Myth: Atheism is a faith based religion

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Atheism - The absence of belief that any deities exist.

On Faith

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. + strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Atheism does not claim there is no god. Atheism claims that an individual is absent of a belief in god.

The evidence for this absence is self introspection. To claim Atheism is based on faith, is to claim that one’s own thoughts aren’t a reasonable form of evidence.

The burden of proof is on the accuser to justify the claim one’s own thoughts aren’t a reasonable form of evidence.

On Religion

Religion - Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. + A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

As Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods, i.e. supernatural power[s], Atheism does not revere said gods.

Atheism is a description, not a doctrine. The only criteria required to be described as an Atheist, is to be absent of a belief in any gods.

Atheism does not entail any set of beliefs, values or practices. Atheism does not inherently hold any form of spirituality, let alone spiritual leaders.

====

Category - A specifically defined division in a system of classification; a class.

Male is a category of people. Being male isn’t based on faith. Being male isn’t a religion.

The same can be said for Atheism. Atheism is a category of people. It isn’t based on faith. It isn’t a religion.

Thanks for reading,

Ben

2

Atheism is the faith and belief that there is no God.

3

My argument is very clear.

I argue that Atheism is not based on faith, and that Atheism is not a religion.

I gave a definition of faith, of religion, and of Atheism.

You have yet to offer evidence that Atheism is based on faith.

Please do so.

Belief - a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true

Belief doesn’t require faith.

And I’m perfectly comfortable in saying that I believe myself to be an Atheist. Meaning, I believe I am part of said category.

To be an Atheist, does not make you a secular humanist.

A court ruling is not the authority on the definition of Atheism. Likewise, a prisoner is not the authority.

4

You can argue all you like. It isn’t going to change the truth.

Well that’s pretty easy. Can any atheist PROVE that there is no God?
If not, his belief that there is no God is merely FAITH.

…and belief certainly does require faith.

5

Atheism doesn’t inherently claim that there is no god.

Atheism is a category of people who are absent of the belief in god[s].

As argued in the the OP, this is not a form of faith.

Please address the arguments made.

If one believes something based on evidence, it is not a form of faith.

6

It certainly does.

That is called “Agnosticism”. Agnosticism is the only non-religion.

I have. And refuted them, as did the US Supreme Court and Federal courts.

You are only arguing about WHAT it is that a person might have faith in, “empirical evidence” vs “reasoning”. Both can be, and often are, flawed. Thus any strong belief in either is merely faith.

There is only one way to get around faith based beliefs. Empirical evidence is merely one portion of the total required process.

7

All Atheists agree that they do not have a belief in gods, thus, this criteria should be assumed when referring to Atheism. This definition is the most inclusive.

If you define Atheism differently the general consensus, then any remark you make towards your idea of ‘Atheism’ does not relate to the Atheism that the wider community holds.

To say Atheism is something other than this definition, is to straw man all those that don’t subscribe to your narrow definition.

I’ve clearly stated the most inclusive form of Atheism, and you’re ignoring it.

These are my arguments relating to faith and religion.

You have not addressed any.

8

Even more atheists believe that they are humans. So Atheism is even more substantially and inclusively a belief in being human?

Commonality does not dictate definition.

So if a communist says that he is a capitalist in order to get past customs, then he is a capitalist?

Words have definitions. It isn’t up to a bunch of people to decide that they don’t like being called that and thus deny that it applies to them.

Typically, you are being guilty of your accusation.

You have “clearly stated” a misrepresentation, a “lie”.

I have addressed all of them. If you can’t keep up, perhaps study a little longer before you try to argue.

You are just making up whatever definition you want for words that already exist with definitions. Why would you do that if not merely to fool people into something?

9

Atheists do not claim that Atheism is the reason for their humanity.

Atheists do however claim that their absence of belief in god[s] is the reason for their Atheism.

Thus, Atheism is not a belief relating to being human, nor do Atheists believe so.

Atheism is a self description, based on a definition understood by the individual.

The most widely agreed upon definition of Atheists, is that they are absent of the belief in god.

Thus, to say that their belief is something other than this, is to misrepresent what they subscribe to.

You are misrepresenting Atheism.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. + strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

This is what Atheism does not entail.

If you define faith differently than this, then you’re not talking about the same faith as me.

Atheism entails a belief that one is absent of any belief in god[s]. To believe one is an Atheist, is based on evidence. Thus, itself not a form of faith.

Belief - a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true

Belief doesn’t require faith.

10

Invent any kind of nonsensical definitions and beliefs about beliefs that you want.
You aren’t changing anything.

11

The definitions I use are from dictionaries. I don’t invent them.

As this is my thread, I will use my language.

This is reasonable.

You entering this thread, ignoring my language, will only lead to confusion.

To ignore my language, is to disregard the opportunity to communicate, and instead, create noise.

You are creating noise.

As for what I have done:

I have made reasonable arguments for why Atheism is not a faith based religion.

12

You didn’t specify that this is a special language only for your thread. And why even bother with that?

You obvious intention is to promote and persuade a false idea.

13

Ben you are correct and james is wrong as usual.

Atheism has nothing to do with a faith based system.
It is simply looking at the evidence and concluding that
god or better put, metaphysics doesn’t exist.
You see a rock, a tree, a cloud and a believer sees god or something behind
the rock, tree, cloud which is metaphysics whereas an atheist see a rock, a tree,
a cloud and concludes (correctly) there is nothing beyond the rock, tree, cloud.
That isn’t about faith, it is simply looking at the evidence which does not require faith.
The evidence which is pretty clear and straightforward tells us the universe
was created in the big bang, that is science and science is not faith based either.
Those who argue that science is faith based simply have no idea what science or
religion is. You don’t need faith to see a rock or a tree or a cloud and you don’t need
faith to conclude that there is nothing beyond the rock, tree or cloud. Those who argue
that atheism is faith based or science is faith based are simply making atheism and science
much more than they are, you simply look at the evidence and deduce there is no metaphysics.
It is that simple. There is no faith involved in looking at evidence and no faith in concluding
there is no metaphysics. It is rather simple.

Kropotkin

14

The definitions I use are from dictionaries.

When I say Atheism, I’m talking about the definition given.

When I say faith, I’m talking about the definition given.

When I say religion, I’m talking about the definition given.

If you hold other definitions, then you’re not talking about me, and I’m not talking about you.

I’m here referencing my own beliefs - That Atheism is not a faith based religion.

Based on the language given.

=

Agnosticism and Atheism are different beliefs.

One can subscribe to both, one, or neither.

Agnosticism isn’t an alternative to Atheism.

=

Atheism = no god.

Just like asymmetrical = no symmetry.

15

Thoughts are not evidence. If they were, then there would be ‘evidence’ for everything. Thinking of unicorns, then that’s evidence that unicorns exist. :-"

16

Thoughts are a form of evidence when it comes to analyzing the contents of one’s thoughts.

Context is relevant.

A shoe isn’t evidence love, but is of human invention.

17

You use evidence as the base from which to reason and reach conclusions. But none of the thoughts themselves are evidence.

Explain the difference between an ‘evidence thought’ and a ‘non-evidence thought’.

18

I think, therefore, I am.

That one is conscious of thought, is evidence, that one exists.

I think the dice will roll four.

The thought that the dice will roll four, is not a form of evidence alone that the dice will roll four.

==

To provide evidence to oneself that one lacks a belief in god[s], all one must do is assess the contents of one’s thoughts/beliefs.

If one reaches the conclusion that one is an Atheist based on the evidence of one’s own thoughts, then it isn’t based on faith.

19

As Peter said,

Even if we define Atheism as - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

As long as the disbelief is founded on evidence, then there still is no faith, and Atheism still isn’t a religion.

I don’t subscribe to this definition of Atheism, but James’ argument still fails, even if we accept his definition.

20

If that is the case, then metaphysics is certainly evidence. But as Peter points out, atheism is a religion for non-thinking, easy to fool people who deny their own right to reason, so have at it.