God's existence needs a belief. Someone who believes in his existence. This state of mind is based on faith. And faith is a sacred/religious concept. Then, God necessarily depends on all of these characteristics to exist himself. If you think deeply it would be even worthless the existence of God in a world without religion. What would be the aim of God then?

Check this paper: The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion and Religious Value

I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism of metaphysics, that is, the precondition that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous critique of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality. - Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft
Kant believed, indeed, that morality was what religion was all about and that it provided a basis for rational belief in concepts like God, freedom, and immortality; but this provided no ground for any other aspects of traditional religious practice, belief, or experience :flower:

Rudolf Otto takes the Latin word numen, "the might of a deity, majesty, divinity" and coins the term "numinous" to describe either religious feelings or the religious aspect attributed by those feelings to experiences and objects. He characterizes the feelings as involving 1) ultimacy, 2) mystery (mysterium), 3) awe (tremendum), 4) fascination (fascinans), and 5) satisfaction. Unassociated with any objects, the sense of the numinous is a feeling of "daemonic dread," a sense of the uncanny, frightful, eerie, weird, or supernatural. These feelings make us feel vulnerable and overpowered, what Otto calls "creature feeling."


Conclusion: God depends on religion because the religious nature is how God is fed.

But still, I don't see why belief in God requires being religious. — Yohan

Belief in god doesn't need religion just as religions don't need a belief in god. For the latter I think of Soviet era communism. The distinction between having religion and having a belief in god/s is an old one. Religion of course is notoriously difficult to define; Karen Armstrong, a popular writer on religions has stated that religion can't really be defined. She knows more than I do about religions so I am happy to accept this view. Besides, my friend Suzy, an academic here, believes in god but holds no holy book as sacred and attends no church or temple or follows any doctrines. She is a theist with no religion. There are many such folk.

A religion is a practice.

A g/G is a theory.

Some practices have (need) a theory and some don't.

You don't have to go that far. A simple answer can be given by examining religions in which "God" or a "Supreme Being" or a "Higher Power" is not a part. They are called non-theistic religions.

The first and most important of them is Buddhism. (There may be some secondary deities, but only in some of its forms.)

Then, we have: Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism and Taoism
(The first two are considered as faiths or beliefs, but they still carry the concept and attribute of "religion".)

Then, there are a lot of relatively modern religions --recongized officially as such-- where God or Supreme Being, etc. play no role in them, but do not make the "headlines" ...

A religion seems to be when there is revered beliefs and ideals.
If you revere your favourite band or movie, it can become like a religion, a lifestyle. Probably because the band or movie gives expression to some cherished ideal.

I'm confused sometimes if I should welcome or repress reverence, since I think it tends to be an exaggeration of the worth of something. Yet, it also makes the thing more appreciated when its revered.

Then, we have: Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism and Taoism
(The first two are considered as faiths or beliefs, but they still carry the concept and attribute of "religion".) — Alkis Piskas

Agnosticism and atheism aren't generally considered religions if that's what you meant to say. If that is what you meant to say, can you explain?

Then, we have: Agnosticism, Atheism — Alkis Piskas

Huh? Isn't this just a misplaced notion that evangelicals sometimes produce? You might call some expressions of humanism a religion. Atheism, however, is just a position on one thing - they are not convinced god/s exist. If there is more to it than this, it's probably something else.

Faith connotes worship.

Agnosticism – "I don't know whether or not to worship any god."

Atheism – "I don't worship this god, or I don't worship those gods, or I don't worship any god."

"What is religion?" said jesting Ciceronianus; and would not stay for an answer.

Just drawing attention to The Concept of Religion and to the tread on that topic.

Where's @Wayfarer?

Faith connotes worship. — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

If you revere your favourite band or movie, it can become like a religion, — Yohan

This is only a figure of speech. From this aspect, there are millions of religions in the world.
Let's don't vandalize the concept of religion, the term "religion" and religion itself!

Agnosticism and atheism aren't generally considered religions if that's what you meant to say. — praxis

No, I didn't mean that atheism and agnosticism are or are considered religions. What I said, that "they still carry the concept and attribute of 'religion'" is ineed wrong and thank you for noticing it. I would better say that they are related to religion.

And in the following reference, atheism is more than just related to religion:
"A recent case handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals holds that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution." (https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-4-707.pdf))

Anyway, you shouldn't pay that much attention to this detail, which was a secondary and unimportant point in my whole post. It is my whole point where you should put your attention on and comment on.

E tu, Brute?
Are you too trying to find mistakes in secondary and unimportant points and stick on them, like @praxis?
I said --in parenthesis-- about agnostisism and atheism that they "carry the concept of religion" and that was wrong indeed. I would have rather said that they are related to religion.

And what a "coincidence": Neither you nor @praxis have commented on my whole point which was the essence of my response to the topic and much more important than the above mistake.

Next time please try to comment on my whole point. Both of you.

Next time please try to comment on my whole point. Both of you. — Alkis Piskas

I did, sorry if I missed that part of it. :pray: Nevertheless, I enjoy pontificating about the notion of atheism as a faith regardless of your clarifications.

Are you too trying to find mistakes in secondary and unimportant points and stick on them, — Alkis Piskas

No. I often find the subsidiary points people make far more interesting than their primary argument - this is not a comment on you, but a general observation.

Your main point about non theistic faiths was fine, which is why I left it alone. :wink:

Just a follow up - when people say atheism is a belief, I general say, 'actually it's a lack of belief.' Just as not believing in fairies is not a belief. No one belongs to the 'Not A Believer in Fairies' school. Of course, I am talking here about a specific usage of 'belief', not just what a person believes...

:up:

Your main point about non theistic faiths was fine, which is why I left it alone — Tom Storm

Glad to hear that. Not esp. because you accepted it --it would be also fine if you didn't-- but because you have read it! :smile:

Just a follow up - when people say atheism is a belief, I general say, 'actually it's a lack of belief.' — Tom Storm

I agree. Yet, some atheists try also to prove that God doesn't exist. Which has no sense, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread and elsewhere. You can't prove --and it doesn't make sense trying to do so-- that something does not exist, which you assume a priori that it doesn't exist or which has never been proved to exist! We create an imaginary God in a arbitrary way, we give it imaginary attributes. also in a arbitrary way, and then we try to prove that it doesn't exist neither are its attributes!
An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of God. That's all. And this does not mean that he/she does not have a religion or is not a religious person in general him/herself.

Just as not believing in fairies is not a belief. — Tom Storm

Right. It's a lack of belief, as you said earlier.

Of course, I am talking here about a specific usage of 'belief', not just what a person believes... — Tom Storm

I know.

Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment. The establishment clause not only prohibits governments from directly establishing a religion, but also prohibits them from favoring one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.

An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of God. That's all. — Alkis Piskas

The options as far as CONVICTION of God's reality are:
1. I lack conviction that God is real or unreal.
2. I am convinced God is real.
3. I am convinced God is not real.

I am convinced these are the common everyday meanings of agnostic, theist, and atheist.

We create an imaginary God in a arbitrary way, we give it imaginary attributes — Alkis Piskas

This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic.

Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment. — praxis

Yes, I mentioned that to you earlier, didn't I?
"A recent case handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals holds that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution." (https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-4-707.pdf))

Yes, and you also wrote:

atheism is more than just related to religion — Alkis Piskas

What exactly do you mean by that? Simply that it’s necessarily treated like one under the First Amendment?

A better question: why did you point out the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pdf in the first place?

This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic. — Yohan

This is exactly the definition of atheist, not agnostic.

Let's put them both in their right place. I will bring in two standard references: one dictionary and one encyclopedia. Anyone is welcome of course to bring in other standard sources.

1) Agnostisicm
(Agnostic is) "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." (Oxford LEXICO)
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that ''human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.'' (Wikipedia)
Common in both: "Nothing is known or can be known about God"

2) Atheism
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (Oxford LEXICO)
"In the broadest sense, it is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. (Wikipedia)
Common in both: "Lack of belief in the existence of God"

What exactly do you mean by that? Simply that it’s necessarily treated like one under the First Amendment? — praxis

No, this is what you said: "Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment."
What I talked abouy is Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Anyway, let's do not continue going astray from the topic, esp. talking about such a trivial matter ... I'm not interested, anyway.

What I talked about is Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. — Alkis Piskas

Why? What does it have to do with defining religion? The implication seemed to be that mentioning it somehow supports the notion that atheism is a religion or religion-like. If that’s not the intended implication then fine.

This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic.
— Yohan
This is exactly the definition of atheist, not agnostic. — Alkis Piskas

I told you what I believe these words mean in their most everyday usage.
Do you disagree that I offered decent definitions of their everyday meaning?

As I said, not interested. Sorry.

Do you disagree that I offered decent definitions of their everyday meaning? — Yohan

No, not at all. I appreciated this. Personal definitions are just fine. As far as they do not deviate much from standard ones. That's why I prefer using mainly the second ones. They are the best and safest way in discussing based on common terms and not on misundestood, misinterrpreted and/or distorted definitions or descriptions.

Personal definitions are just fine. As far as they do not deviate much from standard ones. That's why I prefer using mainly the second ones. — Alkis Piskas

Who's standards?
Academics have one set of standards. Non academics often have other standards.

Atheism, theism, and agnosticism, have been around a long time and in other languages and traditions, with their own words that may have different meanings.
And these words are about God. Do you think there is a standard definition for God across all religions cultures and times?

For example,
"The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

Your interest is no concern of mine so there is no reason for you to express sorrow or regret.

We have no choice but to conclude from your silence on the matter that mentioning the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case (the link is bad, btw) is in no way intended to somehow imply support for the notion that atheism is a religion or religion-like and your reason for pointing out the case has become one of the great TPF mysteries that we must face alone and without your kindly assistance.

I think many people do seperate God from organised or official religion.

Sometimes I think God should just be an umbrella term including belief in an Eternal morality with consequences.

Ergo morality is objective,eternal and supreme. Eg Karma.