Does Atheism count as a religious viewpoint?

[draco664]

OK, but, the question wasn't whether atheism is a religion. We know it isn't. The question is can it be considered a viewpoint on religion.

Ah, I see where I misread you.

I've had many, many people try to convince me that atheism is a religion by claiming that it is a belief, or in this case, a religious viewpoint. I understand your point now.

[Ipecac Drano]

Forgive me if this had been mentioned before (there are four pages of posts!), but how can atheism be considered a religious viewpoint if atheists do not believe in "something up there"? It's not that I firmly believe that there is nothing "up there" but that I hold no belief that there is anything "up there".

There is a difference between "I believe that nothing is up there", and, "I don't believe anything is up there". There is no way that a religion can be based on the latter statement.

[Ghel]

Ipecac, that was discussed, particularly here:

I agree that atheism is a viewpoint about religion, but isn't a religion itself. Atheism has no tenets or dogma.

But it doesn't hurt to say it again. Sometimes saying something in a different way will help get the point across better.

[Hyena Dandy]

I would argue that it does have tenets or dogma.

"There is no God" is a belief. Its a statement of a fact. While we have no scientific proof for God, there is none against Him either. That does not mean I am saying "Because we can't prove God exists, we must believe in God" or "Because we can't prove God exists, you're all fools for saying He doesn't" What I am saying is that the only TRULY rational belief is agnosticism, not atheism or any religious standing. The only thing we can prove is that we can't really prove it, so the only thing we can say with a hundred percent scientific certainty is 'I don't know'.

Personally, I'm a Catholic. But I never called myself rational.

[Ghel]

Let's look at the definitions of the words "atheist" and "agnostic."

The prefix "a-" means "without."

The word "theist" means "one who believes in a god (or gods)."

Therefore, "atheist" means "one without a belief in a god (or gods)."

The word "gnostic" means "one who knows (or claims to know)."

Therefore, "agnostic" means "one without knowledge (or does not claim to know)."

I still like Thomas Henry Huxley's explanation of agnosticism, a term which he coined:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. [emphasis mine]

Wikipedia has very good articles on both atheism and agnosticism.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe any gods exist, but I obviously don't have any evidence of that (since you can't prove a negative). I actually belong to that subset of atheists who believe that no gods exist. It's not something I can prove, nor would I try to convince anybody to agree with me. As with all my beliefs and viewpoints, it is tentative, and could be changed based on further evidence or arguments.

However, I am at this point convinced that no one will ever convince me that a god exists. This doesn't mean I've closed my mind to the possibility. It just means that I have placed the concept of god in the same category as unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, and other fairy-tale creatures. I don't expect to be convinced that a god actually, really exists any more than I expect to be convinced that dragons actually, really exist.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't believe any gods exist, but I obviously don't have any evidence of that (since you can't prove a negative).

You're actually using that term wrong. Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

What we have here is an argument from ignorance.

I'm not making any comment as regards the OP or anything relate to religion in this post, it's just that this particular phrase being bruited about has bothered me for a long enough that I had to look into it a bit further.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

You're actually using that term wrong. Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

[Andara Bledin]

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

I've never argued otherwise (or for, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that the terminology was being misused.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

You're actually using that term wrong.

Which term?

Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

You're partially right. I stopped my statement too soon. What I should have said is "you can't prove a negative existential claim." As in: you can't prove that a god doesn't exist or you can't prove that unicorns don't exist.

[Ipecac Drano]

I've never argued otherwise (or for, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that the terminology was being misused.

I wasn't accusing you of arguing that; I was just giving an example of where negative proof does not apply.

[the_std]

I wasn't accusing you of arguing that; I was just giving an example of where negative proof does not apply.

At this point, I have to ask - why? We know that negative proof doesn't always apply. But Andara's point was that it is possible, it can exist, which negated what Ghel was saying when she said that negative proof doesn't exist.

So why bring it up?

[Plaidman]

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

I'm really curious now about something.

Is space travel possible?

What about cure for AIDs, HIV, complete pervention of SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc? I mean, there is no cure yet, so it doesn't exist correct? Does this mean it'll never exist simply because it hasn't been proven yet?

Same with God/s. It hasn't been proven if they exist. We haven't even explored a tiny fraction of the universe, and there is very likely that on other planets there could be creatures that could be considered like gods. (Say for example a planet with a heavy gravity, if those people came here, they'd likely be stronger then an average human), or a planet where people with wings exist simply because of how the creatures turned out there.

Just because something hasn't been proven NOW, does not mean it'll never be proven.

Otherwise we'd all be stuck in the stone age hunting for food and trying to grow veggies while hoping we have enough wood for fire this winter.

Science discovered and learn every day. What was possible now was unheard of hundred years, fifty years, even twenty years ago in some things.

Does this mean God exists? No.
Does this mean God doesn't exist? No.

[Ghel]

What about cure for AIDs, HIV, complete pervention of SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc? I mean, there is no cure yet, so it doesn't exist correct? Does this mean it'll never exist simply because it hasn't been proven yet?

Same with God/s.

All the current treatments for AIDS are created by humans. Any expected prevention for SIDS or Cerebral Palsy will be created by humans. Are you saying that God will exist in the future when humans create him? That seems to be what you're saying.

[Rapscallion]

Same with God/s. It hasn't been proven if they exist. We haven't even explored a tiny fraction of the universe, and there is very likely that on other planets there could be creatures that could be considered like gods. (Say for example a planet with a heavy gravity, if those people came here, they'd likely be stronger then an average human), or a planet where people with wings exist simply because of how the creatures turned out there.

Just because something hasn't been proven NOW, does not mean it'll never be proven.

I can see where you're coming from, but the gods that have been claimed to exist are ones that have all sorts of awesome powers, or omnipotence and omniscience. We're talking about gods or a god that knows everything and could appear in the form of a burning bush, or seduce a damsel when in the form of a bull, or ...

You get the idea.

The problem isn't that we might find a race that has some or all of the attributes on other planets, but more that such has been declared to exist by those who seek to persuade us as to the rectitude of their utterances. We are exhorted to believe in their tales based on ancient legends, but there's never any proof around these days. The god who lead one group of people out of servitude and was able to sacrifice his own son hasn't done anything really noticeable of similar magnitude of late. There's been a number of claimed miracles, but many are subject to harsh scrutiny. The gods of ancient Greece (one of Zeus's preferences was mentioned above) haven't exactly been voluble.

We're talking about claims about things that are supposed to be current. They're not.

Rapscallion

[Mytical]

Personally the way I see it, is live and let live. I would be classified as agnostic..because I KNOW I don't have the answers. At all. Not even close. Let me explain why..

We live on a tiny spec, in a rather large universe. Our claiming we have ANY answers absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , right..would be like an ant which has never moved from a grain of sand claiming to know how the whole world works.

We see so little, but think we know so much. Does that mean the answers we have now are not right? Look above to the "I KNOW I don't have the answers." so yeah we MIGHT be right, or 1000 years from now we could be looking back and saying "Man how stupid were we."

Either side, religion or atheist that claims "My way is the only right answer." I stop listening to. There is no possible debate there, or chance to learn and grow. Not even worth debating them, and I LOVE a good philosophical debate.

Look at how many things we "KNEW" at one time were proven wrong...

At one time we KNEW man could never fly...
At one time we KNEW that the world was flat...
At one time we KNEW that the universe revolved around Earth...
Think about what we might KNOW tomorrow...

Some have claimed that Agnostics are cowards..refusing to chose a side out of fear. I don't know if that is true or not..but I do 'KNOW' () one thing. I will continue to question everything..until I have found the answers that satisfy me.

Regardless if it is religion, or gravity, or the existence of the paranormal. Once you have closed your mind to any possibility..you may overlook answers because you refuse to see them.