Skip to content

Atheism is a Religion

September 5, 2009

 Atheism is a religion, it is a belief that requires faith.

Skepticism does not equate well with Atheism. A better correlation to skepticism would be Agnosticism.
To say there is no higher power would be to make a statement that can not be proven by evidence and therefore must be founded on opinion alone.

This is fine for the average Joe but…

It is surprising that so many scientists describe themselves as Atheists.

One would have to assume that a scientist that describes himself as an Atheist is not a skeptic and in addition holds dear to a type of religion based on an opinion.

This is bizarre because Science is based on skepticism.

So the majority of people responsible for conducting Science, that is the scientists, are people who typically disregard skepticism when looking into one of man biggest questions and then hold true to a religion that states there is in fact no higher power. 

So you have various communities of faith battling over whose faith is more proper.

It seems it would be more proper for scientists to describe themselves as Agnostic.

31 Comments leave one →
  1. September 5, 2009 3:32 pm

    “Atheism is a religion, it is a belief that requires faith.”

    Both wrong, actually. A religion requires more than a single position. Atheism is only a single position on the question of the existence of a god.

    And it requires no faith. It only requires not believing in religious claims.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 5, 2009 10:28 pm

      Religion can be defined as:
      “Something one believes in and follows devotedly.”

      So Religion does not require more than a single position. If someone chooses to make a religion of a single belief then it is religion to them and certainly some Atheists elevate their belief to religion.

      Faith can be defined as:
      Belief not based on proof.

      I think it is clear that Atheism is a belief not based on proof, as is Theism.

      • September 5, 2009 10:33 pm

        Atheism is a lack of belief. Not a belief.

        I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.

      • September 6, 2009 6:14 am

        If you’re using that definition of religion, then the Boston Red Sox or the Philadelphia Eagles are religions.

        And you can define religion that way, if you like. But it makes it a pretty useless definition for general use.

      • forcepolitics permalink*
        September 6, 2009 9:16 am

        What a ridiculous cop out to say “Atheism is not a belief”.

        Atheism cannot be a rebuttal of the belief in a higher power and yet not be a belief itself. That’s like saying “I deny there is a higher power and yet make no judgement about whether or not there is one”, that’s absurd. And you say I’m being obtuse.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 6, 2009 9:25 am

      So does that change the fact that to Atheists Atheism is a religion.

      Would you deny that to some Atheists Atheism is a view they believe in and follow devotedly. Just look at some of the comments below, they make my point for me.

      To have so much faith in something that cnn not be proven requires faith.

      • September 6, 2009 9:32 am

        Would you need some olanzapine with that, FP?

      • September 6, 2009 10:34 am

        Atheism should not be considered a Religion. Why? The reason why Atheism should not be considered a Religion is because all Atheists do not have the same set of beliefs on how this universe came to existence. Now, it technically can be considered a religion but we as a group have not come to an agreement on a SET of beliefs. Most Atheists go out and educate themselves on different theories and that is what they believe in.

        I dont agree with the statement that it requires faith to believe in the theories we believe in. At the end of the day, we do have more scientific information that proves those theories to be correct. Modern science has made such a leap in information on evolution and other theories the past 50-100 years that it is not just a question like it was 200 years ago or so.

  2. September 5, 2009 4:29 pm

    Actually, scientists and most Atheists describe themselves as Agnostic Atheists. Which means that we do not know if god exists or not, but we believe that he doesn’t. Just like an Agnostic Theist, he/she does not know if god exists or not but he/she believes that god exists. What you are describing is a Gnostic Atheist, a person who KNOWS that god does not exist and believes that way.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 5, 2009 10:34 pm

      I appreciate your definitions but when interviewed and when polls are taken these terms are never used, at least not the interviews and polls that I see. The definitions you have asserted would certainly clear up the issues that I have with Scientists use of the word “Atheist”.

      • September 6, 2009 10:20 am

        Yeah, but by default Atheist = Agnostic Atheist. Rarely is anyone a Gnostic Atheist, since we are in search of the truth and know that theories change. And that is the stance EVERY Atheist should have, that we do not know or know if god exists but we believe he may not. It would be tedious for everyone to call themselves Agnostic Atheists every single time, so pretty much every Atheist who understands what Atheism is about comes to an agreement that all Atheists are Agnostic Atheists. Now, the opposite can be said for religious people. Where they are Gnostic Theists, usually the moderate religious people are the only Agnostic Theists.

        If you are a Gnostic Atheist, then you are an Atheist with the wrong mentality. In other words, you would be a Militant Atheist or an extremist!

  3. September 5, 2009 6:57 pm

    I think you really need to learn more about all this. A Christian wouldn’t have done better at writing such a piece. 😉

  4. aforcier permalink
    September 5, 2009 8:06 pm

    Atheism is a religion… and it is a belief that requires faith.
    absolutely not.

    atheism is a point of reference in relation to a “god”. that a god exist is a question of belief… of faith.

    that there is no god is a question of fact. simple fact. look around you… no god. (nothing to ritualize about this.) so no religion.

    i am not a skeptic. i have no reason to be a skeptic. there is no god. period. i do not doubt. i know. 100%.

    higher power… playing games with the name of god does not create such a being. again it is not an opinion. look around you. no god. no assuming. no pretending… the fact: no god.

    the average joe(?) wow! how condescending. how snubbish!

    if scientists believe in a god… they too invent one.

    have faith… i know what i know.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 6, 2009 9:30 am

      Proof takes more then your opinion. You can know 100% for yourself but what does that mean to anyone else. Science requires skepticism and evidence, not opinion. A scientist has to exhibit skepticism.

  5. Casey Davis permalink
    September 5, 2009 8:27 pm

    Generally, there are two ways of defining the word “atheism”:

    1. the belief in the absence of a god
    2. the absence of belief in a god

    There is a slight difference between the two. An atheist by the first definition would be one that actively believes that there is no god. For atheists defined by the first, some faith may be required.

    An atheist by the second definition would be one that lacks the belief in a god, but does not completely rule out the possibility of the existence of a god. For example, I do not believe the Loch Ness monster exists, but I am not completely ruling out the possibility of its existence. I do agree though, that many scientists refer to themselves as atheist, when agnostic might be a more appropriate term. I, myself would say I am specifically an “agnostic atheist” — I do not think there is a god, but I do not completely rule out the possibility. It does not require faith. But I do lean a little toward the atheistic side of things, rather than the theistic, based on evidence I have seen in support of the former.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 6, 2009 9:37 am

      I think Scientists should try and exhibit a little more skepticism when asked the Atheist question or at least define their position better like you have here.

  6. September 5, 2009 9:38 pm

    This might appear to be an issue to you, but this is simply because you misunderstand what atheism is. You only need to lack belief in a god to be an atheist. Lacking belief can be a full out denial or just simply lacking a positive belief in gods.

    Atheism is not based on faith. It is simply the rejection of a claim. The theist says “There is a god or gods.”, the atheist simply replies “I won’t believe you until I see evidence to positively demonstrate that.”

    I highly doubt you’ve talked to many atheist, because I’ve only met a very few atheists who definitely believe there is no possibility that a god exists. Believing that would be unscientific.

    I strongly suggest you actually speak with some atheists before you make claims about their beliefs. It is apparent this is something you have not done with any real genuine interest in the truth of the matter. Many atheists who post articles under the “atheism” tag here on WordPress have contact pages, ask some questions so that you don’t seem so uneducated next time you decide to write about us.
    Look at the link below for more information about atheism.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 6, 2009 9:48 am

      You sound like someone who thinks they have all the answers, a real authority, a person who has found the secret knowledge that no one else has. Everyone else is ill informed but you, you are the most knowledgeable and if asked nicely maybe you will reveal some of your glorious knowledge to the peons below.

      I’m not buying that you’re an Atheist. You sound more like an evangelical.

      • September 6, 2009 10:16 am

        Lmao, I’m not an authority, you’re just that uninformed. Every atheist here has tried to help you understand us and you just keep saying “Nope, you’re wrong. You don’t know anything about your own group. I know more, since I’ve never talked with any of you atheists before.”

        As I said before:

        It is apparent this is something you have not done with any real genuine interest in the truth of the matter.

        You are arguing with atheists over what atheism is. I think that speaks for itself.

      • forcepolitics permalink*
        September 6, 2009 10:55 am

        I like how you describe Atheism as a group and insinuate there is an ordained and codified philosophy behind it that I just don’t understand.

        You almost make Atheism sound like a religion.

      • September 6, 2009 11:21 am

        Sir, you are quite dense. I’m done here. Enjoy your own ignorance.
        From the wiki article I linked to above, since you’re too dense to read it.

        In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός “god”) meant “without god”. The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods, ungodly” instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or “impious”.

        The “without god” part covers everything I’ve said. You don’t understand because you don’t like being pointed out as wrong. I hope all the other atheists here catch on as well and let you sit over here in your decidedly commentless blog until now, so that it can sink back into the abyss.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 6, 2009 12:11 pm

      I am glad you’re giving in because you are a poor representative of Atheism. It’s obvious you do not understand your own ideas very well and are entirely incapable of conveying anything even remotely cognizant let alone mounting a sound defense. This has been like arguing with a dimwitted child.

  7. September 6, 2009 7:34 am

    OK, I’ve read something, somewhere, that might not sound nice, but quite fits here, I think:

    “Semantic and rhetoric are to the faithful what porn is to the common mortal: a way to release pressure, have fun and spunk the sheet.”

    Ouch! I know… When reality bites.

    • forcepolitics permalink*
      September 6, 2009 9:50 am

      Are you talking about yourself here?

      • September 6, 2009 10:27 am

        Oooo that was really extremely clever a response indeed. I’m absolutely impressed by your brilliance.

        Unlike my very nice friends here, I have stopped trying educating boxes of rocks a long time ago.

        That’s why you should have taken the olanzapine (cf. above comments) instead of replying this.

      • September 6, 2009 10:35 am

        You should never stop trying to educate people D.M.D. :D, where else are they going to get there education on evolution and similar theories from? Creationists? lol

      • forcepolitics permalink*
        September 6, 2009 12:21 pm

        No I’m quite serious. I don’t understand the reference. I assumed you were making a personal statement.

      • September 6, 2009 1:15 pm

        Just see below. Q.E.D.

      • forcepolitics permalink*
        September 6, 2009 1:19 pm

        So it is in fact a personal statement, very well then.

    • September 6, 2009 10:42 am

      LOL Infamous — No, not even from them. Rocks can’t learn. Rock are rocks. 😛

  8. November 24, 2009 8:10 am

    Atheism may well be spurred on by the refusal of religions to engage in self-criticism. I’ve just read on how foreign self-criticism is to religion, and, moreover, how religion misunderstands itself. You might be interested in it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: