The vast majority of people who claim to be “atheist” merely don’t realize that what they worship - be it rocks and minerals, or The Universe, or Climate Change, or Karl Marx - are religions in all but name. The most vocal atheists are the most fiercely religious zealots you will ever meet.
🇳🇱
I agree on the conclusion (atheists are religion), not so much on the why (the things they revere).
I would argue they are a faith based religion because atheism implies certainty or strong conviction towards the lack of a god. Since god is not falsifiable it requires the same amount of faith to claim he is real as it takes to claim he isnt. Therefore atheists are faith based. Only an agnostic, someone who makes no assertions about a god's existence, can truly claim a non-faith based opinion.
Most "atheists" satisfy the latter definition of being religious, but still claim to atheism because they don't generally follow a formal religious organization.
That said, some of the woke socialists and the climate cult come close to satisfying the religious follower definition as well.
> There's a distinction between following a formal Religion, and being religious. The latter is about conviction of faith and worshipping something larger than yourself. The former involves associating yourself with a formally defined group of people who organize around religious principles.
YEs agreed. Though the term "formal religion" would more appropriate be "organized religion" as you can beleive in a formal religion (like say Catholicism) but not be part of the organized religion (the church itself and its organization).. but yea, more or less agree.
> Most "atheists" satisfy the latter definition of being religious, but still claim to atheism because they don't generally follow a formal religious organization.
Well yea atheists are religious, not a member of an organized religion. Though one could argue atheism is "formal" in the sense that it has a strict interpritation everyone shares, it just isnt organized.
@freemo @ryan Nope, atheists are not participating or following any religious anythings. We simply say that, since no credible evidence has been presented for gods or goddesses, we don't worship or follow any. Very few atheists claim there is no god. If you have credible evidence for gods or goddesses, please present it. Thanks!
A more appropriate term would be faith based, than religion based. Atheists are a faith based position.
100% of atheists claim there is no god, if you are not making that claim you are not atheist by definition, that would make you agnostic (making no assertion about a god either way).
If you believe there is abpossibility, however small, god may he real then you are agnostic. If you believe god doesn't exist you are atheist.
That said definitions matter very little to me. Definitions aside i only would need to know, is there a possibility god exists or not, however low?
Thinking Thor doesn't exist would require faith like any other god. The fact that you think Thor and and the christian god may exist would make you not atheist but again the word or definition isn't important. Since you say god or Thor may exist then you are not faith based, nor would I call you atheist.
No I understand. You can dismiss the assertion that Thor is real by being undecided on the issue, which is the only nonfaith based conclusion. The lack of evidence is the whole point. You have exactly as much evidence of thors existence as you do his nonexistance. So if you assert he exists or not then that is faith, if you assert you don't have enough evidence to decide either way then that is science.
Since you claimed you have no reason to believe god doesn't exist, or exist, then you are undecided and thus by definition agnostic.
@freemo @ryan I assure you, I'm not undecided about the existence of Thor et al. I didn't assert his/their existence. It is not my job to refute an assertion; it's the job of the claimant to provide evidence, which I then can consider and accept or reject. There is no credible evidence of deities; therefore, I live my life with No God/ess beliefs. The literal definition of atheist.
> I assure you, I'm not undecided about the existence of Thor et al.
If you are in no way undecided, presumably that you have determined therefore that Thor (and any god) does not exist, there is nothing wrong with that stance. It just happens to be a faith based position requiring the same amount of faith as any religion. That said, I'd agree you are, in fact, an atheist then.
> It is not my job to refute an assertion;
No one asked you to refute it.
> it's the job of the claimant to provide evidence,
Absolutely, that is not in question. The question is, when evidence is lacking to prove the lack of existence, or existence, of a thing (in this case god) do you take a faith based position and assume that means god does not exist, or do you take an evidence based approach and claim you do not have enough information to determine if god exists or not. Not being able to prove a thing exists is not proof it doesnt exist, thats the whole point.
> There is no credible evidence of deities;
Correct, that is my whole point, just as there is no credible evidence of the lack of deties. The whole point here is there is no evidence for either state.
> therefore, I live my life with No God/ess beliefs.
Also not what is in question. Both an agnostic atheist and a non-agnostic atheist will have this stance. The question is if you are an agnostic atheist (an evidence based approach that does not claim gods dont exist, nor do they claim they do, you simply dont have enough information to decide) or a non-agnostic atheist (a faith based position where despite a lack of evidence showing the non-existence of deities you take the faith based position that there are no deities).
> The literal definition of atheist.
As I said before the definition of the actual word is not the important part to me. There are two definitions of atheist, one that includes agnostics and one that doesnt. There is little doubt your one of these two types of atheist based on your answers, the question is simply if your an agnostic atheist (evidence based) or a non-agnostic atheist (faith based).
@freemo @ryan I believe the goal posts are moving here. Your original assertion was that atheism is faith-based and therefore a religion. My argument is that atheism is neither. You can apply different shades of agnosticism to atheism all you want, it still is not faith-based. Nor is it a religion. Also, have you ever heard of the concept that one can not prove a negative? I can not prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. In fact, no one can.
> I believe the goal posts are moving here.
There are no goal posts here, that would presume an adversarial attempt to prove you wrong or me right, I dont engage in those conversations. This is an exploration of the topic and I expect the "goal posts" on both sides to move in the sense that as we each learn from the conversation that we adjust our position to match what we learn.
> Your original assertion was that atheism is faith-based and therefore a religion.
Happy to explain what happened, there, and you are right.
It will be more clear if we look at the two definitions for atheism:
1. a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2. a lack of belief in the existence of a god or any gods
Originally I was using definition 1, which I am not refering to as non-agnostic atheism. I realized you were trying to assert exclusively #2, which I called agnostic atheism. Since I didnt care much to debate definitions and the substance of the discussion is more important I deferred debating which of those definitions were valid at all.
So while I understand that may incorrectly look like moving the goal posts it was in fact simply an attempt to use better clarifying language and avoid any debate on definitions themself.
> You can apply different shades of agnosticism to atheism all you want, it still is not faith-based
You are certainly welcome to make that case, but so far you have not made a counter point to that assertion. Please feel free to make that case if you wish.
> Also, have you ever heard of the concept that one can not prove a negative?
I most certainly have, it is one of the most widespread fallacies/myths you will hear people state. I am a professional research scientist so "proving things" is kinda my whole thing (scientific journals are pretty
Rather than get into all the technicals of why its a myth I will give you a very simple example that proves it by contradiction:
present you with a box, I claim "there is no full size american quarter in this box", this is clearly a negative. You can easily prove the negative to be true by opening the box, looking, and seeing there is no quarter in the box. Negatives absolutely can be proven, and they are proven all the time.
> I can not prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. In fact, no one can.
Your language is misleading here. We can not prove a teapot is orbiting the sun **right now**. The reason for that is because the space is too vast and our equipment not sensative enough to detect it, not because it is an unprovable concept. It is perfectly reasonable to think that once technology reaches a sufficient point it would be trivial to scan the solar system and in fact prove that a teapot is not orbiting the sun. This in no way suggests negatives cant be proven, again, we prove negatives all the time in science.
Agnostics can be further divided into at least:
1) soft agnostic - I don't personally know if there is a God or not, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of knowing.
2) hard agnostic - it is impossible in principle to know if there is a God or not. Those who think they do are wrong.
@freemo @ryan I'm not sure if you're understanding the role of evidence in this discussion. "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Aronra. There's no faith required. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Aronra again.