Atheism a religion?

[Rgilgamesh the Hallowed]

I have been reading multiple articles dealing with atheism as a religion. I have been getting multiple responses about the question. According to the United States, we are considered a religion; so I am told. But when I say this fact to an non-atheist, they usually reply; "Atheism isn't a religion. You need to believe in a god in order to be a religion." In my personal opinion, I don't believe that is true. Though it would depend on how you define religion. I want to know what you guys think about this topic. I also want to know who and who doesn't consider us a religion.  

[Tchaik]

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
-Dennis McKinsey

The word "Atheism" is literally, "to lack a religion".

So no, I don't believe Atheism is a religion at all. I personally wouldn't want to be viewed as a religion at all.
But I can see how it could be seen as a religion, I guess. To each his own. smile

 

[Rgilgamesh the Hallowed]

Tchaik

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
-Dennis McKinsey

The word "Atheism" is literally, "to lack a religion".

So no, I don't believe Atheism is a religion at all. I personally wouldn't want to be viewed as a religion at all.
But I can see how it could be seen as a religion, I guess. To each his own. smile

Actually atheist derives from the Greek word 'atheos', meaning godless. And the word religion means " a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." And when it says superhuman agencies doesn't have to imply a divine being at all. Just something bigger then humans; just like the Big Bang. But I also can see it from your point and view.

P.S. Like your Knights of Ni icon.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

First: w00+ at teh Knights of Ni!
A nice quote of Engels' in Ludwig Feuerbach And The End Of Classical German Philosophy:

Quote:

Religion is derived from religare and meant originally a bond. Therefore, every bond between two people is a religion. Such etymological tricks are the last resort of idealist philosophy. Not what the word means according to the historical developement of its actual use, but what it ought to mean according to its derivation is what counts. And so sex love and the intercourse between the sexes is apotheosised to a religion, merely in order that the word religion, which is so dear to idealistic memories, may not disappear from the language. The Parisian reformers of the Louis Blanc trend used to speak in precisely the same way in the fourties*. They likewise could concieve of a man without religion only as a monster, and used to say to us: "Donc, l'atheisme c'est votre religion!"**

* 1840s
** "Well, then atheism is your religion!"

Atheism is not a religion, merely a characterisation of what belief one lacks.  

[Vedun]

What is a religion, but an organized set of beliefs? And if the answer is:"not much more than that" then technically Atheism could be viewed as a religion.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Mr.Waulrus

What is a religion, but an organized set of beliefs? And if the answer is:"not much more than that" then technically Atheism could be viewed as a religion.

Except that the belief in question is "Dieties exist". Atheism is the lack of that belief, so if your definition is accurate, atheism cannot be a religion. But if your definition is accurate, then that technically means that political affiliation can be considered a religion, among other examples. Religion is a pretty tough concept to define.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

)Atheism is nothing more than the statement that one recognises no gods.
)A religion is something which accepts the immaterial as real.
)Organised religion is something which accepts the immaterial as real and has a set method for dealing with that.

Therefore, religions can be theist (polytheist, monotheist or pantheist), atheist, organised or not, but they all believe in the immaterial.

All I say about when using the term atheist is that I deny the existence of divinity. Being an atheist in and of itself does not preclude accepting heaven and hell, the eternal soul or other similar garbage (if you are offended, just tell me my views are garbage, or, better yet, try to prove me wrong). My rejection of such is described by the term Materialist.

According to the definition I gave, materialism cannot be a religion because it does not accept 'the immaterial as real', and so while I am a dialectical materialist and partake of a philosophy that 'has a set method for dealing with' the material, t is just that, the material, not the immaterial, or extra-material, that I propose to deal with.  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

I wouldn't say atheism is a religion, but I also don't understand people getting uptight over people answering "atheist" when asked what their religious beliefs are. It's just like saying, "I don't have any," or "I don't believe in any gods." I've seen a few people recently in the ED jumping down people's throats for saying this.  

[Dronning Dagmar]

elvishberserker

And the word religion means "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." And when it says superhuman agencies doesn't have to imply a divine being at all. Just something bigger then humans; just like the Big Bang. But I also can see it from your point and view.

Atheism isn't a set of beliefs. It's one non-belief. We don't believe in any gods. That's it. The end. When you get down to it, there's no requirement that an atheist has to believe in the Big Bang or any other theories "concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." There just has to not be a god.  

[Sanguvixen]

Atheism, is a single thing. It is a non-stance when it comes to religion. Atheists are given the claim by theists that gods exist. Atheists simply choose to not believe that claim, putting them in a non-stance when it comes to religion, and putting them in them in the mindset that gods and deities do not exist.

However, there are some atheists out there who choose to follow science to a T, and that has caused people to miss-assume that atheism is a religion. It drives me a little nuts that people seem to think that they can assume that all atheists follow science "religiously".

If being an atheist required one to believe in the "Big Bang" and so forth, than a case could be made that it is a religion. However being Atheist does not require anyone to believe in a set of beliefs. It is just a term to label people who lacks religion, and do not follow the idea of gods/goddess/deities/heavens/hells.

The term "Atheist" was originally a word used a long time ago, as a slur against people who were considered heathens,deviant, or amoral. At one point and time in human history, a person who did not believe in gods/deities took up that insult, and began to use it as a label for his stance on religion. Eventually the negative connotations that made it such an insulting slur sort of went away, only to be replaced in the modern age by a new set of stereotypes.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Quote:

However, there are some atheists out there who choose to follow science to a T, and that has caused people to miss-assume that atheism is a religion. It drives me a little nuts that people seem to think that they can assume that all atheists follow science "religiously".

If being an atheist required one to believe in the "Big Bang" and so forth, than a case could be made that it is a religion. However being Atheist does not require anyone to believe in a set of beliefs.

So you are saying that an ideology that requires its adhearents to disbelieve in the divine and the immaterial, and to accept the fruits of science is a religion? If so, you must explain how such a 'cult of science' could be called a religion. Above, I said the following:
)Atheism is nothing more than the statement that one recognises no gods.
)A religion is something which accepts the immaterial as real.
)Organised religion is something which accepts the immaterial as real and has a set method for dealing with that.
Within this understanding, science cannot be classified as a religion, however, if you disagree with what I have put in italics, please feel free to criticise and put forward your own understanding.

Quote:

It is just a term to label people who lacks religion, and do not follow the idea of gods/goddess/deities/heavens/hells.

People frequently use it as such, however it is also currently used in a more specific way: to denote one who does not believe in any gods. This does not refer to an eternal soul or heaven or hell, merely to 'gods'. So someone who believes in reincarnation is an atheist but is certainly religious.

Quote:

Eventually the negative connotations that made it such an insulting slur sort of went away, only to be replaced in the modern age by a new set of stereotypes.

Actually, the atheists never really cared about the title atheist, they left that up to others. Socrates was declared an atheist, and the only reason he opposed being called such was because he dsmissed the importance of local gods over 'the one almighty', in short, because he was no atheist. Some have feared the charge, not because of the lable, but because of the execution that comes with it.  

[Sanguvixen]

I am not saying that I would agree with calling an ideology religion, in which you reject the idea of deities, or the immaterial, but must accept science. The idea that I am trying to get across, if that if the science in question that must be accepted is in the realm of pseudoscience or untestable theory, that there the argument could be made. I'm not saying the argument could be won though.

It all comes down to a play on words, really.

The problem many people have with religion, is that these people make such big fantastic claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

If a person were to reject gods and goddesses, and the immaterial, and turned around and put full blind faith in some untestable theory that just sounds right, how is that really any different than religion?

The argument can be made that it is like religion, or similar to religion, at least.

Scientology is a cult of pseudoscience, is it not? While there is some science brought into the whole idea, there is also a fantastic claim about a "Lord Xenu". I do not agree with giving Scientology the label of Religion, but at the very least you can say that it is similar to religion. There will be those who can argue it as religion(they might not win though). See where I am going?

Not believing in a god does not make that belief a religion because it doesn't require me to adhere to a set of beliefs surrounded an immaterial thing/deity/personal god. These days though, the word "religion" has been warped.

Moving on, you cannot really believe in reincarnation without believing in a eternal soul. That said I use the words "heaven and hell" because those are heavily associated with modern monotheism.

Reincarnation has more to deal with spirituality, which is quite a bit different than religion. Although, right now I am in the process of reorganizing my thoughts on the whole thing with Reincarnation and Spirituality.

The more I think, the more certain things make no sense. That is a whole different topic though.

 

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Cool. For the most part I agree with you, though there are some details I have problems with.

Quote:

that if the science in question that must be accepted is in the realm of pseudoscience or untestable theory, that there the argument could be made. I'm not saying the argument could be won though.

If it is pseudo-science it may or may not be religion, the pseudo-science is independent of the cause it serves. In other words, someone who propagandises for a pseudo-scientific theory may be doing it in support of a religion, or something else, but to claim it is religious, it would have to fit into my criteria of what constitutes a religion, either that, or a new set of criteria must be devised.

Quote:

It all comes down to a play on words, really.

No, no, no, no, no! They like to play around with words. We (speaking for myself here) do not. I generally like to make a very specific definition of what I mean, so that conversation can revolve around that definition. It is not playing with words to achieve a given result, but rather setting, for the purpose of the discussion, a given definition which will be stuck with, and any results will be based on that.

Quote:

The problem many people have with religion, is that these people make such big fantastic claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

I do not know what problems 'many people' have with religion. As far as I know, most atheists are created through a crisis of faith. This is not how I became one, and not how you may have come to your current conclusion, but it is certainly the trend that I see.

Quote:

Scientology is a cult of pseudoscience, is it not? While there is some science brought into the whole idea, there is also a fantastic claim about a "Lord Xenu". I do not agree with giving Scientology the label of Religion, but at the very least you can say that it is similar to religion. There will be those who can argue it as religion(they might not win though). See where I am going?

I wouldn't say that scientology is a cult of pseudo-science. Acording to the criteria given above, they are religious: they believe in a heaven and a hell, they believge in souls, though I do not know if they have a deity. So they are a religion. They have a set method of dealing with these souls and of determining whether one will go to heaven or hell, and it is therefore an organised religion.
They use a lot of science and pseudo-science. They use psychoanalysis and psycho-therapy which are certainly scientific, though I assume the stuff about Zenu and such is where the pseudo-science comes in for you, though as above, the pseudo-science is just bad science, it really has nothing to do with the particular religion if taken out of context.  

[-GS-Sailor Nemesis]

Mr.Waulrus

What is a religion, but an organized set of beliefs? And if the answer is:"not much more than that" then technically Atheism could be viewed as a religion.

There's no organization, no dogma, nor tenets. Atheism is the simple belief that there cannot be a god. I.E., not a religion, and it never will be.  

[Sanguvixen]

Whenever I think of Pseudoscience, I usually think of botched science tainted with religion.

I do realize though that not all of Pseudoscience is has religious taints to it.

I know we are not the ones who should play around with wording. However, there are times when the only way to understand another person's point of view, is to understand how they are playing with wording.

This is a problem I have seen a good number of atheists have, although I cannot speak for all of them. Not all atheists start out religion though. I know I was never religious myself.

I thought Xenu was their deity. stare Calling something a religion is to give them sort of a protection that they don't deserve. Scientology is nothing more than a cult created to show how easy it is to manipulate people in order to get money. It is not a true religion.