Why Atheism Is A Religion

No. Both humans and apes are related through a common ancestor, however, one is not reliant on the other for coming into existence.

Of course we are animals, which is exactly why it wouldn't matter if this scenario were true. Who decides whether or not a cow is a holy animal or a that pig is a filthy animal? If these instructions come from a creator, the actual subject (cow, pig, human) is irrelevant. It's simply been decided beforehand and must be obeyed.

 

What does evolution have to do with atheism they are two completely different things. You don't have to lack the belief in God to believe in evolution. In fact, you don't HAVE to BELIEVE in evolution at all. There is a preponderance of empirical evidence and logic supporting evolution that it is not just a belief or theory but definitive empirical KNOWLEDGE at this point. It's just atheists tend to not have a problem with rational empirical knowledge.

 

Oh okay.

Missing link?

 

Lol @ Empirical knowledge. Look out professor.

 

it depends on the animal For instance man came before dogs, frankly we kind of forged them from wolfs through taming them. Also, fish are notorious antitheists.

 

Well my FOX news loving brainwashed Grandparents would disagree. There are many statements about God made in American Government. America surely wasn't a shamanic country, they worked hard to kill off or imprison those practitioners.

Masons also seem to have played a major roll in the development of America. They are christain? America surely wasn't a Catholic country. There was only one Catholic president and he was assassinated?

I wish I could agree with you. But it seems that christain values were at the foundation of America's creation. Many people think there is a war going on to make this as much as law as possible.

 

No, atheism is a lack of belief in god.

The whole "sliding scale of belief" thing where theism is belief, agnosticism is not sure and atheism is "definite no" is bollocks.

Agnosticism means without knowledge (or the belief that the answer is ultimately unknowable)
Atheism means without belief.

Almost all atheists are also agnostics, in that they have no belief in god because of a lack of evidence, although it is possible to become an atheist for other reasons.

Many believers are agnostics as well, as they believe in a god but accept that definite proof is ultimately unattainable.


There is no sliding scale, just a duality of atheist/theist, agnosticism is not really relevant to this model.

 

Incorrect. I would say there is a sliding scale, with Agnosticism in the middle, but even drawing a line and saying there is a black and white line is just showing how much that it is a mirror for theism.

This "lack of belief" bullshit is a dumb twist of words.

Does an Atheist believe there is a Deity or not? The answer is they do not. This means that they believe there is no deity, based on the fact that there seemingly isn't Scientific evidence for one.

 

It is possible to be an agnostic who is also an atheist, and it is possible to be a theist who is also an agnostic, surely this disproves the sliding scale model? Athiest and theist are measures of belief, agnosticism is measure of knowledge, hence the difference of terms. If you had a sliding scale of belief then atheism (lack of belief) would obviously be at one end, and theism (belief) would be at the other, but by what logic would agnosticism (lack of knowledge) be in the middle?

I'm sure you can see that there is a difference between being unconvinced that something is true and believing that something is untrue.

If someone told me that they had found an unexploded bomb in my back garden, I might not believe that there is a bomb until they provide evidence. This does not mean that I believe that there is no bomb.

I find the idea of there being a bomb quite unlikely, but possible, so I reserve judgement until evidence is presented that allows me to make a decision. This is a neutral position (there may be a bomb, but it is unlikely) not a definite position (there is no bomb).

 

It is possible to be an agnostic who is also an atheist, and it is possible to be a theist who is also an agnostic, surely this disproves the sliding scale model?

How does this disprove it? It actually proves it.

Athiest and theist are measures of belief,

Yes.

agnosticism is measure of knowledge, hence the difference of terms. If you had a sliding scale of belief then atheism (lack of belief) would obviously be at one end, and theism (belief) would be at the other,
but by what logic would agnosticism (lack of knowledge) be in the middle?

One end of the scale is full belief in a deity, the other end of the scale is no belief in a deity, or in other words, belief that there is no deity.

You can be Atheist, meaning fully not believing there is a deity, an Agnostic Atheist, who knows that they can't know, but still overall believes there is no deity, an Agnostic, who really knows that he doesn't know and yet isn't making any claim about it one way or the other, an Agnostic Theist, and a hardcore Theist at the other hand.

What's confusing about this?

I'm sure you can see that there is a difference between being unconvinced that something is true and believing that something is untrue.

If someone told me that they had found an unexploded bomb in my back garden, I might not believe that there is a bomb until they provide evidence. This does not mean that I believe that there is no bomb.

I find the idea of there being a bomb quite unlikely, but possible, so I reserve judgement until evidence is presented that allows me to make a decision. This is a neutral position (there may be a bomb, but it is unlikely) not a definite position (there is no bomb).

Yes and this would make you an Agnostic on the situation, not a non-believer that it will happen or true believer that it won't happen. This might make you an Agnostic Atheist on the issue, since you are requiring evidence. Agnosticism is the one who doesn't make a stance, and is in the middle of the scale, and Atheism is the one that does make a full stance, on one extreme of the scale.

Atheism isn't simply "lack of belief" without including the fact that it's true belief that there is no Deity.

 

"One end of the scale is full belief in a deity, the other end of the scale is no belief in a deity, or in other words, belief that there is no deity."

This is correct up until the second comma.

"You can be Atheist, meaning fully not believing there is a deity, an Agnostic Atheist, who knows that they can't know, but still overall believes there is no deity, an Agnostic, who really knows that he doesn't know and yet isn't making any claim about it one way or the other, an Agnostic Theist, and a hardcore Theist at the other hand.

Were I to accept your definition (that an atheist is someone who firmly believes that there is no God), I could honestly say that I have never, in my life, met an atheist. Fortunately, I don't.

I don't know how many times I can say that agnosticism is not a measure of belief or a claim about the existence of god and have that fall on deaf ears before I just despair.

Let's take a look at your sliding scale. At one end you have a certainty which doesn't exist (as I say, I have never met an atheist by this definition, I doubt one exists.)

If we chop off that extreme end (as it signifies nothing) we have agnostic atheists (all atheists, people who lack belief based on lack of evidence.) Agnostics (people who lack belief, based on lack of evidence) agnostic theists (people who have belief, in spite of lack of evidence) and "hardcore theists" (people who have belief, and believe that they have evidence)

Do you not see that, if this is a scale of belief (and I think that it is) there is no fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic who does not adopt a position? they both lack belief in god because of a lack of evidence to support his existence. This is because (for the last time) agnosticism is not a measure of belief, only atheism and theism are.

Agnosticism is only a measure of knowledge, evidence and the possibility thereof. The reason why, on a sliding scale of belief, you can simultaneously be agnostic and adopt one of the the two possible positions, is for the same reason that you could be a theist who likes sausages or an atheist who likes sausages. Because liking sausages is not a position on the existence of god and has no place being in the middle of a scale of belief. Either you have belief or you don't. Keep your sausages to yourself.



"Yes and this would make you an Agnostic on the situation, not a non-believer that it will happen or true believer that it won't happen. This might make you an Agnostic Atheist on the issue, since you are requiring evidence. Agnosticism is the one who doesn't make a stance, and is in the middle of the scale, and Atheism is the one that does make a full stance, on one extreme of the scale."

IF agnosticism is "the one that doesn't take a stance" and atheism is a definite stance then how could I possibly be both at once? unless, as I contend, Agnosticism is not a stance at all.

Agnosticism has absolutely nothing to do with taking a stance or not, it has to do with knowledge and the possibility of knowledge. A huge amount of agnostics do take a stance on the existence of god, in fact I would go so far as to say that every atheist I've ever met, and most believers, are also agnostics. Most religious people believe in a God while accepting that ultimately his existence is unprovable/unknowable.

This is because belief in a deity is an act of faith, an act that transcends the need for empirical evidence.

All atheists lack a belief in god, and some are more confident of this position than others, but at the same time they accept that proof on the issue is impossible and would never attest that god does not exist based on any sort of proof because it is impossible to prove the lack of existence of something.

An atheist who arrives at that position due to a lack of proof (pretty much every atheist, I can't think of any other reason) could therefore never discount the possibility of the existence of God and could never be said to be "one who believes that there is no God."

"Atheism isn't simply "lack of belief" without including the fact that it's true belief that there is no Deity."

Yes it is. That is literally what it is.

 

Were I to accept your definition (that an atheist is someone who firmly believes that there is no God), I could honestly say that I have never, in my life, met an atheist. Fortunately, I don't.

I HIGHLY doubt that i have ever met any Atheist ever who actually thinks there's even a possibility that there is a God. And if they say otherwise then they are lying to themselves and me.


I don't know how many times I can say that agnosticism is not a measure of belief or a claim about the existence of god and have that fall on deaf ears before I just despair.

Let's take a look at your sliding scale. At one end you have a certainty which doesn't exist (as I say, I have never met an atheist by this definition, I doubt one exists.)

If we chop off that extreme end (as it signifies nothing) we have agnostic atheists (all atheists, people who lack belief based on lack of evidence.) Agnostics (people who lack belief, based on lack of evidence) agnostic theists (people who have belief, in spite of lack of evidence) and "hardcore theists" (people who have belief, and believe that they have evidence)

Do you not see that, if this is a scale of belief (and I think that it is) there is no fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic who does not adopt a position? they both lack belief in god because of a lack of evidence to support his existence. This is because (for the last time) agnosticism is not a measure of belief, only atheism and theism are.

Agnosticism is only a measure of knowledge, evidence and the possibility thereof. The reason why, on a sliding scale of belief, you can simultaneously be agnostic and adopt one of the the two possible positions, is for the same reason that you could be a theist who likes sausages or an atheist who likes sausages. Because liking sausages is not a position on the existence of god and has no place being in the middle of a scale of belief. Either you have belief or you don't. Keep your sausages to yourself.


You're not making any sense. You're saying that there is no such sliding scale, and then you go on to say how agnosticism can slide down both extremes of the scale, which is why I am arguing that it's in the middle of the scale. Let's get something straight. A theist, agnostic, and atheist all don't have hard proof of the existence of a God. An atheist concludes that therefore they don't believe in one, a theist concludes that they believe in one because they have faith, and an agnostic simply doesn't make a conclusion.

And an agnostic who is neither an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist doesn't make a stand on anything, otherwise it wouldn't be truly agnostic.

And so what is the term then for believing that there is no god if it's not atheism?

 

I HIGHLY doubt that i have ever met any Atheist ever who actually thinks there's even a possibility that there is a God. And if they say otherwise then they are lying to themselves and me.

Pleased to meet you. My name is Honest Tom.


You're not making any sense. You're saying that there is no such sliding scale, and then you go on to say how agnosticism can slide down both extremes of the scale, which is why I am arguing that it's in the middle of the scale.

What I am saying is that there is no such thing as a sliding scale, and prove it by pointing out that the reason that agnosticism can appear at either extreme of your hypothetical scale without in any way being compromised is because it doesn't belong there at all. It is not "sliding down both extremes" (which would imply that it is in some way being compromised or diluted by contact with another position) it is existing, in its pure unadulterated form, at both. How could one belief mix with a contradictory belief without changing in any way? simple, by not being a belief. You cannot say that agnosticism occupies the middle ground when you can be a "pure" agnostic, in no way compromising your agnosticism, and yet still be at both extremes of the scale simultaneously. How are you then in the middle ground? what ties you there? you have no more allegiance to the centrist position than you do to either extreme.

The "scale" is a scale of belief, whether or not you believe. Atheism and theism are measures of belief (with and without) agnosticism is not a measure of belief it is a measure of something else entirely. Therefore It should not be in the middle of the scale (or indeed anywhere on it). Without agnosticism being in the middle, there are only two options, that is not a sliding scale, it is a duality.

Hence, no sliding scale. Just binary positions.

Let's get something straight. A theist, agnostic, and atheist all don't have hard proof of the existence of a God. An atheist concludes that therefore they don't believe in one, a theist concludes that they believe in one because they have faith, and an agnostic simply doesn't make a conclusion.

Yes, Yes, not necessarily, as we've already agreed there are plenty of agnostics who do take a position.


And an agnostic who is neither an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist doesn't make a stand on anything, otherwise it wouldn't be truly agnostic.

Nope, agnosticism has nothing to do with taking a stance, it's merely a recognition of a lack of evidence. The stance you adopt after that is your own choice, there is no tendency towards neutrality that marks out the "true" agnostic. Agnostic atheists and theists are just as much agnostics as those who decide not to come down on either side (which, tbh, is what atheism does, although it might tend towards one conclusion.)


And so what is the term then for believing that there is no god if it's not atheism?

There sort of isn't one, some people would call it Anti-theism or misotheism but that really just confuses the issue as those two terms already have other definitions. the simple answer is there isn't a term for that, because we don't need one, because not enough people adopt that position. Even the most rabid anti-theist would recognise that that is an illogical position to try and defend.

 

An Agnostic is not simply not having knowledge. It's also not making conclusions about not having knowledge. The sliding down that I am referring to is Agnostic Atheism is farther down the scale than pure Agnosticism. An Agnostic Atheist is making a conclusion, and a pure Agnostic is not.

All ends of the scale are dealing with the same un-knowledge regarding the existence of a God. Agnosticism just isn't making a conclusion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

"Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theistbelieves that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God." [2] Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets[4] rather than a religion as such."

With this defintion, it makes perfect sense that the Agnostic would be in the middle of the scale, as it is neither making one conclusion nor the other.

 

To me, disbelief in God = believing there is no God. To argue otherwise is rather silly, is it not?

 

The beginning of that paragraph is the technical definition of agnosticism, it is the one that we are discussing, i thought?

The second is the popular definition of the term, and for reasons I have already pointed out, it is inherently flawed.

Atheists do not make an "extreme" decision on the existence of god, they refuse to believe in him until evidence is presented.
Theists Believe in a God, either because they feel that sufficient evidence is present or because they are willing to make a judgement based on faith.

Agnostics believe that there is no, or no such thing as, sufficient evidence to make a definitive (i.e. non faith-based) judgement.
Yet they still may make a faith-based judgement and believe in God, and are still agnostics, with their agnosticism remaining completely unchanged.

Or they may choose to remain non-believers. Or in other words, atheists.

 

Absolutely not.
The word "disbelief" muddies the issue somewhat.
To put it more clearly: not believing that something is true is not equal to believing something to be false.