Is atheism a religion

[Pyrotex]

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. ...

The ability to answer many if even all questions in life is STILL not a "religion" unless it functions as one. Let's say that one day the internet literally has answers to every question, including how to lose weight (eat less, exercise more) and what happens after death (decomposition). Is the internet then a religion? Of course not. It's a big mother encyclopedia, that's all.

 

Now, if people begin to belive that god "lives" in the internet and is his "prophet" and everybody starts using the internet to ask for forgiveness and protection from evil, etc, etc, then it would be functioning as a religion.

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...

Metaphor and simile are NOT statements of fact or reality. I've heard preachers say that some have "money as their religion" or "they worship money". Do they? I mean, do they REALLY?

 

No. Of course not. It's a metaphor, for crying out loud. Those folks do NOT literally worship money. Money does not function as a spiritual guide, etc.

 

Why isn't this clear? C'mon, let's have some really straight talk from the heart here. How come it appears to be so desparately critical for some of you to get agreement that atheism (or science or whatever) is a "religion" for some people??? This goes beyond logic or philosophy. It's almost like (a simile, folks!) some kind of mental addiction or compulsion. Why is it so important for you to believe that the lack of religion IS a religion?

[infamous]

Why is it so important for you to believe that the lack of religion IS a religion?

That's really the point I was trying to make previously. Some people confuse the word religion with the concept of philosophy. The totality of ones beliefs constitute their personal philosophy, therefore, an individual with a religious belief system has a religious philosophy while an atheist has an atheistic philosophy. I think some people are confusing the difference between a philosophy and religion.......Infy

[hallenrm]

I think some people are confusing the difference between a philosophy and religion.......Infy

 

Indulging in semantics, either side I think!

 

:cocktail:

[Spiked Blood]

Is atheism a religion?

 

I don't believe the Earth rests on the back of a huge turtle.

 

I know, I know, that's just crazy talk.

[Pyrotex]

...I think some people are confusing the difference between a philosophy and religion.......Infy

thank you, Infy!!! :)

 

Calling a rose by any other name does not mean it's not a rose anymore.

Calling a lump of coral a "rose" does not make it a rose.

Concluding that a lump of coral and a rose "are the same" just because both share the quality of being beautiful is false logic.

[IDMclean]

Belief: A proposition that one holds conviction of the truth of without varification.

 

Atheism is a belief. hence the Technical Agnostic arguement. The reason why atheism is a belief is that their is no way to either prove nor disprove the existence of god. Therefore the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

[C1ay]

Belief in and of itself does not make a religion. I believe in gravity too and I even do so with faith. Would that make gravity a religion?

[Freddy]

That's really the point I was trying to make previously. Some people confuse the word religion with the concept of philosophy. The totality of ones beliefs constitute their personal philosophy, therefore, an individual with a religious belief system has a religious philosophy while an atheist has an atheistic philosophy. I think some people are confusing the difference between a philosophy and religion.......Infy

 

So what about an agnostics? Confusion and the philosophy of unknowing.

[Kriminal99]

The ability to answer many if even all questions in life is STILL not a "religion" unless it functions as one. Let's say that one day the internet literally has answers to every question, including how to lose weight (eat less, exercise more) and what happens after death (decomposition). Is the internet then a religion? Of course not. It's a big mother encyclopedia, that's all.

 

Now, if people begin to belive that god "lives" in the internet and is his "prophet" and everybody starts using the internet to ask for forgiveness and protection from evil, etc, etc, then it would be functioning as a religion.

 

Metaphor and simile are NOT statements of fact or reality. I've heard preachers say that some have "money as their religion" or "they worship money". Do they? I mean, do they REALLY?

 

No. Of course not. It's a metaphor, for crying out loud. Those folks do NOT literally worship money. Money does not function as a spiritual guide, etc.

 

Why isn't this clear? C'mon, let's have some really straight talk from the heart here. How come it appears to be so desparately critical for some of you to get agreement that atheism (or science or whatever) is a "religion" for some people??? This goes beyond logic or philosophy. It's almost like (a simile, folks!) some kind of mental addiction or compulsion. Why is it so important for you to believe that the lack of religion IS a religion?

 

Perhaps it's not clear because I understand completely what you are saying and still disagree.

 

A) Religion is all about metaphors and similes. Trying to discuss something rationally with a preacher will result in statements like "think with your heart not with your mind" etc. Religions rely on metaphor and similes to convince someone, thats why preachers talk about worshipping false idols like money. In reality, people worshipping god is just some kind of metaphor for submitting yourself to a greater power. Worshipping is a vague ill defined concept. You cannot disqualify what I do as worshipping truth just because it's not part of YOUR religion to worship truth.

 

:) For any given set of beliefs, there are infinite coherent belief sets which include them. (Plurality of coherentism) A scientist or socialist philosopher or whatever else could use words like worship and prophet etc to talk about their actions and important people with regard to their cause etc. Ie you can make science sound like a religion and still be able to do and understand everything that current scientists do.

 

My reasoning causes me to believe that talking about worshipping truth and treating my socialist belief set as a religion makes perfect sense. And for once the written definitions of god and religion specifically allow this. So where are you arguing from?

 

As to why do I care, the answer is simple. People follow religion because they want to. Metaphors and similes (what religion essentially is) are more fun to people then boring math equations which precisely define the nature of reality. Also maybe people like it because it makes people feel as though they are part of something bigger than themselves, that benefits everyone who is a part of it. Maybe people take comfort in the beleif that everyone will be subject to their beliefs at some point or another. Science can not give this feeling to people except to maybe people who specialize in science. Careful reasoning and science tends to break down religion and leave nothing in its place to serve the same purposes. Because of this many people forsake careful reasoning and science in favor of religion which they feel benefits them more and is more meaningful to them in terms of how it makes them feel adn how it impacts them.

 

It is important for me that I be able to define my beliefs as a religion because careful reasoning is capable of taking the place of relgion in the sense that it will be capable of serving every purpose and benefitting people in all the same ways as religion is now and be more succesful at it because of its greater objectivity and ability to affect more people of different persuasions and bring them together under one banner.

 

I alter my behavior based on my understanding of morality as defined my belief set even if it does not result in immediate benefit to myself. My belief set provides me with all sorts of profound truths and can answer any question about life without fearing opposing arguments.

[hallenrm]

I support your arguments, Krim! :)

 

They sound as reasonable as science can be. People can offer rhetoric, just because they are allergic to the word religion.

 

A new thought that occured to me a few day back, may well be in place. Talking metaphorically, the concept energy is indeed metaphorically equivalent to the concept God, in fact I had written a small article about energy using the same:

 

http://energy4kids.blogspot.com

 

Similarly the Universe can be metaphorically equivalent to the concept God. Ancient people who invented the concept God for their belief system were perhaps limited by their source of knowledge, but today with several centuries of scientific knowledge with us, it would be very difficult to dispute this metaphor. :)

[Pyrotex]

I, too, accept your arguments, Krim. :doh:

For YOU to declare your beliefs to be a religion, as defined by yourself, is entirely valid.

 

However, what I observe is that people who say "atheism is just another religion" or "atheism is just like a religion" are NOT the atheists, speaking of themselves. They are the religionists making these statements as "accusations" against the atheists.

 

It is entirely and solely within the context above that I make my arguements in this thread.

 

You are entirely at liberty (with my blessing) to call your political beliefs and favorite pop songs your "religion".

 

What I would like to ask all the participants here is this:

 

Why do theists insist that the atheism of others is also a religion?

Is this mere name-calling?

Is this an attempt to invalidate atheism?

Is this a rhetorical red herring?

[IDMclean]

I would argue that A-theism is to -Theism, as An-archy is to -Archy.

 

That is that if Anarchy does not consitute a form of government, then so to would Atheism not consitute a form of religion.

 

It would therefore follow, to me, that a non-concept can not exist because a non-concept would be self-falsifying, much like the statement "I am lying." That is a non-concept of something is in and of itself a concept, like a non-action in and of itself is an action.

 

Much as I argue that Anarchy is a form of governance, I hold that Atheism is a form of religion. Being that a religion is essentially a philosophical doctrine.

 

re‧li‧gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. 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.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

 

gov‧ern‧ment  /ˈgʌvərnmənt, ‑ərmənt/ [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‑er-muhnt]

–noun

1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

2. the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.

3. the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government.

5. (in some parliamentary systems, as that of the United Kingdom)

a. the particular group of persons forming the cabinet at any given time: The Prime Minister has formed a new government.

b. the parliament along with the cabinet: The government has fallen.

6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct.

7. a district governed; province.

8. political science.

9. Grammar. the extablished usage that requires that one word in a sentence should cause another to be of a particular form: the government of the verb by its subject.

 

Take of this whatever you will.

[C1ay]

Much as I argue that Anarchy is a form of governance, I hold that Atheism is a form of religion. Being that a religion is essentially a philosophical doctrine.

It seems your own link disagrees with you:

 

Anarchy

1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

 

If you want to believe that anarchy is a form of government go ahead but that it not what the word is intended to mean or defined as. FWIW, Oxford's definition agrees with Dictionary.com's:

 

Anarchy • noun

1 a state of disorder due to lack of government or control.

2 a society founded on the principles of anarchism.

 

I would say that a·theism is a lack of theism in the same way that an·archy is a lack of government. That lack of theism would not necessarily limit a non-believer from having some godless religious belief though. Any atheist could well be a devoted pastafarian if they wanted to be

[IDMclean]

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

 

That to me is the proper, modern definition of atheism. As I had pointed out, Lack of a belief is a belief in and of itself. Lack of a system of governance is governance non-the-less. Things that exist, are something and therefore can not be nothing. government is a recognized concept that is independent of individual perception. That is it exists irregardless of if I wish it to or not. Whenever you have a group of individuals, you will have some form of government, either formal or informal.

 

Some will say that their is no such thing, however those same people would argue that they do not exist and that reality around them does not in-fact exist either. the belief of a non-entity is a belief. That is my point in this. We can only verify what is and what is not.

 

I challenge anyone who cares to, to point out a thing that does not exist.

 

For clarification of my position:

# 40, the definition of Belief.

The Basis of Belief

 

I find it fascinating that some would take the term religious, spiritual, technical, and/or scientific as offensive and/or derogatory. Religion is simply one's official position on the matter of purpose in the universe.

 

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

 

i hope that gives you people something to chew on.

[C1ay]

As I had pointed out, Lack of a belief is a belief in and of itself.

No it isn't. When I say that "I don't believe in God" I am not saying "I believe there is no God." They are different statements and mean different things. I actually conceed that there could be a God so I don't say I believe there is no God. My lack of belief is not a belief in anything except for the fact that there is no evidence to support a belief in any of the things I don't believe in.

[IDMclean]

When I say that "I don't believe in God" I am not saying "I believe there is no God."

 

The difference between the above statements is almost trivial, I would think. As the first is a denial of conviction of the truth of the existence of god. An Agnostic doctrine. The second of the above statements is a denial of the existence of god itself, or conviction of the truth of the non-existence of a god. A true atheistic doctrine.

 

I would contribute that there is a third statement of that family. "There is no validation to the existence, or non-existence of a god." Which is technically an agnostic position, not atheistic. Atheism, as I understand it, is the denial of the existence of deity.

 

Your position would then be one of agnostism, the neutral/non-position in regards to the existence or non-existence of god.

[C1ay]

The difference between the above statements is almost trivial, I would think. As the first is a denial of conviction of the truth of the existence of god. An Agnostic doctrine. The second of the above statements is a denial of the existence of god itself, or conviction of the truth of the non-existence of a god. A true atheistic doctrine.

No, both statements are atheistic. Agnostics believe we cannot know the truth about God, that it is unprovable. There are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I am an agnostic atheist I do not believe in God and I do not believe it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God.