User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
Athiesm A Religion?

Why does it seem that athiests are so vocal and outspoken about doing away with any "Christian/religious" artifacts, symbols, etc. Any why does it seem that athiests are suing "Christians" to have these things removed because they don't "believe" in it? I mean, aren't athiests pushing their religion onto society at the expence of other religions?

I think Atheism is called a religion because the people in it...

1. BELIEVE that there are no gods. 2. DON'T WANT to believe that there are gods. 3. Try to gain ...theist-to-atheist converts.

First of all, atheism is not a religion. To think so is to grossly misinterpret the term "religion." There are no collective beliefs inherent to atheism. More than that, there are no beliefs at all inherent.

Nobody is suing christians to remove christian symbols. I don't know where you got that rediculous notion, but I'm certain you cannot back it up or cite such cases.

There have, though, been lawsuits against government bodies for endorsing religion, if that's what you mean. Part of that whole first amendment thing. Even then, it's not necessarily atheists suing. I would say that is a rarity.

There is no "expense to other religions" whatsoever. Nobody is preventing religious people from practicing their religion. There is no pushing of a "religion." There may be a pushing of government standards upon the government, but that hardly has much to do with the way citizens practice. Poor christians, they aren't able to use the government to force their views on others anymore. When will the persecution end?

Then, does that mean you don't BELIEVE that there are no gods? And you also DON'T believe that there are gods?

Are you getting my point?

To answer your first question, yes. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That is not the same as believing there are no gods.

So your point is moot as it contains an incorrect assumption of what atheism means.

The only thing I'm tyring to point out is belief.

Belief in what? Atheism does not imply any belief. Simple as that.

Whatever you are trying to point out, perhaps you should try a little harder, as this post is not clear.

Beliefs (I can only count 2 but I know there's more):

<!p>There is no god. I think there is a God for atheists - ENERGY. It's neither created nor destroyed. Thus, its the creator of all things.<!/p>

<!p>Big Bang - It was not even witnessed. Yet atheists say its credible because its scientific. But this is the story of Big Bang:<!/p>

<!p>In the beginning, there was NOTHING. And this nothing EXPLODED and became SOMETHING. - How scientific is that?<!/p>

No offense, but you have made some extremely ignorant statements about atheism.

1) Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. We already went over that. Not believing something is not the same as believing the opposite.

2) Energy is god? Seriously, where did you get such a rediculous idea as that. Atheists do not worship energy. There cannot be a god for atheists. If there were, they would not be atheists. That one is self explanatory.

3) Your complete lack of understanding of the "Big Bang" aside, it has nothing to do with atheism. It is quite ignorant to assume that atheists believe in this idea just because we don't buy the idea that some invisible bloke in the sky made us out of dirt.

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you wish to argue. While I disagree that atheism is a religion, that point can be debated. However, atheists inherently believing there are no gods, energy being a god, and all atheists subsribing to the "Big Bang" are not debatable assertions, they are simply wrong.

I highly doubt that you have read the F.A.Q. on this site. There is a link on the left bar. It gives simple concise clarification to some of the questions you asked, and can perhaps give you some footing for a discussion.

Energy is a deity? Man are you way off. Energy doesn't think and is not a being. It doesn't "control" anything, even though it is a part of everything. It's not a 'higher power', rather it's just something that makes up everything. There is no need to please the thing, nor does the thing care in any way. It's not the creator of all things rather it's the makeup off all things. There is a difference. You seem to have a differing definition of what a 'god' is. Why don't you explain your definition. On top of that, an atheist isn't even required to be good at science or even 'believe' in energy to be an atheist. The only requirement to be an atheist is to not be a theist.

Big Bang is an argument in and of itself. I personally don't agree with it in some aspects, but that still doesn't say it's not credible. Plus, again atheist don't have to agree with science. Science at the same time doesn't not claim to be correct on all things, nor does it claim to have the answers to all things. It's more of a tool used to help us explain what is going on around us. Why do you think we call theories theories? Not because they are not solid, but because of the nature of science itself excludes things from being called fact even though they have hordes of data backing it. All theories can be replaced by better more thorough ones if they can be found, this is the scientific process. Big Bang is something to try and describe the beginnings of the known universe using what data they can scrape up from what we can see and pick up from what is around us. If you come up with a better explanation that can be backed up then it could easily become the next theory in place to describe what happened. This is not a religion that you take on faith. If no sense can be made from what is there then something else will take it's place. One of the biggest problems with the theory I have is the huge extrapolation into the past (which is better than extrapolating into the future) and getting their data from that, but until I or someone else comes up with a better way to explain or compile the data, that will remain in place.

As far as nothing being in the beginning, that is a belief. There was plenty there, and to me that was always there, to form something that we would recognize in our known universe. It matters little anyway, because you can speculate about it all you want, but until there is something to explain it, there may as well have been nothing there. That doesn't mean there was or wasn't. Besides, how can you argue nothing was there and nothing exploded and became something if you didn't believe in the big bang or science for that matter. If you don't think it's scientific, than maybe you should read into it some more and find out what makes it scientific and stop spouting incorrect facts about it.


<!p>If you want substance, check this site:<!/p>


Have you read that link? It pretty clearly states that atheism is not a religion by general standards and can only be considered one in reference to constitutional protection. Not exactly supporting your cause there.

Oh yes it does.


No really, simply gainsaying was a really effective argument.

Don't suppose you care to defend that position, eh?

Well, since this won't end if we both have our stands. I still think it's a religion in terms of BELIEF.

And yes it does.

By that sites definitions, atheism is still not a religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity and has nothing to do with a particular stance on religion. This is the case for Theism also. Theism is merely the belief in a deity and tells nothing of the religion that may be associated with the theism. Hmm, what was definition 2 "religion is that realm of opinion and knowledge that has to do with religion", so it seems that religion is mearly an opinion on theism. Theism is the belief, atheism is not-theism or 'lack of that belief', while neither tells of the opinions toward religions. While many atheists here probably have similar opinions toward some religions, this is not atheism.


This is kind of embarrasing but, I was actually attacking the THEISTS belief about my previous posts. I still stand on my last post.

Religious convictions are more often than not accepting something as truth without meticulous research. Those who have enough faith in a belief are sure that they have indisputable evidence of its basis in fact. However, they give no credibility to scientific study. But no scientific research would be given any standing by the scientific community if there were over 500 books missing. We would never believe something was fact that had so much missing information. It's takes insight and prudence to understand what you believe should not be based on feeling or unconfirmed reporting, it should be an informed opinion based on reliable information and knowledge.

You were attacking theist by giving incorrect information about atheists? Great argument...

OK. Forget my previous posts.

Are you saying that you don't believe in anything?

THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION…. Separation of Church and State is there, spelled out in black and white, in The Constitution of the United Sates. It was put there to thwart any one religion from being forced on the American people, and to prevent any intrusive religion from controlling or interfering with the direction of our democratic processes. We are supposed to be free to believe or disbelieve according to our own judgment. We are not required to believe in anything spiritual, and it is illegal to harass or exploit people in schools, jobs, or in public places because of religion. The people who wrote the Constitution were the most gifted and intelligent people around because they once elected leaders with those qualities, but not today. Today people are influenced to choose insipid people just like themselves, who want another Inquisition, and they want the people who don't fit the mold eliminated. They believe that people who don't have the "right" thinking should be punished, as they have been throughout history. Many of these "conservatives" believe that we should censor (clean up) art, literature, and music. Perhaps this will lead to another Great Library of Alexandria being burned, or a scientist like Galileo, who didn't think the Bible was inerrant, sentenced to life imprisonment for his belief that the earth was not the center of the universe. There is appalling Religious discrimination in state constitutions throughout this country. The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. "An official may be excluded from holding office if she/he does not acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." In some states, a juror or witness might be considered incompetent if they do not believe in the existence of God. These state constitutions consider all Christian denominations equal, and they are protected under law. Non-Christian groups seem to be unprotected. These state constitutions were written long ago, and The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supersedes any state laws or sections of state constitutions, but many political figures today claim to see eye to eye with those who believe that Separation of Church and State is a myth. Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama was ordered to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of his state's judicial building. Moore said he swore to uphold the state and federal constitutions. Moore said that The U.S. Constitution has been misinterpreted by the courts to forbid acknowledgment of God, and that the state's constitution requires it. They just don't comprehend "Separation of Church and State," especially those who ran on "religious" issues. America does not have an official religion, and The U.S. Constitution prevents them from making religion part of the government. I think it is much easier to prove that Separation of Church and State is not a myth than to prove the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Is God visible or not? ( EX 24:9 - 11 ) Moses and the elders of Israel saw God on Mt. Sinai, and they ate and drank together. (Deut 34:10) God knew Moses face-to-face. (1John 4:12 ) No one has ever seen God. (EX 22:18) God ordered the killing of witches, and the nut cases who interpret the inerrant word of God had witch trials, and tortured people. Those found guilty of being witches were burned, in this country, in Salem, in 1692.

"Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods ...Atheism is the belief that theism is false. There is no (Big Fat Atheist) or supernatural or invisible doubter to pray to…atheism is not a religion… (Theist - belief in theology - 'A' theist means no theology.) I don't go after people to force my non-belief in the supernatural on them, but we all know that Christians are brainwashed to do just exactly that. It's not to say that if some X-fanatic become atheist they will do the same, but most atheist are too intelligent for that.

Interesting, we seem to have some contradictions from the atheists with some arguing that atheism is not a believe that there are no gods and some arguing "'Atheist' is a person who believes that no deity exists."

I thought an atheist was someone who did not believe a god or gods existed? I do accept that a person who believes that no gods exist is absolutely also an atheist--but just to clarify a person doesn't have to believe no gods exist in order to be an atheist. He/She can simply not believe that gods exist, and that's all that's required. As was pointed out multiple times above, not believing proposition X is NOT the same as believing proposition -X. I could actually say, "I don't accept the proposition that god/gods exist, as it is not justified; however, I don't know if they exist or not--so I'm not really prepared to promote the proposition that there are no gods. I can only say that I see no reason belief in any gods is currently justified." That is still an atheist.

I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to define - Atheism is a word created by the joining of two different words, "a," meaning without, and "theism," meaning belief in the existence of a god, or a supreme being. Put them together and you have "atheism." Atheism is correctly defined (not as a belief) but as the absence of a belief.

THEISM is a belief in gods or deities. AGNOSTICS think that there is an inability to prove or disprove the existence of gods or of a deity, so it is unknown or innately unknowable. .

AGNOSTIC THEISM is the hypothetical view that includes both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the conviction of certain claims, in particular the existence of god is unknown or unknowable but chooses to believe in god in spite of this.

You'd think it'd be about more than how some people define atheist - that most states required belief in God as a prerequisite to hold public office should be a problem to all people. As an atheist I am a member of the last minority group that is still subject to open and acceptable discrimination. If you want people restricted from holding office because of their lack of spirituality I guess it's not a problem. The Constitution of the U.S. A. does not require this and supersedes state Constitutions. But they still try to use these out-of-date laws to get religion into government. The supernatural world of God and angels and demons. And to endorse political candidates from the pulpit -- I don't care which party you are in, you should think about the implications of this. Sinclair Lewis said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

My idea of the definition for "atheist" is-a person without belief in or adherence to any theology that is currently available. One can still be open minded-like myself. If I wake up in the middle of the night and Jesus is sitting at the end of my bed, glowing in the dark, telling me to take up my cross and follow him, I'll go get me a cross and get going. But I doubt that will ever happen, so as of now, I am without theology, therefore I'm an atheist.

Hummmm! I would think it was hood rats burglarizing not the second coming!

All I can say is that Linda is the most devout Atheist I've met.

But does this mean that you lack in the belief of NOT BELIEVING too?

I'm an atheist with no invisible means of support!

And everyone was a natural-born ATHEIST (No belief whatsoever).

I'm sure everyone is not a "natural born" bible thumper, they're not! Fundies are bred, not born. Religious right-wing-nuts are using democracy to gain legislative power in order to destroy democracy, but say they want to create a democracy in Iraq; a country full of religious fundamentalist fanatics just like them. (It can't be done.) No country can be a democracy and at the same time a theocracy. A country must be secular in order to be free.

Babies are proto-scientists. They experiment, synthesize results, and base predictions for similar actions that they might take on the results.

Religious vehemence just comes to them through osmosis!

I BELIEVE that I am an Atheist. Thus, I am not an atheist.

Nobody says I believe I'm an atheist! I know I'm one! And I think that atheism is simply the lack of theism. Everyone is born an atheist.

Why not put as much effort into changing the world in real ways instead of trying to justify an incoherent and contradictory, abusive, sexist and ignorant Bible?

Haven't you even noticed that I never shared ANY bible verse in this site? For one thing I KNOW you WILL NEVER find it believable.

Second statement: You don't believe in what other Atheists say. Thus, you're an Atheist.

Quote "Haven't you even noticed that I never shared ANY bible verse in this site? For one thing I KNOW you WILL NEVER find it believable."

Thanks for not making us listen. I know more about the Bible than most preachers.

Quote: "Second statement: You don't believe in what other Atheists say. Thus, you're an Atheist."

I think that any belief based on the supernatural or supernatural beings constitutes a faith. Faith in an entity that cannot be proven to exist is not atheism. Atheist wouldn't have much use for those members who would be itching to spread their convictions.

"The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." -- Joseph Conrad,

Athiests, Christians, Muslims, etc. All seem to fall in the same catagory of believing in something that does or doesn't exist without profound proof. The Holy Bible, the Khoran (spelling?) Other than these documents, what physical proof do we have that makes these stories true? Each side of the coin has a legitemate argument. To believe in something that's not there and to not believe in something that's not there. So Athiesm a religion? Sure why not. What's the harm? No one is ever really going to know anyways untill your time has come to leave this earth. So argue if you will and just remember that Santa Clause is keeping a list.

QUOTE - Athiests, Christians, Muslims, etc. All seem to fall in the same catagory of believing in something that does or doesn't exist without profound proof. The Holy Bible, the Khoran (spelling?) Other than these documents, what physical proof do we have that makes these stories true? Each side of the coin has a legitemate argument. To believe in something that's not there and to not believe in something that's not there. So Athiesm a religion? Sure why not. What's the harm? No one is ever really going to know anyways untill your time has come to leave this earth. So argue if you will and just remember that Santa Clause is keeping a list.

ANSWER - Atheists do not have a belief, and this is what the term means! It is mostly theists who are putting out the false claim that (atheism is a religion) because theists don't want skeptics shining the light on their erroneous belief. They can't afford too much scrutiny and they don't want people who are more concerned with how things are now as an alternative to being concerned about a fictional afterlife, but these are the people who will bring us into the future. It would be easier to take care of the problem if the Church could still imprison or behead non-believers. But they can still persecute them and even start wars against other religions. They want public figure to keep their opinions to themselves (and laws to criminalize those mocking its pretensions.)

If they can tag 'disparagement' a religion it's easier to attack. However, secular humanism, realist, skeptics, freethinkers, agnostic, cynicism, all fall into the same category. An atheist is a person without a belief in God. It's clear that not believing in myths, or fables does not constitute a religion.

Examine the components of the word 'atheism.' The word is made up of 'a' and 'theism.' Theism is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

Atheists in many instances do have more knowledge of what it is that they do not affirm, than believers do. Nevertheless, they have rejected that particular concept. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God. Atheists do not believe in gods, not just the one true god, any gods. Atheism, like realism, is about what you can prove is really there! Reality, unlike 'Santa Claus,' is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup