The Difference Between Atheism And Religion

[DLH]

I was an unbeliever until I was 27, everyone I know is atheist, I've been having religious discussions online for over 30 years, 99% of that has been by choice with atheists on atheists forums. Most of which ended badly. I would like to know what is. in your opinion, the difference between atheism and religion?

 

[bilby]

Religion is a set of practices carried out as an unwavering matter of routine, typically founded in a belief in a god or gods.

Such a belief in a god or gods is theism, which is the antonym of atheism.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

That's it. That's the thing and the whole of the thing.

The opposite of religion would be irreligion, which may not always imply atheism - for example a deist could believe in a god, but not believe that any practices are necessary or useful as a consequence of their belief.

Arguably, an atheist who feels that the absence of any gods implies that he should live or behave in a certain fashion could be held to be religious. Certainly if he has routines from which he refuses to deviate, it's reasonable to describe those as "religious".

And there are plenty of such secular practices that can be described as religious - one might say "He goes to the football every Saturday, religiously", implying that he feels his attendance there to be imperative, even though not ordered or required by any gods.

Religion isn't the opposite of atheism, so it's not entirely appropriate to ask what the difference is between them, as there are areas of difference and also areas of similarity.

 

[DLH]

Religion is a set of practices carried out as an unwavering matter of routine, typically founded in a belief in a god or gods.

Good. You would agree that participation in religion does not necessarily involve a belief in a god or gods? Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, often people who are atheists attend religious functions, church, temple, etc. for cultural, traditional, social or other reasons. Therefore religion involves atheists and theists?

Such a belief in a god or gods is theism, which is the antonym of atheism.

Right. Theism is with gods, atheism is without. Would you agree both are theistic positions. For example, apolitical would be a political position? Or simply a non-political position. I know there are various degrees of atheism which I'm not familiar with. Everyone I've encountered is either a believer or an unbeliever though that isn't immediately apparent.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

Okay. What does belief mean exactly in this case? I believe in the existence of politicians but I don't believe, i.e. trust in them. Many gods exist and a god doesn't have to exist to be a god, so could I assume that you mean an atheist doesn't believe in gods just as an apolitical person such as myself doesn't believe in politicians?

That's it. That's the thing and the whole of the thing.

There's a lot there, actually, though, isn't there? I often hear that atheists have nothing in common. No more or less than theists, I would imagine. I haven't known very many theists. They seem crazy to me.

The opposite of religion would be irreligion, which may not always imply atheism - for example a deist could believe in a god, but not believe that any practices are necessary or useful as a consequence of their belief.

Hmmm. That's interesting. Not familiar with deists. Do not atheists have practices that are useful as a consequence of their disbelief?

Arguably, an atheist who feels that the absence of any gods implies that he should live or behave in a certain fashion could be held to be religious. Certainly if he has routines from which he refuses to deviate, it's reasonable to describe those as "religious".

I think that addresses the quote and my responding question above. What sort of things would you think those would be?

And there are plenty of such secular practices that can be described as religious - one might say "He goes to the football every Saturday, religiously", implying that he feels his attendance there to be imperative, even though not ordered or required by any gods.

I agree.

Religion isn't the opposite of atheism, so it's not entirely appropriate to ask what the difference is between them, as there are areas of difference and also areas of similarity.

The difference between atheism and theism would be more appropriate, and obvious of course. I think I comprehend what you're saying, though. I think you've answered my question pretty thoroughly. Thanks for your response. Perhaps the question could have been phrased more like why there is such animosity between atheists and theists or do you think that is the case?

 

[bilby]

Would you agree both are theistic positions. For example, apolitical would be a political position?

No, I would not. Apolitical is not a political position, though it is a difficult position to actually hold, given that politics (unlike gods) is something thst exists, and is all pervasive in inter-human interactions.

Atheism is very definitely not a theistic position, and is far easier to hold, given the absence of any evidence of gods.

 

[bilby]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god or gods.

Okay. What does belief mean exactly in this case?

It means "believes to be non-fiction".

I believe in the existence of politicians but I don't believe, i.e. trust in them.

Yeah, that's not the same meaning of belief that I was using. My apologies for not making that clear.

Many gods exist

No, none do. Many gods are proposed; All are fiction. Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist, he is a fictional character. As are all gods.

and a god doesn't have to exist to be a god,

True enough, but a god (or anything else) does have to be non-fiction to exist.

so could I assume that you mean an atheist doesn't believe in gods just as an apolitical person such as myself doesn't believe in politicians?

You can assume anything you like, but were you to assume that, you would be wrong

 

[bilby]

Do not atheists have practices that are useful as a consequence of their disbelief?

No. I don't think it would even be possible.

Do people who don't collect stamps have practices that are useful as a consequence of not collecting stamps?

 

[bilby]

Perhaps the question could have been phrased more like why there is such animosity between atheists and theists or do you think that is the case?

There is inevitably animosity between people who want to tell others how they should behave, and those upon whom they seek to impose those rules.

If a Muslim chooses not to eat pork, I couldn't care less. But if he tries to stop me from eating pork, we are going to have a problem.

If a Christian chooses not to buy alcohol
on Sunday, I am perfectly disinterested in his decision. But if he tries to make it illegal for a publican, who wants to sell beer on a Sunday, to sell me a beer on Sunday, we are going to have a problem.

There is animosity between the religious and the irreligious if, as, and when one group tries to impose their wishes upon the other group.

Some cases are less clear cut. If a group of local Muslims want their Muezzin to loudly call them to prayer, and I want to enjoy peace and quiet, then are they imposing on me by making a racket; Or am I imposing on them by demanding that they remain silent?

What if the noise is made by Christians ringing church bells on a Sunday, or for a wedding, or a funeral?

This is, of course, not a religious question at all - what if the noise is an atheist listening to his death metal records turned up to eleven, while I am trying to enjoy a quiet cup of tea next door?

Still, the atheist music lover at least doesn't have the brass face to pretend that it's not his problem, because his imaginary friend said it was not just acceptable, but mandatory, to crank up the decibels whether his neighbours like it or not.

The reasons for animosity between theist and atheist are fundamentally the same as the reasons for animosity between people of any belief, or none - people impose on each other, and those who are imposed upon often don't like it.

When one side of a dispute claims divine right, the dispute can no longer be as easily settled by compromise, because religion is by definition uncompromising.

That's why disputes between theists and atheists are more often heated than are disputes amongst atheists; And why disputes amongst theists are so heated that they often lead to terrorism, murder, war, genocide, and strongly worded letters to The Times.

 

[steve_bank]

It depends on how you definer religion and atheism. Different people have different views.

There is hard, soft, agnostic,strong atheism. Buddhism and otter traditions are called religion but do not necessarily believe in gods as do Jews, Christiana, and Muslims.

If atheism means simply no belief in gods, a-theist not theist, then the difference between atheism and Christianity is the belief and lack of belief in a god.

Ir is more complicated Those who identify as atheist may believe in the supernatural, cosmic powers, and spirits. There is no singular Christian or atheist. Jews and Christians range from liberal to conservative.

IMO organized atheism is an ideology as is Christianity.

 

[bilby]

IMO organized atheism is an ideology as is Christianity.

...or stamp collecting, or football fandom.

Organised anything is an ideology.

Atheists are notable for being far less organized than most categories of human, hence the description "herding cats".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Okay. What does belief mean exactly in this case? I believe in the existence of politicians but I don't believe, i.e. trust in them. Many gods exist and a god doesn't have to exist to be a god, so could I assume that you mean an atheist doesn't believe in gods just as an apolitical person such as myself doesn't believe in politicians?

this feels like you’re trying to muddy the waters with some kind of linguistic conflation of terms . It would be best for a conversation like this to use unambiguous terms or define your terms explicitly before expecting an answer.

“Belief” and “trust” are not the same thing.

 

[DLH]

Do not atheists have practices that are useful as a consequence of their disbelief?

No. I don't think it would even be possible.

Do people who don't collect stamps have practices that are useful as a consequence of not collecting stamps?

We agree that the only real difference as a consequence of being a stamp collector or a non-stamp collector is the collecting of stamps, but what is the difference between an atheist and a theist other than the obvious god? A stamp collector might join a discussion group of stamp collectors but a non-stamp collector isn't likely to join a group of non-stamp collectors.

 

[DLH]

this feels like you’re trying to muddy the waters with some kind of linguistic conflation of terms . It would be best for a conversation like this to use unambiguous terms or define your terms explicitly before expecting an answer.

“Belief” and “trust” are not the same thing.

What is belief and what is trust and what is the difference?

 

[bilby]

A stamp collector might join a discussion group of stamp collectors but a non-stamp collector isn't likely to join a group of non-stamp collectors.

That would depend on whether stamp collectors were in the habit of imposing their hobby on him, despite his lack of interest.

If such imposition were common in his community, he might well join a non-stanp collector group to discuss ways they can defend themselves against this.

 

[steve_bank]

this feels like you’re trying to muddy the waters with some kind of linguistic conflation of terms . It would be best for a conversation like this to use unambiguous terms or define your terms explicitly before expecting an answer.

“Belief” and “trust” are not the same thing.

What is belief and what is trust and what is the difference?

Tjhat has been debated at length on several threads downstream.

You are the 'bible believer', you tell us what truth and faith is.

It should be obvious to you by now that us atheists on the forum do not take the bible and all its interpretations as any kind of truth and we have no faith in any of the old or new testament.

We conditioner the god and supernatural in the bible to be fiction, mythology.

The onus is on you to tell us what you mean by truth ad faith.

Christians believe the bible is truth handed down from a god, is there anything else to Christian religious faith and truth?

 

[DLH]

Would you agree both are theistic positions. For example, apolitical would be a political position?

No, I would not. Apolitical is not a political position, though it is a difficult position to actually hold, given that politics (unlike gods) is something thst exists, and is all pervasive in inter-human interactions.

But couldn't the same be said of theology and religion? In God we trust, the days of the week, the months of the calendar, the use in names and symbols in every facet of life around us. Holidays and the religious influence in society, Shinto, Judeo-Christian, Muslim predominance in theocratic and quasi-theocratic cultures and societies are a huge part of the political landscape. To me they are very much the same.

I'm irreligious and apolitical, meaning specifically I have never belonged and will never belong to any organized religious or political ideology or group. But that in and of itself doesn't mean they don't impact my life to some degree. I don't think that religion or politics will solve the problems of mankind. I don't trust or believe in them.

Atheism is very definitely not a theistic position, and is far easier to hold, given the absence of any evidence of gods.

I definitely see what you're saying, and in a sense it's obviously correct. Atheism being the antithesis of theism would logically imply non-theistic. On the other hand atheism and non-theism are a position of theism. If someone asks an apolitical person their political affiliation they say none. That's a political position just as being antisocial is a social position.

If one rejects polytheism because they're monotheistic or henotheistic they are all theistic. Atheism 0 gods, monotheistic 1 god, polytheistic multiple gods and henotheistic 1 primary god with lesser gods. I, and I think the Bible writers, are and were henotheistic, but that's beside the point.

I don't think it is an important argument, because to say social or theist / antisocial or atheist is self explanatory. It's just an aside.

 

[Shadowy Man]

this feels like you’re trying to muddy the waters with some kind of linguistic conflation of terms . It would be best for a conversation like this to use unambiguous terms or define your terms explicitly before expecting an answer.

“Belief” and “trust” are not the same thing.

What is belief and what is trust and what is the difference?

Why don’t you define them since you started this conversation? Then we can discuss on terms you are most comfortable with.

 

[steve_bank]

That Christianity has had an influence in western cultures is a fact, but says nothing about the truth of the beliefs.

In other p[aces it Is Islam or Buddhism or Confucianism.

 

[DLH]

It means "believes to be non-fiction".

Then it's a question of existence rather than trust. I say that because a theist doesn't have to believe in the literal existence of their god. Similar to luck. God is a title like lord or king, not a name or description like Jehovah or fake.

Many gods exist

No, none do. Many gods are proposed; All are fiction. Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist, he is a fictional character. As are all gods.

This is where I think the crux of the matter is. It's where atheists and I go 'round and 'round and 'round. How would you define god? Because to me it simply means might, venerated. The Hebrew word (el) having a root meaning might and the English word (God) having a root meaning pour, libate. Shinto arose as a communal cohesiveness during planting and harvesting seasons. In Shinto, gods and goddesses like Amaterasu are fairly insignificant in that they are interchangeable. The Nihongi and Kojiki were conscriptions of the Royal family who were gods in and of themselves, descended from gods. The conscription was fabricated, admittedly, in order to instruct Japanese youth on morality, discipline and loyalty to the royal family. The gods were representatives of those things and served as such, but they weren't considered real in any other sense. Like luck. An atheist who isn't superstitious or theist might frequently say "good luck" or "god damn it."

Atheists seem to think that a god has to be supernatural or even a supernatural creator who allegedly meddles in human affairs and that just isn't the case. It can be that, and those are some examples, but it doesn't have to be. A god can be anything or anyone. Then the atheist will typically argue "that's not what we mean by god(s)." Which is particularly frustrating because they're not the theist. The theists decide what the gods are, not the atheists. The atheists only decide whether or not they believe, trust in or have anything to do with whatever they think a god is.

That is problematic because by the correct definition of god and religion is that everyone has gods and everyone is religious. Because a god is anything or anyone you consider most important (i.e. politics, science, money, sex, God, Jehovah, Amaterasu, Shiva, etc.) and religion is any pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

I know every single atheist will disagree with all of that. I've probably had this discussion here on multiple occasions, but it is, as I said, the crux of it. And it doesn't diminish atheism or theism in any way.

and a god doesn't have to exist to be a god,

True enough, but a god (or anything else) does have to be non-fiction to exist.

You mean to literally exist, rather than to exist as a god, because as I've just mentioned with Shinto, that isn't the case.

so could I assume that you mean an atheist doesn't believe in gods just as an apolitical person such as myself doesn't believe in politicians?

You can assume anything you like, but were you to assume that, you would be wrong

You know, it's interesting to me that in another thread somewhere here you joke about your being compelled to correct someone on the internet being wrong, and I can relate, let me tell you. I've even elsewhere made similar statements, even posting one of the cartoons you posted on it.

And sometimes I wonder, if this similar compulsion the real crux of the conflict between atheist and theist. I do know that everyone I know personally are atheists. That has always been the case with me with the exception of my mother who became a believer after I did. And none of them would consider having a discussion like this. They don't care. They actually think the atheists online who do this sort of thing are worse than religious.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That is problematic because by the correct definition of god and religion is that everyone has gods and everyone is religious. Because a god is anything or anyone you consider most important (i.e. politics, science, money, sex, God, Jehovah, Amaterasu, Shiva, etc.) and religion is any pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

on what basis can you determine the “correctness” of the definition?

If you define god to mean everything and religion in a way that everyone is religious then the word loses any practical meaning and the discussion will be fruitless.

 

[steve_bank]

BLH is posting the usual Christian jibber jabber.

He 'believes in the bible' without being able to articulate what that mans or what he actually beeves.

He may be looking for others to explain his belief to him.

The crux of the divide is not about religious belief per se. It is what Christians presume to do in the name of beliefs. In the USA conservative Christians try to impose what they consider an absolute god mandated morality from the bible on others.

In the Northwest we are still dealing with the aftermath of Native American children who were taken by force from parents and placed in Christian schools.

Christians who justified slavery based on a line in the bible

If it were not for the actions of Christians in this country none of us atheists would likerly care what they believe.