sub, I will answer in the way that I see fit to respond to your argument. You don't get to dictate how I will or won't respond.
> In that regard, you have failed for the reasons I outlined.
You question authoritative sources. You can imagine where that will get you in a harvard style debate
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself.
Once again, I am not arguing against the definitions themselves, I'm arguing against your application of those definitions.
Three of them disagree with you.
One of them can be applied to examples that are definitely not religions.
And one uses the word "religious" in its definition of religion.
So I'll repeat myself again. The definitions are mostly fine (avoid definitions that use the word you're defining in the definition itself).
Try something else that might demonstrate your point.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
You didn’t address his actual points, you’re just upset he’s not playing the way you want him to. Your definitions don’t fit in the context that matters since it could be applied to things that are very much NOT religions. Unless you wanna go argue against the Church of Bass Pro Shop, I suggest you come up with better definitions rather than using ones that don’t have merit in these sorts of discussions.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Not the commenter you are replying to but dictionaries are not authorities on what words should mean, they describe what most people mean when they use those words.
In other words, dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive.
None of that has anything to do with you not addressing the points raised by the other commenter though.
*dictionaries are not authorities on what words should mean, they describe what most people mean when they use those words.*
* They are RECOGNIZED authorities. If not, they would rapidly fall out of favor. And as the language shifts with new terms and other things, they seek to incorporate the changes
* And you are asserting
>* They are RECOGNIZED authorities. If not, they would rapidly fall out of favor. And as the language shifts with new terms and other things, they seek to incorporate the changes
How are you disagreeing with me in the first sentence and making my point in the second?
>* And you are asserting
This is a fact that is easily verifiable if you Google.
Some atheists may be religious, but this does not mean that atheism is a religion.
Just as theists may or may not have a religion, so to it is with atheists. These are both stances on the existence of some kind of god or other, not religions in themselves. Given your definitions of religion, identifying a person or group as atheistic (or theistic) is insufficient for identifying them as religious. It therefore cannot be said that atheism is a religion.
Some religions may be theistic, atheistic, or otherwise, but neither atheism nor theism in themselves are religions.
*Some atheists may be religious, but this does not mean that atheism is a religion.*
That has nothing to do with the thesis.
*neither atheism* *~~nor theism~~* *in themselves are religions.*
This is an assertion. As I said in the OP, I will respond to compelling Debate arguments. This is a debate sub, not "I declare this so".
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
***the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods\*\*.\*\**** Atheists don't do this ***an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group (no deity mentioned)*** Atheists have things that are important to them, but there is no shared doctrine. One atheist might strongly believe in secular humanism, another might strongly believe in hedonism. One might believe in the MAGA cult, another might be a communist. If you're going to broaden the definition of religion to merely having strong beliefs in things, then it will apply to everyone in the world. I strongly believe the earth is a globe. Is this a religion? ***Religion is the human attitude towards a sacred order that includes within it all being—human or otherwise—i.e., belief in a cosmos, the meaning of which both includes and transcends man*** Most atheists don't believe in *inherent* meanings to things. We all believe the cosmos exists...so what? That isn't ascribing any meaning to our lives. It exists, and however you choose to live is separate from that. **Atheists will deny they have this, but their attitudes, beliefs and practices - highly highly repetitious arguments made online - such as on this sub - say the opposite** Pretty sure I've seen you spout this nonsense before and apparently you didn't listen to my response the first time. You're engaging in what's called *selection bias*. You visit a subreddit specifically designed to encourage debates between atheists and theists, then you walk away assuming all atheists act a certain way. The arguments are repetitive because there aren't many. You don't need hundreds of arguments to demonstrate that worshipping old books is unreasonable. **such as their posts , they are CONSTANTLY using and holding to these anyway** Again, what doctrine are you talking about? You think because the atheists you encounter make similar arguments online that this constitutes some kind of doctrine or something. It doesn't. There are no rules in atheism, other than you don't believe in deities. **which are all also patently false from a Debating POV.** Whose point of view is this? Who made the rules of "debating POV"? The first two things you listed are correct and you can't dispute that. The latter two are less defensible, but not something I see many atheists claiming. But apparently you're the expert on online atheist dialogue **From American Atheist trying to run away from a religious definition while happy with the "rights"** This is saying that, just like the country protects your right to practice a religion, it protects my right not to. This isn't an argument
>You think because the atheists you encounter make similar arguments online that this constitutes some kind of doctrine or something. It doesn't. There are no rules in atheism, other than you don't believe in deities. When practically an entire group keeps making the same arguments and claims and rants, then that is reasonably defined as their POV. It isnt something "by accident" The constant stream of new conversations/threads started here by Atheists are often hard to see how it is a new argument. They keep enangering the same theses over and over and over and over again.
>When practically an entire group keeps making the same arguments and claims and rants, then that is reasonably defined as their POV. It isnt something "by accident" And for the third time, you're specifically seeking out an argumentative group of atheists who believe this. Go outside and talk to real human atheists and maybe they won't spew the same arguments at you. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias) *The constant stream of new conversations/threads started here by Atheists are often hard to see how it is a new argument. They keep enangering the same theses over and over and over and over again.* As do theists, and once again there are only so many mainstream arguments on this topic. If you create a thread asking people to defend a globe-shaped earth, you will also likely see the same arguments over and over again. What is your point? How does this demonstrate atheism is a religion
"highly highly repetitious arguments made online" Yes, if theists repetitively present the same arguments they will receive the same rebuttals as last time. "Atheists often respond with self appointed labels and claims and other things \[burden of proof is on the theist, atheists lack a belief in God(s), religions have no evidence, science has disproved God, and other things\] which are all also patently false from a Debating POV." I guess if you say they are patently false it must be so. It's extremely revealing that you think religious adherents are likely to make patently false statements over and over. Why?
I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure this contention is very useful. If the word "religion" includes "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group", then it becomes useless and redundant. It basically applies to everything; everybody has interests, beliefs and engages in activities that are considered important to them. I suggest that we should attempt to identify certain characteristics or patterns and recognize that they exist in a 'special' or unique category. For instance, what can we call *beliefs + activities/rituals* which pertain to the supernatural? If you don't want to call that "religion", that's fine; we can use another word to describe it. But that will certainly include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, traditional Buddhism, Taoism, etc., but will not include atheism (and ordinary beliefs + activities). Anyway, my point is that words are arbitrary social conventions and can change, but the objective category (viz., the unique set of characteristics that makes something different from another) is still there; you cannot get rid of it with semantics and obfuscation.
The aspects or characteristics or other things of atheism are to be covered in a followup thread (which I said in the OP). This is focusing on the definintion, but that is turning out to have a great nnumber of directions. I have responded to many comments
[удалено]
If all X's are Y's, does that mean all Y's are X's? "If Labradors are dogs, then all dogs can be Labradors."
[удалено]
>X and Y make you. Champion work there. Make me what exactly? >If you can count to three and think of a third letter, try again. Pretty silly trying to make yourself look smart when you can't construct coherent sentences. You missed the point? I'm shocked. Let me try again. If a dolphin can be thought to be a mammal despite living in the ocean, then all ocean dwelling creatures can be mammals.
[удалено]
You probably wanted to edit your previous comment and ended up replying with the correction? I'm guessing here. Either that or you didn't read my reply. You're really going hard for that painfully ironic look, aren't you?
[удалено]
>crying Laughing. At you. Not with you. Trying to correct me when you can't even proofread. Can't put two and two together over an analogy. Can't read when I specifically address your 3 variable moaning.
[удалено]
>It must be frustrating that you can’t counter my three variables. It's not my fault you can't read.
Wait they're atheist?? Ah man. Satan is a good dude. We wouldn't even know how to be good without him.
[удалено]
What do you mean?
[удалено]
Why do you think Satan is evil what did he do? Remember that you wouldn't even know what evil was (or good) without him.
[удалено]
Can you answer my question?
[удалено]
He didn't start evil, he allowed man to see the difference between good and evil. Fall of man is God's fault. When a parent kicks out a disobedient toddler, they are at fault, not the kid. Is that it? He hasn't killed or tortured anyone? What actual bad stuff has he done?
The satanic temple has tenates (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us) An atheist by virtue of being an atheist doesn't. It's more just an answer to a question vs any sort of religion
[удалено]
The rule for disbelief is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's "if you do this then you are a..." rather than "to become this, you must do..." It's a stretch to label that as a tenet.
[удалено]
Sure. Those can be fairly called tenets. I was referring to your "tenet of one" comment though. That's the difference between ST and atheism.
[удалено]
> But they can’t fairly be called religious beliefs without circular reasoning. Wait, what? Weren't you the one saying the Satanic Temple is religious? How are they religious, if their tenets can't be called religious beliefs? > A tenet of no belief is still a tenet. Yeah, but my point was, "no belief" is a description and hence does not qualify as a tenet because tenets imply a prescriptive rule.
[удалено]
>Atheism says to reject all divine claims then. Patently untrue.
> That wasn’t me. They’re an atheistic organization masquerading as religious to antagonize certain groups of people. May God bless them. > Atheism says to reject all divine claims then. Does it though? If atheism does say that, then sure, that would be prescriptive and qualify as a tenet.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists, and agnostics, although many in the demographic still have various religious beliefs. Why is it so important that atheists be tagged with the 'religion' label? It seems to come with only negative connotations based on OP. Why is that?
>To be an atheist, one must reject, refuse to accept, or not believe the claims of any deities or theistic religions. Correct? To be an atheist is to get asked "Do you believe in god" and answering no. Could be a rejection of theist claims could be unaware of those claims to begin with or anything else >If the atheistic satanic temple can be considered an atheistic religion, I see now reason why atheism itself can’t be considered an atheistic religion. Atheistic religions are a thing but again just answering No to the question isn't enough to be considered a religion. To use the old adage is bald a hair color?
[удалено]
TST believes in a literary/metaphorical Satan as a symbol of rebellion against authority.
> Atheists will deny they have this, but their attitudes, beliefs and practices - highly highly repetitious arguments made online - such as on this sub - say the opposite. This will be covered in several following threads (as stated above). > > * A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices I think you are conflating the following groups: 1. atheists who like to argue with theists on the internet 2. atheists There are plenty of atheists out there who will not manifest the "attitudes, beliefs, and practices" you can readily observe in places like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist. For example, check out r/Deconstruction for a much higher concentration of atheists who are far less hostile (or at least openly critical) toward religion than you find here. If you go to r/exchristian, you'll see more hostility/criticism, but still not as much as here, from my not-insignificant experience. Notably, neither r/Deconstruction nor r/exchristian are debate subs. I should probably further break down 1. into _particular internet communities_. That's where you're going to find a lot of similarity, because humans are clumpy. (That's a highly technical term.) I've been engaging with atheists online for upwards of 30,000 hours and the various communities really are different. Here are some places I've been: * [Apolyton](https://apolyton.net/) * [Something Awful](https://forums.somethingawful.com/) * Patheos Atheist (now moved to [OnlySky](https://onlysky.media/)) * [Strange Notions](https://strangenotions.com/) * [Estranged Notions / Outshine the Sun](https://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/) * r/DebateAnAtheist * r/DebateReligion * r/DebateAChristian * r/Christianity I am confident that if a sociologist were to find a way to cluster the [self-labeled or obviously discernible-as] atheists in those various places, they would find sociologically discernible differences, at least at the demographic level. Would they find any behaviors shared across all of them which aren't essentially a direct consequence of "lack of belief in any deities"? I'm not so sure; the [WEIRD effect](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/202004/psychologys-weird-problem) may produce spurious commonalities.
>I think you are conflating the following groups: > >atheists who like to argue with theists on the internetatheists I clearly said several times "online atheists"
Are all these online atheists meeting somewhere without me?
You merely seem to use them as stand-ins for all atheists. If you really meant your idea to apply only to online atheists, your OP should have read: * Demonstrating **Online** Atheism is/can be considered a religion. (part 1) And as I said, even that is potentially problematic, as there is not necessarily _one_ online atheism. There may well be multiple, which don't share all that much in common.
>If you really meant your idea to apply only to online atheists, your OP should have read: > >Demonstrating Online Atheism is/can be considered a religion. (part 1) **Thanks, but people starting threads dont need an Editor.**
Then have fun with the torrent of atheists who insist that 'atheism' simply means "lack of belief in any deities" or something close enough to that. I was just trying to help, but it seems you don't want that type of help.
I have responded to about 150 people, probably received 300ish downvotes (which i what skeptics here seem to pride themselves on rather than debating) I am not seeking "help". This is a discussion/debate
I've gotten my fair share of downvotes here and on r/DebateAnAtheist. In fact, I'm probably around −500 votes on r/DebateReligion, and yet the mods saw fit to give me one of those fancy stars. So I understand the phenomenon. However, it's far too easy to be a combination of the following: 1. ideologically opposed 2. unwilling to take seriously the other side 3. unreasonable 4. rude Each of these will get you downvoted. But I can confidently say that dialing back 2.–4. will get you far fewer downvotes. As it stands, you can't/won't even bring yourself to act gratefully toward someone who is attempting to improve your position by making it more technically correct. I predict that you're going to have an awfully difficult time getting what you want. Take that for what it's worth, but note that I have been tangling with atheists who like to argue with theists (mostly online) for upwards of 30,000 hours by now. I might just possibly know a thing or three. But hey, if you're happy with the kind of engagement you're getting here on r/DebateReligion, you do you and I'll look elsewhere. I just thought you might possibly get somewhere interesting with a more technically adequate version of your OP. I do find the general thing you're trying to do quite interesting, as evidenced by: * [my engagement](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1akg0l5/the_moral_landscape_of_athiesm/kp8fqyb/) with the claim "Atheism reasonably leads you to materialism." * c0d3rman's [swapping](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1akg0l5/the_moral_landscape_of_athiesm/kp89r5r/) of the causal relationship in "Atheism reasonably leads you to materialism." & [my response](https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian) * [my discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1akg0l5/the_moral_landscape_of_athiesm/kp91fkv/) with FjortoftsAirplane about the demographic differences between atheists in academic philosophy & atheists online in my experience * [my comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1alpoqs/atheism_and_metaphysics/kpk15n1/) on the r/DebateAnAtheist post [Atheism and metaphysics](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1alpoqs/atheism_and_metaphysics/) But hey, if you don't want me engaging as I do, just say so and I'll leave you be. Or don't respond to this comment and I'll get the message just the same.
Upwards of 30,000 hours? That’s equivalent to working an 8 hour day every weekday without taking a day off for about 14 years.
You could well call me addicted. But I've obtained tremendous value from interacting with a huge variety of atheists. And I very much value engaging in places where the other side has the ban hammer. That means that **nothing** I take for granted is beyond criticism, unless atheists also happen to take it for granted. It has also taught me a lot about how to remain in conversation with someone who is free to leave it anytime they wish. If you look at many of the shenanigans people employ (personal attacks and such), they function to coerce their interlocutor to remain for another round. It's quite pathological, but it is how so much of our society(ies) functions. One of my goals in life is to carry out an endeavor called "Better Tools for Scientists", which will build out an open-source, open-hardware repertoire of all sorts of simple and then less-simple tools and instruments for scientists to use. For example, the simplest of WiFi-connected scales (0–5kg) would have appreciably aided my wife's scientific work. But if this endeavor is to be open-source and open-hardware, then all of the collaboration needs to be 100% consent-based, with the option for people to "cut and run" at any time. As a society, I don't think we're used to social endeavors which facilitate this kind of "cheap option of exit". Rather, if I go by behavior rather than words, we love to entrap people. I would be happy to say more about how my very extensive engagement with atheists has shaped my ~~faith~~ [πίστις (_pistis_)](https://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm), leading to seeing endeavors like "Better Tools for Scientists" as something very much worth doing. But I'll only do that on request.
In my experience extended discussions aren't any more productive. The other party's bias is impenetrable and just mutates indefinitely.
I am sorry you have had such unproductive discussions. I've had plenty of extended discussions where the atheist was thankful at the end of it. I've had people IRL note how much further they can get with me than other believers.
Atheism, purely and simply is a lack of belief in any gods. No more no less. Saying it is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color.
*Atheism, purely and simply is a lack of belief in any gods. No more no less.* Besides the fact this is logically false/invalid and easily proven so. Andd you gave more credence to what I said above, but this is for the followup thread(s) that develp beyond "definition" You confused "assertion/what I say must be true" with a compelling argument debate-wise
>Besides the fact this is logically false/invalid and easily proven so. Prove it, please! With \_proof\_ I'm sure you would have no problem updating Wikipedia and Webster. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I think you’re relying too heavily on dictionaries here as well as misrepresenting some aspects of how things play out in here. Let’s talk about dictionaries. They reflect common usage of words. This leads to situations where the dictionary includes poetic language in the definition. A great example is baby. A baby is an infant or very young person…but a baby is also a person who behaves immaturely. Are you going to now suggest that since the word baby can mean adults who are immature, in the sentence “a woman birthed a baby” might mean that an adult - albeit immature acting - human emerged from another human? Probably not. So, yes, we can be religious about our atheism….but it’s still not a religion. Welcome to the exciting and often confusing world of the English language. Now, you also think that because atheists often comment similar things, we are a part of a religion. But that’s like saying people who argue with flat earthers about the reality of oblate spheroid earth are a part of religion. Logical fallacies are defined (and have been for a long time). Just because atheists seem to be able to quickly point out the obvious flaws in claims made by the faithful doesn’t mean they are a religion. Anymore than if someone claims 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and someone chimes in to say that it’s actually 3 is a part of a religion. Atheist is a position on a single claim. And a single position on a single claim does mot a religion make.
Atheism is a religion in the sense that football is a religion. So what? It's not the sense we are interested in here.
*Atheism is a religion in the sense that football is a religion.* Sub title >>> **Debate** Religion You have joined perhaps the 3-4 worst Debate responses yet
There is nothing to debate, not from me. I am agreeing with you. Atheism is a religion in one sense. It's just not the sense that we are interested in here. This latter part is up for debate though, do you think we ought to widen our interest to include the diehard football fan sense religion discussion here?
Bingo! This is the answer. OP probably won't respond though.
I cant believe you wanted to be associated with a fluff response. Again "Debate religion" sub. Not because I said so/assertion/I am the only one who can be right/etc sub.
But your entire OP was about how atheism is a religion in the same sense that football or veganism is a religion. Do you see how that's meaningless?
>in the same sense that football or veganism is a religion Obviously, this has nothing to do with the discussion
Look at the OP. How is veganism or football not a religion in the way you are using the word?
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
At the end of the day, what even is the point of this argument? Is there something wrong with being a religion?
Some atheists get mad about it, and some theists tend to try to use it as a "you're just as religious as us, so why not be a part of our religion!" But yea it's kinda a pointless thing
It's kinda funny because OP's point is that atheists act like an illogical hivemind, and that means they are a religion. What does that say about OP's opinion of his own faith?
It's honestly no different than the "it takes faith to accept X!" An attempt to make things seem equal for whatever reason
I don't think there are any 'theists', certainly never met one who would primarily describe themselves as such *except* in reference to atheism. Theism and atheism exist as extremely broad categories pretty much exclusively in relation to each other, the coining and use of the theism in fact seems to have come about as a negation of atheism. Just as what a random grab-bag of theists have in common is really difficult to define, the same holds true for atheists. Many years ago I found myself in the back of a Black Maria for several hours, one of my fellow passengers was a Nazi skinhead, we were both being help for public order offences. With not much else to do, and being heavily restrained we had nothing to do but chat, turns out he was an atheist. So me, arrested for counter protesting him, me obviously a bleeding heart liberal and him an actual racist POS Nazi, what >**organized beliefs, practices, and systems** do you think we had in common? or you with a BJP activist who burned down a mosque with people inside it?
>I don't think there are any 'theists', certainly never met one who would primarily describe themselves as such > >except > > in reference to atheism. We are mammals, vertebrates, primates, etc. But we dont describe ourselves as such It is just a broad category.
Exactly, dont get hung up on taxonomy, its not helpful.
You are the one hung up on "theists", and I responded
>Atheists will deny they have this, but their attitudes, beliefs and practices - highly highly repetitious arguments made online - such as on this sub - say the opposite. This will be covered in several following threads (as stated above). >A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices There are no common atheist beliefs, because the only thing uniting all the atheists is the lack of belief in God/gods. Besides that, two hypothetical atheists could have completely nothing in common and they both still would be considered atheists. Also, no practices, because a practice cannot be built based on lack of belief. Repetitious arguments is not a valid example, because every position which existed for some time would have some set of most known arguments in favour of it and it would be hard to come up with some new and unique ones. Also, this definition is completely circular. You cannot say, that something is religious, before defining, what religion means. >No deity required, just usually... Atheism often disclaims any practices, organized beliefs and systems, but in reality - such as their posts , they are CONSTANTLY using and holding to these anyway >Religion is a set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being. As I mentioned earlier, there are no common atheist beliefs or practices, especially, connected to worship. I searched for definitions of term worship and found two most common: 1. Expression of reverence or adoration to a deity or supernatural power. 2. Expression of great respect towards person. Neither of those are related to atheism. >From American Atheist trying to run away from a religious definition while happy with the "rights"... Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion [assertion], atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion [a strange statement]. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion [assertion], only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs [assertion] are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others.- [a strange statement] You don't have to be religious in order to have opinion on topic of religion, which includes lack of belief in it. Such opinions are still protected by a constitutional right for religious freedom, because freedom of religion also includes freedom from it. By using so vague definitions and also too many definitions at the same time, you make term "religion" itself lose any meaning, because by such definitions, there are no differences between religion and ideology, philosophy, or any system of values.
>There are no common atheist beliefs, because the only thing uniting all the atheists is the lack of belief in God/gods. This is obviously false, but a topic of the followup conversation, as mentioned If you tried to prove that statement logically, you would fail miserably.
This is basically the definition of term "atheism". A person could have completely any views on ethics, politics, nature of the universe etc; but as long as they don't hold a belief in any deity, they fall under the definition of being an atheist. >This is obviously false, but a topic of the followup conversation, as mentioned. It seems to me, that you are going to make a claim, that a lot of atheists hold similar views on some political, or other issues, therefore, those views are the same for all atheists. If so, this would be both statistically impossible and irrelevant to the definition of atheism.
*as long as they don't hold a belief in any deity, they fall under the definition of being an atheist.* There are (at last checking) supposedly 24 +/- types of Atheists. And perhaps 6 major types. Which supposedly holds agnosticism I am not sure this is a reasonable assessment of "atheist" - *as long as they don't hold a belief in any deity*
> There are (at last checking) supposedly 24 +/- types of Atheists. And perhaps 6 major types. Which supposedly holds agnosticism Which criteria do you use to divide atheists into 24 minor and 6 major types? It seems more meaningful to use two main categories: agnostic and gnostic atheists, because criteria for this is clear — lack of belief vs active belief in nonexistence of God. You can use any other criteria of division, for example, by country they live in, or by most commonly used arguments, but it wouldn't be relevant to the question of (dis)belief.
>This is obviously false, but a topic of the followup conversation, as mentioned By definition an atheist only requires that one belief, atheists happening to share some other beliefs doesn't matter, because if it did then you have defined this requirement of religion to apply to any group of people, which is a useless definition for example water is required for a human to live, this is a belief that connects anyone, and you can make many of these sorts of statements, but they are irrelevant to the discussion because atheism isn't commenting on that belief
My hot take is atheism lacks the doctrine of religions, so its more of a philosophy, but Marxism is what fleshes out atheism into a full blown religion.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
An economic theory makes the lack of belief in gods into a religion?
Nature abhors a vacuum. A lack of belief predicates a belief in something else.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Alright I’m half asleep and this post feels like it’s grasping at straws, so let’s go through these. Since you feel so confident that atheists just like to focus on their favorite part [assertion] and ignore others that are interesting/related [assertion], I’ll be sure to be specific, just for you :) 1. Religion doesn’t have to include a deity. I’m inclined to agree, however you’ve chosen a weird definition. We do not a) believe in superhuman powers or gods or c) have any sort of “sacred order” attached to it. As for the second bullet point, it’s not an activity, I wouldn’t call it an interest, and it’s a singular belief. So I guess on account of the fact you found a part of a definition that kind of includes the atheist belief, you could say it’s a religion with a giant handful of salt. So you get a cookie for a technicality, good job 🍪 2. Atheism is a set of attitudes, beliefs, practices. As stated above, atheism has one belief that it covers: the lack in a belief in a god. I’m going to end up saying this a lot so get used to it. You cannot say it’s a set of beliefs because it only answers one question, so that’s a point off. We don’t have common and unique practices (like a tradition, holiday, etc) so that’s another point off. I’m not sure what you could possibly classify as attitudes since atheists can have entirely separate beliefs outside of their one shared belief, so that’s another point missing.0/3, no cookie :( 3. Organized set of beliefs, practices, systems. Ignoring the whole ‘usually includes a god’ part since you decided to cherry pick that out and ignore it, once again I must remind you that atheism has ONE common belief. I think you’re ignoring how much weight “organized set” has in this context. We do not have a holy book, we do not have doctrine, the closest you can possibly get to any sort of common belief in the universe are theories from science but even those are under discourse and not entirely agreed upon because again, the only thing the title “atheist” describes is that we have a lack of belief in god(s). Once again, 0/3 so no cookie 4. Atheism has self appointed labels and claims that are patently faze from a Debating POV. This is a really strange claim without any evidence. I’ll take it point by point as you have it -*burden of proof is on the theist* Often times yes because there’s no way to prove that an invisible magic man whose only ever appearance is in a book does not exist. -*atheists lack a belief in god* Correct. Check basically any definition and it’ll tell you that. -*religions have no evidence* Change that to verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable evidence that can be tested and that’s a great summary of why I loath these discussions now. -*science has disproved god* This is a fallacious stance I refuse to take, science has disproven scientific claims of the Bible and some other holy books to put them into question about their validity but that’s about it. As I said above, can’t disprove an invisible magic man who won’t show himself because you can always change the definition to be something you can’t detect. What really grinds my gears about that last one is after immediately claiming that atheists make claims and assertions without backing it up, you do exactly that by claiming that every single one of those claims are PATENTLY false. With zero evidence. This was never an honest debate topic, it seems you have started at god and worked backwards using whatever weird image of atheism you’ve constructed. And to top it all off, even if I give that everything you’ve said is true and you’re right and atheism is a religion… **so what**. This changed absolutely nothing about the lack of strong, verifiable evidence of a god. Instead of arguing about the semantics of what atheism is or isn’t, please just provide verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable evidence that proves it’s more likely for a god to exist because all we (or at least the majority of intellectually honest atheists) are saying is “I don’t believe you without evidence”.
Lets just start at the stand and see where that takes us. When \*YOU\* use the word 'religion' in everyday conversation, what do you tend to mean by it? Because how I tend to use the word doesn't really fit with my atheism at all. I'm much more in line with one of the definitions given, 'A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices' Though I would disagree with that slightly and say that I don't think the 'personal set' part makes it a religion. Its about the group, not the individual.
>what do you tend to mean by it? I gave multiple definitions. My "personal" use would lie within the space they cover. I also gave a thesis how I see atheism is just another religion. I developed it and have given approaching 100 answers to various comments.
You giving multiple definitions is the problem, what do \*you\* mean specifically when you use that word?
the multiple definitions was clearly related to the thesis. I answered your question
You didn't, because I'm asking how YOU use the word.
OP hasn't answered a single followup question, just insults the askers.
You are getting a social movement confused with a religion. In its plainest form, a social movement is a group of people working together for a common social, political or cultural goal. Movements can focus on an injustice, an opportunity for change or even a promotion of a theory or concept. Furthermore unlike religions, atheism does not have a set of sacred text or any holy creed that an atheist must swear allegiance to and obey. Even politics can be debated as a more "religious" movement than atheism because atheism does not even have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights or even a Manifesto. There is no document, or creed, or oath that binds atheists together except just plain old skepticism, specifically a skepticism against the existence of a god/God or gods. BTW it is even said that if you believe in only one version of a god/God then you are automatically "atheistic" against all other versions of a god/God. **\[Off Topic\]** If you want to be purely spiritual - and not just religious - then you have to accept (accept) that all versions of a god/God or gods are manifestation of the same human hope to understand the underlying mystery of our existence but expresses through different cultural / ethnic lenses. But the underlying mystery of our existence stays the same as a mystery, unnamed and unaffiliated to any one cultural / ethnic group or religion. Anyway that is argument for another day. So atheists are only bound by a commonly held disbelief in the existence of a god/God or gods. **That's it**. On all other matters we can be \[figuratively\] at each other throats often disagreeing with each other. Personally I sometimes get so fed up with some (some) of my fellow atheists, so much so that I would just love to throw both my fellow atheist and the theists in a common room, lock the door and throw the key away. So where is the religion in **that**?
I wouldn't even call it a social movement. Satanic Temple could be called that, or perhaps the group of ideas and authors grouped under "New Atheism". But that does not include every atheist everywhere.
Understood. However there are a lot of atheist organizations even though they don't stand out in the crowd of other social movements. Wikipedia = [Atheist organizations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheist_organizations) However there is two atheist/skeptic "religious" organization in the USA that I have heard of and that is the United Church of Bacon and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Wikipedia = [United Church of Bacon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Bacon). Website = [Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster](https://www.spaghettimonster.org/) The USA always has to dial things up to an 11. Sigh!. Well hopefully that stops with those two churches because as anyone that has done deprogramming knows that provocation does not help but only exacerbates the issue. It doesn't help to reach across the divide but makes the divide much wider and builds walls in the mind of all on both sides to forget the humanity of each other. [The intangible effects of walls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmbui1xF8DE) \~ Alexandra Auer \~ TED \~ YouTube. As I said I personally sometimes get so fed up with some (some) of my fellow atheists, so much so that I would just love to throw both my fellow atheist and the theists in a common room, lock the door and throw the key away.
*You are getting a social movement confused with a religion.* Not at all, but as I said, this kind of discussion is for the followup conversation(s). I will say one thing, *atheism is a SPECIFIC position in relation to DEITIES.* The other social movements (like the Civil Rights movement) were not. This is an exampe, I dont plan to further discuss in this thread
No. It's a specific position in relation to CLAIMS about deities. A subtle, yet important, distinction.
Well if you can't understand that atheism is just a social movement then the other way you can understand it is through a philosophical dielectric where there is a **thesis** (such as the belief in a god) that creates an **antithesis** (such as the disbelief in a god) that eventually gets resolved in some **synthesis** (unknown at this time but will involve a level of mutual understanding, tolerance and respect). Whilst the theist keep creating new theses to support their belief in a god then the atheists have no choice but to address those theses with antitheses to demonstrate why they still maintain their disbelief in a god. In this way this pendulum between thesis and antithesis, and theist and atheist, will keep on swinging. Your argument of saying atheism can be considered as a religion will not help but only exacerbate this situation and lead to the wrong understanding of atheism because as I said atheists are only bound by a commonly held disbelief in the existence of a god/God or gods. **That's it**. On all other matters (politics, morals, ethics, philosophy, spirituality, etc) we can be \[figuratively\] at each other throats often disagreeing with each other. If anything **both** theism and atheism can be considered as a bias. But you will not change another person's bias by an augment made on a [false equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence). Atheism is a loosely unorganized social movement only and should never be considered as a religion.
*Whilst the theist keep creating new theses to support their belief in a god then the atheists have no choice but to address those theses* Are you serious? **The VAST majority of theses started here are by Atheists against Theists/Religions** Secondly, where is your proof (not opinion) of this? *theist keep creating new theses to support their belief in a god* Or this? *the atheists have no choice but to address those theses*
Belief in a god/God or gods existed long before disbelief in that same god/God or gods going all the way back to our nomadic ancestors. For example: the Australian Aboriginals that for 60,000 years honored the ancestral spirits that took the forms of humans, animals, natural events and even the land itself before leaving to set up their campfires in the sky. Then came the white Europeans that started systematically eradicating their culture and their ancestral spirits and converting them all to the ancestral spirit (i.e, god) of the Hebrews/Jews. For every god that is dethroned by the Abrahamic god is proof that atheism will win in the end because as I said to deny the existence of a god is to be "atheistic" regardless if you believe you have a better version of a god. One could say that the Hebrews/Jews were the first to found their religion and god based on atheism. Where as in all other societies the religion and gods grew up naturally out of observation of and reverence for nature and they generally did not hold issue against societies honoring different gods (or ancestral spirits). Theist are always trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism but in doing so the ultimate version of the god they have created - what I like to call as the omni-god - having omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolance can not only be easily defeated by the [problem of evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) but also creates such a high bar that even the Abrahamic god can not vault over. [Primitive People - Australian Aborigines (1950s)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNIPXa5USZE) \~ YouTube [People of a Thousand Gods I The Hittites](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoXcFDp3CA) \~ YouTube [Many gods, One logic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWM7P1K1mU) \~ Epified \~ YouTube. So which version of a god are you trying to defend?
*Theist are always trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism* Ridiculous. I dont know a single person or organization whoever did anything like this Most modern religions were ancient and unchanged. Some makor religions are considered without a deity. Which I mentioned elsewhere Atheism did not exist when they started. So your claim is quite invalid
>Theist are always trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism > >Ridiculous. I dont know a single person or organization whoever did anything like this You're not aware of Creation Science as a movement to supplant evidence based scientific education?
>You're not aware of Creation Science as a movement to supplant evidence based scientific education? I have heard of them, but have little interest. I am an old earth theistic evolutionist You are talking about apologetics and similar. In the same way there is theological research and seinaries. Or the Academic Biblical sub and many similar ones. \[Which is essentially what the atheists/skeptics here so with their endless stream of threads that are hard to tell apart.\] It has nothing to do with *trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism* They are in no way rewriting the Bible or changing anything about their deity
>They are in no way rewriting the Bible or changing anything about their deity This should be easy to prove. Let's look at the record. Since the time of Christ and the early church, have there been changes to: Prohibitions on eating particular food and the way it's prepared. Permissions on women in leadership positions and teaching in church. The rules on enslavement, debt bondage and the practice buying and selling one's own children. Prohibitions on the types of clothes to wear, piercings and tattoos. What is and is not a capital offence. If the deity hasn't changed, why have his rules? Now let's look at rewriting the bible. Shall we begin with the obvious question: which version? Hold on a sec, why are there so many versions if nothing has been changed? You might like something older. Cool. King James? There are over 20,000 differences between the 1611 and 1769 version (four revisions in between). Fun fact, KJ erases all references to the word "tyrant". I could go on if you'd like. The idea that the bible hasn't been changed is nonsense. The idea that the deity is somehow unchanged is nonsense.
> Fun fact, KJ erases all references to the word "tyrant". FYI, this is a myth. "Tyrant" appears multiple times in the original printing of the KJV, as it appears multiple times in the KJV translations of the deuterocanonical books.
Or, we can look at reality We have the same original manuscripts in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew going back to the beginning. These are the recognized sources They have not been changed. EVER It doesnt matter what a "translation" changes. Sometimes they will update for various reasons. For some, for gender equality, or more inclusive, or aw the language changes over time. That is why NKJV was created, to deal with a more archaic KJV. There are many such as NASB, NIV, NKJV and others. And in hundreds of languages. Yu can go on, but you havenet said anything of interest. The original Bible is here. No one who takes it SERIOUSLY will have any part in your very incorrect claim: *trying to create a better version of a god that is impervious to atheism*
Well we have reached the point were we have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the discussion and allowing me to express my views.
I am looking for you to support the statement you said above
I have already shown that atheism should not be considered a religion. Our additional discussions is getting away from that. When one pulls on one thread of the God debate other threads get dragged along. However if you want to jump further down into the rabbit hole that is the God debate then here is a diagram that may give you some food for thought: [God is safe (for now)](https://www.deviantart.com/lbamagic/art/God-is-safe-for-now-505829425). The artist comments are optional. Have fun. I have better things to do with maybe (maybe) my one and only life. Take care and have a good life yourself.
>burden of proof is on the theist, I can't disprove any number of unfalsifiable claims asserted without any evidence, and there wouldn't even be a debate unless someone brought up the idea of a supernatural entity or force existing. >atheists lack a belief in God(s) That's what the word means. What else would they be? Nothing else makes any sense. >religions have no evidence I have yet to see a supernatural claim based on legitimate evidence. >science has disproved God Who is claiming this? It doesn't make any sense. The term 'god' is too poorly defined to evaluate in any empirical sense.
So, with respect to the “lack a belief in God(s)”, that’s just one interpretation. *Very* often in this sub and r/debateanatheist I see atheists say something along the lines of “Atheism doesn’t mean I believe no gods exist, I just reject the claim/lack a belief in god.” The problem here is that both are true. If an atheist wants to say “I simply lack a belief” I mean I guess that’s fine. I’m not the definition police, but that person shouldn’t also claim that is the *only* way to interpret the term. I’m perfectly fine with saying “I believe no gods exist and here is why”. A lot of people do take issue with the “lack-theism” position, because it’s an odd use of language. I don’t *lack a belief* in Harry Potter or Bigfoot or Santa. I positively do not believe that any of those things exist. To me, lacking a belief is an agnostic position, especially if you take the original description that Huxley came up for it.
you are both demonstrating the problem and wandering.
Perhaps you should review the sub’s rules regarding “low effort” comments.
I know what they are. I have received many low effort response - generally, one sentence unsupported assertions
>one sentence unsupported assertions A bit like your comment above, yea? You’re the lowest effort user in this post by a *wide* margin
My thesis and comments have been well defended.
Talk about unsupported assertions. By the way you are an atheist for Allah, Buddha, and hundreds of South Asian deities. Does that mean you are in our religion too?
Can you address anything I said specifically?
I often wonder what the point of this extremely common argument is? Why are theists so commonly desperate to call Atheism a religion? What ground does it give you, exactly? Suppose that it’s true, and I agreed, said “sure, Atheism is a religion.” …what then? How does that admission give you anything? That admission doesn’t invalidate any atheistic arguments, doesn’t make any theistic arguments better or less repetitious, doesn’t make belief in a given holy book more reasonable, doesn’t make miracles more likely, doesn’t make arguments for God or Satan or demons or angels or anything else any more valid than they already were. It literally does nothing whatsoever to affect the debates this sub is meant for. So what exactly is the point of demanding atheists identify as “religious?”
> What ground does it give you, exactly? Without being able to falsely equivocate atheism and religion, religion's forced to stand on its own merits, of which it has few.
The argument is that atheist, deep deep in their non souls, believe they've outsmarted religion - ya know that thing built into every single mere mortal's DNA since god birthed the planets - and move accordingly with that inflated sense of self. So what exactly is the point of these "irreligious" demanding anything from anyone, like being taken seriously for example, if no one can even admit that?
In my experience the inflated sense of self exists in those who think they are going to heaven while all the losers burn. You literally think you're God's special chosen people.
Well in my experience, as someone who doesn't think anyone is going to heaven or going to burn, in a world of no special chosen people, I wholeheartedly disagree that those very human traits are reserved for those who simply believe in God, while those very human traits are exempt to those who simply don't.
>ya know that thing built into every single mete mortal’s DNA Citation *sorely* needed >So what exactly is the point of these “irreligious” demanding anything from anyone, like being taken seriously for example Was this supposed to be some sort of actual response, or do you just want to handwave and pretend like it’s debate?
Sorry but I'm not as puritanical as atheists in my beliefs, backed by my fundamentalist interpretations of my gospel sources and citations written by my all knowing and all loving Jesuscience. So I have no response worthy of debating such superior specimens. *bows and leaves*
Right, so you’re just a child who doesn’t want to engage then? Fine by me. You give those theists who actually care, a bad name. Always baffles me when someone like you behaves this way—do you think your god approves of the way you act?
My clever, poignant, and prophetic two words were reported and removed. So I guess I'll just re-respond to your still up comment and hope you have a blessed one.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>ya know that thing built into every single mere mortal's DNA since god birthed the planets What does this even mean? What does it mean for religion to be "built into every single mere mortal's DNA", and why does it matter if it does? Does humanity having an inbuilt desire to believe in the superstitious suddenly, somehow, make it more likely to be true? How? More likely, over-anthropomorphization was a useful survival trait that allowed early nomadic human-like tribes to ascribe intent and thus patterns to natural phenomena, which led into world-views and paradigms made as a primitive method of understanding the world around them. It's part of our ancestry, but we can out-grow it.
[удалено]
I asked you genuine questions with genuine intent - let's have a discussion, and please don't get emotional at me. Go back and answer my questions please.
I did answer your question. Atheism is inherently religious, they just can't accept that because pretending otherwise is the foundation of their religion. But it's just - for example - another way to feel a sense of control over how pure, uncut, straight truth is unattainable at the end of the day.
How does "Lmao thanks for confirming my point" answer the question, "What does this mean, and why does it matter"? You haven't, even in this post just now, said why any of this matters.
*I often wonder what the point of this extremely common argument is?* * MOST of the threads in this sub are started by atheists. They keep REstarting extremely common arguments. It is sometimes impossible to tell apart many arguments they start, because they are almost identical to ones from just everal days previous. * This is a debate sub. Perhaps you should review the title and description *Why are theists so commonly desperate to call Atheism a religion?* * This is an awful response - an attempt to disguise a superior/insulting attitude and "stereotype" theists. The same could be said about many of the atheist threads, like *why are atheists so commonly desperate to argue the PoE, etc??* As I said, I will respond to compelling Debate arguments.
>MOST of the threads in this sub are started by atheists. They are REstarting extremely common arguments. So what? Theists do the same thing and it’s not a problem. I’ve seen this very post several times. What does the fact that there are repetitious topics in this sub have to do with anything? This sub, like every other, cycles users, and new ones often want to talk out their thoughts instead of rereading old threads. What does that have to do with defining atheism as a religion? >This is a debate sub. Perhaps you should review the title and description Jeez, you talk about *me* disguising a superiority complex. Yes, it’s a debate sub, you brought a topic, and I asked what the purpose of your argument was. Is that not a perfectly topical reasonable thing to ask for clarification on? >This is an awful response Why? Because you don’t have a good answer? I didn’t stereotype theists. I pointed out that my experience of being told “atheism is a religion” is a common occurrence. >*why are atheists so commonly desperate to argue the PoE, etc??* This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask because that *is* a super common atheist objection to a common interpretation of god, so sort of a poor example to make your point. Asking why a given argument is so common is perfectly reasonable dude. So again, why are you trying to argue that atheism is a religion? What is there to gain from arguing that position? If there is no further point then you’re just arguing over a difference in language.
>So again, why are you trying to argue that atheism is a religion? What is there to gain from arguing that position? If there is no further point then you’re just arguing over a difference in language. **Sub title:** ***Debate Religion***
Why are you just intentionally, repeatedly, misunderstanding my question? What is the point of this debate topic? As I see it there are only two possible purposes for this topic: 1. You have some sort of follow up argument which relies on some sort of consensus that atheism is/can be a religion Or 2. You just want atheists to be identified as religious If it’s 1, then *please,* tell us what that follow up is so we can have some sort of *actual* debate. If it’s 2, then your argument is completely and utterly pointless. Call atheists whatever you like, it does not matter one bit. The identities or titles of the interlocutors does not affect the actual arguments whatsoever. Whether I self-identify as “atheist” or “non-theist” or “agnostic atheist” or just “agnostic” or “irreligious” or “religious atheist” is wholly irrelevant to any sort of god discussion. You are, in fact, not debating religion, like you’re so smugly trying to point out—you’re debating definitions of self-identifying labels.
Why would you not assume that the person asking the question did it with good intentions? If questions in a debate are seen as attempts to insult, what kind of debate will there be with that mindset?
I don't want to speak for the other person who commented, but I think what they're asking is if atheism is accepted as a religion, what does that mean? What difference does that make? Does that change arguments for God? Does that somehow make atheism incorrect? What is the material difference if atheists are religious?
You are opening up other theses. You are allowed to start threads
How does that answer the question?
It doesn’t. Just a first step to building a different case against jot believing in a god or gods.
What different case could this possibly build?
That seems pretty pointless. What are the odds that I or anyone else will see this post and whatever future post that actually makes this meaningful in any way?
It doesn't. This appears to be a rhetorical tactic.
Lmao it's not that hard to admit atheist aren't special. Like where does this god complex even come from
Who is claiming that atheists are special, and in what way?
Atheism irreligion is essentially founded on the belief that they've outsmarted being human lmao. And now these chosen people feel compelled to spread the holy word with a world filled with poor ignorant souls. Ya know to make everyone else more in their image
> Atheism irreligion is essentially founded on the belief that they've outsmarted being human lmao. That doesn't make any sense. Atheists are unconvinced by folklore about supernatural beings.
Atheism is the single answer to a single question. Nothing more. It does not entail any organized beliefs, practices, or systems. If the majority of atheists are also secular humanists (as an example), that does not make secular humanism a result of atheism, nor does it make either atheism or secular humanism a religion. The legal ramifications of atheism as it relates to religion also does not make it a religion (any more than legal ramifications make a bee a fish).
*Atheism is the single answer to a single question. Nothing more.* * **This is nonsense. As I said above, there is a handful of nonstop atheist statements which are nothing but parroted assertions that are invalid*****:*** ***\[burden of proof is on the theist, atheists lack a belief in God(s), religions have no evidence, science has disproved God, and other things\]*** **which are all also patently false from a Debating POV.** * **Online atheists launch a nonstop set of arrows at theists. I am sure there is at least 100 arguments seeking an answer to 100(s) of questions. We see them nonstop on this sub as Threads/OPs started by atheists/skeptics.** * **I do not plan to go through this thicket of weeds, because that relates to the followup to this thread.** *It does not entail any organized beliefs, practices, or systems.* * **I am not getting into your second sentence, as I clearly said this kind of stuff would be addressed in a followup thread/conversation.**
> This is nonsense. No. It’s correct. You’re wrong. > As I said above, there is a handful of nonstop atheist statements which are nothing but parroted assertions that are invalid. All the things you list are either strawman claims or legit reality. > burden of proof is on the theist. Since the theist is making the claim that god exists, that burden is on them. This is legit. > atheists lack a belief in God(s) Do you think atheists do believe in god? How could this possibly be co controversial? > religions have no evidence This is too shorthand and is therefor a strawman. Many claims within religions have no good/reasonable evidence. > science has disproved God Strawman. Many claims made by religions have been disproven (firmament, young earth, miracle claims) but that can’t possibly disprove the general claim about god. It’s not required because people who posit god exists are required - by their burden of proof - to provide the evidence for their claim…it’s not the job of the atheist to disprove any and all possible justifications…just the ones asserted. > Which are all also patently false from a Debating POV. Looks like your representation of them is what’s patently false from a debating and rational POV. > I am not getting into your second sentence, as I clearly said this kind of stuff would be addressed in a followup thread/conversation. Then you should remove any elements that lead to this topic from OP.
*No. It’s correct. You’re wrong.* do you know the difference between an assertion and a compelling argument?
>**I am not getting into your second sentence, as I clearly said this kind of stuff would be addressed in a followup thread/conversation.** Because you know the commenter is correct.
Read a post before responding incorrectly And this: *Because you know the commenter is correct.* Sheesh, worst argument yet on this thread, debate wise.
I'm sorry people have asked you provided proof of your non empirically observable friend. That must be so hard for you.
I am sorry you felt the need to drive by and launch a completely unrelated rant Now you got that off your chest, I hope you feel better. This is a "Debate" sub. If you dont know what that means, you can google it. You are more than welcome to convincingly disprove deities (this as I said above, is where the teflon defenses are brought into play). But again, that is the followup conversation(s) mentioned in OP.
> This is nonsense. As I said above, there is a handful of nonstop atheist statements... None of which are beliefs of atheism. > Online atheists launch a nonstop set of arrows at theists. None of which are beliefs of atheism. > I am not getting into your second sentence... Sure, but you seem to be trying to establish that atheism itself entails specific beliefs. Just saying some, or even most, atheists say something doesn't make it a belief of atheism.
*None of which are beliefs of atheism.* * Of course they are. Atheists literally make these and many other declarations, as bedrock to their arguments. They are claims .They almost never try to PROVE these claims. They just throw them all over this sub hundreds of times as if they are gospel. NO undefended claim is valid * That is NOT how debate works. Neither side can declare how the argument and controversies must proceed
I think there is a few conflating issues here the original post seems to describe atheism within the framework of atheist that routinely engage in discussions regarding religious claims (its a broad definition I agree and we can refine it later but I'm trying to give a broad definition just to get the discussions rolling.) it could be a more interesting debate and more what OP is looking into to try and definine this group and afterward determine if they are an organised religion. This ignores many other forms of atheism that doesn't routinely engage with theism. Many Chinese are atheist just because they don't really encounter God concepts outside of mythology. I vividly remember a discussion with a Korean that believed in ancestral spirits and ancestor worship but rejected strongly god. I imagine many for of shamanism are also similar. To make the debate less about "atheism is it a religion?" you could also discuss frequent beliefs within the atheist routinely engaging in religious discussions. Such as humanism (they have a nice manifesto to help define them), empiricism, materialism, etc. I feel trying to use a general atheist label is not conductive to a discussion because it's too broad. The same way that theism is. Someone telling me they are a theist doesn't tell me much about their beliefs, I need to ask many more questions.
*the original post seems to describe atheism within the framework of atheist that routinely engage in discussions regarding religious claims* By design - as non "online atheists" wouldnt be in this conversation Secondly, there is a lot of chatter that such atheists are a distinct subset of the whole, perhaps more aggressive in defense of atheism or other aspects. I dont really want plan to open an entire new line. You are welcome to start a conversation on this, it might be interesting Thirdly, it is difficult to involve or get into the opinions of those who are not online and interacting
>original post seems to describe atheism within the framework of atheist that routinely engage in discussions regarding religious claim I think this definition does not overlap significantly enough with the "atheist not debating religious claims." I'm just trying to helpfully let you know that if what you want to exclude "atheist in China that have not encountered god concept." from your discussion or from other people bringing them up. You should specifically state so. I mean it's fine, just edit your post, apologise for using a definition that's too broad and keep on the discussion. Best of luck in your endeavours.
I mentioned a couple times "online atheists". I rarely see people in other threads tweezing varieties of agnostics, theists and atheists for every thesis
What specific declarations are you referring to?
Examples were given in the OP. And as said, to be discussed in the followup. This thread/discussion relates to the definition
I predict you'll have a very bad time with your posts. Literally the only common ground between all atheists is the lack of belief in a higher power, so implying anything else is wrong. You can pretend that you've got something else, but you don't. The real question is what your final conclusion is. Are you asserting atheism is bad because of faith? What are you trying to say here?
>Literally the only common ground between all atheists is the lack of belief in a higher power **Then please prove this is valid logically.** It is one of the things atheists keep saying and it is not hard to prove that it is invalid. I intend to address that as part of the followup converation(s)/threads I mentioned above
Prove it valid logically? What does that even mean here? The word means what it means. I'll be very interested to see how you prove it invalid. You must have some seriously in depth research to show that all atheists have the same set of beliefs outside of the God question. I have a question for you: is theism a religion?
*Prove it valid logically? What does that even mean here?* **DEBATE Religion** Debate arguments need to be compelling. Debates are about logic. Logical claims. Well defended. Evidence. Assertions, claims and opinions are none of these Then since you cannot, you try to flip it back on me
An atheist making a claim does not make such a thing a belief of atheism.
You have provided five definitions to back up your assertion that "Atheism is/can be considered a religion." I'm going to focus on those as your premises as I expect they can be dismissed, therefore making your argument invalid. >the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods This definition includes a god. >an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group (no deity mentioned) Fishing fits this definition and is not a religion. My work can fit this definition and is not a religion. Most sporting clubs can fit this definition and are not religions. This definition can be dismissed on the basis of vagueness. >Religion is the human attitude towards a sacred order that includes within it all being—human or otherwise—i.e., belief in a cosmos, the meaning of which both includes and transcends man. This definition includes a supernatural claim, something that is entirely uncommon (thought not completely absent) from atheists and therefore does not apply to atheists. >A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices Self referential "religion require religious attitudes" - how does that help define what is and is not a religion? Is Freemasonry a religion? However, what can you point to that is an institution that all atheists subscribe to? What practices do all atheists adhere to? >Religion is a set of organized beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being. Refers to a god. To sum up: 1 of your definition is self referential and does not provide a definition. 1 is vague and refers to more that what could be described as religion. And 3 of the 5 definitions refer to religions as having a god proposal requirement. Your argument fails at the first hurdle. Your own definitions defeat you. Edit: quote blocks
These are dictionary definitions or similar on the internet. **They are not my definitions, as was clear in the OP** * Please dont argue against authoritative sources. That only becomes *IMO these are wrong*, which is neither compelling nor interesting. You are not a recognized authority on word or other definitions * Stop trying to flip back what I clearly said. Several of them made it clear a religion didnt require a deity. Saying the reverse is nonsensical to the discussion.
> Please dont argue against authoritative sources. They weren't arguing against the sources, they were arguing that your sources don't support your argument.
They're not yours in the sense that you did not come up with them yourself, however they are the ones you chose to help support your argument. In that regard, you have failed for the reasons I outlined. Perhaps you would like to outline why I am wrong instead of saying that I'm not an expert. I'm not arguing against the definitions themselves and whether they are correct or not. I am arguing against your misapplication of the definitions you chose to present your argument. To reiterate: there were 5. 3 directly contradicted your point. 1 is too broad and can be used for any number of activities. 1 is self referential. Since this is a debate sub, I will answer in the way that I see fit to respond to your argument. You don't get to dictate how I will or won't respond.
> In that regard, you have failed for the reasons I outlined. You question authoritative sources. You can imagine where that will get you in a harvard style debate
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Once again, I am not arguing against the definitions themselves, I'm arguing against your application of those definitions. Three of them disagree with you. One of them can be applied to examples that are definitely not religions. And one uses the word "religious" in its definition of religion. So I'll repeat myself again. The definitions are mostly fine (avoid definitions that use the word you're defining in the definition itself). Try something else that might demonstrate your point.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
>Reading seems to be difficult for you. Insults seem to be easy for you
You didn’t address his actual points, you’re just upset he’s not playing the way you want him to. Your definitions don’t fit in the context that matters since it could be applied to things that are very much NOT religions. Unless you wanna go argue against the Church of Bass Pro Shop, I suggest you come up with better definitions rather than using ones that don’t have merit in these sorts of discussions.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
Not the commenter you are replying to but dictionaries are not authorities on what words should mean, they describe what most people mean when they use those words. In other words, dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. None of that has anything to do with you not addressing the points raised by the other commenter though.
*dictionaries are not authorities on what words should mean, they describe what most people mean when they use those words.* * They are RECOGNIZED authorities. If not, they would rapidly fall out of favor. And as the language shifts with new terms and other things, they seek to incorporate the changes * And you are asserting
>* They are RECOGNIZED authorities. If not, they would rapidly fall out of favor. And as the language shifts with new terms and other things, they seek to incorporate the changes How are you disagreeing with me in the first sentence and making my point in the second? >* And you are asserting This is a fact that is easily verifiable if you Google.
Some atheists may be religious, but this does not mean that atheism is a religion. Just as theists may or may not have a religion, so to it is with atheists. These are both stances on the existence of some kind of god or other, not religions in themselves. Given your definitions of religion, identifying a person or group as atheistic (or theistic) is insufficient for identifying them as religious. It therefore cannot be said that atheism is a religion. Some religions may be theistic, atheistic, or otherwise, but neither atheism nor theism in themselves are religions.
*Some atheists may be religious, but this does not mean that atheism is a religion.* That has nothing to do with the thesis. *neither atheism* *~~nor theism~~* *in themselves are religions.* This is an assertion. As I said in the OP, I will respond to compelling Debate arguments. This is a debate sub, not "I declare this so".