I find it odd that when filling out a form that asked me what my religion is one of the choices is Atheist.

What now? That is the that opposite of religion.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Philosophically, that’s true. But I understand putting it in the religion column for the purpose of statistics. And ‘none’ and ‘atheist’ are two different possible answers. You can have no religion but believe very fervently in a god of your own conception.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why? If you worship a god but don’t subscribe to any dogma, accept any scripture or listen to any religious authority, you have no religion. You’re just a theist.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Why? If you worship a god but don’t subscribe to any dogma, accept any scripture or listen to any religious authority, you have no religion. You’re just a theist.

          Except atheism is literally a lack of belief in a god or deity. If you believe in some type of deity, you’re not an atheist. by default. Edit: I missread that. Sorry. Too much coffee and not enough sleep can cause halicuinations

        • Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I guess it depends on your definition of religion. To me, it sounds like a personal religion, even if just one person believes in it. There are any number of religions too small to be included in their list, probably, so they should have an “Other” option, and that seems like the best fit for someone who has a personal set of religious beliefs that do not align with a listed religion.

        • essell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I suspect Satanists and others on the left hand path would disagree but I agree you’re functionally correct

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I would suggest that various flavors of Satanism have a dogma, and more than one version has scriptures, be they LaVey’s book or the Satanic Temple’s tenets.

            • essell@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I can understand why the Satanic Bible might look like dogma, I don’t agree that it is. And religions like the Setians specifically don’t have any dogma.

              I think your point generally holds true largely due to the reality of the world, in principle and philosophy though, totally possible to find counter examples.

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like the idea of putting “none.” I’m gonna start doing that instead of atheist.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wouldn’t what be an agnostic? “None” for religion? No, as I said, you can not adhere to any religion but still have a devout belief in a god.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            True. And unfortunately, things sometimes have to be simplified for the purposes of statistics.

            Honestly, I would rather something like a census have an accurate count of atheists than leave it off the form because it isn’t technically correct to call it a religion.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, agnosticism is more about the fact that God cannot be proven or disproven.

        As for atheism being a religious choice: that’s exactly what it is, it’s a choice to not believe in any religion.

        If you and I met on the street, and I were to ask you what your religion is, how would you answer me?

        (My guess is you’d say you are an atheist. Same as that dropdown is asking you what your religion is.)

        • EvenOdds@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          If you asked me what my religion is, I would answer that you have already pre-supposed that I have one. Even though I would know what you’re actually asking, I would answer that way to bring more popularity to the idea that not having a religion is normal. Yeah I know, I’m fun at parties.

        • Fondots@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          You can really go down a pretty deep rabbit hole here.

          Strictly speaking, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. A-without, theism-belief in god(s)

          There are religions out there that don’t have a figure you can easily identify as a god, certain types of Buddhism for example, and so you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong in calling followers of those religions “atheists”

          But that’s of course somewhat at odds with how we normally use the term atheism, and them prevent confusion we’d normally refer to these as “non-theistic religions” instead of “atheistic religions”

          You can also get into the weeds about what even counts as a god, for example, certain types of taoism/daoism don’t really have any particular god-like figures, but they do have the tao/dao (roughly translating to “path” sort of a natural order the the universe that you should try to be in sync with.) Is the dao a god? It’s certainly not a personal god, something you can pray to and expect to get an answer back from, or that can/will intervene in the universe, it just sort of is and you’re either on the path or you’re not. You could certainly argue that it is a god, if an impersonal one, but it’s definitely not what most people would think of as a god.

          You can also have religions that don’t really have anything they’d identify as a “god” but might have other lesser supernatural entities, things like spirits, demons, angels, ghosts, fairies, djinn, etc.

          There’s also UFO religions, where aliens are the primary figures and often a lot of their supernatural abilities might be explained away as just very advanced science is centuries beyond our own capabilities.

          Going the other direction, you could theoretically have someone who believes that there is some sort of god out there, but makes no attempt to pray to them, worship them, doesn’t take part in any sort of ritual or culture having to do with that belief, and pretty much just acknowledges that the god exists but that its existence has no particular impact on that person’s life or the universe in general. You could very well call that person a non-religious theist. Many deists would fall into this sort of category.

          Something I wish got a little more attention in these sorts of discussions is ignosticism/igtheism/theological noncognitivism, which is the camp I put myself into when I’m feeling really nitpicky, and I like to sum up as:

          Theism: I believe that there is a god or gods

          Atheism: I do not believe that there are any gods

          Agnosticism: I’m not sure if there is a god, and maybe we can’t ever know for sure

          Ignosticism: What the fuck do you people even mean by “god.” No one has come up with a clear definition yet so this argument is pointless.

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I would say I don’t have one. Atheism is not a religion it is a description of a single attribute, lack of belief in any gods. People seem to think it means a lot more than it does.

      • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        No. Agnostic is not going either way. Atheism is a faith, because you deny the existence of a god without proof, just as theists claim its existence without proof.

        Source: I’m an agnostic

        • EvenOdds@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I strongly disagree. Atheism is explicit lack of faith.

          For all practical purposes, an atheist thinks that without evidence, it’s safe to assume that there’s no god or gods.

          Would you say that you’re genuinely completely agnostic in relation to every single religion that has ever existed, even the joke religions (like the flying spaghetti monster, etc)?

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          This is a misunderstanding of atheism.

          This is my view on religion:

          I don’t believe in your imaginary friend; but don’t feel special, I don’t believe in anyone else’s imaginary friend either.

          • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Oh, I don’t believe either, I just don’t assert either way. No proof either way. If you choose to believe the absence, you are believing, not knowing. Atheism is rather unscientific, while agnosticism is quite science compatible. Questioning is what advances knowledge.

            • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not really, I don’t believe in god’s the same way I don’t believe in psychic clowns.

        • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          You’re using the modified definition of “agnostic” that believers favor. We have no reason to accept that.

          “Agnostic” literally means “I don’t know.” “Atheist” means “I don’t believe.” I don’t know that gods are real, and I have no reason to believe they do.

          No faith required.

          • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The moment you use believe you are in faith territory. Agnostics simply say that having no proof either way, we choose not to believe.

            • spaceghoti@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Right. I don’t believe is my position as an atheist. I don’t know is why.

              How is this so difficult for you?