Is atheism a religion

[C1ay]

Still the question remains, why have a Theology Forum at all

Theology is a valid branch of philosophy which is itself a science. We wish to allow discussions in a philosophical context. There are valid philosophical and sociological discussions in the context of science that fall under the umbrella of humanities. Then there are the biblical debates which simply don't belong here for lack of science; there are plenty of other fora for those elsewhere.

[pgrmdave]

Atheism can be either a religious-type belief, based on the belief that there is no god, or not, based on the lack of belief in a god. There is a distinction, and to say that all atheists are one or the other is simply ignoring the truth. I think there are actually three different types of atheists.

 

1 - the "apathetic" atheist. While I doubt there are many in this forum, there are many people who just don't care. They are atheists because it doesn't matter to them, so they don't bother to think about it.

 

2 - the "logical" atheist. This is a person who looks at the lack of direct evidence for a god, and determines that it is illogical to believe that a god exists, so they have a lack of belief in god. This is the kind that I suspect most here are, hence for them, it is not a religion, it is not a belief set any more than a disbelief in fairy tales.

 

3 - the 'religious' atheist. This is a person who is very similar to the logical atheist, with one important difference. They not only lack a belief in god, but have an active disbelief, in fact a belief that there cannot be a god. This is a position which cannot be backed up logically, and is very similar to religious beliefs. While they seem similar to the logical, they refuse to acknowledge the potential for any sort of spirituality

 

Those are, in my experiance, the three basic types of atheism. Anybody, on either side, who tries to lump them all into one category ignores the others. Yes, there are people who are "religious" about their atheism, but that doesn't mean that everybody who is an atheist is religious. And yes, you may not be a religious atheist, but that doesn't mean that everybody who is an atheist is like you.

[C1ay]

3 - the 'religious' atheist. This is a person who is very similar to the logical atheist, with one important difference. They not only lack a belief in god, but have an active disbelief, in fact a belief that there cannot be a god. This is a position which cannot be backed up logically, and is very similar to religious beliefs. While they seem similar to the logical, they refuse to acknowledge the potential for any sort of spirituality

While such atheists disbelieve with faith that they are correct, it does not amount to religion.

religion • noun

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2 a particular system of faith and worship.

3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Main Entry: re·li·gion

Function: noun

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) pronunciation

n.

1.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. 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.

 

And antonyms of religion?

religion n

Definition: belief in higher power

Antonyms: agnosticism, atheism, disbelief

 

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary there are several possible origins for the term religion.

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun

(11c.) from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life"

(5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture).

 

However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

 

"The equal toleration of all religions ... is the same thing as atheism." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

 

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599.

 

The atheistic belief that there is no higher power is not really described in any of the roots of the word religion and is actually quoted as a tolerance of religions which implies it was not considered a religion itself.

 

IMO, some atheists have what I consider an illogical belief that there is/are no god(s). Their belief is one of faith since it is an unprovable claim but it does not meet the test for religion.

[infamous]

 

3 - the 'religious' atheist. This is a person who is very similar to the logical atheist, with one important difference. They not only lack a belief in god, but have an active disbelief, in fact a belief that there cannot be a god. This is a position which cannot be backed up logically, and is very similar to religious beliefs. While they seem similar to the logical, they refuse to acknowledge the potential for any sort of spirituality

 

Excellent observations pgmdave.........While many atheists fit this discription, they will usually fight desperately, denying vehemently that they belong in this category. Those who fight the hardest define their position by the intensity of their struggle. I think you discribed it most eloquently dave......, "their active disbelief".......Infy

[Pyrotex]

Atheism can be either a religious-type belief, based on the belief that there is no god, or not, based on the lack of belief in a god....

3 - the 'religious' atheist. This is a person who is very similar to the logical atheist, with one important difference. They not only lack a belief in god, but have an active disbelief, in fact a belief that there cannot be a god....

Dear pgrmDave,

I really like you and I truly respect you. Indeedy I do. Just remember that tomorrow morning.

 

But this is very silly "logic" based on a totally butt-bogus definition of "religious".

 

Religious does not mean "ardent", "positive", "aggressive", "adamant", "sincere", or "active". Come on, dude, give us all a break!!!

 

A religion is NOT a set of beliefs. It is specifically a canonized set of spiritual and moral beliefs concerning a god (or gods), and a canonized set of rules or procedures for worshiping, praising, beseeching and/or asking for forgiveness or guidance from the god(s). The canonization is supplied by an organized body of spiritual authorities and/or scriptures.

 

Caveats: in some religions, "god" is replaced by a set of cosmic principals or ideals that share many of the attributes of a "god" but they are not anthropomorphized. In other words, the god is not a "person".

 

If you "deconstruct" the definition of religion to the point that any set of beliefs or any meeting of people or any emotional reaction is a "religion", then you devolve the conversation to meaningless babble.

[hallenrm]

To each one his/her own perception of what a religion is. Wikipedia attempts to give the following broad overview:

 

There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

 

Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.

 

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy.

[Kriminal99]

Atheism is not a "belief system". Atheism is a lack of belief. If someone says the sky is is purple and I say, "I don't believe you, prove it", then I am stating a lack of belief. The same is true when someone claims there is a God, I don't believe you, prove it.

 

Religion is, as you say, a belief system, a set of beliefs, values, and practices. IMO, atheism is not a religion.

 

 

I sort of disagree. I believe I have an atheistic belief set that is strong enough to be called a religion. One day it might even serve the same function as a religion in society.

 

Rather than just saying I don't believe in god, I would say that belief in things like god is a side effect of the human sense of power, need for security etc and since we have no evidence of god one way or the other but do have evidence that people would create a concept of god in the absence of any real one, then we can reason that the fact that people believe in it is not evidence for the existence of god.

 

Now my religion isn't contained in that, but it does show that I rely on reason to answer difficult questions. When asked if I fear death, I would reason that fear of death is not something you would have when you are dead so there is no reason to fear it when alive any more than that fear would help you avoid it.

 

My belief set would answer many questions about ethics and morality etc. It could address any issue that any religion could. I strictly adhere to it in my every day behavior. It's just contained to the world which we have any experience or evidence regarding.

[Pyrotex]

I sort of disagree. I believe I have an atheistic belief set that is strong enough to be called a religion. One day it might even serve the same function as a religion in society...

Here again, you define religion merely in terms of "strength" of belief or "intensity".

I believe the sky is blue (on clear days) and I believe that with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?

I believe in atoms and photons and magnetic fields with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?

I got intensely angry the other day when I stubbed my toe. Is that a religion?

I really enjoy playing with my cat Harley. Is that a religion?

 

Your 2nd and 3rd sentences above reveal your problem. First you say that strength of belief defines a religion, even though countless strong beliefs are obviously NOT religion. Then you say it may one day FUNCTION as a religion. You miss the point---a religion IS a religion when, if, and only if it FUNCTIONS as a religion in society. If it doesn't have that function and purpose, then it isn't a religion.

 

John Dweeble believes that his invisible friend tells him what to do. We keep John locked up for his own protection.

 

Oral Roberts believes that his invisible friend tells him what to do. But we DON'T lock him up, because he has followers; and his beliefs FUNCTION as a religion in society.

 

John Dweeble's beliefs are not a religion, no matter how much they comfort him or how "strongly" he believes. He has beliefs. Period.

 

If you persist in applying the label "religion" to arbitrary anything, then I shall have to make fun of you and pass gas in your general direction. :beer:

[infamous]

 

Religious does not mean "ardent", "positive", "aggressive", "adamant", "sincere", or "active". Come on, dude, give us all a break!!!

 

A religion is NOT a set of beliefs.

I have to agree with some of the points you've brought up Pyro.., nevertheless, I see the problem with definitions causing unnecessary frustration. Without trying to split too many hairs, let's examine the definition that Webster's gives for religion. Among a belief in God or gods, Webster's also defines religion as 'a philosophy of life'. Maybe what some are trying to point out in this discussion is that Atheism can be just as intense 'a philosophy of life' as religion is for the Theist. This philosophy of life sometimes takes on an active disbelief, otherwise the Atheist wouldn't spend needless time arguing the point with the Theist. So...., in the same context that religion can be interpretated as, 'a philosophy of life', so can Atheism also be interpretated as, 'a philosophy of life', even though Atheism is not, in the strictest sense, a religion..........Infy

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that all religions seen to have in common is an irrational insistence of the validity of their claim even though direct proof is lacking and only circumstantial evidence is available. Aethists have that in common with formal religion. Organized religion believes in the power of higher beings called Gods, whereas the aethists gives that same power to the ego and aliens, even though aliens have never been proven with more than circumstantial evidience and some self forfilling logic line. If I was an alien-aethist that would be considered blasphemous against the aetheist religion that believes in aliens.

[Edella]

Organized religion believes in the power of higher beings called Gods, whereas the aethists gives that same power to the ego and aliens, even though aliens have never been proven with more than circumstantial evidience and some self forfilling logic line.

That's quite a claim HydrogenBond.I for one know of no athiest who gives god-like powers to the ego or aliens.Nor do know of any who claim without a doubt aliens exist.Can you give me an example of an atheist who claims such things?

[C1ay]

Webster's also defines religion as 'a philosophy of life'. Maybe what some are trying to point out in this discussion is that Atheism can be just as intense 'a philosophy of life' as religion is for the Theist.

There lies a difference though. I have a philosophy of life but I don't attribute any of it to atheism. For example, a Christian theist helps people because of their Christiam beliefs, I do so just because I believe in treating others as I would have them treat me. This belief is part of my philosophy of life but it's not a result of my atheism. My atheism is not the foundation of my everyday decisions and mannerisms in the way that theist belief is. I live my life as I think I should regardless of any god(s). My theists live their life based on a belief of accountability to some higher power. I never even consider it. For me, atheism is not a part or foundation of any of my beliefs, principles, values or practices and thus, does not fit any of the definitions of religion.

[infamous]

There lies a difference though. I have a philosophy of life but I don't attribute any of it to atheism.

Doesn't Athesim view life in the context; 'God and or gods are of no consideration'? I'll assume that you will agree with that statement and doing so makes it a part of your philosophy. Where am I going wrong with this logic?.....................Infy

[C1ay]

Doesn't Athesim view life in the context; 'God and or gods are of no consideration'? I'll assume that you will agree with that statement and doing so makes it a part of your philosophy. Where am I going wrong with this logic?.....................Infy

I don't do things the way that I do them because of my disbelief but regardless of it. While I view life without consideration for gods that is not the foundation for the things I do believe in.

[infamous]

I don't do things the way that I do them because of my disbelief but regardless of it. While I view life without consideration for gods that is not the foundation for the things I do believe in.

Understood my friend,..............and I live my life according my own personal philosophy also. Even though I have a very personal faith, it is not built upon the dictates of the so-called clergy. I am also comfortable in allowing everyone else the same privilege....................Infy

[Kriminal99]

Here again, you define religion merely in terms of "strength" of belief or "intensity".

I believe the sky is blue (on clear days) and I believe that with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?

I believe in atoms and photons and magnetic fields with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?

I got intensely angry the other day when I stubbed my toe. Is that a religion?

I really enjoy playing with my cat Harley. Is that a religion?

 

Your 2nd and 3rd sentences above reveal your problem. First you say that strength of belief defines a religion, even though countless strong beliefs are obviously NOT religion. Then you say it may one day FUNCTION as a religion. You miss the point---a religion IS a religion when, if, and only if it FUNCTIONS as a religion in society. If it doesn't have that function and purpose, then it isn't a religion.

 

John Dweeble believes that his invisible friend tells him what to do. We keep John locked up for his own protection.

 

Oral Roberts believes that his invisible friend tells him what to do. But we DON'T lock him up, because he has followers; and his beliefs FUNCTION as a religion in society.

 

John Dweeble's beliefs are not a religion, no matter how much they comfort him or how "strongly" he believes. He has beliefs. Period.

 

If you persist in applying the label "religion" to arbitrary anything, then I shall have to make fun of you and pass gas in your general direction. :shrug:

 

I was not defining religion in terms of strength of belief. The strength of the belief set I was referring to was the ability to answer every question in life I could ever have including questions about what happens after life. It paints a less vivid picture of the after life than a religion like christianity, but that is because of the belief that any vivid picture of the afterlife is invalid since there is little information to found it on.

 

When I say that it could one day function as a religion in society, my point is (unlike something like belief in the scientific method) the belief set is capable of performing every function any current religion currently has and then some and with greater efficiency. It can be applied to every day life. You could form halls where people get together and talk about how to apply it to every day life and do it succesfully.

 

Point is, the OP was claiming that atheism was a lack of belief and I was pointing out for me that it is no such thing, and the strength I referred to was the size of the coherent belief set. Its not christianity with a logical not attached, its a huge completely coherent belief set that is incoherent with most religions on the issue of "gods".

 

However that being said, god is sometimes defined as a thing with extreme power, maybe worshipped by people etc. By this definition, truth could be called a god. Therefore I could be called religous with truth as my only god. In fact I have often used the statement "Truth is the only god" to explain my actions to people.

 

Anyways obviously if one wanted to be a definition nazi about it they could just say atheism is defined as no belief in gods and religion is defined as belief in gods and then make them mutually exclusive, but since thats so obvious it seems that was not the OP's intention.

[perplexity]

In fact I have often used the statement "Truth is the only god" to explain my actions to people.

Well... it makes a pleasant change from the usual "God is the only Truth",

but to tell the truth it is all pretty much the same to me, if honest, one "only" as much of a one as the other "only".

 

--- RH.