Warbler said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
darth_ender said:
atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.
Nope, it's real easy. It's not a religion.
I'd say it was the religion of no religion.
That's like saying a flower is a type of concrete because it doesn't have concrete in it.
Let's say somebody wanted to practice it as such... Where is the Holy-Book? Where are the places of worship? Where is the deity? Where is the religious figurehead? Where are the doctrines? Where are the priests? Where is the organised structure? Where are the forms of dress? Where are the rules? Where is the rigidly defined creation myth? Where is the iconography?
I would argue that a religion doesn't need that stuff.
What the hell is a religion without a set of principles?
Warbler said:
DominicCobb said:
Essentially you're saying atheists have faith in their lack of faith. Interesting.
They have faith that there is no God.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for theists to grasp.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith
Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind. Someone who has never heard of the concept of "gods" would not believe in them. Under the broader definition of atheism, they would be an atheist and yet not have faith that no gods exist. Similarly, someone who has been given evidence and simply finds it lacking (the classic narrower definition of atheist) would also not be relying on faith for his or her lack of belief.