The word atheism has many definitions, most subtly set around the nature of deities. The definition I prefer is the one that relates to the root of the word theism, the belief in deities. If theism means the belief in gods (deities), a-theism means the lack of a belief in deities (gods). The religionists usually describe atheism as a religion. To those who have this view, I have one question;

To describe atheism as a religion, is this meant as a compliment or as a criticism?

huxley:

The word atheism has many definitions, most subtly set around the nature of deities. The definition I prefer is the one that relates to the root of the word theism, the belief in deities. If theism means the belief in gods (deities), a-theism means the lack of a belief in deities (gods). The religionists usually describe atheism as a religion. To those who have this view, I have one question;

Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

huxley:

To describe atheism as a religion, is this meant as a compliment or as a criticism?

A most apt description of atheism => beilief in the non-existence of God.

imhotep:


Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

This is a new definition of Faith for me.

Heb 11:1 => est autem fides sperandorum substantia rerum argumentum non parentum

imhotep:

Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

A most apt description of atheism => beilief in the non-existence of God.

Therefore according to this I can say I believe in the non existence of santa claus rather than "I don't believe in Santa Claus", I can safely say it requires faith not to believe in santa claus and it applies to you, right Imhotep?
You cannot prove a claim of something "spiritual" or "non existence"

JayFK:

Therefore according to this I can say I believe in the non existence of santa claus rather than "I don't believe in Santa Claus", I can safely say it requires faith not to believe in santa claus

With the right resources, you can prove that Santa Claus does not leave in the North/South pole, among other mis-yarns like that.

JayFK:

and it applies to you, right Imhotep? You cannot prove a NEGATIVE

But you can have faith in the same NEGATIVE. Not so?

imhotep:

With the right resources, you can prove that Santa Claus does not leave in the North/South pole, among other mis-yarns like that.

But you can have faith in the same NEGATIVE. Not so?

simply put, if you agree that it requires faith not to believe in Santa Claus, Ill agree that it requires faith not to believe in god.


Make sure you define faith first before you reply, so we know what we are agreeing on.

imhotep:

Heb 11:1 => est autem fides sperandorum substantia rerum argumentum non parentum

Now my latin is not so hot but I would interprete that line as: Faith is however Hoping in the essence/substance of things PROVEN yet not seen.  

That faith is the substance of things Not seen does not make sense to me.  Faith is not a substance.  The word sperandorum means hope. Am I correct?  I don't  claim to be a scholar and I am open to correction.  The word hope does not occur in your translation.  Argumentum is the Latin word for Proof , is it not?  The word proof does not occur in your translation.  

Also I would rather use the word essence rather than substance because today the word substance means something different from what it once did.  Something has substance today when it has mass and bulk and is weighty.  Originally substance meant that which 'stands underneath'.  Sub - Stance.  Ultimately the idea is that beyond the world that appears to our eyes there is another world that exists behind it and that supports it.  In fact that other world is the essence of the apparent world, from which the apparent world is derived.  This world of substance is not accessible to the physical sense but is accessible through faith.  

Is not Faith a Faculty of Perception?  People talk about blind faith but is that not oxymoronic?  What people call faith today is nothing like what faith actually is.

JayFK:

simply put, if you agree that it requires faith not to believe in Santa Claus, Ill agree that it requires faith not to believe in god.
Make sure you define faith first before you reply, so we know what we are agreeing on.

It requires faith to believe that God does not exist ----> especially when you cannot prove the He does not exist.

Pastor AIO:

Now my latin is not so hot but I would interprete that line as: Faith is however Hoping in the essence/substance of things PROVEN yet not seen.

That faith is the substance of things Not seen does not make sense to me. Faith is not a substance. The word sperandorum means hope. Am I correct? I don't claim to be a scholar and I am open to correction. The word hope does not occur in your translation. Argumentum is the Latin word for Proof , is it not? The word proof does not occur in your translation.

Also I would rather use the word essence rather than substance because today the word substance means something different from what it once did. Something has substance today when it has mass and bulk and is weighty. Originally substance meant that which 'stands underneath'. Sub - Stance. Ultimately the idea is that beyond the world that appears to our eyes there is another world that exists behind it and that supports it. In fact that other world is the essence of the apparent world, from which the apparent world is derived. This world of substance is not accessible to the physical sense but is accessible through faith.

Is not Faith a Faculty of Perception? People talk about blind faith but is that not oxymoronic? What people call faith today is nothing like what faith actually is.

@Pastor
I suggest you look for authentic Greek/Latin sources before making arbitrary translations.

Substance is used in its philosophical sense here.

imhotep:

Atheism is a religion that believes in the non-existence of God.

Only if theism is a religion that does not believe in the non-existence of gods. oh wait, that's not how it works.

Atheism and theism are merely descriptors, not religions. Religious subsets may stem from and reside within both descriptors.

Because atheists cannot disprove the existence of God, they have to rely on faith to believe His non-existence.

Or not.

Faith, afterall, is the substance if things NOT SEEN.

A most apt description of atheism => beilief in the non-existence of God.

I have faith that there is no purple three-headed monster bowling behind your chair.

KAG:

Only if theism is a religion that does not believe in the non-existence of gods. oh wait, that's not how it works.

Atheism and theism are merely descriptors, not religions. Religious subsets may stem from and reside within both descriptors.

Ok. Let me re-phrase.

An atheistic religion is one that believes in the non-existence of God ---> even though it cannot prove this non-existence.

Happier?

imhotep:

Ok. Let me re-phrase.

An atheistic religion is one that believes in the non-existence of God ---> even though it cannot prove this non-existence.

Happier?

Mostly. Just a few minor corrections: An atheistic religion is one based on non-belief in the existence of Gods (plural, not singular) even though it cannot prove gods don't exist.

KAG:

Mostly. Just a few minor corrections: An atheistic religion is one based on non-belief in the existence of Gods (plural, not singular) even though it cannot prove gods don't exist.

I concur.

imhotep:

@Pastor
I suggest you look for authentic Greek/Latin sources before making arbitrary translations.

Right! I've been here before. YOu and your nonsensical arguments. 'authentic greek and latin sources'? You provided the source, you nincompoop!!! I merely translated what you provided. And I have since checked and my interpretations are correct. you missed out the words hope and proof in your translation.


And reading your subsequent posts what also becomes blatantly clear is that you don't even know what Faith is.

I'm done with you.

Pastor AIO:

Right! I've been here before. YOu and your nonsensical arguments. 'authentic greek and latin sources'? You provided the source, you nincompoop!!! I merely translated what you provided. And I have since checked and my interpretations are correct. you missed out the words hope and proof in your translation.

You are free to create your own translation of the bible. After all, you are a Pastor.

Pastor AIO:

And reading your subsequent posts what also becomes blatantly clear is that you don't even know what Faith is.

It is far better to experience faith than to define it.

Pastor AIO:

I'm done with you.

Thanks for contributing. I appreciate.

Funny how, the faith-heads on this thread have decidedly avoided responding to the question I asked. I shall re-state it in case they missed it:

Is calling atheism a religion meant as a compliment or a criticism?

huxley:

Is calling atheism a religion meant as a compliment or a criticism?

Neither a compliment nor a criticism - but a fitting description.

imhotep:

Neither a compliment nor a criticism - but a fitting description.

You exhibit the qualities a committed religious apologist, all evasion and sophistry. (Eusebius comes to mind).

huxley:

You exhibit the qualities a committed religious apologist, all evasion and sophistry. (Eusebius comes to mind).

Because I don't subscribe to unjustifiable atheism?

huxley:

Is calling atheism a religion meant as a compliment or a criticism?

It seemed to me that it was meant as an insult but it is a bit of a shot in the foot for the religionists. What I felt is that the religionist got the impression that the atheists were looking down on them for being 'gullible and childish' in their religious beliefs. In return they accuse atheism of being a religion too, in other words saying it's the pot calling the kettle black. But of course to thus berate a 'faith' is to shoot themselves in the foot because they are supposed to be upholding faith. And that is what makes your question so difficult to answer.

Pastor AIO:

It seemed to me that it was meant as an insult but it is a bit of a shot in the foot for the religionists. What I felt is that the religionist got the impression that the atheists were looking down on them for being 'gullible and childish' in their religious beliefs. In return they accuse atheism of being a religion too, in other words saying it's the pot calling the kettle black. But of course to thus berate a 'faith' is to shoot themselves in the foot because they are supposed to be upholding faith. And that is what makes your question so difficult to answer.

Brilliant analysis!

Theism is not even a religion, so how can you ignorantly consider its opposite one?

@ poster
It's indeed an insult. Atheists refuse and despise religion so much but yet these believers want to claim they are just as religious as they are.

And please, don't confide deists with atheists.

Remember atheists don't subscribe to any form of predestined order and have no adoration for nature!

An atheisitic religion is [STILL] a religion that believes that God does not exist. Even though it cannot prove that God does not exist.

Atheistic religion That makes no sense at all. Are you believers so bored? Or maybe you are so lonely that now you want to force us to your irrational attitude? Sorry we don't want to be part of it.

The more you insist, the less sense you make. Atheistic religion!!!! This is really good!

michelin89:
Atheistic religion

As long as atheistic beleif systems CANNOT provide a convincing proof for the non-existence of God/gods; they have a lot in common with other world religions.

It takes [an aberretion of] faith to believe in something [the non-existence of God/gods] you cannot prove.

You are so illogical that it would be irrational for me to engage in a debate with you!

michelin89:

You are so illogical that it would be irrational for me to engage in a debate with you!

There is nothing to debate when the truth is so glaring. 

michelin89:

You are so illogical that it would be irrational for me to engage in a debate with you!

I see you've met . ,