Atheism is/is not a religion

This is my naïve attempt to create a thread where we can put all discussions about whether atheism is a religion so that we can be on topic in other threads. I suggest that if the discussion comes up, post a reply in this thread and post a link in the original thread to here. It might not catch on, but I'd rather try and fail than sit idle when discussion upon discussion derails.

I'd like to start by addressing two common arguments, one from each side.

"Atheists has leaders/militant followers/ideas/etc.". This is the "quacks like a duck" fallacy, or Affirming the consequent. Many causes/ideas/notions/etc. have leaders and followers with ideas, even militant ones. Since many of those are not religions, having leaders/followers is not a good reason for believing that atheism is a religion.

"If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour". While this can be conceptually correct, it hinges upon the definition of religion, which is seldom argued. Personally, I find mostly definitions defining religion to be believing in a God/gods, but not all. For the argument above to be valid, the definitions such as "something of overwhelming importance to a person" must be discredited. Before such a statement is verified, the bald-argument is invalid.

And last but not least, I'd like to ask why this matters at all. If I understand it correctly, the reason atheism is sometimes called a religion, it's because non-atheists want to create a hypocrisy in atheists arguing against something which they themselves are. However, the problems some atheists have with religion do not hinge upon the fact that they fall into the category of religion, but on the issues themselves. For instance, atheists do not have a problem because Christians are a religion, but because Christians accept thing which atheists do not. It does not matter which, if any, of the concepts that fall into the religion category, only the issues do.

 

If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If atheism is a religion, then a disbelief in the Toothfairy is a religion.

If atheism is a religion, then a the disbelief in Bigfoot is a religion as well.

The claim that atheism is a religion is poor attempt to divert attention from what ever the thread's original point was.

 

Unfortuantely, acording to atheists themselves, it has legal standing as a religion.

http://atheists.org/atheism

So, for legal purposes like shutting down the expression of everyone else's faith, atheism is a religion in order to have legal standing. Good enough for the courts, good enough for me. You will notice that the legal standing claim there is filled with many positive assertions, so ... not collecting stamps is stupid claim to make - as non-stanmp collectors usually don;t spend oogles of time trying to block the nefarious stamp collectors of the world from unhinging Western society because the astampers noticed a stamp on their envelope and decided to seek legal standing in a court to block this heathen display of unfair stamp collecting.

It is amazing how obtuse some atheists are. Quite frankly Swenn, you seem to handle your far moe prolific version of the Westboro Baptist Church far better than we do.

Now, what these claims are really aimed at is the rebuttal of the equally silly preoccupation of the Westboro Baptist Church of atheism (which cannot exist because atheist is not a religion, only ... it seeks legal standing as one? Collects money like one?) with OT violence. A rigid set of criteria was selected by these extremist atheists, whose sole goal was to call Christians murderers and excusers of murderers. Well, when we applied these rigoriously binding standards to atheism's history ... we find quite a lot of super bloody violence.

Rather than accept the analysis of their own standards and the implications that the standards have on their atheistic preaching and denunciation of religion on themselves, we get a dodge. A really silly one, that attempts to correlate atheists suing people with ... not collecting stamps? Stupid.

For extremists atheists the goal is not to help define or refine any religion out there, including their own, it is to crap on other people's faith at any cost. And when their standards, which the extremist atheists are all in favor of when applying them to others are turned back on them? Well, suddenly atheist, the extremists anyway, are non-stamp collectors who are suing stamp collectors to make the most evil piece of decorated paper in the world go away before it unravles the time space continum and leads to the end of the universe as we know it.

You are right atheists, such claims definitely point to extremist atheism NOT being a religion. Rather its a cult based on an intergallatic conspiracy theory.

For the real atheists out there? Apologies.

 

I would say that it doesn't make any sense at all to consider a single belief regarding any single existential proposition, to be a religion. Accepting the proposition that a god exists or rejecting it is at best a belief one might base a religion on but is in no way a religion by itself. It seems to me that once a position is taken, a set of beliefs that flow from it and are then formalized and adhered to is what distinguishes a religion from a single position on a single proposition. Therefore simply believing in god would not be a religion and conversely simply not believing in god would not be a religion. There's just more to it than that. If not then to simply believe in the existence of Bigfoot, or Ogopogo or fairies or leprichauns or whatever would qualify. Pretty silly, that.

 

Religion is a practice - something you do, not something you are.

Theism, describing the belief in some god or gods, is not in of itself a religion and doesn't automatically imply the theist follows a religion.

Atheism is the opposite of theism, describing only the lack of belief in (or denial of) any god or gods. Likewise, it is not in itself a religion and doesn't imply an atheist follows a religion.

Atheists can and do follow religions which happen to not to involve deities (the classic example being many Buddhists). Some atheists will also be anti-theistic or anti-religious but this is not fundamental to atheist itself. In my experience, most atheists don't even know they're atheist and go through their lives without the question of the existence or non-existence of gods having any significant influence what so ever.

We are all quite odd on that account.

 

Yea, I like that!

 

Really? Then why do you atheists practice so much nihilism? Why do you write so many books? Have your own school of philosophy? Feel compelled to debate is you are ... not practicing anything?

Why do you seek legal standing as a religion, is you are just doing nothing? Save the ritualistic suing of the ten commandments no matter where they hang? Does that sound like nothing? Respectful disagreement?

Now, what exactly is the process that calls the random hanging of a a religious symbol that magically imbues it with nefarious qualities, but not until an atheist noticies it hanging there, that will unravel the very fabric of our nation and lead to utter anarchy unless removed?

If THAT is not a 'something', well, it sure as hell is not ... not practicing something.

 

Fair enough - atheism isn't a religion, but anti-theism is then.

 

Well, there is a larger point here. For purposes of arguementation, atheism can, and indeed is, treated as a religion.

So when someone uses it as part of an arguement, to avoid the substance of the arguement with the deliberate misdirection of a silly sub-arguement?

Yep its a tactic often employeed by extremist atheists, who, rather than debate the substance of the issues in in the thread they are purposely attempting to block, or in this thread - will instantaneously run off and ask whether of not the NFL is a religion ... pointedly ignoring the fact that to some fans ... it most certainly is.

Of course, there is one HUGE difference. The NFL does not seek its legal standing as a religion, but rather as a corporation - atheism? Yep, religion.

Apparently, debating this concept in Swenn's thread is ... right out? Asking the question with a yes or no response was not deemed incendaiary enough basis, far to neutral, to adaquately express their disgust at those who would dare to disagree with them? So they needed their own thread. No pretense of debate required, just a silly challenge.

 

I fail to see how anti-theism would be a religion either.

 

So if all atheists agreed with you guys insisting that atheism is a religion, what difference would it make? Do you have any further point? If it is or is not technically a religion it certainly isn't going to change the way I look at things.

 

I don't and neither to the vast majority of atheists - as you well know.

I'm not debating because I happen not to believe in gods, I'm debating because of my overall character. I'm more interested in practical consequences than theoretical concepts.

Again, I don't. I do believe that nobody should be discriminated against on the grounds of religious belief or the lack of but that isn't establishing atheism as a religion. Of course I'd prefer that didn't need expressing at all.

That isn't atheism, it's secularism and, in the USA, Constitutionalism. Most atheists probably couldn't care either way and I suspect most of those who do object on the basis of the practical implication of it being there (the primacy of Christianity).

I've not personally removed any religious symbols from anywhere.

Yes, it's something some atheists do. That doesn't make those things atheism.

That would be like saying flying passenger aircraft in to tall buildings is theism (so why do you do that?).

 

Defining atheism as a religion because it's been done so in court I think has more to do with our legal system than with whether atheism is a religion or not. I mean, our legal system came up with the fantastic decision that corporations are people, so defining atheism as a religion from a legal standpoint seems perfectly legit and completely unsurprising to me. Whether it actually operates in reality the way a religion does is what I think should be used to define it.

Atheism in itself is not a religion, in my opinion, simply because there is no belief system involved, no organization, no rules, no structure. It's simply the term that is used to describe people who answer "No" to the question of "Do you believe there is a higher power of some kind?". On the flipside, a theist is someone who answers "Yes". There are certainly atheist groups, but as someone else has mentioned, simply having groups that profess certain beliefs does not make them a religion. If we want to argue against atheism in a religious form, we need to be directing our criticism towards something like Buddhism or Secular Humanism, which are indeed atheistic religions.

It is entirely possible for all of the following to be logically consistent.

A religious atheist - Secular Humanism, Buddhism
A non-religious atheist - Someone who does not follow a religion of any kind and does not believe in a higher power.
A religious theist - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc
A non-religious theist. - People who believe in a higher power but do not follow any religions organized around that belief. An agnostic could potentially fall into this category as well, and perhaps Pagans, Wicken, and other sub-sets that may worship the Earth as a higher power, even if the Earth is not a "figure" in the sense that God and Christ are.

 

Just as I presume that Westboro Church doesn't represent all believers in Christ, I would hope that Christians don't assume that any one atheist represents all Atheists.

 

The argument about Atheism being a religion hinges on the idea from a Theists perspective that Atheists are being hypocritical.

Atheists that get involved in religion do so to argue against the issues that affect humanity because of religion.

Here’s the problem, the other argument we have from Theists is that Atheism is just as much to blame as Theism is for the evils of the world often citing people like Stalin in reference to those evils spreading the blame.

But if Atheism is indeed a religion then the truth is all the atrocities ever committed in this world do in fact belong to religion.

So which is it?

Is Atheism not a religion and therefore a system all to its own in which case Theists can continue to make the argument that Atheism is just as bad or worse?

Or is Atheism a religion in which case all the atrocities in the world committed by man are an adverse side effect of religion?

Theists often paint themselves in a corner with their logic, mainly because its lacking.

 

So who says that atheism is a religion?

 

So, you are telling me that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, and Sagan before that were best sellers because ... Muslims were the ones buying the books?

Are you really trying to tell me that these things don't exist? What do we call all these ideologes hawking books to atheists in mass quantities then? Snake oil salesmen?

That is all well and good.

Well, a lack of prejudice is not what defines any other religion either?

That does not answer the question though does it? Something hangs there for a hundred years, and its only when you notice it that it becomes a dire threat to ... what exactly? As I said, secularism is an inclusive process. Religion being displayed is allowed under the freedom of expression clause, correct? So, a few religious symbols smattered here and there is hardly a dire threat. Now, if it was REQUIRED to be displayed everywhere, most religious people would disagree - as this violates the premise of secularism - which Christians created.

There is no freedom from offense. After all, many Republicans would find a picture of John F. Kennedy to be offensive, but they would certainly not sue (at least to this point) to have it removed because it showed an unacceptable partisan favoritism that was undermining and destroying America. SO tell me, why, if its a picture of Jesus is it suddenly so gosh darned evil? Such notions, when applied to Republicans and Democrats, would be immediately dismissed from any court with standing as absurd.

But when atheists do it? Well, one of the definitions that atheists like to foust on religion is that it is the belief in the absurd.

Nope, but your religion and its fund raising are certainly trying pretty dambed hard.

Not all religions are uniform either, yet atheists still write and desseminate things like this.

http://atheists.org/religion

Are the delineations in religion ever, or even rarely, made when atheists desseminate these kinds of things? ANd who do we hold accountable for them if not the atheists you write, fund, and desseminate such things?

And many atheists say exactly that.



Because there has never been an instance of terrorism until 9-11? Or just not one that American Atheists could so definitively and blindly blame religion for?

So tell me, seeing the propoganda like that, what is that? Why is it so wide spread in the atheist community?

 

It would be nice if, rather than speculative strawmen that define our positions for us, atheists would address the actual arguements.

Many people consider atheism a religion, because atheism sought successfully to garner legal standing as a religion - just so they could sue people.

I am not quite sure how that makes US the hypocrites?

Now to further point out, many theists, this one included, blame violence on politics and greed. You see any ideology out there, including non-religious ones, can be exploited by the unscrupulous to garner power. And they do so. McCarthyism? The Racist colonization of much of the world by Europeans. All the wars in Asia through the centuries that united the middle kingdom? Teh Japanese Civil War with Bushido at its heart?

Is vigilance required for morality, or simply finger pointing at other ideologies - which somehow insures yours is safe from said exploitation - even though it was only recently subjected to said exploitation? We have our Jim Jones's, what makes atheists thing they do not have their own?

 

Atheism never sought anything.

An atheist sought something.

Just like a Christian directed the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity didn't.

And just like no individual atheist speaks for me, I assume that Torquemada didn't represent you.

Simple to me, don't know why you feel a terrible need to group all atheists together- I certainly don't blame all Christians for anything ever done by someone who calls themselves a Christian.

 

It would prevent the extremists of atheism with disrupting one thread after another with this same silly debate, take away one excuse for the extremists in your midst to obfuscate.

That is about it.

 

Then who the hell did buy them? Why are they so often quoted by atheists both on and off this forum? Who is supporting the atheists groups suing the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of any religious symbol they can? Certainly not the ones overtly argueing in favor of their antics? Certainly?

What exactly am I supposed to 'know well?' That clearly a business of selling ideology must have a willing ideology to fund its actions and buy its products? And assuming that it is the ideological adherents is ... silly?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's akin to claiming that the only people who purchase Bibles are atheists.

Like law suits?

But that is your religion, your preface that no one speak their differing opinion, and legal suits to STOP just that expression. You personally may not be involved, but your peers certainly are. And it is not like you are sitting idly on the side lines, you are actively arguieing is support of their actions.

Only you don;t want to be held accountable for these actions? And neither do you want your faith choice held accountable for the actions its organizes houses of ... whatever ... are doing?

Who is at fault then? How do we, for purposes of discussion resist these actions, offer a counter-arguement to the premis of these actions without running afoul of the ritualistic denial that these are the fault of theose supporting them?

Secularism is not the blocking of religious displays - secularism is an inclusive process as outlined by the Establishment Clause, which is NON_FAVORITISM, not non expression.

What you are argueing is very much atheism - because the only people on Earth claiming that paintings are harmful - but only when they have religious symbology - are atheists. Its ONLY you guys trying to stop this devilishly threatening practice. Why?

Apparently, because atheists have nothing better to do than demonize art?

Join the Army, go kill soem actual terrorists!

Well, if only the world didn't revolve around you. If only the concept of atheism hung personally and solely upon what YOU do rather than what the community of atheists do. If ONLY the atheists saying this would resist the attempts of their co-religionists to smear Christianity as violent, and then support their derailment of actual analysis by claiming atheism isn't a religion, and so what what someone else does? YOU DIDN'T?

Well, doesn't stop you guys from demanding that WE collectively, acknowledge that we are worse than Hitler.

It is when its organized, ritualized, supported by a doctrine, funded, desseminated, recruited, and given legal standing as a religion ...

And indeed you guys say just that.

 

Here's the OP in case you missed it. If it doesn't apply to you then why get defensive?

The point of this thread is that religious debates get derailed while everyone argues over whether or not Atheism is a religion preventing people from concentrating on the arguements and the reason this happens is because the moment religion is cast in a bad light by an Atheist the Theists try to use the same arguements which are only valid if Atheism is a religion.

The fundamental debate from an Atheists position is that religion has negative affects on humanity because it is a religion but we can hardly argue the points without first having to reject the notion that Atheism is also a religion hence my last post.

 

Yep, but YOU personally have no problem with your peers continuusly calling Christians Hilter, using just the comparisons you now claim to enshrine as bad? Yet, when followng the same line by applying actual numbers to he violence, and it looks bad for atheists - suddenly the process is flame bait and absolutely hypocritical?

You are all for generalities when your faith group condemns us ... generalized religious poeple.

http://atheists.org/religion

There is literally only ONE atheist that I have met who has ever condemned that statement, and yet, the very same atheists, in droves, will deride any effort to deal with atheism in general rather than deeply personal sense? I do not get that.

And that is my biggest problem with atheism. On one hand you seek legal standing as a religion, on the other you want everyone to accept at face value your adament denial that you are a religion - because, atheism is not nihilistic? And yet the entire disagreement seem to hinge on a deliberate comparison to ... a generalized concept of religion.

Well, many Protestant faithhs are a rebuttal to Catholicism, a far less generalized platform, and it is STILL a religion.

So, rather than attempt to make atheism whatever YOU want it to be, why not address what everyone else in the world sees when they look at atheism these days?

Organized groups raising fund to pursue particular policy objectives (only their participation in the political system is not deemed .. nefarious, only religious institutions who do so are 'attempting to fourst their beliefs on others'?), a philosphical school of thought, a wide pleathora of doctrinal material including atheist Bibles (be its not doctrinal because NOT ALL atheist accept every last word unthinkingly, neither do all Christians accept what the Pope says as gospel either? I am confused.), recruitment tools, educational activities, summer camps, and as many blindly dogmatic adherents as any other faith group out there.

But to call THAT a religion is ... deeply offensive? Its apparently salt on the wounds of the nefarious picture we hang on the walls?

 

I think part of the misunderstanding is the fact that the word "Religion", like many widely-used words, is often used metaphorically. Some might say that to my sister, dieting is a religion. To my brother in law, football is his religion. Neither of those involve gods or even anything supernatural, just an overwhelming interest. In a metaphorical sense, almost ANYTHING can be a religion. Obviously that includes atheism.

In a literal sense, though, Swensson is right that it depends on how you define religion. The OED definition, for example, seems to exclude any religion that does not ask you to worship gods - for example, Jainism. Since atheism obviously doesn't ask you to worship gods, then it's clearly not a religion. Wikipedia, on the other hand, says that religion is just any way to relate humans to spirituality - and I suppose you could very well say that "there is no supreme spirit to relate to" is a statement on how humans relate to spirituality.

Since it hinges so much on the definition, then, it's easy to define your way into saying either that it is, or is not, a religion. Focusing on it, is then pretty much a waste of time.

 

The problem is that you want to apply standards to religion that you don't want applied to your own ideological history, and you want it to do it while ignoring the individual opinions of a very diverse group of religions, while demanding that ONLY your opinion of atheism, backed by no doctrine (even though there is doctrine).

In short its hypocrisy, blatant double standards.

And it is why atheists right here on this forum turn a blind eye to your peers vaccuously comparing us to Al Qaeda (because I am a terrorist), the KKK (because I personally am a racist), and Hilter (because my home is decorated with Nazi paraphilnalia rather then a cross or two?), but then scream bloody murder when someone remind you of Stalin, Mao, North Korea. Suddenly, THEY are just a FEW misbehaving atheists, not representing the whole ... be WE are to be udged by what a few misbehaving Christians did a thousand years ago .. and not by what Saint Kolbe did within this century?

So, your analysis with blinders on must be taken as gospel because atheism is not a religion? Even as it apes everything about religion except the concept of God?