Is atheism a religion

[goout]

Every human being is wired to search for truth, and every human being has developed a belief system in pursuit of truth. This includes atheists. So in that respect atheists have a religion (this all boils down to your definition of religion).

Some beliefs are theist, some are atheist.
Some belief systems are organized with rituals etc…some are not organized but have loosely held principles and ways of living.

Not all atheists, but some, propose that they are “above” religion and have no belief system,
all the while making their own propositions for absolute truths.
And that is absurd.

 

[goout]

It is too bad that atheists run from the word religion like it is the plague. I have to think that bad behavior on the part of Christians plays a big part in this. And atheism almost always objects to fundamentalist Christianity, which has scandalized them. Fundamentalism is not true Christianity.
Despite that, religious observance is an integral part of human history. And generally speaking, all people live religiously in one way or another. Or to say it another way “we all worship something”.

Might be health, might be the workout, might be nature, might be family. Everyone orders their day around something that is valuable to them and gives meaning to life. Is this religion? Depends how you want to define the word.

 

[niceatheist]

I would not say simply believing in God makes one religious. While nailing down a precise definition of religion is problematic, I’d say at the very least any religion has to have a creed, some sort of formalized system of beliefs. Simply having a belief in a deity, could not constitute a faith system. One might call that a sort of primitive spirituality, but for it to become a religion I’d say there has to be a set of beliefs, not just about the existence of any god or gods, but some sort of doctrine, some sort of philosophical underpinning associating the spiritual aspects of the faith to the reality of the world around us (i.e. creation and/or cosmographical myths). Two people believing in Yahweh, in the absence of any shared view on that god’s intents, powers or association between that god and the physical world just doesn’t seem to meet what I would consider the minimum requirements for a religion.

Ultimately the issue is very confounding, because there’s no singular good definition of the word “religion”. There are religions without any gods at all, or at least any explicit gods (i.e. most strains of Buddhism). There are religions that might be better described as philosophies (i.e. Taoism).

And that’s not to say that I don’t think atheism, or at least some kinds of atheists, come awfully close to almost a religious fervor (though again, is that enough to call them religious). But I think two people in a room both agreeing that they lack belief in gods isn’t sufficient to declare either religious or both members of some sort of religious community. First of all, there’s no positive claim, there’s simply a null hypothesis that you may or may not agree with, but beyond that the two people could have wildly different world views. One might approach a sort of naturism; no gods, but the universe imbued with a sort of fundamental spirituality, while the other might be a strict materialist who rejects even the idea of spirituality.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Very thoughtful response.

I understand what you mean. However, is it really possible to “just believe in God” or “just not believe in God”? It’s not that simple.

How can one arrive at either decision without accumulating information- facts, feelings, opinions of others? Therefore, there are shared ideas and experiences that bring someone to declare belief or disbelief.

These shared ideas are “something”.

Even Buddhists pray to the Buddha, erect statues, celebrate his life. He most absolutely is the “god” of their life, even though he himself never claimed to be God.

 

[niceatheist]

My point is a vague shared “something” isn’t enough to declare that “something” a religion. To do so almost cheapens the word, rendering it almost meaningless.

As to the definition of a “god”, well that’s as troublesome as the definition of the word “religion”. There’s never going to be a definition of the word that will satisfy everyone. A Buddhist would reject your claim that they view Buddha as a god out of hand, even if they revere him. By the same token, I’m sure you quite rightly reject any notion that Catholics deify Mary, or a Muslim rejects the idea that they worship Mohammed, because clearly reverence for a historical or semi-historical figure doesn’t seem itself enough to declare that figure a deity

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Okay, good points. I understand what you are saying. So then…What do we call the belief system of an actual group of people who share a common, defined belief system and spend time, money and effort trying to convince others they are right?

Would an atheist say a person who believes in God, but doesn’t go to church has no religion?

I think you agree, there are atheists that have made atheism a religion in the true sense of the word.

Actually, some people have elevated Mary, Mother Earth… to the level of God. Whether that offends them or not is not a reason to avoid the discussion.

And then there are those who have made politics their religion. There is no other word for it no matter what you say! lol.

 

[Bradskii]

So then…What do we call the belief system of an actual group of people who share a common, defined belief system and spend time, money and effort trying to convince others they are right?

We call it the Democratic party or Greenpeace or The Flat Earth Society. All of those and many more fit your description exactly. None of them are religions in the sense that Christianity is a religion. But there is obviously a looser and more colloquial meaning of religion: A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

So now we’re also throwing in sports clubs and macrame associations and home brewing into the mix. And you would have to draw a very long bow indeed to call home brewing a religion. It isn’t. But we have home brewers who pursue their hobby with (ahem) religious fervour. So to some home brewers it becomes a religion in that colloquial sense.

It apparently is the same with some atheists. Who treat their non-belief and secular viewpoints (not necessarily the same thing) with the same religious fervour as do the home brewers and macrame devotees. But just as someone who is fervent about macrame doesn’t make it a religion, so is it true that someone who is fervent about atheism (a concept I must admit I have difficulty in coming to terms with) does not make it a religion. Obviously in the theist definition of the term and also in the colloquial sense.

And while I’m here, people like the good professor Dawkins is NOT fervent about his atheism. It is a nonsensical concept. He is fervent about the stupidity that results from fundamentalist interpretations of religous tracts.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Do you think there are atheists who are gathering with the purpose of discussing their beliefs and plans for convincing others of their beliefs?

If a group of Christians gathered for the same reason, I think we would say they were discussing religion, right?

I just don’t see the difference.

I know several, many, Democrats that are very fervent in their political views, and they themselves say it has become their religion.
Coincidentally, they are atheists who admit they have replaced the religion they were raised with for political activism.

Obviously, my BIL and his group refer to themselves as they wish, despite the fact that atheists such as yourself, disagree.

Religious and non-religious people can become caught up in something that shapes their lives. To object to that something being referred to as a religion, albeit a substitute for what we typically thing of as religion, is where we disagree.

As I said in an earlier post, I think atheists have changed over the years. Evolved. Maybe it’s a certain age group. Not the Dawkins set.

Either way, I definitely think some atheists have moved into new territory and possess the same characteristics as what we have historically defined as religious affiliation.

 

[Bradskii]

Either way, I definitely think some atheists have moved into new territory and possess the same characteristics as what we have historically defined as religious affiliation.

I agree. I know some home brewers who are exactly the same. What a wierd world, eh?

 

[SunshineGrandma]

What are these home brewers discussing and what would they try to convince me of?

 

[niceatheist]

I have yet to be convinced that even the most fervent and militant atheists constitute a religion. A religion is a lot more than merely having one common point of agreement. Religions, generally, have a whole series of concepts, claims, myths, in other words a theology of some kind. Now I will grant that atheists who believe that science supports their view may come close (i.e. scientism), and certainly the way atheism was applied in the Communist states of the 20th century, as part of a larger package of ideological claims, certainly has come close to looking like a religion. I’m still uncomfortable with calling the more extreme forms of Marxist atheism as a religion, though I probably would concede the point if pressed.

But even a humanist organization more resembles, in my view, a political or ideological movement. But is that a religion? Is there are a creed, a common set of rituals, or anything that we normally associate with religion? Generally even the Eastern philosophies, which sometimes get lumped in with religions (i.e. Taoism), are, on their own, still philosophies. They are usually bundled up with myths and folk religion of the areas they evolved or adopted (for instance, in China, one finds a mix of philosophical world views, ancestor worship, animism and the like).

For myself, I can’t even call my lack of belief either scientific (it isn’t), nor do I see it as a spiritual view (being in awe of nature doesn’t seem sufficient to call it a faith system). In fact, my atheism is sufficiently weak that the only reason I even call myself an atheist is not because I don’t see how God isn’t possible, but rather I have yet to be convinced that God is a necessary part of the explanation. I don’t hold to Aristotle’s views, nor of the views of the Late Classical and Medieval Judeao-Christian philosophers that built on Aristotle. The most I’ll concede is that my atheism has a certain aesthetic appeal. I believe it is rational, but I do not confuse aesthetics and reason with Truth-with-a-capital-T, nor do I imagine that it can be demonstrated by empirical methods.

 

[Damian]

There’s a very long list that have killed people for not following their belief system.

There’s a very long list of leaders in government that were not religiously based that killed people, but were definitely not secular. Such as fascist, demagogues, dictators, etc. but you can not associate their actions to a secular leader.
You seem to suspect people, that were not behind a religion, as just as murderous as a religious government. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about non-religious governments and their leaders that do exactly the same thing that religious governments do. But instead of having a deity and church as their infallible, unchallengable leadership, they make the government and head of state their infallible, unchallengable leader. Both run the exact same play book. Secular governments, who happen to not have a religious backed government do not use this play book. That is why in governments like Denmark, Australia, the US, Sweden, etc. you don’t have a public primed in self loathing of themselves and in need of a dear leader to take over and save them from themselves. These governments have a society that teaches the power is in the people of the governed and the government is to serve the people. But in theocratic governments the people can’t wait to give up their social responsibility to create a just society and create a dictatorship government/church state. Name me one secular government that has mass murder under its regime that did this. Germany didn’t do this, they created their state to be their church. So did Italy, Japan, China, and Russia, and all the rest of them in the 20th century. That is the commonality of these mass murderous regimes. The people wanted a Dear Leader. The governments like Denmark don’t need a Dear Leader and teach a loathing of the concept.

 

[Damian]

secular leaders

I am talking about government systems, regardless of who is in power. You can find individual people doing right by people, but the governmental system, that is setup, follows the same play book as religious based governments are all the same. They all have a government that is taught to be infallible, the leaders are unchallengable, blasphemy is outlawed, press is controlled and filtered through the government, claims of miracles, etc. Secular governments teach the power remains with the people being governed and the government are stewards and servants of the people. Laws are created with the concept that no one would know what group they would be in this society. Everyone is allowed to the table to discuss the creation of the “Just System”. Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech, Separation of Church and State, separation of governmental powers, free and open elections, just to start.
So some examples of these types of governments just happen to be the ones where the populace is the most happy, funnily enough. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Australia, US, Germany, Finland, etc.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Hi everyone. So I was wondering if atheism is a religion. If not, what is it?

In a sense. Due to the fact that they push to “convert” people away from God and religion. At least away from Christianity, in the U.S. They put up billboards in the U.S. at Christmastime that have the gall to suggest that we all celebrate this most Holy Day without God! But they want to convert people to…nothing…so it isn’t really a religion, even though there is a push for people to join their ranks. I do think there are a lot of atheists that fancy themselves as being more rational than everyone else and it comes across as being very prideful many times. At least, they tend to use the word “rational” more than anyone else I’ve ever heard.

 

[QwertyGirl]

You painted your post with some very broad strokes, there. Most people who are out and about, working jobs, etc. know a bunch of atheists and aren’t even aware they are atheists.

The loud minority of atheists may do some of the things you discuss, and have some of those attitudes. But, I assure you, they are the minority. The atheists I know don’t bother anyone with their views. They rarely even discuss them. They live peaceful lives and hope the same for others.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

If you are responding to my post, with the “rational” I’m speaking of internet atheists, mainly. And even in real life (I know 3 atheists) if it is brought up in discussions, they say don’t believe because it isn’t logical/rational and they can’t find any scientific proof.

The billboards and converting are from chapters of atheist organizations in various major cities across the US. So “churches” if you want to draw a comparison, I suppose, so it comes across as being a representation for atheism. Although I’m sure that many or even most individual atheists don’t care.

 

[blackforest]

Do you think there are atheists who are gathering with the purpose of discussing their beliefs and plans for convincing others of their beliefs?

If a group of Christians gathered for the same reason, I think we would say they were discussing religion, right?

I just don’t see the difference.

The difference would lie in the super-natural element. As Catholics, you and I place our faith in things that are not immediately and physically palpable in any earthly sense. Atheists don’t have that.

To paraphrase what I stated upthread, I find that a number of sub-groups of atheists can become dogmatic and fundamentalist while placing their faith in metaphorical deities like science, scientism, and transhumanism. In other words, they share a lot in common with religious people. But I only call them “religious” in the alternate definition of the word, i.e. fervent and zealous.

 

[Bradskii]

What are these home brewers discussing and what would they try to convince me of?

They wouldn’t be trying to convince you of anything. Other than to drink better beer perhaps.

If you remember, you suggested that there may be groups that ‘share a common, defined belief system and spend time, money and effort trying to convince others they are right’. And I proposed that these groups would include those such as the Democrats or Greenpeace. Who do exactly that.

And then I said there was a more colloquial definition of the term religion where people (such as belong to a home brewers group) treat their interest with some fervour so we could perhaps suggest that they pursue it religiously. They don’t need to convince anyone of the merits of Fuggles hops over Northern hops. But their ‘religious fervour’ does not make home brewing a religion.

Atheists pursuing their atheism with religious fervour (again, a nonsensical concept), likewise does not make it a religion.

 

[stoplooklisten]

…the religious history of the world does not boil down to the history of gods. During the first millennium BC, religions of an altogether new kind began to spread through Afro-Asia. The newcomers, such as Jainism and Buddhism in India, Daoism and Confucianism in China, and Stoicism, Cynicism and Epicureanism in the Mediterranean basin, were characterised by their disregard of gods.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens (pp. 285-286). Harper. Kindle Edition.

In the best-selling book “Sapiens”, the secularist author, Yuval Noah Harari, argues that religious history includes religions that disregard gods.

 

[stoplooklisten]

The modern age has witnessed the rise of a number of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens (pp. 291-292). Harper. Kindle Edition.