If someone wants to call atheism religious, it may not be strictly accurate, but I don't have a problem with that. There are lots of things people are religious about that don't involve god/s - sport is a popular example. I have a friend who says he is religious about movies and goes to see a film each week at the same day and time. Like a church service. But there's no god...

If people are passionate about a belief that's great whether it be secular or theistic. Indifference and boredom are much less appealing modes to me. But none of this means that going to cinema or being an atheist is the same thing as being a Catholic or observant Jew. Religion is used here to denote passion and dedication.

.

What you may often find in Atheists is a kind of seething contempt for religion and religious people, — whollyrolling

Hope you don't mind me responding too.

I agree. They often do. Of course religious people often have seething contempt for atheists. They are often both held as flawed positions.

Atheism has no meaning, or it is a religion as I've suggested elsewhere, it can't go both ways. — whollyrolling

Interesting idea. I think all ideas have meaning, even if they are ostensibly about nothing. If you lack belief in a creator deity that is likely to be a trigger for all sorts of potential beliefs or actions.

I used to call myself an atheist, but as you and others are demonstrating here, that doesn't really fit does it? — whollyrolling

I think it does fit. You're an atheist with a particular way of looking at it. Nothing wrong with that. Would your notion of an ideal atheist (if you'll forgive the term) remain silent on the issue?

Yes, it's always good to be euphoric about something. Be it gods, science, astrology, or the witches within. You can be religious about the developing Johnny Depp trial, the Webb telescope, about love, the neighbor, your canary, or sculptures and paintings. Prove of existence or even the question if something/someone really exists is of no real importance. The important thing is if gods exist in someone's experience. If so, gods exist.

.

Also, a Christian will not likely engage in debate or other antics with an Atheist, as they find it idle or unappealing, fruitless — whollyrolling

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

There are literally many thousands of apologists (Christian and Muslim) eagerly debating atheists - even on Tik Tok. Plus there are Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons knocking on doors every day all over the world looking to convert.

An Atheist, on the other hand, has contempt for something that doesn't exist and for anyone who says it exists — whollyrolling

Some Atheists are cunts. We know that. I think the issue that upsets and angers atheists are the political and social philosophies of Islam and Christianity - the attitudes towards women and gay people and the changing of laws to suit a religious worldview and what can be taught in schools.

Some examples (I don't agree with all) of disliked religious worldview positions cribbed from American Atheists include:

. The discouragement of rational, critical thought. 
2. Vilification of homosexuality, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning their children, murder, and suicide.
 3. Women treated like second-class citizens based on religious teachings.
 4. Children growing up to hate and fear science and scientists, because science disproves their parents’ religion – leading to appalling scientific illiteracy. 
5. Tens of thousands tortured and killed as witches (a practice which still continues today).
6. People aren’t making the most of this life because of their belief in an afterlife.
7. People dying because they believe their faith makes them immune to snake venom, or other lethal aspects of reality.
8. People dying – and letting their children die – because their religion forbids accepting medical help.
9. People choked, starved, poisoned, or beaten to death during exorcisms.
10. Genital mutilation of babies endorsed by religious texts.
11. Psychological and physiological conditions blamed on demons, preventing believers from seeking medical care for themselves and their children.
12. People disowning family members for leaving their religion.
13. Friendships and romances severed or never started over religious differences.
14. “Abstinence-only” sex education, resulting in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies – often leading to ill-fated “emergency” marriages.
15. Women having septic abortions—or being forced to have unwanted children they resent—because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.
16. Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.
17. The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans (“They’re devil-worshipers!”)
18. Children spending the period of their lives when the brain is most receptive to learning new information reading, rereading, and even memorizing religious texts.
19. People who believe the world is about to end neglect their education, are not financially responsible, and in extreme cases take part in mass suicides.
20. Long-term environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that the rapture/apocalypse or something will happen soon, so they don’t matter.
21. Wives told they will be tortured forever if they leave their abusive husbands (and vice versa).
22. Holy wars – followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.
23. The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.
24. Slavery condoned by religious texts.
25. Children traumatized by vivid stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they’ll be too frightened to even question religion.
26. Terminal patients in constant agony who would end their lives if they didn’t believe it would result in eternal torture.
 27. School boards having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. 
28. Persecution of “heretics”/scientists, like Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake) and Galileo Galilei.
 29. Blue laws forcing other businesses to stay closed or limit sales, while churches can generate more revenue.
 30. Mayors, senators, and presidents voted into office not because they’re right for the job, but because of their religious beliefs. 
31. Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children).
32. People accepting visual and auditory hallucinations unquestioningly as divine, sometimes with fatal results.
 33. Discrimination against atheists, such as laws stating they may not hold public office or testify in court, or in half a dozen countries around the world, laws requiring their execution
 34. Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, “heathen” religions and cultures.
35. Hardship compounded by the guilt required to reconcile the idea of a fair god with reality (“why is God punishing me? What have I done wrong? Don’t I have enough faith?”).
 36. Human achievements—from skillful surgery to to emergency landings—attributed to gods instead of to the people actually responsible.
 37. Mother Teresa, prolonging the agony of terminal patients and denying them pain relief, so she can offer their suffering as a gift to her god. 
38. Tens of billions annually in the US alone spent to build, maintain, and staff houses of worship.
 39. Grief and horror caused by the belief that dead friends and family members are tortured as punishment for disbelief.
 40. Natural disasters and other tragedies used to claim God is displeased and present demands to avoid similar events (it’s like terrorism, but without having to plan or do anything)

**

I get that there are atheists, especially in theocracies and in countries where religions have significant influence, who are irritable or pissed. The biggest disputes between people are those where values clash. What the list demonstrates is that there are many potential issues at stake when it comes to a belief in god/s and what this can mean more broadly. That's all.

.

Yet their very own bible warns them against this behaviour. — whollyrolling

Not that believers ever follow or even much read their Bibles. There are passages encouraging evangelism (below) and it's a very old tradition, including the significant missionary work here in Australia where so many Aboriginal children were taken from parents and often put into Christian orphanages. I've worked with many of the victims over the past 30 years.

Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus says, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

American Atheists rely on extremism to condemn whole populations. They find rare instances and paint them as status quo. — whollyrolling

I'll take your word for it, I don't know them. The list covers variations of many things atheists accept around the world. Many also held by a primary influence on my early thinking; Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark, who wrote one of the most damning indictments of Christianity called Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (amongst others).

But essentially you and I have demonstrated a key issue here: different values. What could be more disruptive to people and their relationships? I think much of this list is accurate. You do not. So we're probably stuck. How are such values differences resolved? Is it even possible? Trying to debate this further could be as relentlessly futile as attempting to explain why the French think Jerry Lewis is funny.

The list, whatever you may think of its merits, demonstrates that there are larger cultural and values issues inherent in the god belief caper.

Thanks for your interest and well argued responses.

.

What are intangibles? Could you define your term?

There is one form of atheism, not "forms". — whollyrolling

You don’t get to dictate systems of belief or lack thereof, nor do you get to dictate how people wish to define said systems. Are you saying there is no diversity among atheistic positions? If so, provide an argument. If not, then there is diversity, thus “forms” of atheism.

What are intangibles? Could you define your term? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Things you can't touch, in principle. Out of reach of experimental verification.

.

You don’t get to dictate systems of belief or lack thereof, nor do you get to dictate how people wish to define said systems. Are you saying there is no diversity among atheistic positions? If so, provide an argument. If not, then there is diversity, thus “forms” of atheism. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme.

I label myself "atheist" because I don't believe in a god of religion (I believe such a hypothetical being does not exist). I also label myself as "agnostic deist": I consider it a live possibility (and only a possibility) there exists some sort of teleological locus - a generic "deity" that establishes a direction for the evolution of the universe.

IMO, most self-labelled atheists have somewhat unique sets of beliefs, like I do. Consequently, it may not be worthwhile to categorize atheists into "forms" or "systems", like one can with religions and denominations of Christianity. It may cloud one's understanding of individuals. But if you feel compelled to categorize, I suggest identifying clusters of beliefs among people who self-identify as atheist or agnostic, while bearing in mind the beliefs of any individual are more nuanced. Perhaps there are some sociological studies that do this. But if you're grouping people based on personal observation, I question the usefulness.

.

Thats what I thought you meant. If we are, by definition, unable to verify a thing (empirically im assuming), then how can we justify believing that it exists? Are we speaking of some platonic existence?

Thats what I thought you meant. If we are, by definition, unable to verify a thing (empirically im assuming), then how can we justify believing that it exists? Are we speaking of some platonic existence? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

In some sense, yes. Plato's mathematical heaven can't be known though. The heavenly gods can be known though by looking around. We are not their shadows but material copies and the gods actually might make contact with us. And we with them, as must be the case as they watch us.

So then, wouldn't it stand to reason that if someone categorizes individual Christians it may end the same way? — whollyrolling

Despite there being plenty of deviation by individuals, if someone tells me they're Catholic, Evangelical Christian, LDS, or Jehovah's Witness, I can make some reasonable assumptions about some of their core beliefs. On the other hand, atheism is so broad, there's not much one can reasonably assume.

Relativist: "It may cloud one's understanding of individuals."

I'm saying that atheism is simple and that peripheral belief systems, much like what happens with religion outside the definition of theism, are not inherent to the labels "theist" or "atheist". — whollyrolling

No individual's belief system is "simple". Of course, you can draw some simple distinctions - like inferring that as an atheist I don't believe in "God", but the sort of inferences you can justifiably make are limited. As an example from personal experience: I've encountered many strawman arguments that "prove" atheism is false, which are pointless if they apply to almost no one.

What objective do you have in mind for drawing certain (simple?) distinctions about atheists (or clusters of atheists)?

A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A

-"A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid."
-A god hypothesis requires Objective facts for the default position of atheism to be rejected.

-"We look and that is what we see."
-That is a faith based statement. You need to verify theism objectively for atheism to become invalid.

-"Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself."
-Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden. Its the Default Position defined by the Null Hypothesis of Logic.

-" Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion."
-God concepts existed well before and outside bible. Atheism doesn't just reject the gods proposed in the bible, but by all known supernatural religions.

Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. — Gregory A

-Gregory...you haven't studied the topic, haven't you!
Theism promotes claims as explanations...it doesn't explain anything(Made up mysterious explanatiosn don't have explanatory power).
Gregory! Atheism challenges the truth value of those explanations.
Atheism is the rejection of the unfounded claims made by theism! IT isn't its job to pretend to have explanations like theism does!

Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. — Gregory A

Gregory!!!!(Philosophical)Naturalism is the counter-position of Supernaturalism. You are doing a category error. While Theism is part of Supernaturalism and Atheism only focus on the rejection of the theistic claim.
Gregory!!!!Atheism doesn't address the supernatural in general. There are Atheists that embrace supernatural explanations that do not include theism.!!!(Buddhists, Raelians, New agers etc etc)

Gregory!!!! Atheism doesn't occupy any non existent middle grounds! IT a reasonable position one holds on an unfounded belief. EIther we accept or reject a belief claim...there is No middle ground and Atheism clearly holds one from those two possible positions.

The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example. — Gregory A

-Gregory!!!! you are making a fallacious arguments from false authority. The metaphysical beliefs of humans who happen to work in Scientific field are irrelevant to the evaluation of those beliefs!
Gould was right , Religions Should be non-overlapping magisteria, but unfortunately, religions tend to make claims about the physical realm and this is when we are able totest them by doing science.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists. — Gregory A

-Gregory!!!! lol....validity has nothing to do with the reason why a position exists! People make unfounded supernatural claims and other people through reason are free to evaluate them and reject them as irrational!

The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right. — Gregory A

-Gregory!!!! your statements are nonsensical. The validity of the rejection of Theism comes from Logic. The Null Hypothesis,the failure of the postion to meet its burden of proof, the unfalsifiability of the theistic position and the unparsimonious nature of it. Naturalism is irrelevant to the Default Position of Atheism!

Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc. — Gregory A

You shouldn't ! You should use logic and reject theism as an irrational, not as a wrong belief.

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left). — Gregory A

Your claims become weirder and weirder. Atheism has nothing to do with free speech. After all in many countries of this world you can lose your life if you say openly you are an Atheist.
-Gregory!!!! you need to go back on the drawing board...find out what's bugging you and construct real arguments....Your emotions you have for Atheists are not arguments.

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument. — L'éléphant

I am not sure you understand Atheism or what a circular argument is.
Atheism rejects all known god claims because they have failed to meet their burden...that's all.

The important thing is if gods exist in someone's experience. If so, gods exist. — Hillary

-lol not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? lol

not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? — Nickolasgaspar

That can be verified very easily. Just look at my bank account. I'm pretty sure I'm no billionaire...

Atheism rejects all known god claims because they have failed to meet their burden...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar

It is like saying everyone either lives in Paris or not. World is Parisians (God) or non-Parisians(Atheist).

You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. You either live in Paris or you don't.

So why do you use Objective evidence to verify your economic state...but you reject them in other existential claims?? Special pleading.....right?

You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. — Nickolasgaspar

Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa.

On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. It's not an incorrigible belief, but it's a justifiable one, in that it's the best explanation for the available evidence.

-"Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa"
-Rejection is not a judgment (whether a claim is true or not true). Reserving judgment means that you don't accept (reject) a claim that isn't supported by evidence.

-"e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa."
So the claim is "there is life on Europa". You reject that claim until it can be justified by evidence.

On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. — Relativist

Sure , but in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim.

You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. You either live in Paris or you don't. — Nickolasgaspar

Agree.

:100:

in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't understand what you're saying. If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. Rejection means I believe it false. I neither accept nor reject the proposition "there is life of Europa"; i.e. I reserve judgment. You seem to use the words differently.