Why isn't atheism classified as another religion?

[Astargath]

''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.

Actually that is not entirely accurate.

The distribution of atheist intelligence
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1

Look, you don't have to take it personally, not you or badecker but the fact is that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god. ''Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.''  This is a huge statistical difference. Obviously there are still a lot of scientists that do believe in some god but it's not a surprise when taking in count the level of indoctrination of US. Most people in the US believe in god and indoctrinate their kids that way, it's really hard for anyone to jump out of it when everyone in your life is telling you that god is real, religion is a virus.

[1715436308]

1715436308

[1715436308]

1715436308

[1715436308]

1715436308

[1715436308]

1715436308

[1715436308]

1715436308

[Flying Hellfish]

''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.

Actually that is not entirely accurate.

The distribution of atheist intelligence
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1

I can agree that it isn't 100% accurate to say  "the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god." but I would argue that your chart supports the statement "That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods.". The hockey stick red line past 100 IQ (the avg IQ) is not easy to miss.

I have a problem with the chart though. Sub 70 IQ is considered dull.  Statistically, above 130 and below 70 have the same % of people (and are a statistically insignificant number of people, less than 5% total).  Why did they leave out the above 130 IQ but leave in sub 70 group, why did they only include part of the "bell"?  I surmise that they needed a big dropping red line somewhere to combat the lower intelligence = more theistic argument and found one the only place they could, in dullards...

To be fair present the proper distribution and remove the sub 72 on that chart and see what it looks like again.  This is so typical of an agenda driven presentation.  lol at using less than 2.5% population to argue anything about what is typical (read average).

It is crystal clear and supported by even your supplied skewed agenda driven chart that "people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods."

Edit:  I read the chart like this.  As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic.  As you go from average to genius (100-130)  or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic.

[Moana]

Since atheists have a common belief system and they are pretty organized why they do not consider themselves as a part of a another religion which does not have a god?

Because not playing sport is not a sport.

This is a truly Legendary answer to this silly statement.
BTW I know a lot of atheists with whom I don't share most of my beliefs, so it is even wrong from this point of view.

[CoinCube]

Look, you don't have to take it personally, not you or badecker but the fact is that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god.

I don't take it personally I am just letting you know that if the data I presented is accurate and I don't have any reason to believe it is not your statement is simply not correct.

It is technically accurate only for 50% of the population. For the other 50% the exact opposite relationship holds.

Edit:  I read the chart like this.  As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic.  As you go from average to genius (100-130)  or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic.

This is the correct reading with the highest probability of theistic belief's and a low probability of atheistic beliefs at an IQ of 100 = your everyday average human being.

[exemplaar]

In fact it is now classified as another religion. And the catch is that all top priests-preachers of atheism, are not atheists but occultists.

[BADecker]

''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.

Actually that is not entirely accurate.

The distribution of atheist intelligence
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cdWtkdMvL_w/UtaQDMOW-eI/AAAAAAAAAqI/gziuZgRHijA/s1600/Atheist+vs+Theist+IQ+distribution.png

I can agree that it isn't 100% accurate to say  "the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god." but I would argue that your chart supports the statement "That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods.". The hockey stick red line past 100 IQ (the avg IQ) is not easy to miss.

I have a problem with the chart though. Sub 70 IQ is considered dull.  Statistically, above 130 and below 70 have the same % of people (and are a statistically insignificant number of people, less than 5% total).  Why did they leave out the above 130 IQ but leave in sub 70 group, why did they only include part of the "bell"?  I surmise that they needed a big dropping red line somewhere to combat the lower intelligence = more theistic argument and found one the only place they could, in dullards...

To be fair present the proper distribution and remove the sub 72 on that chart and see what it looks like again.  This is so typical of an agenda driven presentation.  lol at using less than 2.5% population to argue anything about what is typical (read average).

It is crystal clear and supported by even your supplied skewed agenda driven chart that "people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods."

Edit:  I read the chart like this.  As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic.  As you go from average to genius (100-130)  or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic.

The only reason people with higher IQ trust less in God, is because they trust their IQ more. Then they die, and prove their IQ couldn't save them. But the resurrection will prove that God could have, if they had only believed.

[Astargath]

''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.

Actually that is not entirely accurate.

The distribution of atheist intelligence
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cdWtkdMvL_w/UtaQDMOW-eI/AAAAAAAAAqI/gziuZgRHijA/s1600/Atheist+vs+Theist+IQ+distribution.png

I can agree that it isn't 100% accurate to say  "the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god." but I would argue that your chart supports the statement "That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods.". The hockey stick red line past 100 IQ (the avg IQ) is not easy to miss.

I have a problem with the chart though. Sub 70 IQ is considered dull.  Statistically, above 130 and below 70 have the same % of people (and are a statistically insignificant number of people, less than 5% total).  Why did they leave out the above 130 IQ but leave in sub 70 group, why did they only include part of the "bell"?  I surmise that they needed a big dropping red line somewhere to combat the lower intelligence = more theistic argument and found one the only place they could, in dullards...

To be fair present the proper distribution and remove the sub 72 on that chart and see what it looks like again.  This is so typical of an agenda driven presentation.  lol at using less than 2.5% population to argue anything about what is typical (read average).

It is crystal clear and supported by even your supplied skewed agenda driven chart that "people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods."

Edit:  I read the chart like this.  As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic.  As you go from average to genius (100-130)  or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic.

The only reason people with higher IQ trust less in God, is because they trust their IQ more. Then they die, and prove their IQ couldn't save them. But the resurrection will prove that God could have, if they had only believed.

Or because they are smarter and it's harder to convince a smart guy with nonsense. As I said though, it's hard to snap out of it when everyone is telling you that the christian god is real just like it's hard for a muslim to ever convert into Christianity.

[BADecker]

''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.

Actually that is not entirely accurate.

The distribution of atheist intelligence
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cdWtkdMvL_w/UtaQDMOW-eI/AAAAAAAAAqI/gziuZgRHijA/s1600/Atheist+vs+Theist+IQ+distribution.png

I can agree that it isn't 100% accurate to say  "the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god." but I would argue that your chart supports the statement "That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods.". The hockey stick red line past 100 IQ (the avg IQ) is not easy to miss.

I have a problem with the chart though. Sub 70 IQ is considered dull.  Statistically, above 130 and below 70 have the same % of people (and are a statistically insignificant number of people, less than 5% total).  Why did they leave out the above 130 IQ but leave in sub 70 group, why did they only include part of the "bell"?  I surmise that they needed a big dropping red line somewhere to combat the lower intelligence = more theistic argument and found one the only place they could, in dullards...

To be fair present the proper distribution and remove the sub 72 on that chart and see what it looks like again.  This is so typical of an agenda driven presentation.  lol at using less than 2.5% population to argue anything about what is typical (read average).

It is crystal clear and supported by even your supplied skewed agenda driven chart that "people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods."

Edit:  I read the chart like this.  As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic.  As you go from average to genius (100-130)  or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic.

The only reason people with higher IQ trust less in God, is because they trust their IQ more. Then they die, and prove their IQ couldn't save them. But the resurrection will prove that God could have, if they had only believed.

Or because they are smarter and it's harder to convince a smart guy with nonsense. As I said though, it's hard to snap out of it when everyone is telling you that the christian god is real just like it's hard for a muslim to ever convert into Christianity.

If you want to place a bunch of jokers who say god doesn't exist, as god above nature and your soul telling you that the God of the universe exists, that is partially your choice... and your acceptance of a lie that you know is a lie.

[tvbcof]

In fact it is now classified as another religion. And the catch is that all top priests-preachers of atheism, are not atheists but occultists.

As an atheist I agree with this.

As of the 20th century, at least, the brand of 'atheism' is most useful as a cover for crypto-{foo} practitioners.  Crypto (Latin for 'hidden') existence is a powerful tool which confers a huge advantage over those who don't practice the technique.  And if a crypto-{blah} practitioner gains control of the educational and media systems such that anyone who suspects crypto- methods is denounced as a 'conspiracy theorist' or whatever, the crypto- crowd can operate with even more safety and effectiveness.

As the decades drift by I find myself more and more convinced that 'radical transparency' is the only realistic solution to a lot of our most vexing problems (most of these brought on by the crypto- operating sleeze-bags.)  At the same time, technology has marched forward such that 'radical transparency' is not only practical, but in use.  Currently it is used by the crypto- crowd to obtain transparency into the goings on among the sheep flock classes.  But it doesn't necessarily have to be this way.

[Phenoca]

Loving this thread.
Also, if you are religious then BY DEFINITION you are an atheist, because being affiliated with a religion infers that you do not worship the deities of EVERY other religion! The only way to not be an atheist is to be agnostic towards every definition of God - which is still weak atheism. Many atheists take the stance of 'ignosticism' before deciding whether or not to believe in something, reject it, or be uncertain (agnostic). An agnostic does not advocate the existence of a particular deity nor said deity's nonexistence. An ignostic is the stance that a deity must be defined in order to have a meaningful discussion... In order to be religious you must have views on God, or some divine existence. If you include agnostics as atheists then everyone is an atheist. If you do not include agnostics as atheists then everyone who believes in their version of God is atheist towards contradicting definitions of God and everyone who discredits the existence of certain Gods is an atheist. Only people who have never heard a definition of God and decided to believe or disbelieve in any version of God could be considered non-atheists.

To skip the contradiction of theists being atheist towards most other religions, surveys use the category 'Non'. But this is also confusing because 'Non-affiliated' or 'Non-religious' change depending on how you define religion. There are spiritual people reject religion... So for the purposes of classification, atheism means 'secular': attitude/activity/etc with no religious nor spiritual basis

tl;dr - The term 'atheist' assumes that there is only one definition of God. Yet each religion has their own definition, so if you subscribe one religion then you are atheist towards most other religions' versions of God. When discussing God you can be:
1) Ignostic - asking for a definition for God
2) Agnostic - undecided as to whether a particular deity exists or not
3) Hard Atheist - rejecting the existence of a particular deity

Everyone categorizes religious-affiliation and secularism independently of these three stances because there are thousands of deities and a lack of consensus on whether any of these deities exist.

There are atheists who are undecided on the existence of particular deities (e.g. panentheist gods, simulation theory creators, noninterventionist gods, etc). And there are non-religious people who are extremely spiritual and faithful. Atheism is a range of stances towards one definition of God.

[KingScorpio]

In fact it is now classified as another religion. And the catch is that all top priests-preachers of atheism, are not atheists but occultists.

As an atheist I agree with this.

As of the 20th century, at least, the brand of 'atheism' is most useful as a cover for crypto-{foo} practitioners.  Crypto (Latin for 'hidden') existence is a powerful tool which confers a huge advantage over those who don't practice the technique.  And if a crypto-{blah} practitioner gains control of the educational and media systems such that anyone who suspects crypto- methods is denounced as a 'conspiracy theorist' or whatever, the crypto- crowd can operate with even more safety and effectiveness.

As the decades drift by I find myself more and more convinced that 'radical transparency' is the only realistic solution to a lot of our most vexing problems (most of these brought on by the crypto- operating sleeze-bags.)  At the same time, technology has marched forward such that 'radical transparency' is not only practical, but in use.  Currently it is used by the crypto- crowd to obtain transparency into the goings on among the sheep flock classes.  But it doesn't necessarily have to be this way.

many religious people also proffessed themselves to be wise and ended up as fools or monsters, just check the echo of the iranian revolution for example.

even if you claim god/allahu akbar is this or that way you after wards ´dont know what he does what he wants or in what form he wants to be at time x, at point y, to person z

[KingScorpio]

Loving this thread.

1) Ignostic - asking for a definition for God
2) Agnostic - undecided as to whether a particular deity exists or not
3) Hard Atheist - rejecting the existence of a particular deity

uhm jes i was in all kinds of those statusses mentally,

it all depends how you perceive the world

if you are geting born into a society that is democratic and wealthy and you are being teached in the school that there were once kings that claimed they were appointed by "god" and then surpress and terrorruled their people then you are happy not to have that and become atheistic, you even fear and oppose religion in that case as you are feeling personally threthened by it. these types of atheists exist, i also was one. it all depends on your perceived reality in the end you think what you have learned.

because the humanist survivalist atheist society seeks one thing as most important: survival, security, etc.

today you we can see the successful and wealthy development of the gulf region that was very religious all the time, their religious tolerance was useful to their development this is creating lots of doubts, among atheists,

but: even if there is a god that is almighty and intelligent beeing there is nothing saying it also doesnt has a free will it is not constant, it might leave the world just like that and leave the people alone so fix their issues.

god/gods throughtout human history or at least what i have learned to be history were never constantly reliable things.

[tvbcof]

...

many religious people also proffessed themselves to be wise and ended up as fools or monsters, just check the echo of the iranian revolution for example.
...

Not sure how this maps to my post, but anyway, what about the Iranian revolution?  Seems to me that the Persian people and society in that nation are doing pretty well in spite of the Mullahs.  Relatively speaking of course.  Holding off Saddam back when he was our buddy here in the U.S. and we were supplying him chemical weapons is pretty impressive to me.  If it took suicide squads, that's what it took.  At least they were able to hold their country together and not become the failed state that our crypto-Jew government here in the U.S. tried to engineer for them.  The people of Libya were failed by their more secular leader who tried to suck 'Western' cock.

[Jboikoin]

To my understanding, before we call someone "religious" it means  he has someone to believe on. Or has a supernatural master and here comes the case, atheist don't have a religious master  so they can't be called another religion. You can get them a different name but not "RELIGIOUS"

[Astargath]

''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.

Actually that is not entirely accurate.

The distribution of atheist intelligence
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cdWtkdMvL_w/UtaQDMOW-eI/AAAAAAAAAqI/gziuZgRHijA/s1600/Atheist+vs+Theist+IQ+distribution.png

I can agree that it isn't 100% accurate to say  "the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god." but I would argue that your chart supports the statement "That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods.". The hockey stick red line past 100 IQ (the avg IQ) is not easy to miss.

I have a problem with the chart though. Sub 70 IQ is considered dull.  Statistically, above 130 and below 70 have the same % of people (and are a statistically insignificant number of people, less than 5% total).  Why did they leave out the above 130 IQ but leave in sub 70 group, why did they only include part of the "bell"?  I surmise that they needed a big dropping red line somewhere to combat the lower intelligence = more theistic argument and found one the only place they could, in dullards...

To be fair present the proper distribution and remove the sub 72 on that chart and see what it looks like again.  This is so typical of an agenda driven presentation.  lol at using less than 2.5% population to argue anything about what is typical (read average).

It is crystal clear and supported by even your supplied skewed agenda driven chart that "people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods."

Edit:  I read the chart like this.  As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic.  As you go from average to genius (100-130)  or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic.

The only reason people with higher IQ trust less in God, is because they trust their IQ more. Then they die, and prove their IQ couldn't save them. But the resurrection will prove that God could have, if they had only believed.

Or because they are smarter and it's harder to convince a smart guy with nonsense. As I said though, it's hard to snap out of it when everyone is telling you that the christian god is real just like it's hard for a muslim to ever convert into Christianity.

If you want to place a bunch of jokers who say god doesn't exist, as god above nature and your soul telling you that the God of the universe exists, that is partially your choice... and your acceptance of a lie that you know is a lie.

I'm just saying that statistics show that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god or any religion. Statistics don't lie.

[BADecker]

If you want to place a bunch of jokers who say god doesn't exist, as god above nature and your soul telling you that the God of the universe exists, that is partially your choice... and your acceptance of a lie that you know is a lie.

I'm just saying that statistics show that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god or any religion. Statistics don't lie.

That's because the statistics are put together by the so-called smart people, and they want to call attention to their so-called smartness. It makes them feel good, even though it will destroy them later.

Not believing in God is a rather stupid way to live.

[Astargath]

If you want to place a bunch of jokers who say god doesn't exist, as god above nature and your soul telling you that the God of the universe exists, that is partially your choice... and your acceptance of a lie that you know is a lie.

I'm just saying that statistics show that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god or any religion. Statistics don't lie.

That's because the statistics are put together by the so-called smart people, and they want to call attention to their so-called smartness. It makes them feel good, even though it will destroy them later.

Not believing in God is a rather stupid way to live.

That's a nice sentence there but you forgot to provide evidence for it. I know it might hurt you to know that stupid people are likely to believe in god but reality is reality, you can't change it.

[homyakoffal]

If you want to place a bunch of jokers who say god doesn't exist, as god above nature and your soul telling you that the God of the universe exists, that is partially your choice... and your acceptance of a lie that you know is a lie.

I'm just saying that statistics show that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god or any religion. Statistics don't lie.

That's because the statistics are put together by the so-called smart people, and they want to call attention to their so-called smartness. It makes them feel good, even though it will destroy them later.

Not believing in God is a rather stupid way to live.

That's a nice sentence there but you forgot to provide evidence for it. I know it might hurt you to know that stupid people are likely to believe in god but reality is reality, you can't change it.

People believe in God because they believe in the supernatural. This gives them some hope for the future. As they say the proof that God exists then the evidence of a hundred he's not here is the answer to your question.

[varun bee]

because an atheist don't believe in the god until proven otherwise imo, so they put they put the onus on religion to prove the existence of god or any supernatural entity. classifying atheism into other religion would make a collection of people who are doubtful & doubt cannot equate with faith so the combination would be a complete absurdity. folklores and mythological stories should always be taken with a pinch of salt. also the debate is quite interesting if religious people bring strong cases in defence.

[gabmen]

If you want to place a bunch of jokers who say god doesn't exist, as god above nature and your soul telling you that the God of the universe exists, that is partially your choice... and your acceptance of a lie that you know is a lie.

I'm just saying that statistics show that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god or any religion. Statistics don't lie.

That's because the statistics are put together by the so-called smart people, and they want to call attention to their so-called smartness. It makes them feel good, even though it will destroy them later.

Not believing in God is a rather stupid way to live.

That's a nice sentence there but you forgot to provide evidence for it. I know it might hurt you to know that stupid people are likely to believe in god but reality is reality, you can't change it.

People believe in God because they believe in the supernatural. This gives them some hope for the future. As they say the proof that God exists then the evidence of a hundred he's not here is the answer to your question.

I think that's quite a difference there. Atheists don't really say something bad against people of religion. You don't often hear them saying that people or religion are stupid or anything like that. Religious people though are very quick to judge a person if they say they don't believe in god. 😛