CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Atheism a religion?
Is is a religion? Does it meet the criteria of a thought process used to explain something unexplained or perhaps unexplainable by the human race? If Atheists believe in Darwinian random evolution, do they also believe that humans will reach a higher level of existence through tangible means? Would this higher form be considered a former of spirituality? Is it a religion in an un-evolved form?
Evolution is the precise opposite of random. It follows a demonstrable directional pattern. Things become better suited to their environment over time.
Evolution is simply the survival of random genetic mutations that have by chance been helpful to the being which is trying to survive in their environment. Therefore evolution is by definition just as random as random genetic mutations that by chance help an organism survive.Things only become better suited to their environment over time if their random genetic mutation by chance help them survive their environment.
All atheism claims is that, to date, there has been no convincing argument to believe in God. It's the exact opposite of religion by definition.
Not quite right. There's two parts to the theory of Evolution. The mutations themselves may occur at random, but the selection of what does and does not increase fitness is limited by the environment. This is why Evolution follows a pattern.
I've heard it understood both ways, but if it's by the way of what you're saying, then it would seem to support the idea of a higher power having an influence.
I've heard it understood both ways, but if it's by the way of what you're saying, then it would seem to support the idea of a higher power having an influence.
Technically yes, because it's a position asserted through faith. Atheism favours disbelief over belief, but every disbelief is also a corresponding belief in something else. For example, the statement: "I do not believe in God" means the same thing as, "I have belief that there is no God". If I flip a coin and say, "I do not believe it will land on heads", it means the same thing as, "I believe it will land on tails".
However, it is a question of probability. While agnosticism is technically the logical position, atheism is not equal to other religions because there is a much higher probability of the core tenets being correct. If I tell you there is an invisible pink elephant who lives in the cupboard and who loves you very much then it is a false equivalence to compare that belief with the denial of that belief.
Excellent point. I wondered what your opinion on agnosticism is. I've always found it to be an odd distinction. As an atheist my position is I don't believe in a God or Gods. An agnostic might say I'm not sure either way, but the end result is that they don't believe in God. It appears to me that it just sits on the spectrum of atheism.
Not saying I'm right, just wondering out loud really
Atheism only favors disbelief of something if the evidence and arguments we have lead to something probably or more definitely, not being true. It doesn't favor disbelief out of principle.
"If I flip a coin and say, "I do not believe it will land on heads", it means the same thing as, "I believe it will land on tails"."
This is simply a failure to understand how logic works. If you flip a coin and say "I do not believe it will land on heads", all you are saying is you don't believe it will land on heads. Landing on tails is not the only other option. The only contradiction of 'A' is 'not A'.
"If I tell you there is an invisible pink elephant who lives in the cupboard and who loves you very much then it is a false equivalence to compare that belief with the denial of that belief."
what? please please explain what you mean by this because as it is written it's incoherent.
"Atheism only favors disbelief of something if the evidence and arguments we have lead to something probably or more definitely, not being true. It doesn't favor disbelief out of principle."
I mostly agree, but I would like to expand this by saying that I won't believe something unless there is a rational justification for believing it. Even in the absence of a better explanation, this still stands.
A person could say that, and they would be expressing a lack of belief in ultimate reality. Not a belief in its non existence. It's essentially saying "I have no good reason to believe there is a reality other than this one to call the ultimate reality."
The God I believe in, the God I worship is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
That is how I know.
It doesn't make sense to deny my God, because my God is obviously The Truth. It doesn't make sense to question whether or not this is God, because to me, this is God.
But the God I believe in is not the God of me only. The God I believe in is greater than what I believe. The God I believe in is greater than what I can think or philosophize. The God I believe in is greater that what can be known or what can be imagined. The nature of the God that I believe is that my God is everyone's God whether or not they choose to worship God as God.
I know God is The Ultimate Reality because "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". You can interchange "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" with "God" or visa versa and everything I say will still be consistent.
I have studied scripture. I've studied scripture seriously. I studied scripture both as a skeptic and as a believer. I studied with an open mind.
The people who bash scripture? They clearly don't get the point of it. They clearly don't understand it. I've read the bible countless times, every book. There is a grand intent with the whole thing, a grand message. The whole bible tells a story. You can't take something out of context and dismiss the whole thing.
All the problems that atheists have with God and religion are addressed in scripture. Read the prophets! They would sound like atheists if they weren't holding fast to God!
Non-believers reject God and scripture because they don't know any better. Of course they think they do, but they don't. I can understand not believing me when I say this, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. I believe what I'm saying.
My God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What else can be said? That is how I know this is God.
You refute yourself at every turn. You claim to know what God means and then go on to say he is greater than what can be known. Your worldview is internally contradictory.
I won't talk about scripture because I haven't read the Bible, so I'm not in a position to comment on it, other than to say that I have no reason to care what about its contents.
No you're quite right, my disbelief does not make you wrong. But the inverse is also true, you're belief does not make you right.
We're getting off topic for this debate and we're already discussing this very topic in another debate. I would suggest we continue there rather than derailing this debate any further.
"relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"
As an atheist will not acknowledge ultimate reality or deity, they can not fit this definition of "religious".
Another definition is...
"scrupulously and conscientiously faithful"
How much of an aversion does the atheist have towards the possibility of gods? How faithful is the atheist towards the idea of there being no god or gods?
Definition for "faithful" is "given with strong assurance"
Definition for "Assurance" as
"the state of being assured: such as
a :a being certain in the mind
b :confidence of mind or manner :easy freedom from self-doubt or uncertainty
also :excessive self-confidence :brashness, presumption"
Are there atheists who are certain in the mind, free from uncertainty, even presumptuous and brash about there being no god or gods?
Yes, I would say that atheists can be religious, and if the are being religious, they are practicing a religion.
Disbelief is disbelief, it doesn't matter which adjective you stick on there.
There may well be some people who identify as atheists and proclaim that God does not exist. I can't speak for all of them, we don't have a collective mind and other than the one specific issue of God there aren't any other core principles as such.
Generally speaking the atheist position is as you have defined, disbelief in God.
There are plenty of atheists who do not simply "lack belief" in God
I must admit this is an example of atheists trying to twist words around the fact that their position is not completely logical. If you lack belief in something then you do not believe it. Period. If I lack belief that God exists I therefore believe that he does not.
Atheism is not entirely logical, but only if it denies the possibility of God. A person who does not dismiss the possibility, but who nevertheless considers it highly improbable is being consistent with reason.
Your dishonesty is appalling , you once again fail to use the real definition of faith as in when it's applied to religion . I've corrected you several times on your posting up half - definitions from Merrimam Webster in an attempt to salvage some grain of comfort from your recent hammerings .......
Here is the REAL definition from your much loved and abused Merriam Webster , now read how it applies to religious belief like yours .........
plural faiths play \ΛfΔths, sometimes ΛfΔtΝhz\
1 a :allegiance to duty or a person :loyalty lost faith in the company's president
b (1) :fidelity to one's promises (2) :sincerity of intentions acted in good faith
2 a (1) :belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) :belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) :complete trust
No , the half definition you posted is there , there's only one way when applied to religion , you're dishonesty is truly appaling why can you not admit you believe without evidence ?
So belief without evidence is the evidence for god ππ well yes that is typical of your usual circular arguments and and unworthy of further commentary
That is what I get out that, you atheist so called.
You must be very confident in your puny human mind to have mastery over causality. What else are you claiming by putting your faith in your own understanding?
My faith is not in my own understanding. My faith is in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
That's a commodity you lack and I will let you in on a little secret shhhhhhh .... Atheists don't believe in god and hilariously if you accept that my god is " reason " yours is " " ultimate " reality and the man next doors is " strawberry ice cream " see how that works ?π
Atheists don't have to believe in gods to have gods.
Yet for some reason, you always feel the need to hold me up to some arbitrary standard of reason that has very little to do with what I'm talking about.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
This is not a logical debate. This isn't even really a debate. You can't tame God with logic! How absurd!
Without a love for God, what clouds reason?
Having faith in God is what makes someone reasonable. If your faith is in God, you will be able to see more clear the idols you bow down to in ignorance. These idols effect your judgement, and compromise reason.
You don't understand that the Christian discipline is about heart purification, which is the very process of making someone a more sane individual.
There is a lot more here than meets the eye.
Now as I said, atheism could be a religion. I stand by that. There are atheistic religions too.
What is meant by "disbelief"? That could either mean a lack of belief or a belief in the opposite.
There is a difference between saying, "I do not believe there is a God" and "I believe there is no God"
You totally beyond reasoning with , fourteen people now have corrected your deeply flawed position but you fail to comprehend , so no offence but most have tried to explain it to you simply and you still cannot grasp what's being said because you're not intellectually capable .
A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out to them by 14.different people
A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out to them by 14.different people
A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out to them by 14.different people
I am not the conqueror of my empire, God is. To God all the glory. God is my weapon, my shield, my armor, my faith. The one who fights my battle is God, not me.
God is my refuge, my fortress.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no other.
You're making absolutely no sense and your posts get more and more nonsensical ; you're actually not capable of debating and you just sound like another cheap religious looney one spots ranting to bemused onlookers on a street corner ....
Here it is again ......
A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out to them by 14.different people
A truly fallacious argument is when someone continues to assert that the authority of "14 different people" is somehow existent in matters pertaining to the truth.
How come every time you copypasta something, it's always stupid and fallacious? What do you want me to stoop down to your level and call you out on all your fallacies?
I don't need to. You like proxy battles. You are scared of the real battle.
It demonstrably is, Grenache. God is an unanswerable yes or no question. Since the question is unanswerable then it doesn't matter which answer you give. Merely by answering you are taking a position of faith.
If it is an unanswerable question then there is really no need to answer it. The only people who insist you have to have a yes or no answer are the folks who are adamant the answer has to be yes. So for YOU the answer requires faith. For an atheist the answer can simply be they're not invested in answering your question. Yet you force the issue so then they say no.
I disagree. Atheism is having faith that their own beliefs are correct and don't wind up bringing them damnation. Faith that the stars, planets, etc. are merely random moments of condition as opposed to designed and placed there....
Reason might indeed be influenced. But religion most absolutely is. Religion is accepting the reasons gave by people who in most cases lived long before you and never knew you or the contemporary life you live in and then deciding they are superior to any reason which could be thought of now.
Religion was the result of their reasoning based on what they had been taught and raised to believe . It has no more influence than what you're referring to as "Reason" does. You're just putting your faith in a reason; a power out of the control of your own hands that influences you and the world around you.
Religion was the result of their reasoning based on what they had been taught and raised to believe . It has no more influence than what you're referring to as "Reason" does.
Stop talking shit. Reason is a real-world application of mathematics. It is completely objective and not open to individual interpretation.
If you come to atheism by logic, it's NOT a religion.. But, if you come to it because you were butthurt BY religion, it can be PRACTICED like a religion..
You can see that dynamic at work right here on these pages.. Some people USE the bible to DISPROVE religion.. But, if you're a REAL atheist, you get that "NOTHING" simply can't be proven, and it's a waste of energy to try..
I'm an atheist and I can tell you that from my perspective it certainly doesn't feel like a religion.
Thanks just the same but no invisible giant in the sky Gods for me.
Atheism is what happens to people when they question ideas that've been poured into their heads from infancy and open their minds enough to see religion for the nonsense it truly is.
Atheism is a position on one question and one question alone and that is on whether a god exists or not , it has nothing to do with evolution, spirituality etc, etc .
The Atheism is a religion argument is truly dreadful and not really worthy of commentary .
The defining feature of religion is belief in god(s). Atheism defines itself as β¨the absence of belief in god. How can it be a religion? That is like saying not-playing-golf is a sport which is absurd to say the least
I think as you mentioned it's very easy to mix Atheism and Nihilism up, I know I've done it a few times. But the belief that God doesn't exist really can't be practiced as a religion. It's simply non-existent. I don't believe in whatever Scientologists believe in, that doesn't mean I have a religion based off that non-belief.
Religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance." Merriam Webster. So what this means that unless you are praying to Steven Hawking's then Atheism is not a religion. Also people who don't believe in religion are not atheist they just don't believe there is one or they don't want to be part of one. The term of "atheists" is not really a real term it is just the lack of a religious group to make it a religion makes no sense.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is choosing not to have a religion. Take Steven Hawking for example, he is an atheist, and he believes in science without religion.
