Is Atheism a religion?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Atheism a religion? It seems highly unlikely that the polar position to theism would be considered a religion but it seems the comparison is made quite a bit. When you look at what can be considered intrinsic properties of a religion it really doesn't stick to well. Unlike a religion, atheism has no systematic beliefs, rituals or doctrine so as to how it could be considered a religion in that rite is a mystery. If any of you honestly believe that atheism is a religion I would much appreciate it if you explained why you believe that and how you believe this is true.

[EduChris]

...It's not our burden to support a negative claim but rather the theist's to support their initial positive claim...

Here are two propositions...Which of these statements is positive, and which is negative?

If I could add a third proposition, more representative of my stance(And probably many others), it'd be...

Can you tell me the difference, in terms of positive vs. negative claims, between the following two sentences?

1) It is doubtful that chance and necessity alone provide the best available explanation for our universe and our selves.

2) It is doubtful that anything other than chance and/or necessity is the best available explanation for the existence of the universe.

If there isn't any significant difference between the claims, then the standard non-theist attempt to seize the so-called "default position" (i.e., making no positive claim) is exposed as nothing more than semantic legerdemain.

...I'd also be of the opinion that, sooner or later, the existence of 'self' will be explainable given the existence of the universe.

That's as good a faith-based sentiment as any, but the question of the universe's existence might very well involve volition.

[EduChris]

...I don't support your assertion that we believe it's just "chance and necessity"....the universe is still mystery and either one of us [could be] wrong in terms of how it came into being...

We know of three causal mechanisms: chance, necessity, and volition. These are the only three we know of, and if you want to propose some other mechanism then you'd have to provide some good reason for such. Theists don't arbitrarily rule out any of the three known causal mechanisms, whereas non-theists necessarily rule out volition. Unless you can come up with some good reason to rule out volition (and such an attempt seems to be a self-defeating proposition) then theism is actually the default position, since it doesn't arbitrarily rule anything out.

...I'll stick with the Big Bang because there's evidence to support that...

The Big Bang is accepted by theists and non-theists alike.

...As for us, evolution, natural selection and speciation tells us how we got here...

Evolutionary theory can be accommodated by theism no less than non-theism. Thus, there is no more evidence in favor of non-theism than for theism.

As always, the argument ultimately hinges on the existence of (at least some measure of) genuine volition. The theism vs. non-theism debate is thus an intensely practical matter, since engaging in it helps us better understand who (or what) we are as human beings.

[Bust Nak]

[If there isn't any significant difference between the claims, then the standard non-theist attempt to seize the so-called "default position" (i.e., making no positive claim) is exposed as nothing more than semantic legerdemain.

Are you suggesting theists don't have the burden of proof for showing God?

[EduChris]

Are you suggesting theists don't have the burden of proof for showing God?

Given that volition is one of the three known causal mechanisms in the universe, the burden of proof rests with those who would arbitrarily dismiss it from consideration.

Non-theists typically attempt to deny that genuine volition exists in any form or degree within our universe, but such attempts ultimately amount to epistemological suicide.

Bottom line is this: if genuine volition exists in some form and in some degree within our universe, then theism is the "default position." On the other hand, if genuine volition does not exist at all within our universe, then non-theism becomes the "default position" (not that it would matter in this case, since we wouldn't be able to choose to adopt or reject any evidence, or even what we would accept as evidence or logic or anything else).

[I Wear White Socks]

Atheism a religion?

I suggest the first step in answering this question is to determine whether religion is a belief system or a suspension of disbelief system. If religion is based on one of these systems while atheism is based on the other, then comparing the two becomes meaningless and futile.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

We know of three causal mechanisms: chance, necessity, and volition. These are the only three we know of, and if you want to propose some other mechanism then you'd have to provide some good reason for such. Theists don't arbitrarily rule out any of the three known causal mechanisms, whereas non-theists necessarily rule out volition. Unless you can come up with some good reason to rule out volition (and such an attempt seems to be a self-defeating proposition) then theism is actually the default position, since it doesn't arbitrarily rule anything out.

Then it look like I'm stuck with chance and necessity. Volition would honestly just keep spiraling out because honestly if it takes a creator to create the universe, which some would say is too complex to have come into being on it's own, then what created the creator and so on?

The Big Bang is accepted by theists and non-theists alike.

I don't doubt that in the least considering that fact it was a theist that proposed the theory in the first place.

Evolutionary theory can be accommodated by theism no less than non-theism. Thus, there is no more evidence in favor of non-theism than for theism.

I never said theists couldn't support evolution. I was merely speaking for myself.

As always, the argument ultimately hinges on the existence of (at least some measure of) genuine volition. The theism vs. non-theism debate is thus an intensely practical matter, since engaging in it helps us better understand who (or what) we are as human beings.

It will always be an interesting debate since it's a such a huge aspect of life in general.

[I Wear White Socks]

Non-theists typically attempt to deny that genuine volition exists in any form or degree within our universe, but such attempts ultimately amount to epistemological suicide.

I don't deny volition. I deny the proposition of volitional volition... which theists use to arbitrarily flip the definition of freedom back and forth between willing to chose to choosing to will.

[EduChris]

...Volition would honestly just keep spiraling out because honestly if it takes a creator to create the universe, which some would say is too complex to have come into being on it's own, then what created the creator and so on?...

The problem of infinite regress is easily solved by means of a logical tool known as a black box, a logical wrapping that we place around the non-contingent reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves.

The black box of non-contingent reality might contain an infinite regress or an infinite loop or just about anything. The only salient fact is that the black box, whatever it contains, represents the non-contingent reality which accounts for the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. If this black box contains any element of volition, then theism would be true, and non-theism would be false.

[LiamOS]

Can you tell me the difference, in terms of positive vs. negative claims, between the following two sentences?

1) It is doubtful that chance and necessity alone provide the best available explanation for our universe and our selves.

2) It is doubtful that anything other than chance and/or necessity is the best available explanation for the existence of the universe.

If there isn't any significant difference between the claims, then the standard non-theist attempt to seize the so-called "default position" (i.e., making no positive claim) is exposed as nothing more than semantic legerdemain.

Both of the above statements are largely equal without any supporting reasoning or evidence. However, I really fail to see your point. Both of the above claims could very easily be held by a non-theist, nor is one a prerequisite to being a non-theist.

That's as good a faith-based sentiment as any, but the question of the universe's existence might very well involve volition.

It may, indeed, but that is extremely unlikely due to the observed nature of volition. Nothing resembling volition has been observed outside a very small lengthscale and a very small timescale, and I'd go one step further in saying that, as best as we can tell, volition is merely an illusion(The laws of physics appear to apply to 'volitional' beings no different to elsewhere). Attempting to confirm volition without using means independent of it is also flawed for obvious reasons.

[bluethread]

I am impressed with the course this thread has taken. Rather than each side becoming defensive, there seems to have been an honest search for understanding on all sides.

To sum up some of what has been said, neither atheism nor theism are religons, but phylosophies. I agree with this, but I would extend that to say that even christianity is not a religion. It is my understanding that religion is the practice of one's phylosophical beliefs. This is more easily identified where such practices are codified and enforced. That is why phylosophies such as christianity are often mistaken for religions. It also makes it easier for atheists to denigh being religious since common atheistic tenets are not codified as atheist, but are merely stated as reasonable, factual or scientifically verifiable.

I do think that the presumption that refering to atheism as a religion is to be presumed to be an insult. If I recall, the one time I have made that statement on this sight, I was countering an assertion that theists were some how inferior because they have tenets and rituals. Rather then deal with the common but incorrect usage of the term religion when refering to theism at that time, I chose to apply the presumption to atheism. I was not using this as an insult, but as a comparative. As with atheism, the various views on how the universe works very from person to person. Both atheism and theism have their fatalistic factions (anarchist/deist), scientific factions (evolutionist/creationist), moralist factions (humanist/legalist), etc. In fact, I think one would be hard pressed to find a theistic religious faction that is not mirrored by an atheistic one. It appears to me that the view that atheism is not equivalent to theism with regard to religion is more of a tool of atheist that allows them to generalize about the peculiar practices of some theists while avoiding having to defend any querky behaviors that some atheists might have.