More often than not Atheism is often confused to be a religion when it is clearly not. With a deity also being defined as a supernatural diving being”. So an atheist can then be seen as one who rejects the belief in any supernatural diving being. The takeaway from this definition is the rejection of belief in a deity.

“Rejection of belief that any deities exist”

Atheists are always met with questions like, “What do you believe in then”? or “you must believe in something?” It must be emphasized that one who is uncertain about the existence of a deity is not an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

An atheist strongly belives in light of present evidence that there is no divine deity. An atheist doesn’t rule out the possibility of a creator, but for him/her, if such an entity were to exist it’s highly doubtful for him/her to be supernatural and care about who we have relations with or is even omniscient.

What atheism isn’t
Atheists are not “woke” individuals who are arrogant revel in the fact that a divine deity doesn’t exist. In fact, some atheists would like the idea, but know that thinking such is wishful.

Atheists don’t hate religious people contrary to what some believe. if you encounter such religion hating atheists chances are misguided extremists who present themselves in every faction of society.

Atheism doesn’t mean anti-theism! Anti-theism would be mean atheists are against deities or deity beliving institutions but that is not true. Atheism is simply the rejection of belief in divine deities.

Atheism is proof-based while theism is faith-based
This is the major difference between atheism and theist based institutions. The core pf theism is faith and some religious people see every little thing that happens in their life as a sign from their God or gods.

Full write up below
https://naijatochinco.site/atheism-is-not-a-religion/

Not all theistic religion is faith based. And also Theism is not a religion.

Deicide:
Not all theistic religion is faith based. And also Theism is not a religion.

Explain... People would like to learn.

For this topic to be in the religion section say it all. Sports does not have a position concerning God so we cannot address it as religion. Atheism has a position for God and the position is He does not exist. The point here is that the reality of what is called religion has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called Atheism. I believe Something is a religion if it has a position on the divine and/or the afterlife.

Deicide:
Not all theistic religion is faith based. And also Theism is not a religion.

Very ridiculous!

If dem ask you to explain now, petrol go finish for your engine mouth

OSUigboFlatHead:

Very ridiculous!

If dem ask you to explain now, petrol go finish for your engine mouth

Lol how many Theistic religion do you know?

Deicide:
Lol how many Theistic religion do you know?

Let's start from the meaning of "theism"

OSUigboFlatHead:

Let's start from the meaning of "theism"

Ok

Deicide:
Ok

Now that you've checked the meaning of theism, I'll implore you to always use your brain before making an irrational statement on a public forum.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hairstyle.

Deicide:
Ok

Explain yourself nw...

Deicide:
Not all theistic religion is faith based. And also Theism is not a religion.

Please example of a theistic religion that is not faith based.

OSUigboFlatHead:

Now that you've checked the meaning of theism, I'll implore you to always use your brain before making an irrational statement on a public forum.

I was hoping that you were going to define it?

malvisguy212:
For this topic to be in the religion section say it all. Sports does not have a position concerning God so we cannot address it as religion. Atheism has a position for God and the position is He does not exist. The point here is that the reality of what is called religion has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called Atheism. I believe Something is a religion if it has a position on the divine and/or the afterlife.

Exactly

LordReed:


Please example of a theistic religion that is not faith based.

Doesn't the position of an agnostic sustain the relevance of the theist's argument, that God cannot be disproved?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know that we don't know. -DONALD RUMSFELD

There are of course purely scientific problems that are not yet understood. For instance, what was there before the Big Bang? How can something exist out of nothing? Attempts and proposed solutions to these problems are not totally logically sufficient as touted by many 'radical' atheists. A scientific attempt maybe too far reaching and likely unattainable with the present knowledge man has.

Theories in physics for a similar reason cannot be disproved but can be classified as either more likely or less likely ( Well, until the No-go theorem that is). If God is a proposed theory to a problem in science, physics especially, can it then be entirely dismissed?

Even the mere word 'existence' seems to be elusive to our present logic or logical interpretation. Here lies the pertinence of the philosopher in modern science, perhaps the only reason why his opinion is still considered at all. Could it not be deduced following this trail of thought that only the Open-minded thinker is free of belief? Otherwise acceptance of any theory concerning the 'inception of existence' i.e before the Big Bang is belief to an extent since there is either no experimental validation, mathematical justification or proper evident logical construct to make any assertion. Is this open–mindedness not a crucial characteristic of the agnostic?

SchmidtHammer:


Doesn't the position of an agnostic sustain the relevance of the theist's argument, that God cannot be disproved?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know that we don't know. -DONALD RUMSFELD

There are of course purely scientific problems that are not yet understood. For instance, what was there before the Big Bang? How can something exist out of nothing? Attempts and proposed solutions to these problems are not totally logically sufficient as touted by many 'radical' atheists. A scientific attempt maybe too far reaching and likely unattainable with the present knowledge man has.

Theories in physics for a similar reason cannot be disproved but can be classified as either more likely or less likely ( Well, until the No-go theorem that is). If God is a proposed theory to a problem in science, physics especially, can it then be entirely dismissed?

Even the mere word 'existence' seems to be elusive to our present logic or logical interpretation. Here lies the pertinence of the philosopher in modern science, perhaps the only reason why his opinion is still considered at all. Could it not be deduced following this trail of thought that only the Open-minded thinker is free of belief? Otherwise acceptance of any theory concerning the 'inception of existence' i.e before the Big Bang is belief to an extent since there is either no experimental validation, mathematical justification or proper evident logical construct to make any assertion. Is this open–mindedness not a crucial characteristic of the agnostic?

Indeed the concept of the existence of a god cannot at this time be disproved. As you have pointed out there are many unknowns however some formulations of god can be. Gods such as Zeus, Ra, Thor and the Abrahamic god can be conclusively shown to not exist. This is why apologists especially for the Abrahamic god strive to move their god into the unknown realms.

LordReed:


Indeed the concept of the existence of a god cannot at this time be disproved. As you have pointed out there are many unknowns however some formulations of god can be. Gods such as Zeus, Ra, Thor and the Abrahamic god can be conclusively shown to not exist. This is why apologists especially for the Abrahamic god strive to move their god into the unknown realms.

I think I agree with you.

I read once that there are two broad classifications of the atheist, those who assert that God does not exist from logical conclusions, which I'll call conscious atheists and those that simply do not give much logical considerations to their assertions. I'll call the latter unconscious atheists. Given that your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God, can I infer that both the conscious as well as the unconscious atheists express believe to some extent? The unconscious atheist as in this case a blind believer?

Modified:

To make the argument fair and the inferred unambiguous, should the lack of believe simply not be acceptance of a provable truth? For instance, I accept and can show that 1 + 1 = 2. I need not to express any form of belief in the mathematical statement as it can be proven, it is not subject to opinions and deliberation.

Is not the following proposition the reason why the agnostic is free of belief?
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921.

SchmidtHammer:


I think I agree with you.

I read once that there are two broad classifications of the atheist, those who assert that God does not exist from logical conclusions, which I'll call conscious atheists and those that simply do not give much logical considerations to their assertions. I'll call the latter unconscious atheists. Given that your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God, can I infer that both the conscious as well as the unconscious atheists express believe to some extent? The unconscious atheist as in this case a blind believer?

No because there's no belief being expressed in either case.

LordReed:


No because there's no belief being expressed in either case.

Sorry, I modified my last post.

SchmidtHammer:


I think I agree with you.

I read once that there are two broad classifications of the atheist, those who assert that God does not exist from logical conclusions, which I'll call conscious atheists and those that simply do not give much logical considerations to their assertions. I'll call the latter unconscious atheists. Given that your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God, can I infer that both the conscious as well as the unconscious atheists express believe to some extent? The unconscious atheist as in this case a blind believer?

Modified:

To make the argument fair and the inferred unambiguous, should the lack of believe simply not be acceptance of a provable truth? For instance, I accept and can show that 1 + 1 = 2. I need not to express any form of belief in the mathematical statement as it can be proven, it is not subject to opinions and deliberation.

Is not the following proposition the reason why the agnostic is free of belief?
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921.

Your modification doesn't change the answer. The agnostic is not expressing disbelief or belief , the agnostic is expressing lack of knowledge. There are agnostic theists for example, which means they believe but do not have a claim to knowledge.

I would like to add that my position in no way leads to "your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God". I do not assert that the existence of God is unprovable. I said the concept that a god (or more clearly, there is a god) exists cannot be disproved. These are 2 different positions.

LordReed:


Your modification doesn't change the answer. The agnostic is not expressing disbelief or belief , the agnostic is expressing lack of knowledge. There are agnostic theists for example, which means they believe but do not have a claim to knowledge.

I would like to add that my position in no way leads to "your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God". I do not assert that the existence of God is unprovable. I said the concept that a god (or more clearly, there is a god) exists cannot be disproved. These are 2 different positions.

I appreciate your clarification, but there's even more of the things I misunderstood. The topic for instance, I wrongly assumed arguing that atheism is not a religion is interpreted as dissociation of atheism from belief entirely. Such was the direction of all my arguments, hence, the confusion. However, belief doesn't necessarily imply Religion but Faith would.

Would the relevance of the argument remain valid to assert that atheism has to do with belief (in an opinion) to an extent? If it is so then even atheism is not exempt from some of such criticism as applies to Religion. Infact, it is the case in such instance, as there have been reports of crimes committed with intentions that stem from extreme atheistic views. One could even say that atheism is fundamentally similar to religion for the ''unconscious'' atheist except it has a different ideology. Otherwise, what is the difference between say, a pantheistic and an atheist except that their beliefs are different? They both believe in different opinions.

SchmidtHammer:


I appreciate your clarification, but there's even more of the things I misunderstood. The topic for instance, I wrongly assumed arguing that atheism is not a religion is interpreted as dissociation of atheism from belief entirely. Such was the direction of all my arguments, hence, the confusion. However, belief doesn't necessarily imply Religion but Faith would.

Would the relevance of the argument remain valid to assert that atheism has to do with belief (in an opinion) to an extent? If it is so then even atheism is not exempt from some of such criticism as applies to Religion. Infact, it is the case in such instance, as there have been reports of crimes committed with intentions that stem from extreme atheistic views. One could even say that atheism is fundamentally similar to religion for the ''unconscious'' atheist except it has a different ideology. Otherwise, what is the difference between say, a pantheistic and an atheist except that their beliefs are different? They both believe in different opinions.

In these kinds of discussions there is always an attempt to redefine what religion is. Religion is broadly defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. Atheism has nothing that can be construed as religion so no, none of the criticisms against religion would apply.

Why again are you saying an atheist believes? I thought we were past that misconception?

LordReed:


In these kinds of discussions there is always an attempt to redefine what religion is. Religion is broadly defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. Atheism has nothing that can be construed as religion so no, none of the criticisms against religion would apply.

Why again are you saying an atheist believes? I thought we were past that misconception?

Are the assertions of an atheist based on irrefutable facts? Can you say it is the truth or just an opinion? If you agree it is the latter ( which is more compelling ) then are opinions not beliefs?

SchmidtHammer:


Are the assertions of an atheist based on irrefutable facts? Can you say it is the truth or just an opinion? If you agree it is the latter ( which is more compelling ) then are opinions not beliefs?

What assertion? An atheist says I don't believe in any gods, what assertion is he making?

LordReed:


What assertion? An atheist says I don't believe in any gods, what assertion is he making?

That's why I talked about the ''conscious'' and ''unconscious'' atheist? The conscious atheist reaches logical conclusions...

malvisguy212:
For this topic to be in the religion section say it all. Sports does not have a position concerning God so we cannot address it as religion. Atheism has a position for God and the position is He does not exist. The point here is that the reality of what is called religion has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called Atheism. I believe Something is a religion if it has a position on the divine and/or the afterlife.

Just like a TV that is not is powered on is a DSTV channel.

SchmidtHammer:


That's why I talked about the ''conscious'' and ''unconscious'' atheist? The conscious atheist reaches logical conclusions...

What assertion is an atheist making when he CONSCIOUSLY says I don't believe in any god?

LordReed:


Your modification doesn't change the answer. The agnostic is not expressing disbelief or belief , the agnostic is expressing lack of knowledge. There are agnostic theists for example, which means they believe but do not have a claim to knowledge.

I would like to add that my position in no way leads to "your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God". I do not assert that the existence of God is unprovable. I said the concept that a god (or more clearly, there is a god) exists cannot be disproved. These are 2 different positions.

Gods can't exist as persons cos they've got no brains.
There are no living things except micro organisms,plants and animals.
Spirits don't really exist as there is no habitat for spirits.
The spirit realm does not really exist.
Let's stop debating about the difference between belief and knowledge.
If spirits exist, they must also EXHIBIT the characteristics of spirits.
He that is living can't hide from the living.
Let's stop quoting Bibles.
If Jesus exists,he must be human but that's nonsense.
I can't believe humans can be religious.
Religion is just about impossible stuff or stuff that can't be.
Spirituality is just about hidden tools that are used for rituals.
These tools are just tools.
Some people refer to "Everything" they have ever identified or/and "Everything" they will ever identify as God.
But you SHOULDN'T assume there is "Nothing" except "Everything" you have ever identified or/and "Everything" you will ever identify.

LordReed:


Your modification doesn't change the answer. The agnostic is not expressing disbelief or belief , the agnostic is expressing lack of knowledge. There are agnostic theists for example, which means they believe but do not have a claim to knowledge.

I would like to add that my position in no way leads to "your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God". I do not assert that the existence of God is unprovable. I said the concept that a god (or more clearly, there is a god) exists cannot be disproved. These are 2 different positions.

Unnecessary grammar.
Why should you prove the existence of a living thing?
Did you have to prove the existence of mosquitoes?
The Bible/Quran should do better but these books are just popular nonsense.
You believe or claim to know what is impossible for you to fully understand or what is mysterious.
Does that make any sense?