Atheism is not a religion, nor a specific philosophical system. However, some religions are substantially atheist in nature. Atheist philosophical systems are at least as intellectually adequate as religious belief systems. There are many atheist philosophical systems, but the only thing they have in common is non-belief in God(s).
I would say that the only way one could link atheism/agnosticism with being a religion, is in as far as dealing with the existance (or not) of God or a god(s).
I've noticed that anything further in labeling atheism as a religion seems to be based on some deperate attempt to portray atheist viewpoints as being no different (faith-wise) from religious viewpoints, and as such to downplay any credibility of atheist challenges to religious beliefs.
I've noticed that anything further in labeling atheism as a religion seems to be based on some deperate attempt to portray atheist viewpoints as being no different (faith-wise) from religious viewpoints, and as such to downplay any credibility of atheist challenges to religious beliefs.
Hmmm. So maybe *religious beliefs* needs a more concrete definition?
The common denominator is they're all belief systems. I think atheism is a kind of faith. There is overwhelming evidence that we did not get here accidentally, yet they have "faith" that we did.
I disagree that atheism should be considered a religion. But I suppose that it depends on your definition of religion where you come down on this one.
It seems that one of the key components of "faith", which is a key portion of "religion", is a belief in that which cannot be proven or demonstrated objectively. Atheists generally hold their position not because of faith, but because they require more than simply faith to believe in something.
The common denominator is they're all belief systems. I think atheism is a kind of faith. There is overwhelming evidence that we did not get here accidentally, yet they have "faith" that we did.
All depends on what we consider overwhelming evidence...
Strictly speaking, Zixar's numerical comparison usage would be correct, _if_, and *only* if, we are going to use it in regards to the number of gods involved.
However, let's see what dictionary.com has to say, which might shed some further light on the meaning of religion:
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Now, if you really wanted to push it, definition number 4 might be appliceable here. Might I say, as many atheists just aren't that *zealous* in their atheism, with the possible exception that they just want to have fundies get off their back in trying to 'save them', and not have their non-belief rendered as e-v-i-l by the public at large. ... Kinda hard to have that shown to be a 'religious experience', ehhh? *Glow-ree*!!
Or, here's another comperable usage for you Zix, in reverse.
Scientific Creationism is as much a "scientific study of earth's past" as archeology is.
But seriously, the fact that atheism/agnosticism deals with the rejection of a god/gods fails in making it a religion, far more than it succeeds in linking it as one, because it goes no farther than the simple rejection/non-acceptance of said spiritual being.
And the reason why Mark's example fails, is that the cemetary administration of the VA was including the atheist symbol along with the others based on the legal standpoint of equal protection for all vets regarding religious related views, and should not be confused as an official dictionary definition of what a religion is or involves. (see said definition above) ... Nice try, Mark. <_<
Not zealous? (looks at the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma) ROFLMAO!
But, okay, let's humor the godless for a second. Suppose we do declare atheism as "not a religion". It would therefore lose any protection it might have had under the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause, 'cuz, hey, it ain't no religion! It's ok to legislate and discriminate around atheism, 'cuz, hey, only religions are constitutionally protected! There are no legal grounds to sue any more over the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust", 'cuz you cain't insult no religion that ain't a religion!
Jesus, guys, grow up. Either atheism is a set of religious beliefs (albeit a degenerate one--and look up the mathematical definition of 'degenerate' before you get your panties in a wad) and you're just as free to think that way as anyone else, or it isn't, and therefore completely irrelevant to any matters involving religion.
Not zealous? (looks at the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma) ROFLMAO!
That number would be zero, Zixar.
But, okay, let's humor the godless for a second. Suppose we do declare atheism as "not a religion". It would therefore lose any protection it might have had under the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause, 'cuz, hey, it ain't no religion!
There is no freedom of religion clause. There are the establishment and free exercise clauses. Neither has a thing to do with whether or not atheism is a religion.
It's ok to legislate and discriminate around atheism, 'cuz, hey, only religions are constitutionally protected! There are no legal grounds to sue any more over the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust", 'cuz you cain't insult no religion that ain't a religion!
You don't understand the establishment clause, do you?
Jesus, guys, grow up. Either atheism is a set of religious beliefs (albeit a degenerate one--and look up the mathematical definition of 'degenerate' before you get your panties in a wad) and you're just as free to think that way as anyone else, or it isn't, and therefore completely irrelevant to any matters involving religion.
For someone who claims to be so smart, you sure can be dense. Atheism not being a religion is completely irrelevant to an issue of government respecting an establishment of religion, not to "any matters involving religion." The protection afforded by the establishment clause extends to religious and non-religious people.
jeez. if RELIGION is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," and ATHEISM is "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods," then atheism is NOT a religion.
so you can either accept these simple definitions, and the inescapable conclusion, or play with the words.
Religion is a system by which man defines his relationship to God. denying God is defining a relationship to God as being non existent because he doesn't exist--so yes atheism is a religion
Of all the recurring arguments that crop up on this board, I think this has got to be the dumbest.
Looky having something is NOT the same as NOT having it. Does that require a lengthy proof to defend?
We're all born agnostics. Somewhere along the line we may decide (generally after a lengthy indoctrination period) to accept an additional set of beliefs. If you think that's a good thing, BE MY GUEST.
Gawd, it's like we've entered into some bizarro world where having something is the same as not having it, bald is the same as having hair (I WISH), having dinner is the same as going hungry, being single is the same as being married. Uh, no...
Um, just what is it that you're trying to prove? That we're all human?
Well, I would hope so. That we all have to put our pants on one leg at a time, that we all have to use the bathroom on occasion, that we all do things from time to time that we're not particularly proud of?
Well, I confess! Yes, I'm guilty of ALL of those heinous crimes.
Yes, we all share certain human foibles, so? Is that the ultimate goal of this whole line of (lack of) reasoning?
Religion is a system by which man defines his relationship to God. denying God is defining a relationship to God as being non existent because he doesn't exist--so yes atheism is a religion
I pretty much agree with TL on this. Now I won't say that there is no one who is not "religiously" fervent about their "non belief", but the examples I personally know of pretty well illustrate her point. For example...I know of one researcher who is always decrying God as illogical in the face of science, as if any declaration that God is in our lives or in our nation is illogical. But, of course, science has the answers. Of course, I know some other researchers who do not see this conflict between God and science. The point is, this guy is so fervent as to have to resort to actively degrading as illogical or stupid any ideas that promote God's hand in events and/or peoples' lives. The point is, he is not satisfied with saying something like "I don't believe this is the work of a God, and here's why...", but he puts all that extra effort into degrading the idea. he comes across as being awfully religiously devoted to non-religion.
Not zealous? (looks at the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma) ROFLMAO!
Zix,
Look down at the bottom of each of your posts and take a gander at your tagline. It sez "I am not responsible if you didn't bother to read the whole thing...".
Well, you didn't bother to read 'the whole thing' in my post. Ie., "Might I say, as many atheists just aren't that *zealous* in their atheism, with the possible exception that they just want to have fundies get off their back in trying to 'save them', and not have their non-belief rendered as e-v-i-l by the public at large.".
There! There is our zealotry! Our 'dogma'.
S-o-o, does that make us a 'religion'? If so, where do I go to get the proper 501( c ) forms making me exempt from taxes, please?
Lifted,
See point 4 in the definition that I got from Dictionary.com. Also notice that that alone does nothing to make atheism any more a religion.
1. To advocate for social acceptance of the essential fact that there is no reason or evidence that supports the proposition that gods or supernatural phenomenon exist.
2. To offer the Atheist proposition as a foundation for a truly free and fulfilling life.
3. To advance Atheism as a necessary premise of any social and ethical philosophy which accepts as valid, only propositions verifiable by sound logic and the scientific method, and rejects supernatural or other explanations contingent on non-rational ideologies.
4. To educate the general public about Atheist ideas, history, methods, and objectives.
5. To defend freedom of thought and expression as well as the complete and absolute separation of state and church as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
6. To vigorously campaign for higher educational standards that fully embrace scientific discipline in acquiring reliable knowledge, and emphasize the development of critical thinking skills in every person.
7. We welcome all whose concern is to positively contribute to the advancement of human well being through clarity of thought, and the application of rational principles.
Seems like somebody beat you to the punch, Garth...
I didn't know what the mathematical definition of "degenerate" was, so I looked it up
"being mathematically simpler (as by having a factor or constant equal to zero) than the typical case <a degenerate hyperbola>"
I learned sumpin' today!
The rhetorical use of "degenerate" was masterful, using a word which has a common meaning of "having declined (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state" or "having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type; especially,having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state", or "degraded" - which would inflame (or at least irritate) those who did not know the less common definition - and give Zix an opportunity to appear more intelligent than the rest of us. Brilliant!
The number analogy, as Garth stated, is valid only insofar as religion being defined as a worship of a number of gods, zero being a number, therefore t6he worship of zero gods is a religion :huh:
The argument using the First Ammendment...what can I say? Free speech is not dependent upon religion.
Religion is a system by which man defines his relationship to God.
A fair enough definition, although there are religions that have more than one god, or do not have a God or gods at all. But workable enough for this discussion, IMHO
denying God is defining a relationship to God as being non existent because he doesn't exist--
No...first of all, from an atheists point of view, he (or she) is not "denying God", but denying that there is a God...if you meant those two statements to be synonymous, okay...to me "denying God" is to actually believe in his existance, but rejecting his authority and power. Which is different, IMHO, than saying "there is no God"
You cannot have a relationship with something or someone who doesn't exist.
You're looking at it from the believers' point of view: There is a god, but this foolish atheist doesn't believe in him, therefore the realtionship is one of rejection. The atheists point of view is that there is nothing to have a relationship with.
so yes atheism is a religion
Perhaps, but not because of the points that you made.
Recommended Posts
LG
I think BBC has this right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/intro2.shtml
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sorry, did a little research...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Fine with me Geo.
Frankly, the fact that it was even listed in a group of religions was rather interesting (and what I wished to point out).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I would say that the only way one could link atheism/agnosticism with being a religion, is in as far as dealing with the existance (or not) of God or a god(s).
I've noticed that anything further in labeling atheism as a religion seems to be based on some deperate attempt to portray atheist viewpoints as being no different (faith-wise) from religious viewpoints, and as such to downplay any credibility of atheist challenges to religious beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth,
So then, you believe that the BBC was in error to group atheism in with other world religions, as they did?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmm. So maybe *religious beliefs* needs a more concrete definition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Absolutely.
After all, the cemetary administration of the VA classifies atheism right up there with Christian, Jewish, and Taoist:
Source: VA
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
But not Wiccans or pagans/neopagans!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
True! LOL
And who brought that injustice (no sarcasm) to the attention of the board participants here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
And lets not forget the Frisbee-terians....
They believe that when you die... your soul gets stuck on the roof top... and you can't get it down!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
The common denominator is they're all belief systems. I think atheism is a kind of faith. There is overwhelming evidence that we did not get here accidentally, yet they have "faith" that we did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I disagree that atheism should be considered a religion. But I suppose that it depends on your definition of religion where you come down on this one.
It seems that one of the key components of "faith", which is a key portion of "religion", is a belief in that which cannot be proven or demonstrated objectively. Atheists generally hold their position not because of faith, but because they require more than simply faith to believe in something.
All depends on what we consider overwhelming evidence...Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Pfft. Atheism is as much "not a religion" as zero is "not a number".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Strictly speaking, Zixar's numerical comparison usage would be correct, _if_, and *only* if, we are going to use it in regards to the number of gods involved.
However, let's see what dictionary.com has to say, which might shed some further light on the meaning of religion:
Now, if you really wanted to push it, definition number 4 might be appliceable here. Might I say, as many atheists just aren't that *zealous* in their atheism, with the possible exception that they just want to have fundies get off their back in trying to 'save them', and not have their non-belief rendered as e-v-i-l by the public at large. ... Kinda hard to have that shown to be a 'religious experience', ehhh? *Glow-ree*!!Or, here's another comperable usage for you Zix, in reverse.
But seriously, the fact that atheism/agnosticism deals with the rejection of a god/gods fails in making it a religion, far more than it succeeds in linking it as one, because it goes no farther than the simple rejection/non-acceptance of said spiritual being.
And the reason why Mark's example fails, is that the cemetary administration of the VA was including the atheist symbol along with the others based on the legal standpoint of equal protection for all vets regarding religious related views, and should not be confused as an official dictionary definition of what a religion is or involves. (see said definition above) ... Nice try, Mark. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Not zealous? (looks at the number of GSC atheists who immediately jumped into the thread posting their dogma) ROFLMAO!
But, okay, let's humor the godless for a second. Suppose we do declare atheism as "not a religion". It would therefore lose any protection it might have had under the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause, 'cuz, hey, it ain't no religion! It's ok to legislate and discriminate around atheism, 'cuz, hey, only religions are constitutionally protected! There are no legal grounds to sue any more over the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust", 'cuz you cain't insult no religion that ain't a religion!
Jesus, guys, grow up. Either atheism is a set of religious beliefs (albeit a degenerate one--and look up the mathematical definition of 'degenerate' before you get your panties in a wad) and you're just as free to think that way as anyone else, or it isn't, and therefore completely irrelevant to any matters involving religion.
Too funny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
That number would be zero, Zixar.
There is no freedom of religion clause. There are the establishment and free exercise clauses. Neither has a thing to do with whether or not atheism is a religion.You don't understand the establishment clause, do you?
For someone who claims to be so smart, you sure can be dense. Atheism not being a religion is completely irrelevant to an issue of government respecting an establishment of religion, not to "any matters involving religion." The protection afforded by the establishment clause extends to religious and non-religious people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
jeez. if RELIGION is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," and ATHEISM is "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods," then atheism is NOT a religion.
so you can either accept these simple definitions, and the inescapable conclusion, or play with the words.
hmmm, now what would a GSpotter do? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Religion is a system by which man defines his relationship to God. denying God is defining a relationship to God as being non existent because he doesn't exist--so yes atheism is a religion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Of all the recurring arguments that crop up on this board, I think this has got to be the dumbest.
Looky having something is NOT the same as NOT having it. Does that require a lengthy proof to defend?
We're all born agnostics. Somewhere along the line we may decide (generally after a lengthy indoctrination period) to accept an additional set of beliefs. If you think that's a good thing, BE MY GUEST.
Gawd, it's like we've entered into some bizarro world where having something is the same as not having it, bald is the same as having hair (I WISH), having dinner is the same as going hungry, being single is the same as being married. Uh, no...
Um, just what is it that you're trying to prove? That we're all human?
Well, I would hope so. That we all have to put our pants on one leg at a time, that we all have to use the bathroom on occasion, that we all do things from time to time that we're not particularly proud of?
Well, I confess! Yes, I'm guilty of ALL of those heinous crimes.
Yes, we all share certain human foibles, so? Is that the ultimate goal of this whole line of (lack of) reasoning?
Just curious...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I pretty much agree with TL on this. Now I won't say that there is no one who is not "religiously" fervent about their "non belief", but the examples I personally know of pretty well illustrate her point. For example...I know of one researcher who is always decrying God as illogical in the face of science, as if any declaration that God is in our lives or in our nation is illogical. But, of course, science has the answers. Of course, I know some other researchers who do not see this conflict between God and science. The point is, this guy is so fervent as to have to resort to actively degrading as illogical or stupid any ideas that promote God's hand in events and/or peoples' lives. The point is, he is not satisfied with saying something like "I don't believe this is the work of a God, and here's why...", but he puts all that extra effort into degrading the idea. he comes across as being awfully religiously devoted to non-religion.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
Look down at the bottom of each of your posts and take a gander at your tagline. It sez "I am not responsible if you didn't bother to read the whole thing...".
Well, you didn't bother to read 'the whole thing' in my post. Ie., "Might I say, as many atheists just aren't that *zealous* in their atheism, with the possible exception that they just want to have fundies get off their back in trying to 'save them', and not have their non-belief rendered as e-v-i-l by the public at large.".
There! There is our zealotry! Our 'dogma'.
S-o-o, does that make us a 'religion'? If so, where do I go to get the proper 501( c ) forms making me exempt from taxes, please?
Lifted,
See point 4 in the definition that I got from Dictionary.com. Also notice that that alone does nothing to make atheism any more a religion.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You can find that there are 19 organizations with the word "atheist" or "atheism" listed as tax-deductible charities by the IRS:
These charities are:
American Atheists Ghq Inc. Aka the American Atheist Center Parsippany NJ USA --
American Atheists Inc. Parsippany NJ USA --
Atheist Alliance Minneapolis MN USA --
Atheist Community of Austin Inc. Austin TX USA --
Atheist Law Center Inc. (Until December 2006) Montgomery AL USA --
Atheists & Other Freethinkers Sacramento CA USA --
Atheists of Florida Inc. Tampa FL USA --
Atheists of Minnesota (Until December 2006) Minneapolis MN USA --
Atheists of San Francisco Region Inc. San Mateo CA USA --
Atheists of Utah Midvale UT USA --
Atheists United Los Angeles CA USA --
Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library and Archives Inc. Pasippany NJ USA --
Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists Washington DC USA --
Idaho Atheists Inc. Boise ID USA --
Metroplex Atheists Mansfield TX USA --
Minnesota Atheists Minneapolis MN USA --
Nyc Atheists Inc. (Until December 2007) New York NY USA --
United States Atheists Portland OR USA --
Wonderful Atheists of Central Florida Orlando FL USA --
If you were to take al look at the United States Atheists website, you'd note they list in the purpose statement the following:
Atheists of Florida lists the following as their purposes:
Seems like somebody beat you to the punch, Garth...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I didn't know what the mathematical definition of "degenerate" was, so I looked it up
"being mathematically simpler (as by having a factor or constant equal to zero) than the typical case <a degenerate hyperbola>"
I learned sumpin' today!
The rhetorical use of "degenerate" was masterful, using a word which has a common meaning of "having declined (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state" or "having sunk to a condition below that which is normal to a type; especially,having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state", or "degraded" - which would inflame (or at least irritate) those who did not know the less common definition - and give Zix an opportunity to appear more intelligent than the rest of us. Brilliant!
The number analogy, as Garth stated, is valid only insofar as religion being defined as a worship of a number of gods, zero being a number, therefore t6he worship of zero gods is a religion :huh:
The argument using the First Ammendment...what can I say? Free speech is not dependent upon religion.
Too funny is right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
You cannot have a relationship with something or someone who doesn't exist.
You're looking at it from the believers' point of view: There is a god, but this foolish atheist doesn't believe in him, therefore the realtionship is one of rejection. The atheists point of view is that there is nothing to have a relationship with.
Perhaps, but not because of the points that you made.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.