Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism and other religions

Atheism isn't a religion, it's simply an absence of belief in a god or gods

But because it cannot prove the non-existence of god(s) it too is just a belief. Is atheism a religion? Certainly not. But it does require belief in a concept they cannot prove true or false.

Atheism is a title that shouldn't even exist. We don't have titles for people that don't believe in Leprechauns or Unicorns. Regardless, Atheism has no dogma or doctrines or shared world view. Some argue that even the most devout Christians are still atheists when it comes to their non-belief in other gods (Alla, Krishna, etc).

Also a non-belief is not a belief just like NOT collecting stamps isn't a hobby (or bald is not a hair color).

no Johnathan, it simply requires an absence of belief, not faith. There is no "concept of atheism". Lack belief in a god or gods? That's it, you're in, no faith required.

Jedipunk,

You had to drag baldness in?! Sheesh. ;)

Atheism is the active belief (or faith) that there is NO God (or superior being); Agnosticism is the lack of belief one way or the other.

atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

read this and learn something...or not

There's a slight semantic difference. "I do not believe in God," is a slightly different statement than, "I believe there is no God." Some atheists make a distinction between the two as "weak" vs. "strong" atheism. In one there is simply an absence of belief; in the other there is a positive believe of an God's absence. An agnostic is a bit different yet again, believing that the question is ultimately unknowable; i.e. "I believe we cannot know whether there is a God or not."

Where atheists and agnostics agree is that in the absence of evidence, a positive belief in God is illogical and unfounded. Where (some) atheists and agnostics disagree is that the answer is ultimately unknowable. Where strong atheists and weak atheists disagree with whether or not our current level of knowledge of the universe and our current lack of evidence for God is sufficient to conclude that there is no God.

There's significant overlap, and it's not quite as cut and dried as I've laid it out to be. For instance, I sometimes say that I'm either an atheistic agnostic or an agnostic atheist, depending on how I feel on any particular day. I usually phrase my position as, "I don't see any evidence for God, and I think his existing is unlikely (although I'm not prepared to say He does not exist conclusively)."

all these labels get confusing. I'm just going to stick to non-religious with a humanist life philosophy :p

ur right about the budhism part, it pretty much is a philosophy. but i think atheism can be defined many ways. for some it is simply the absense of belief, (i do not believe there is a god) and for others it is non belief (i believe there is no god)

if you do not know, but you still make a choice, you are a believer.

Exactly. I do not make the claim that atheism is a religion, but it is a belief. Atheist do not know whether God exists or not, but they make the choice to believe that He does not.

Not believing in God is still a belief!

what choice pasi? Where is the choice? Simply failing to have belief in something is not faith. By that logic failing to believe in the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy would imply faith in them.

Atheist do not know whether God exists or not, but they make the choice to believe that He does not.

that's exactly wrong, we don't believe anything about him. The definition is "failure to believe" in a god or god. No belief needed or implied. Your definition is faulty.

Your definition is faulty.

Orly?

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

^[Source]

The premise is that God or gods do(es) not exist(s). And atheist hold that to be true. Therefore it is a belief.

wrong

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. that's all. We don't hold the premise that god or gods don't exist.

Once again, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Yes, this much I have gathered. You seem to be missing the point here. So I will say it as simply as I can.

Agnostic = Nobody knows if God exists or not.

Theist = Nobody knows if God exists or not, but I choose to believe He does.

Atheist = Nobody knows if God exists or not, but I choose to believe He does not.

Agnosticism is the only one of these three that I would consider as not having a belief. Because belief is a choice

Doesn't quite work that way. You are introducing the premise "God" as if that was a word with some meaning all can comprehend. Our answer would be "Believe in what?" The word is meaningless in the context of belief. it does have a cultural meaning, as the being religious people focus their faith on. Might as well be a belief in elephants or infinity. "Do you believe in infinity?" Not a question I would be ready to answer at all, it's a question with no meaning.

Johnathon,

atheist=lack of belief in a god or gods. that is the definition in the dictionary. You don't get to make up a definition, we call that making a straw man argument.

Once again,

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. that's all.

Lack of belief in a god or gods.

Think about that for a minute.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. that's all.

Yes Wheel, I get that... I understand it, I have thought about it, and I agree with it.

You have no evidence to disprove the existence of a god. You decide for yourself that there is not. Therefore you believe there is no god.

Belief is not a dirty word you know. Belief does not necessarily have to do with religion or God.

I don't "decide there is not" I see no reason to have a belief in a god so I have no belief in a god.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, because it always has. I believe my dogs will try to get in the bathroom with me, because they always do. Belief is not a dirty word, but belief without the slightest shred of evidence is irrational.

I see no reason to have a belief in a god so I have no belief in a god

Thats fine, I completely respect your choice. However, you seem to have a hard time though accepting that you have made a choice!

belief without the slightest shred of evidence is irrational.

Who said there was no evidence? I have thousands of years of recorded history, compiled into a book I call the Bible! That is my evidence. Also, to be a Christian is to have a relationship with God, and the evidence of it is apparent to me.

Johnathan,

it's not a choice, I see no reason to believe in the tooth fairy so I have no belief in the tooth fairy.

The bible is not history, it's mythology. Your belief has clouded your reason.

I understand you are desperate to prove some kind of moral superiority, give it up.

I have no belief in a god or gods, it's not a choice, it's the result of there being no evidence of a god or gods.

You choose to accept what is not proven and to believe it without proof.

I understand you are desperate to prove some kind of moral superiority, give it up.

What? I wasn't trying to prove anything other than not believing in God is itself a belief without proof, and that every thought and action we take is a choice.

If atheism is not a choice then you must have been predestined not to believe.

There can only be irrational explanations for you can there Jonathan?

You can't seem to understand the most simple concept. I lack belief in a god or gods. That is not a belief, it is an absence of belief. Supernaturalism is not real. Let it alone, you can't prove any kind of moral superiority here and I won't let you redefine words to suit your silly superstitious mindset. You are wrong, it's really that simple.

There isn't a choice (for some atheists). A choice indicates a positive process: take the left or right path. Most atheists have chosen to wait at the crossroads pending further evidence. Most agnostics believe no evidence for choosing the best path will ever appear. That's the difference.

I have objections to the following phrasings. I would put them:

Agnostic = Nobody knows if God exists or not.

"Nobody can know if God exists."

Theist = Nobody knows if God exists or not, but I choose to believe He does.

"I do not know if God exists, but I choose to believe he does."

Atheist = Nobody knows if God exists or not, but I choose to believe He does not.

Strong atheism: "I do not know if God exists, but I choose to believe he does not." Weak atheism: "I do not know if God exists, so I choose not to believe that he does."

Weak atheism is the result of a logical implication: "If there is sufficient evidence for God, then I must believe." Since there is not sufficient evidence for God, the implication is not satisfied and I do not have to believe. The equivalent logical implication is different (technically the inverse) is "If there is not sufficient evidence for God, then I must not believe." The logic behind the two positions is different.

Only in "strong" atheism is a positive choice being made; i.e. a path is being chosen. In "weak" atheism, a choice not to choose is being made. Most atheists that I've ever talked to or met (on and offline) are weak atheists.

In Finnish religion (uskonto) is derived from the verb to believe (uskoa) and
science (tiede) is derved from the verb to know (tietää).

Pasi, in English, both are derived from Latin: science from scire (to know) and religion from religare (to bind; not sure what's up with that).

Who said there was no evidence? I have thousands of years of recorded history, compiled into a book I call the Bible! That is my evidence.

Are you a Biblical literalist, Jonathan? The whole 6,000-years business, too?

What? I wasn't trying to prove anything other than not believing in God is itself a belief without proof, and that every thought and action we take is a choice.

If atheism is not a choice then you must have been predestined not to believe.

The problem here is that we've been discussing whether atheism is a religion, then you assert that atheism is a choice, which is fine, but by coming in with that in such discussion, you're implying an equivocation between choice and religion.

Atheism is as much of a choice as believing the Sun will still come up tomorrow. Christianity requires far more faith.

...or her, or them, or it.

andrew,

That's called pascal's wager and it's been debunked many times.

Wheel lacks belief in a god or gods. I lack belief in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and santa claus too.

Just for the record, I lack belief in fairies, trolls, gnomes and ogres as well.

OK Wheel, care to debunk it again?

Pasi,

I did NOT say there were no gods, I said I lack belief in a god or gods. If you can produce a god or gods then do so and I'll rethink my position. Until then I will continue to lack belief in a god or gods.

Ok Andrew, basically the flaw in pascal's wager lies in picking the right religion, there are now and have been throughout history thousands of religions.Suppose the one that's the real one has been discarded in the march of time?It's not really a good bet. Combined with the fact that only an idiot of a god would accept someone who came to 'belief' for such a cold blooded reason. You can find more elegantly worded arguments if you care to look.

Pasi, you've joined the ranks of the agnostic?! good for you.

As for me, I lack belief in a god or gods.

Wheel, first of all, you have a higher chance percentage wise. Here's how I see it:

Let's first assume that a God would keep his religion alive. That makes sense, right? So let's stick with the major religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

In Buddhism, you basically have to try to become a good person. So if you follow the other four religions, you're set. All eightfold paths are commanded by the other four. So if you follow another religion, you're still (more or less) set. You won't be a top disciple, but you'll still be "in there".

Hinduism believes that certain ideals are morally right. Morality and peace and love are central. Again, the other four also embrace these. So if you do another religion, you're still (more or less) set. You won't be a top disciple, but you'll still be "in there".

Islam. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger. Already, you have to realize that Buddhism and Hinduism won't cover you if this is true.

Judaism doesn't work anymore. Why? No temple. So you can't get your sins forgiven that way.

That leaves us with Christianity. You have to believe Christ is the only way to get your sins forgiven.

So in conclusion, we have one religion that can't work, two religions that claim to be the only way, and two religions that, if true, will work no matter which of these religions you follow.

So we have to choose between Christianity and Islam. Now, you'd expect a God to prove that he is the only God by authenticating himself supernaturally. Christianity has dozens of miracles. However, Islam has only one: the Koran. Now, this Koran is supposed to be divinely inspired. However, how do we know that Mohammad didn't just make it up? We know Christ actually did die on the cross (several non-Christian contemporaries witnessed it), but no one was around when Mohammad wrote his book. Muslims come back with the argument that "no one else could have possibly written anything like that". I'd fire back with, "what do you call the Bible?". So we just knocked down the only authentication method of Islam's centerpiece.

Christianity also has one more authentication method. Christ came to provide an alternative way for both Jews and Gentiles to be saved, as opposed to the Jewish-only method of sacrificing. 70 years later, the only way to sacrifice (the temple) was destroyed. So the Jews had nowhere to turn to.

Of course, if you're still in doubt, you can randomize it. You don't waste those seventy years. And you get a 20% chance.

Oh, as for the "cold bloodedness", why not? It's actually quite loving: accept me, I'll accept you. You don't have to work as a good person at all (if you do, you get rewards, if you don't, you get less benefits but you're still in a good place, albeit not quite as good). At least, according to Christianity.

The problem of course is in the assumptions, I could make the assumption that he (or she or it) have already got all the people they want to save and that's why he/she/it allowed its religion to expire. In addition, I could assume that the proper religion hasn't come along yet. Assumptions about things completely unknown are slippery things.

In the first case, you don't have to worry. In the second case, you can't do anything about it so you might as well just gamble your seventy years for eternity.

Andrew,

I'm trying to be nice here, do you see how you've slipped backwards from your original premise as stated in #5? As for the assumptions you make in your 5.9. Give me a break with the miracle nonsense. Also, there is a long distance from some guy being crucified to deity, by the way jesus was a common name at that time and in that place. Your argument is self referential and your logic is flawed by belief.

Why I No Longer Believe In Fairies

guys, I've written a few articles that reveal my personal view. This is one you might be interested in.

several non-Christian contemporaries witnessed it

Er. No. None of the non-Christian historians who wrote about it (or who may have written about it; some passages are disputed) "witnessed" it. They were writing decades after the event.

You also assume that every Christian sect is equivalent before God, and you can't know that. That's every bit as must a part of your faith as faith that Jesus really was the Messiah.

Let's first assume that a God would keep his religion alive. That makes sense, right? So let's stick with the major religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

Wrong.

You'd need to factor in every religion in existence, including every distinct sect of Christianity, and such things as African animism and Native American spirit worship.

The pool of choices is far more vast than simply the "brand name" religions.

Further, many of these religions have worship exclusion clauses built in -- that is, "worship no other gods/idols before me" lines, and these are usually instant deal-breakers (heck, it's First Commandment).

Their basic, universalized moral tenets are virtually all in line with the humanist Golden Rule. Thus, follow the good rules, and ignore the points of most serious hubris: humanism.

Oh, as for the "cold bloodedness", why not? It's actually quite loving: accept me, I'll accept you. You don't have to work as a good person at all (if you do, you get rewards, if you don't, you get less benefits but you're still in a good place, albeit not quite as good). At least, according to Christianity.

According to your personal version of Christianity.

You'd need to factor in every religion in existence, including every distinct sect of Christianity, and such things as African animism and Native American spirit worship.

Every distinct sect of Christianity believes, at the core, that Christ is the only way to heaven. I believe I'll see Baptists, Episcopalians, and non-denominationalists like me.

Further, many of these religions have worship exclusion clauses built in -- that is, "worship no other gods/idols before me" lines, and these are usually instant deal-breakers (heck, it's First Commandment).

I already pointed that out.

According to your personal version of Christianity.

Is my personal version wrong?

I believe I'll see Baptists, Episcopalians, and non-denominationalists like me.

Exactly. Like I said, that's as much a part of your faith as anything else; you believe in the essential equivalence of all Christian sects, but there's no special objective reason to believe this is so.

Is my personal version wrong?

It may not be wrong, but you don't have any way of knowing that it's right.

Don't forget ever religion that's ever existed since people invented the first god.

Exactly. Like I said, that's as much a part of your faith as anything else; you believe in the essential equivalence of all Christian sects, but there's no special objective reason to believe this is so.

Virtually all Christians believe this. Why? It's right there in the Bible: "no one comes to the father except through me".

Don't forget ever religion that's ever existed since people invented the first god.

That's your personal version.

Every distinct sect of Christianity believes, at the core, that Christ is the only way to heaven

If this is true, why do you need to qualify "all Christians believe this" with "virtually"?

You yourself had to qualify that statement, which illustrates that even you don't believe in the essential equivalence of all Christian sects.

Further, this "essential equivalence" is not the entirety of what a specific Christian sect believes. Heck, we can boil down belief "at the core" even further to declare Christianity, Judaism, and Islam equivalent "at the core", because they all believe in a singular, active god, and have partially corroborative mythologies.

However, I doubt you'd say that Christianity and Islam are pretty much the same. Thus, the same selective equivalence cannot be used to gloss over the differences among Christian sects.

Virtually all Christians believe this.

Do Catholics believe it? How many Catholics vs. those in other denominations are there? Are you still certain it's "virtually all"?

Your lack of belief in the existence of something, simply means you believe that this something does not exist.

Not so. Again, there is a difference between, "I believe not X," and, "I do not believe X." In the first case the negation is occurring to X; in the second case the negation is occurring to the actual action.

Look at it using a different verb: There is a difference between saying, "I am carrying a not red ball," and, "I am not carrying a red ball." In the first case I am carrying a ball, and the ball is some color except red. In the second case I am not carrying any ball at all.

Belief: 1- any cognitive content held as true

That's why "weak" atheism is not a belief about God; it doesn't take a position on the truth or falsity of God. Like I said above, at the True/False crossroads of belief in God, a weak atheist waits at the crossroads; he doesn't take either path.

In the first case I am carrying a ball, and the ball is some color except red. In the second case I am not carrying any ball at all.

Actually, I got in a hurry and misstated that. In the second case, I'm definitely not carrying a red ball, but that's all you know. I may be carrying a not red ball or I may not be carrying any ball at all. There isn't enough information to make a firm determination. Regardless, the first case I am definitely carrying a ball, although we don't know its color. In the second case I am only definitely not carrying a red ball, and we don't know anything else about what I'm doing.

For a second there I wondered how you came to the conclusion in 7.2.

I do understand what you say, and agree. Therefore, allow me to restate the point I was attempting to make:

If we are gonna enter into the semantics, it will be a never ending loop. Since atheists do not believe in God, then your case doesn't quite cover it. By adding the qualification of the ball, the statement works.

"I am not carrying a Ball" and "I am carrying not a Ball" both say the same thing.

However, if we return to the issue at hand, back to post #2 and #2.1, the only thing that was said then, is that atheism in itself is a form of belief. Not faith or a religion, but a belief.

What atheism states is that their reasoning is true. hence the "cognitive content" I referred to from the Dictionary definition.

However, where most theists make the error, is in taking a stand against them as a "religious" ideology, which they clearly are not. Atheism is not a system of belief but a simple belief. As a system there would be guidelines, and "preachings" of sorts. It is the same difference between the belief illustrated by Todd in #6 about his car, v/s the teapot in space. One entails relative "faith" where the former is just belief.

There is no argument that atheism is not a faith and does not require it. It can not be approached as an Ideology even, which is in itself structured. There is only one single premise "There is/are no God or gods". If you believe that to be true, or rather, simply hold that to be a true statement, or even a valid statement, then you are an atheist.

The counter-part however, theists, are not simply people who believe that God exists, but follow an ideology and system of belief that structures the premise of the divine existence of the creator.

"I am not carrying a Ball" and "I am carrying not a Ball" both say the same thing.

No, they don't say the same thing at all. In the first you are not carrying a ball, but you may or may not be carrying something else. You could be carrying an umbrella, or a plant, or nothing at all. The only thing you are not carrying is a ball. In the second case, you are definitely carrying something, with the only restriction being that it is not a ball. The two statements still say two different things.

However, if we return to the issue at hand, back to post #2 and #2.1, the only thing that was said then, is that atheism in itself is a form of belief. Not faith or a religion, but a belief.

What atheism states is that their reasoning is true. hence the "cognitive content" I referred to from the Dictionary definition.

Well, understanding that I'm referring primarily to weak atheism, the cognitive content is (counterintuitively) not content related to the nature of God, but content related to the nature of knowledge. How is it that we subscribe to a belief? Well, for most people it's a question of evidence. For the (weak) atheist, the evidence is not sufficient to subscribe to a belief in God existence (or nonexistence). The content is related to the state of the evidence before us. I suppose if one wanted to say that atheism is a belief about the state of the evidence, one could do so accurately, but that hardly qualifies as a religious belief.

However, where most theists make the error, is in taking a stand against them as a "religious" ideology, which they clearly are not. Atheism is not a system of belief but a simple belief

Agree, essentially.

There is only one single premise "There is/are no God or gods". If you believe that to be true, or rather, simply hold that to be a true statement, or even a valid statement, then you are an atheist.

No; you were doing so well, too. That statement makes one a strong atheist. But most atheists I've had discussions with will, if fully explained to them, admit that weak atheism is the more tenable position. The position of weak atheism is that "There is a God" is not currently determinable given the evidence we have presently, therefore a positive belief is not warranted. That's not the same as holding a negative belief, which is that there is definitely no God. It merely says that in the absence of evidence, belief doesn't make sense.

No; you were doing so well, too

haha, well yes, and here's where you also went wrong:

The content is related to the state of the evidence before us. I suppose if one wanted to say that atheism is a belief about the state of the evidence, one could do so accurately, but that hardly qualifies as a religious belief.

I have already established that, when I said there is a difference between a system of belief (which is inherent in religion) and a simple belief.

MarcusK asks: "Say spiffie, do you believe the weather is gonna change tomorrow?"

spiffie replies: "Well it seems the meteorologists are optimistic. So yeah I do (believe so)"

That's as far as my comment goes. I do not push the WORD believe any further than that. It is in no way religious, organized, systematic, ideological, doctrine or whatever else that may come to mind suggesting that it could be treated as religions are within a discussion.

That's not the same as holding a negative belief, which is that there is definitely no God. It merely says that in the absence of evidence, belief doesn't make sense.

I understand that and agree. And should we take it further, then it will be quite understandable even if atheism is viewed as a belief, because it is a matter of relativity. For the theists, ample proof exists. It has become fact for them, and therefore, it is atheists who lack proof of their own views. And therefore, believe in a premise. Though the word believe is readily accepted by theists, it is considered more as a synonym to faith when it applies to them.

Erik, I am not insisting on atheism being a belief, I am simply making the statement that from the stand point of "religious" people, saying that atheists "believe" that God does not exist, is a very valid statement. Since for them, though we all agree they believe it without proof (hence faith), there is ample proof.

Weak or Strong atheists, one does not see proof and therefore chooses that belief is irrelevant, whereas the other states that God does not exist.

As you said semantics, but as we have seen semantics are very powerful.

Basically... I do not understand why atheists would be so fervent in their stand against the word belief. If you do not believe that God exists, what difference does it make? If you believe that God does not exist, then also, what difference does it make?

In both cases the question is What difference does it make to you??

It is just a word for reference, that is only used by theists and agnostics.

In both cases the question is What difference does it make to you??

I'm quoting myself here, see comment #3 above:

I find religious people in America constantly defining atheism as a religion. This seems to be some kind of debating technique, forcing us to constantly disprove this statement. The purpose of the technique is to be able to say: "Your belief is as faith-based as ours." thus making room for the religious argument.

As you can see in this debate, once a word gains acceptance, you can use it. In this case you can introduce a scale from say 1-10 and peg all "belief" on that scale, increasing the dosage from the non-believer to the puritatical fundamentalist militant. To me it matters because I think my wordview is complete and that belief in a god is redundant on all points of the scale. I am always polite to people who need to belive, I'm only seriously bothered when they want to regulate my life acording to their misconceptions. I do find it rather amusing that they think threats of damnation has any relevance at all.

To me it matters because I think my wordview is complete and that belief in a god is redundant on all points of the scale

Yes, you are right. I simply felt that Jonathan's approach did not fit that description, which is why I elaborated beyond the call of duty (if I could even call it that).

I do find it rather amusing that they think threats of damnation has any relevance at all.

Very amusing indeed. A point I keep arguing against whenever the religious want to "convert me". Keeping in mind I am simply anti-religion, whatever that may mean.

Many Christians keep their childhood faith, with the rewrites that belong to that childhood version. For instance they tell children that "grandma is in heaven now" or some such. Actually grandma has to wait for judgement day, just like everyone else. I have been told by those who have read the Bible that there is a devil but there is no hell. This makes me wonder how the story goes, I think those that do not pass that final exam must be transferred to Greek or Egyptian myths since these provide a land of the dead. Also the expression "may you rot in hell" assumes that there is a time line, since rotting is a process and consumes the body bit by bit, not something that can go on forever.

My favourite description of hell came from "The Twilight Zone" where a gambler was condemned to winning forever. When asking if he could please lose a bit, the Devil answers: "Yes, that can be arranged."