Atheism is actually a religion (not an endorsement, strictly speculative)

One of the biggest things that keep my faith strong in times I may doubt is Atheism.
Atheism is actually a religion, and not the absence of religion.

At it's core, Atheism seeks the same things most religions do: to define reality, it's origins, and our experience of it.
Atheism also seeks to dictate rules for life based on it's core beliefs.
Atheism can't legally be defined as a religion because it's not organized (though I imagine there are small collective groups of atheists that call themselves one thing or another) but various charities and non profits are run for 'atheist' reasons (as opposed to religious ones)

The beauty part about it's core is any 'devout' Atheist must accept they have no free will, making their entire argument moot because it's merely a survival response as the idea of "God is truth" threatens their actual life, making them fear spiritual death and have a fight or flight response in life. Any logic they might try to use is moot because they confess having no free will; they're not actually being logical but instinctively reacting.

Curious what others might think of this line of reasoning?
 
Is the absence of existence the existence of absence? I'm not sure.

I think in simpler terms: athiests are people who have forgone a spiritual birth, and continue to indulge only in their physical nature. Is this act one of following the "religion of athiesm"? I don't know.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
If atheism is false (and God exists), then promoting atheism is extremely evil.

And if atheism were true, then what would even be the point of promoting atheism? After all, there's no such thing as good and evil without God.

There is literally no scenario where promoting atheism does any good at all. It is either morally neutral or unspeakably evil. Those are the only two options.

And yet atheists who actively promote their beliefs to others claim to be moral people and say that you can have morality without religion.
 
Well I guess I was aiming for morally neutral in my bringing it up, but as the title says not an endorsement.
I just like using their own arguments in a way that does more to validate God than the validation to live a godless life.

I think the 'religion of athiesm' was best illustrated in a south park 2 part episode ' Go God Go ' where 3 warring factions in a future timeline that Cartman got sent to from freezing himself and being lost in the snow / ice, were fighting a 'holy war' even though they were all atheists... they shared identical beliefs but killed each other literally, over their label. What to call themselves.

The whole thing ended with the idea that the solution to conflict was to embrace irrational thought over rational thought instead of the other way around.
Something about that concept really struck a chord within me, and I think it gave me a perspective on atheists that if I debate with even the most devout of them I can make them feel like fools for not believing in God, which seems more and more like an obvious truth every day.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
About the free will thing, I noticed that for a few years that's been a big trend of atheists to start embracing the notion that free will is an illusion. Sam Harris is the person that really seems to have popularized the idea with the atheist crowd but the idea was already popular with a lot of people who were either New Atheists or on a similar wavelength as them.

The strange thing is that these people are also the ones screaming the loudest about the importance of truth, reason and science. I don't have see how truth can ever be arrived at if we're at the mercy of inputs from outside of us and our mind just passively accepts it like a wet sponge. Reason goes out the window as well for the same reason. Same goes with a lot of the humanitarian liberal ideas that these atheists love. These ideas are grounded in the individual being able to freely choose their actions and create their own destiny. If there's no free will, it seems like the logical outcome is that society should be like a dystopian 1984 or Brave New World one with a overpowering state that can freely program their citizens since hey - you don't have free will and every part of you is shaped by forces outside of you so having Big Brother determine your very being isn't really any different that happens anyways.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think Sam Harris actually has promoted 1984ish policies such as developing technology that allows to peer into people's minds to see what they are thinking so it can be determined if they are lying or not. Dawkins has also promoted eugenics. A lot of these New Atheists in addition to being liberals are also tech-utopians so they are attracted to these big scientific projects to "perfect" humanity. These sort of projects often clash with liberal ideals so every and now and then, you see the contradictions bubble up when one of these people are vomiting out ideas on Twitter or a podcast.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
About the free will thing, I noticed that for a few years that's been a big trend of atheists to start embracing the notion that free will is an illusion...
The YouTube channel Inspiring Philosophy has a video (I forget which video) where he talks about how quantum theory shows determinism to be false.

Instead of outcomes being determined 100% by preceding causes, there is instead a different probability that any given outcome will happen. This means that having the same causes/inputs does not necessarily mean you will have the same effect/output.

Technically, it would be possible for your computer to randomly start levitating in the air. It is just astronomically unlikely.

EDIT: I just found the video:

 

y2k

Sparrow
Atheists usually self-identify their faith in there not being a god as a lack of belief. This is not really correct when it is actually a belief in there not being a god. Atheists define as god a super-natural power, which is not true in many cases. Most pagans I have met in real life did not really believe in the existence of their gods, they worshiped them as projections of their values and worshiped their pantheons as their identity (autotheism).

A god is not always defined by power, it is defined by worship and devotion and gods usually personify abstract values.

Most "atheists" are not really valueless nihilists and so are not really atheists. Absolute atheism is nihilism, and nihilism is unstable, it cannot sustain itself (in an individual or a community).

Well I guess I was aiming for morally neutral in my bringing it up, but as the title says not an endorsement.
I just like using their own arguments in a way that does more to validate God than the validation to live a godless life.

I think the 'religion of athiesm' was best illustrated in a south park 2 part episode ' Go God Go ' where 3 warring factions in a future timeline that Cartman got sent to from freezing himself and being lost in the snow / ice, were fighting a 'holy war' even though they were all atheists... they shared identical beliefs but killed each other literally, over their label. What to call themselves.

The whole thing ended with the idea that the solution to conflict was to embrace irrational thought over rational thought instead of the other way around.
Something about that concept really struck a chord within me, and I think it gave me a perspective on atheists that if I debate with even the most devout of them I can make them feel like fools for not believing in God, which seems more and more like an obvious truth every day.

There are as many "atheisms" out there as "atheists".

Relevant post in another thread:
Incels taking the white pill

The phenomenon of black-pilled "Incels" taking the white-pill is a case of disillusioned nihilism being resolved by adopting god(s) and a way of life (religion). In many cases, they adopt a way of life that does not completely align with the physical world, another blue-pill.

Islam (link to datasheet on Islam) explicitly teaches in there not being a god except the Old Testament God, the Creator. There are more links to my posts on Islam in my signature and the About page in my profile. An "ilah", a god, in Arabic means one that is deemed worthy of worship. When a Muslim utters "La ilaha illa Allah" they are saying that "there is no god but God".
 
at their core - Atheists believe that everything came into being without a creator and without purpose. An agnostic says "I am not sure" the atheist says "I am sure, I have no doubts" - yes it is a form faith about the nature of existence - at its core a believe that is irrational which explains to some extent the crazy behavior and raging anger.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
There is in Man an inclination to know the Divine. The second inclination in him - that is, in the Man of this era - is to know the Christ. The third inclination in Man is to know what is usually called the Spirit, or also the Holy Ghost.

1. Where a Man denies the Father God - denies a Divine Principle in the world as such - there is an actual physical defect, a physical sickness, a physical flaw in the body.

To be an atheist means to the spiritual scientist to be sick in some respect... an actual sickness in a man who denies what he should be able to feel, through his actual bodily constitution. If he denies that which gives him a healthy bodily feeling, namely that the world is pervaded by Divinity, then he is a sick man, sick in body.

2. There are also many who deny the Christ. The denial of the Christ as is denial of something that is essentially a matter of destiny and concerns man's soul-life.

To deny God is a sickness; to deny the Christ is a calamity.

3. To deny the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, signifies dullness, obtuseness, of a man's own spirit.

*

So - atheism denotes an actual pathological defect. Failure to find in life that link with the world which enables us to recognise the Christ, is a calamity for the soul. To be unable to find the Spirit in one's own inmost being denotes obtuseness, a kind of spiritual mental deficiency, though in a subtle and unacknowledged form.
 
About the free will thing, I noticed that for a few years that's been a big trend of atheists to start embracing the notion that free will is an illusion. Sam Harris is the person that really seems to have popularized the idea with the atheist crowd but the idea was already popular with a lot of people who were either New Atheists or on a similar wavelength as them.

The strange thing is that these people are also the ones screaming the loudest about the importance of truth, reason and science. I don't have see how truth can ever be arrived at if we're at the mercy of inputs from outside of us and our mind just passively accepts it like a wet sponge. Reason goes out the window as well for the same reason. Same goes with a lot of the humanitarian liberal ideas that these atheists love. These ideas are grounded in the individual being able to freely choose their actions and create their own destiny. If there's no free will, it seems like the logical outcome is that society should be like a dystopian 1984 or Brave New World one with a overpowering state that can freely program their citizens since hey - you don't have free will and every part of you is shaped by forces outside of you so having Big Brother determine your very being isn't really any different that happens anyways.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think Sam Harris actually has promoted 1984ish policies such as developing technology that allows to peer into people's minds to see what they are thinking so it can be determined if they are lying or not. Dawkins has also promoted eugenics. A lot of these New Atheists in addition to being liberals are also tech-utopians so they are attracted to these big scientific projects to "perfect" humanity. These sort of projects often clash with liberal ideals so every and now and then, you see the contradictions bubble up when one of these people are vomiting out ideas on Twitter or a podcast.

Love it.
This idea of a dystopia is precisely what the 'media' is trying to sell us with popular culture trends these days (probably historically as well)
But at the same time the idea of having no free will is being jammed down our throats which if people accept probably just makes them more susceptible to the other dystopian crap.
Their actions and beliefs though aren't congruent. If these people are so concerned about perfecting human experience to the point of trying desperately to implement immortality one way or another (Check out the series Upload for an idea of what that could look like) then they can't really accept they have no free will. If they did they wouldn't feel compelled to have the same humanitarian liberal ideas because they're not congruent with survival of the fittest instincts. They'd be less charitable and more concerned with their own survival. But, they're concerned about what appears to be self image and conscience. Like if they do enough 'charity' they can allow themselves to live with murdering babies and mercy killing the elderly; and attacking Christians who want nothing more than for them to be saved from the lies they tell themselves.

I mean how can you truly care about your own survival if you're willing to undermine the longevity of it? You can't say that's a fear of death driving you; that's a conscious choice you have to make. It doesn't line up with the immortality agenda.

I always thought we will live to see that, Gen X I mean--where some technological marvel extends life indefinitely; but unlike eternal life with God it would be something more like being bound to being a decaying human being; more like a zombie.
I wonder if that's where the idea of zombies came from--the biblical image of the people in end times who are living forever "They seek death but it would not find them" but without God, just waiting for the second death?

Talk about a hell... I mean materialism just isn't worth it. Atheism just isn't worth it.... it's like saying there's no point to anything and the best you can do is try to hang on to the experience of having no point to anything. Might as well just walk off a cliff then.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Atheists usually self-identify their faith in there not being a god as a lack of belief. This is not really correct when it is actually a belief in there not being a god. Atheists define as god a super-natural power, which is not true in many cases. Most pagans I have met in real life did not really believe in the existence of their gods, they worshiped them as projections of their values and worshiped their pantheons as their identity (autotheism).

A god is not always defined by power, it is defined by worship and devotion and gods usually personify abstract values.

Most "atheists" are not really valueless nihilists and so are not really atheists. Absolute atheism is nihilism, and nihilism is unstable, it cannot sustain itself (in an individual or a community).



There are as many "atheisms" out there as "atheists".
I had was writing another post about how atheism is purely negative and has no positive content but I think what the OP was referring to specifically is the sort of organized atheism you see in the West. In that case, there is positive content. They typically have a materialistic metaphysics and a secular humanistic value system.

I've seen the same sort of behavior that you describe among pagans as well. When I see this, it just makes me realize that men (besides true nihilists which are rare) ultimately choose between either worshiping God or worshiping themselves. The latter takes on different forms. There's some pagans out there that project their values onto specific, human-like gods but in modern people, the preferred object of worship of abstract man in the form of some sort of humanism.

I would call this form of faith 'anthrotheism". In the same way pantheism is the recognition of the universe as god, anthrotheism is humanity as god with specific great humans almost being seen as some sort of demi-god or secular saint. Just look at the way these sort of people will treats scientists like Einstein or Tesla or even way less accomplished figures like Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson.

I'm sure anthrotheists would be aghast at being treated as religious believers and will insist that they don't treat the people I mentioned above as omnipotent or omniscient. However, I would say anthrotheism is a form of pagan religion. In those religions, gods are not all-powerful and have human like flaws. Therefore, I will saw anthrotheism is a pagan religion with a polytheistic structure. There's many little gods with people choosing to worship the gods that please their own nature the most. A pimply faced neckbeard posting on Reddit will chose some great scientist as their patron god while some K-pop stan fangirl will choose their favorite singer in their favorite group as their patron god.

Polytheistic pantheons will have a god at the top of the hierarchy. Anthrotheism has one as well. This god would be Humanity. Unlike the other gods that have their own names and personalities and physical forms, this god is an abstract non-personal one. This god is while still not quite omnipotent is still the most powerful being in the universe and is the one destined to continually conquer the world around it, first Earth and than the rest of the universe. This god wields science and reason in the same way Zeus wielded thunder. If you read a lot of Lizard of Oz/Tokyo Joe's old posts, you can see this sort of god being advocated for. One of those posters had even once said: "God was a fine metaphor for what Man must eventually become". That sums up the theology behind anthrotheism in one sentence. New Age and a lot of the "spiritual but not religious" forms of belief are just different denominations of the same faith but with more mushy and "spiritual" sounding language.

When I started formulating all these ideas, it made me realize why the monotheistic religions have always gone hard against the making of idols and also against anthropomorphic depictions of God. The making of idols encourages humans to project their own ideals into concrete form and then to set it apart for worship. It's the most primitive and basic form of man's self-worship. The secular humanism you see popular among the intelligentsia is just the newest and more sophistic version of this ancient practice.
 

R.G.Camara

Woodpecker
Atheists try to pretend they can have morality outside of God, but they cannot. Inevitably, "do what thou wilt" becomes the only law for them, because, literally, nothing matters. MOst of them are weak-minded and just glom their morality off their societies dominant morality, so atheists in Christian cultures magically have Christian-like morality (except about sex! and God!) and atheists in Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, and Buddhist societies do the same.

The actual hard atheists realize what their beliefs mean, and become Leopold and Loeb like.

Neither is a good person to have around you. They will turn on you when it suits them, and their lack of belief will allow them to justify it. Vox Day is right that atheism and autism are correlated.
 

mrjsg

Newbie
"Atheism seeks the same things most religions do: to define reality, it's origins, and our experience of it."
- No it doesn't. Ahteism is just the lack of belief in a God/deity.

"Atheism also seeks to dictate rules for life based on it's core beliefs."
- No it doesn't. People who are atheist abide by their own philosophy.


"Atheism is actually a religion, and not the absence of religion."
- Oh really? Then tell me where do atheists gather, who/what do they worship, what are the tenents of Atheism, what text do all ahteists subscribe to, and what rules do all atheists follow?
 
Atheist:
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

As an aside, it's interesting that the religion of "atheism" has "theism" as the root word that is being rejected.

Therefore, would not identifying oneself as an "Atheist" be quite redundant, as such an Identity would revolve around rejection of something (God) that doesn't even exist to begin with?

This would appear self-deprecating; similar to a person who does believe in a God referring to their belief system as 'aevolution'.
 

robinman

Pigeon
Western society seems to be very "aptheistic", which according to wikipedia is "the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system."

Most non religious people it seems just focus on their day to day life without any thought long term of the bigger picture.
 

Simideus

Newbie
One thing I’ve noticed is that atheists tend to behave like polytheists. Thus, Marxism is the end result of atheism: just a mass of identities, groups, clans, classes, and races jostling with one another, just like the Greek or Hindu pantheon. Thus, my position that the real conflict is monotheism v polytheism, with atheism being just a cope. Monotheism would also involve (edit: include as a subcategory) narcissism, which as Sam Vaknin has theorized is really an esoteric religion of the individual.
 

etwsake

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Atheists try to pretend they can have morality outside of God, but they cannot.

I disagree. I think any reasonably intelligent person that realizes this life is all we get, and there is no paradise or punishment waiting for us in some afterlife, tends to be as moral or MORE moral than a lot of religious people. Because they know the sanctity and preciousness of life. We only get this one, so life has more value to someone that doesn't believe in an afterlife than to someone that considers life a "rehearsal" or "test" for the real thing.

Atheist:
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

I guess that means I'm not an atheist. I don't know if there's a God or gods. I just don't know and I'll never know. How can I say "there is no God" when I have no way to even conceptualize the ideas of eternity or infinity or creation or life itself? There's things I just can't understand or explain.

I think it's arrogant to proclaim there's no god. I also think it's equally arrogant to proclaim that there 100% IS a god, and it just so happens to be the one you believe in.

I do, however, thoroughly reject all forms of organized religion as nothing more than myths and fables, or worse, systems to control vast amounts of people. I have no use for that, but if it brings you comfort and you're not hurting anyone, then I suppose people can believe whatever they want. Unfortunately, people DO hurt others in the name of their religions. At this point, I'd consider extreme left wing and extreme right wing political beliefs to be religions. Extreme left moreso than right. The right just tells people what they should do. The left actively prevents people from doing things.

I'm anti-religion more than anything else. I don't have a term for my beliefs, because I don't have any beliefs. But I appreciate Roosh allowing a section on other religions (beliefs, viewpoints) to remain on this site when he has made his own very clear. I'm not trying to break the "no blaspheme" rule, but I'm just trying to offer a sane and reasonable counter-argument.

I used to want to fight about it, like those fedora'd neckbeards on the internet. But years ago I lost interest in such a futile waste of everyone's time. Nobody will ever convince other people to betray everything they believe in. Like I said, I just want to see people live peacefully, and leave each other alone.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
I disagree. I think any reasonably intelligent person that realizes this life is all we get, and there is no paradise or punishment waiting for us in some afterlife, tends to be as moral or MORE moral than a lot of religious people. Because they know the sanctity and preciousness of life. We only get this one, so life has more value to someone that doesn't believe in an afterlife than to someone that considers life a "rehearsal" or "test" for the real thing.

Your argument for the "value of life" seems circular : you say life is valuable because "we only get one" ... I only got beaten once, so getting beaten is a valuable experience ?
The strong movement for euthanasia today obviously does not assess life as you do.
 
Last edited:

etwsake

Woodpecker
Gold Member
I only got beaten once, so being beaten is a valuable experience ?


What?

What are you trying to say. That doesn't make any sense. How is getting beaten in a fight supposed to compare to living a lifetime? And yeah, when you get beat at something, isn't it a valuable experience?

As for euthanasia I can't imagine ever wanting to go that route, but for some people in extreme pain, I guess it's up to them.

I'm extremely depressed, but as low as I get, I've never wanted to die. But suicide is a real thing. And it's not exactly a modern thing, either. Pretty sure people have killed themselves for thousands of years. I think it's a disgusting and selfish act. Doesn't make any sense. But I guess when you're really screwed up in the head and in a bad place, some people manage to go against their instincts to survive.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
I'm not joking there's a group of atheists around where I live. They get together on Sundays. They pass around a collection bowl and a guy is their leader who gets up and gives a speech. How about that.

Aloha!
 
Top