Most religions believe in the existence of a God. Most atheists believe there exists no god. So

Is atheism a belief in itself?

If so what do atheists believe?

Or Is atheism actually a religion?

We all know what the world's religions believe in. But what are atheist's beliefs regarding existence and can we take (hopefully from the posts below) the (or) a body of atheist opinion and thought and use it as a basis of another religion?

It is neither a belief, nor a religion. It's simply the lack of belief in God(s).
Most religious people are atheist about practically all of the thousands of deities except for the one they happen to believe in. Atheists just take it one God further.

nferyn:

It is neither a belief, nor a religion. It's simply the lack of belief in God(s).
Most religious people are atheist about practically all of the thousands of deities except for the one they happen to believe in. Atheists just take it one God further.

Is it a lack of belief in God or is it a belief that there is no God?

I'm trying to be as objective as possible here so does an atheist's belief in the concept of no God actually qualify as a beilief in nothingness. No God before our state of existence. No God after our state of existence. And of course no God during our state of existence. If so is there a possibility of it being a religion of nothingness. If not what do atheists believe since they do not believe in a God?

Also most religions do actually believe in the concept of God as existing within other religions. It is simply that they do not agree with the other religion's interpretation of who and what that God is and how that God should be worshipped.

This is a good topic for a thread! 

Allow me to direct you to the site www.skeptic.com

nferyn:

It is neither a belief, nor a religion. It's simply the lack of belief in God(s).
Most religious people are atheist about practically all of the thousands of deities except for the one they happen to believe in. Atheists just take it one God further.

So what exactly do atheists believe in?

drrionelli:

This is a good topic for a thread! 

Allow me to direct you to the site www.skeptic.com

Are you a member too, because i can see that site is meant for highly deluded fellows who believe that Science knows it all.

Actually, mrpataki, I'm not a member of the Skeptic's Society. I offer the link with respect to the nature of the topic of this thread.

I would like to offer that, as I understand things, the Skeptics (several of whom I know) do not "believe that Science knows it all." Indeed, the group includes a number of believers of multifarious faiths.

Olorididan:

Most religions believe in the existence of a God. Most atheists believe there exists no god. So

Is atheism a belief in itself?

I'd say so, but it depends on how you apply the word and its implication in a sentence. For example, when belief is used in atheism, it is akin to: I believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist in pretty much the same way I believe my chair won't become animated and run off with me.

If so what do atheists believe?

Almost anything but Gods

Or Is atheism actually a religion?

Is theism actually a religion?

We all know what the world's religions believe in. But what are atheist's beliefs regarding existence and can we take (hopefully from the posts below) the (or) a body of atheist opinion and thought and use it as a basis of another religion?

Atheists have many differung beliefs regarding existence, and there are atheists who belong to religions (for example atheistic Buddhists),.

@KAG

I'd say so, but it depends on how you apply the word and its implication in a sentence. For example, when belief is used in atheism, it is akin to: I believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist in pretty much the same way I believe my chair won't become animated and run off with me.

nferyn has already stated that "it is simply a lack of belief in Gods"

what I'm trying to see if possible is whether it is possible to take a body of non belief and give it some sort of central coherence. Many people feel that Atheism suffers from the "anything goes" syndrome. That if you don't believe in something you'll believe in anything. I want to see if any coherent body of thought can come out of the vastness of the belief in "anything" or "nothing". There aren't many atheists around but I'd like to know their thoughts and whether we can give these thoughts any sort of collective direction and maybe form something out of it.

One common denominator found among many atheists is the belief that there is no existence before and after life. Note I did not say no existence of a God. Further to this is the belief that there is no existence of a God before, during and after life. Which leaves life as we know it. It is within this realm that most atheists base their beliefs.

But if we do not exist before and do not exist after, then could it be argued that we really do not exist presently. We are simple physical manifestations of nothingness. If we are not the manifestations of a greater being, we are the manifestation of nothing are we not? If so we need to ask is it possible for nothingness to become something without a "God" or soem force or the other making it so and if so how?

KAG raises a good point. Could it be that some people (this is not directed at anyone here, in particular) are confusing the term "theism" with "religion?"

KAG:

For example, when belief is used in atheism, it is akin to: I believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist in pretty much the same way I believe my chair won't become animated and run off with me.

Anybody can make this statement. Even non-theists!

its none

Olorididan:

@KAG
nferyn has already stated that "it is simply a lack of belief in Gods"

I have problems with that definition because it seems to encompass people that belong or have aligned themselves to a different label.

what I'm trying to see if possible is whether it is possible to take a body of non belief and give it some sort of central coherence.

I think it's possibel. I could be wrong, but I think humanism might be an example of just that.

Many people feel that Atheism suffers from the "anything goes" syndrome. That if you don't believe in something you'll believe in anything. I want to see if any coherent body of thought can come out of the vastness of the belief in "anything" or "nothing". There aren't many atheists around but I'd like to know their thoughts and whether we can give these thoughts any sort of collective direction and maybe form something out of it.

Not believing a God exists is not the same thing as believing in nothing.

One common denominator found among many atheists is the belief that there is no existence before and after life. Note I did not say no existence of a God. Further to this is the belief that there is no existence of a God before, during and after life. Which leaves life as we know it. It is within this realm that most atheists base their beliefs.

Yes.

But if we do not exist before and do not exist after, then could it be argued that we really do not exist presently.

I disagree. If we did not have consciousness before we came to have one, and we lose it when we die, all we then have is the present where we exist and believe we exist, that in itself tends to make the present that more precious. Basically you can't argue something doesn't exist in the present because it didn't in the past and will perish in the future, else you'd end up invalidating the existence of almost everything in the present.

We are simple physical manifestations of nothingness. If we are not the manifestations of a greater being, we are the manifestation of nothing are we not?

Not quite. We are physical manifestations that exist, or believe we exist, because we've acquired self awareness. As to what we are a physical manifestation of, we aren't the physical manifestation of anythinng - which shouldn't be confused with nothingness.

If so we need to ask is it possible for nothingness to become something without a "God" or soem force or the other making it so and if so how?

Yes, it's possible. One example of something coming from nothing that I've given on numerous occasions, is that of virtual particles - they come into existence through quantum fluctuations in vacuums. They don't need a force or "God" to make them.

goodguy:

Anybody can make this statement. Even non-theists!

Yes, but that doesn't invalidate what it represents.

Olorididan:

I'd say so, but it depends on how you apply the word and its implication in a sentence. For example, when belief is used in atheism, it is akin to: I believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist in pretty much the same way I believe my chair won't become animated and run off with me.

@KAG
nferyn has already stated that "it is simply a lack of belief in Gods"

Yes and that definition also includes many agnostics. I would call myself an agnostic atheist, i.e. I do not believe in God(s), but I cannot obtain knowledge of that fact.

Olorididan:

what I'm trying to see if possible is whether it is possible to take a body of non belief and give it some sort of central coherence. Many people feel that Atheism suffers from the "anything goes" syndrome.

That's just prejudice. How many atheists do you know for whom anything goes. I do not know a single one.

Olorididan:

That if you don't believe in something you'll believe in anything.

It's not because you don't believe in God that you don't believe in anything. I believe in Love, compassion, equality, human dignity and a lot of things besides that.

Olorididan:

I want to see if any coherent body of thought can come out of the vastness of the belief in "anything" or "nothing".

just like theism, atheism doesn't have a coherent body of thought. Many atheists are secular humanists though and that [b]is [/b]a coherent body of thought

Olorididan:

There aren't many atheists around

Maybe not in Nigeria, but that's hardly universal.

Olorididan:

but I'd like to know their thoughts and whether we can give these thoughts any sort of collective direction and maybe form something out of it.

I have many thoughts about many subjects, but these are only peripherally informed by my atheism. There's a huge variety of thought among atheists.

Olorididan:

One common denominator found among many atheists is the belief that there is no existence before and after life. Note I did not say no existence of a God. Further to this is the belief that there is no existence of a God before, during and after life. Which leaves life as we know it. It is within this realm that most atheists base their beliefs.

You're mixing up things here. Believing God doesn't exist does not follow out of the belief that there's no life after death. Most atheists indeed have naturalistic tendencies though

Olorididan:

But if we do not exist before and do not exist after, then could it be argued that we really do not exist presently.

There's no connection between the two

Olorididan:

We are simple physical manifestations of nothingness.

Why? I don't think we're manifestations of anything. Our existence just is without external reference.

Olorididan:

If we are not the manifestations of a greater being, we are the manifestation of nothing are we not?

That's what I would call a leap of faith.

Olorididan:

If so we need to ask is it possible for nothingness to become something without a "God" or soem force or the other making it so and if so how?

If you assume God, you're assuming an argument from inifinite regress: you still need to explain God because God is complex and anything but self explanatory.

The religion of atheists is called Secular Humanism.
Secular Humanism, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism.

The Humanist Manifestos declare:

"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith."

According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is "a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view."

This manifesto proves that Atheists have a living and growing faith and is a philosophical, religious and moral point of view and therefore belongs to a religion called Secular Humanism.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html

To do this thread justice I think we need to be clear about what we mean by 1) belief. 'I believe there's no God', does this amount to a belief. Can belief and disbelief be separated. Isn't a belief in God couple naturally with a disbelief in atheism. 2) Religion. For some religion does means what one believes in. For me personally I think that religion is a discipline and a practice whereby we seek reconciliation to God and our existence and hence peace and self fulfillment. 3) Diety. People argue about this God and that God but when one actually discusses with them one finds that by God people often mean something rather different from each other. Sometimes they try to smooth it over and achieve consensus by saying the creator. Even this definition of God is troubled for there are many religions and some of them christians that believe that the world as we know it today was not created by God. The gnostic christians called the creator the Demiurge whom is quite different from God almighty. Buddhists claim the world is created by Maya. Besides there are people who do not profess a belief in God yet will claim experiences that others would interpret as an encounter with God.

So Mr. 'Shine Shine Head' I think that you have opened up a whole can of worms that will not be easy to unravel.

If theism means "the belief in god(s)", the antithesis atheism, means "the lack of a belief in god(s)". This is the literal and original meaning of the word. Notice that it says nothing about the non-existence (or existence) of god. It simply describes the lack of belief in deities. This has sometimes mean describes as weak atheism.

On the other hand, strong atheism develops from the weak position into a position that make existence propositions. Strong atheism is a direct challenge of all the current existing theistic evidence for god's existence. It basically says one is justified in claiming the non-existence given the inadequacy of evidence in favor of a god. Just like one may say, the evidence in favor of fairies is rather weak therefore one is justified in claiming there are no gods.

Atheism is by no means a religion. Neither is secular humanism a religion. Secular humanism can best be described as a system of thought that places humans at the centre of our concerns and is founded on naturalistic principles.


I sometimes wonder what is achieved by trying to describes atheism (secular humanism) as a religion. Is this meant as a compliment or as a criticism?


The branches in the religious tree is very diverse ranging from theistic religions to non-theistic religions;


Non-theistic religions are :

Animism
Animatism
Ancestor worship
Ethical non-theism

Theistic religions are:
Polytheism (ancient Greek & Roman religions, etc)
Monotheism( Christianity, I-sl-am, Judaism, etc)

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.

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.

I wonder if Huxley or Imotep read my post. Belief or non-belief it is the same thing. Human mind operates according to dualistic categorisation. A non belief is just the flip side of a belief. They both amount to the same thing. Surely you get that. I believe that I'm in London therefore it follows that I DON'T BELIEVE I'm in New York. It is called the law of mutual exclusivity. To believe that God exists is to Not-believe that he doesn't exist. To believe God doesn't exist is to Not-believe that He exists.

Isn't this obvious. Certainly not worth getting you knickers in a twist over. Or have you all become so clever in your convoluted reasoning that straightforward things are not obvious anymore.


Secondly, since when did a Belief amount to a religion. If I believe that my wife has another lover does that become my religion.

Or does religion not involved practice and discipleship?

huxley:

Atheism is by no means a religion.

The branches in the religious tree is very diverse ranging from theistic religions to non-theistic religions;


Non-theistic religions are :

Animism
Animatism
Ancestor worship
Ethical non-theism

Theistic religions are:
Polytheism (ancient Greek & Roman religions, etc)
Monotheism( Christianity, I-sl-am, Judaism, etc)

Mr Huxley, above, gives a list of the different types of religion and indeed they all involve some sort of practice or the other. They require that you apply yourself to the disciplines required. This is quite different from a belief which you might or might not apply to the way you live.

Atheists are not required to pursue any discipline of any sort so it, in my opinion, cannot be called a religion. It's a belief/nonbelief.

All religions are belief-systems, but not all belief-systems are religion.

Atheism is a belief-system that has the qualities of a religion.

imhotep:


Atheism is a belief-system that has the qualities of a religion.

, and what would these qualities be?

Pastor AIO:

, and what would these qualities be?

The main quality is the glaring inability of atheists to provide a convincing, objective proof for the non-existence of God.

imhotep:

The main quality is the glaring inability of atheists to provide a convincing, objective proof for the non-existence of God.

The burden of proof lies with the person asserting something, You say there is a God, so you are required to prove it, I dont understand why you keep on shifting the burden of proof to atheists. If I claim that there is a computer in an empty room, who is required to prove it the person asserting the claim or the person denying it?


What you people dont understand is that atheism DOES NOT require belief or faith, it is simply A LACK OF BELIEF

Religion as defined by Thefreedictionary

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

someone please enlighten me as to how atheism qualifies as one of these?

imhotep:

The main quality is the glaring inability of atheists to provide a convincing, objective proof for the non-existence of God.

Is this what you consider a religion? Please speak for yourself and your own religion whatever ever that might be.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists but because there is God therefore we have atheists.

For one to make an absolute statement that God does not exist must have a blind faith since he does not have 100% knowledge of every natural thing he sees.

OLAADEGBU:

If there were no God, there would be no atheists but because there is God therefore we have atheists.

For one to make an absolute statement that God does not exist must have a blind faith since he does not have 100% knowledge of every natural thing he sees.

you obviously don't know the definition of faith or atheist.
Define those two here then post your argument and see if it makes sense

Pastor AIO:

Is this what you consider a religion? Please speak for yourself and your own religion whatever ever that might be.

I was talking about the main religious quality of atheism.

JayFK:

The burden of proof lies with the person asserting something, You say there is a God, so you are required to prove it, I don't understand why you keep on shifting the burden of proof to atheists. If I claim that there is a computer in an empty room, who is required to prove it the person asserting the claim or the person denying it?

@JayFK
Let me post FIVE philosophical proofs for the existence of God

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.


=============
Now (without reference to the five proofs above) give me ONE proof for the non-existence of God.

imhotep:

Now (without reference to the five proofs above) give me ONE proof for the non-existence of God.

You cannot prove the non existence of god just like you cannot prove the non existence of an invisible purple beetle in the sky. You cannot prove a negative.

And Aquinas philosophical proofs you just stated, do you really want me to copy and paste rebuttals from the internet?

JayFK:

You cannot prove the non existence of god just like you cannot prove the non existence of an invisible purple beetle in the sky. You cannot prove a negative.

Ah. Now you are resorting to dogma.
Why does anybody have to take your word for it

JayFK:

And Aquinas philosophical proofs you just stated, do you really want me to copy and paste rebuttals from the internet?

A 'rebuttal' does NOT constitute a proof for the non-existence of God. It is a cheap escape route.


Please, I am waiting for your own proof for the non-existence of God.