Is Atheism a Religion?
 

Is Atheism a religion? What is your definition of Atheism?

I'll leave it like that, as a very broad question. I want to know what the Atheists of this board think in their own terms and what their definition is of what they believe (or don't).

I have a very vague idea of what Atheism really is, unless it really is the simple "not believing in a god." To me, Atheism is a religion, because the lack of belief is still a belief, if that makes sense.

It would help to know what your definition of religion is. It's more than having a belief in something, isn't it?

I was kind of hoping for an Atheists view and definition of what religion is, but if I must define it, I'll use the easily found Wikipedia definition.

"Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe."

Religion as defined by me is believing in (faith) in something or someone bigger than life, having some sort of theory of how life began and what happens when we die.

I've always considered a religion to be a bit more than that. I also see it as a moral system and a way of life. People use religion as a guide to understanding how to live too, right?



EDIT (addition after some thought):

Pearl Trade, for starters, I'd like to address one thing about your position that may be random or insignificant to the topic, but it's something I'm interested in. I see that you capitalize the word atheism. As a professional book editor, I have an eye for these things. Technically speaking, from an editor's standpoint (and using the Oxford Dictionary as a guide), atheism shouldn't be capitalized because it isn't a proper noun. To me this is an important distinction.

The reason why the word isn't capitalized is because it is a generic noun, which means it has many connotations. The same goes for theism, monotheism, and polytheism. We do not consider any of these designations as "religions."

Atheism is not a religion in my view because it has no distinguishing attributes other than it meaning a lack of a belief in deities. The opposite of that is having a belief in a deity or deities, and this is where we go back to theism. Theism itself is not a religion. Christianity is, as is Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. The difference being that these latter designations signify distinct and identifiable systems of belief. That is the key. Without distinguishing a system of belief, there is no religion.

This is not to say, however, that atheists have no belief or moral system or a code of conduct for their lives. All it means is that the designation of atheist doesn't imply any particular system. Joseph Stalin was an atheist, but I'll be damned (pardon the pun) if we share many values and beliefs.

It might help to think about what moral systems or codes of conduct that atheists might ascribe to. I mentioned in another thread that I am more or less a humanist. If you consider humanism a religion, then so be it. Other atheists might consider veganism, pacifism, or hedonism (or a combination thereof) as ideals that they most identify with to inform how they live their lives. Call those religions too, if you will. What I don't quite understand is your purpose for labelling atheism in any form as a religion. What is the use? Does it help you categorize atheism in terms of systems of belief among all humans?

The other aspect of this, too, is that many are considered "irreligious" in that they do not identify with any particular religion. They might believe in God, but they aren't necessarily Christian or anything else. They might call themselves "spiritual" or consider themselves "believers" for the lack of a more specific term. They might, more or less, ascribe to Judeo-Christian values in a general sense. They probably don't go to church or any other formal religious service. Do these people have a religion? How do you categorize them?

I guess the ultimate question I have is: Must all humans have a religion? What does this identifier do? Is it a categorical thing, or does your perspective inform you that all humans have a belief in something because it's God's will (i.e. God exists despite what atheists believe)?

I like the aphorism: "If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

I suppose I differ a bit than Baraka, to me religion is defined by the belief in supernatural powers, beliefs held as necessarily true without evaluation. Numerology could be called a religion, for example. While many religions can have ethical principals, and many religions certainly do, it is not an essential element.

Discussions about things that 'are bigger than life' are non-starters for me, because I'm not really sure what that means. Bigger could mean a few things, literally larger or more comprehensive, or more important. You seem to equate 'bigger than life' to faith, more along the lines of meaning more important. Discussions of meaning, importance and purpose to the universe usually just boil down to terms

I have a theory about how life began, well, it isn't my theory, but it is one I accept. I wouldn't call it religious because it relies entirely on a naturalistic explanation and it isn't something I'm particularly attached to. If evidence emerges tomorrow demonstrating my picture to be false, I'd quite happily forget about it. I also have a theory about what happens when we die, which is a pretty short read - you can probably guess what it contains.

Well i tend to think it is. Its a mass of people that believe there is no Higher Power. All a religion is. A mass of people that share a set of believes in something greater then themselves... Why cant the same be said for something equal to or less then yourself... Or nothing at all?

You can't call atheism a religion because there isn't necessarily a consistency of belief between atheists. Referring to my post above, I don't consider myself as being a part of the same religion as Joseph Stalin, or Kim Jong-Il for that matter.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling the apolitical a political party, or calling unemployment a career.

Exactly. There is a difference between believing what you do not see isn't there, and believing what you do not see is there. One is based in logic, the other in blind faith. Is it a religion not to believe in Saint Nick or unicorns?

Love it!:wave:

Religion requires a dogma, that is to say there are very strict parts of Christian dogma that one must adhere to in order to be Christian. Various Christian sects have different sets of dogma, but there are none without even the basic requirements, such as believing Jesus is Lord.

Atheism has no dogma - there are no beliefs which must be held, no agreed upon truths. Certainly most atheists believe critical thinking and science are effective methods of gathering knowledge, but that's simple rationality (which can be shared by religious folks).

No, Atheism is not a religion. Religion ...

Atheism is a faith. Questioning God's existence is stupid. The whole point of "omnipotence" is to transcend human understanding. When you begin to question whether or not God exists you will begin asking circular questions. "Which came first, chicken or egg?", "Can god create a stone he cannot lift?" ... all these paradoxes a testament to the futility that is the pursuit of disproving omnipotence.

Off Topic: I am so plagiarizing your written works, Jinn.

Nope.

nope

Dogma can certainly exist outside of religion. The non-existence of God (or gods) and "supernatural," phenomenon or, belief that the Universe was not "created," could be examples of atheist dogma. Or doctrine, if you prefer. If you don't accept that dogma, you're not an atheist, you're an agnostic.

But I can't think of any religion that doesn't have some form of hierarchy or other administrative system. It may be tight and strict like the Mormons or quite loose like the Unitarians or many branches of Buddhism, but religion always has some form of governance.

Atheism has no such thing.

Lindy

Draw a square, divide it into four boxes. Label one of the rows "theist" and the other "atheist." Label one column "gnostic" and the other "agnostic. A gnostic theist believes that there is a god for certain. An agnostic theist believes that there is a god but that it isn't provable. A gnostic atheist believes that there is no god. An agnostic atheist simply lacks belief.

I am an agnostic atheist. I see no proof of any supreme being, but an answer with absolute certainty requires knowledge that I do not have therefore I do not explicitly disbelieve.
The egg came first and the second question is invalid.

& out of the egg came everything, including sparkling stories explaining its existence. One Eye splattered the desert with confusion. The fat goes with the offal. My God can beat up your god. We keep our secrets even when they aren't very good ones. Etcetera.

Atheists make up their own stories regarding cause & nature, but not purpose.

In my experience:

Atheism as a personal "belief system" is the absence of a belief in a higher power as a creator and the absence of a belief in an after-life.

In my experience, every time I've been around a congregation of atheists, all they talk about is how dumb religious people are...which makes sense. If the Organization for Non-Stamp Collecting People got together for a meeting, what would they do at the meeting other than bash stamp collectors - as it's all that binds them?

I tend to think of a religion as collection of people who generate and live by a set of guidelines surrounding a common belief system in a higher power/after-life. I don't really see a set of guidelines or way of life in atheism (other than to bash religion). So, I don't really view it as a religion.

Wouldn't the dogma of atheism be that all athesists believe there is no God?

A disbelief can't be a dogma. Atheism is a place of being unconvinced. It's not a belief in something, it's a lack of a belief; null hypothesis.

Believing that something doesn't exist is specific to the something in question. The disbelief atheists have might be just as vital to some as a "believer"'s disbelief in the nonexistence of God is to others. Just semantics? Atheism is not a religion. Most atheists that I know don't waste time slamming religion.

"Live & let live" seems the primary dogma.

I'm not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean. I didn't make up anything about cause and nature, I left those subjects to those who study them professionally and accepted the rational and logical explanation that they came up with. Purpose follows from that.
Confounding disbelief and lack of belief is an easy but fallacious mistake to make.

Atheists don't really have dogmas. I think most of them are open to having their beliefs disproved. I know of several who would insist on it.

I, for one, insist upon it. That said, I am open to the idea that there may be some sort of supreme being. I just find it highly unlikely. It's not dogmatic if it's not absolute. I find orthodoxy to be a sign of lazy thinking.

If someone asks my opinion, I will profess that I do not believe in a god. That said, unlike many, I am not one to proselytize. I could care less if you share my point of view.

Do you think intentional lacking doesn't spring from the same source?

Check out csmonitor.com, they have an article about it today!! Really interested :)

I think for most atheists it doesn't get more complex than this:
1. Religion? Feh.
2. God? Eh.

I don't have the most well delineated categories in my head but I see religion as a confluence of existential and epistemological needs with culture, rituals, and your groups. One that doesn't do anything for me. God? I like the interpretation of god as a metaphor. Afterall, metaphor is one of the basic elements comprising human cognition so god as a metaphor makes a shit load of sense to me. Am I an atheist? God's a metaphor and religion is just group behavior so uh, yeah, I guess so. Is that a religion? You're all doing something I'm not doing. That's not remotely near to a religion. [I'm not doing this thing you're all doing] is not a permutation of [Is doing this thing].

I am an atheist and I do not practice a religion. I do not group myself into common belief system with other atheists; just one simple non-belief as to the exisitence of God.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Hello, helix_luco. That would be a fair question if what's morally good could be agreed, or if we'd ever heard God's commands. Who are you quoting?

That's called the Euthyphro dilemma from Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. The question is basically from whence comes morality.

Let's say you and I both agree on something which is morally wrong like genocide or rape, something for which it's very difficult to find a dissenter. God carries out genocide and orders rape in the Bible. Is rape okay when God says it's okay? If that's the case, what is it for something to be morally wrong other than to simply be against God's wishes?

Moral relativism is one of the most frustrating aspects of humanity.

Why? Isn't the alternative of set commandments much worse?

Surely. However, this doesn't remove the frustration associated with relativism. For example, I think I will have a problem with Saudi Arabia for quite a while.

those stories of atrocity ordered by god are traditionally interpreted as having to do with the primacy of faith/obedience over mere mortal/moral law.

if you believe in the god character, then what's at issue wouldn't really be moral relativism so much as the sovereign changing the rules. so god cannot be immoral. amoral because infinite more like.

but this is all silly unless you happen to be interested in working out the logic of fables like this. or in kierkegaard, who does a great job with this game in "fear and trembling"---but i digress.

That's fair.

I like what Sam Harris has been saying recently about a more empirical take on morality. When one can quantify well-being and suffering, one can begin to find a way to develop a less relativistic view of morality without it becoming a nonsensical holy decree. If I can demonstrate the Saudi's morality about women creates demonstrable suffering and prevents demonstrable well-being based on definitions we've both agreed on, we can perhaps find a way to create an alternative path to an agreed upon morality.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

That's the point. If God (capitalized because I'm referring specifically to the Judeo-Christian God) can change what's moral and immoral l in a given moment, then morality is simply whatever god thinks it is at a given time. If that's the case, morality has nothing to do with beneficial behavioral conduct and is just following a set of edicts. The question becomes more important when one factors in the fact that 1/3 of the earth's population is Christian.

presumably amongst a community of believers there'd be no distinction between beneficial outcomes and following the god character's latest whim (old testament stylee)...these ethical questions quickly get circular though. ethics is an expression of a consensus that because it's instituted functions to generate consensus. the relativism argument isn't really any different from the god character structurally---it simply places some arbitrarily defined community which is a community a priori because it agrees on certain positions vis-a-vis, in that case "the saudis" in a position to pass judgment on "the saudis" in the name of their "ethics"---which are merely the expression of the consensus that made of them a community in the first place. it's like the scorpion and the frog story.

They may think so, but the facts say otherwise. One of the most consistent whims in the Bible is that of divorce only being allowable within a very strict set of parameters. How many Christians are against divorce? Some, I suppose, but the majority have progressed with the rest of their society and now Christians enjoy a very high rate of divorce. The level of asunder tearing going on tells me that these people are just as relativistic as you or I. They say their morality is based on the Bible, but that's partially true at best. Why? There's often a wide distinction between beneficial outcomes and following the Bible. Sure, love your neighbor and all that, but stoning people to death for blasphemy or not being a virgin on one's wedding night are clearly vestiges from ancient and (relatively) archaic moral systems.

It only pretends to be circular. Everyone's a relativist.
No paraphrase Neo: "Change. The problem is change." The Bible as it exists now will likely remain in the same form for many, many generations. The same lessons about stoning your daughter for hooking up with the quarterback before marriage have been there for hundreds of years and will remain there for hundreds of years. Relativism doesn't have that significant drawback. For example, in your lifetime we saw a fundamental change in the morality of abortion in our society. In my lifetime we're undoubtedly going to see a fundamental change in the morality of being gay (lgbt). You don't get that with a book of edicts. Sure, religions try their very best to adapt, but if you care to crack open the book, the outdated morality's still there: slavery, women as property, racism, etc.

I do get what you're saying, that in a way they're just different incarnations of the same basic thing, but you can't discount the adaptive nature of relativism compared to the rigidity of absolutism. It's their fundamental difference.

well, for what it's worth i am not terribly interested in the category of the ethical for all these reasons. i usually work out the same kind of questions across the terrain of the political.

but if you think about it, perversely enough, absolutism (as you call it---it's a confusing term for me because it's associated with the political regime of louis xiv and makes my historian brain get all wonky) would be far more adaptable than relativism assuming that the sovereign (i shouldn't have started that...tant pis) wants a change. that's the basis for an entire theory of dictatorship, this adaptability.

You must have really enjoyed it when I called myself a rationalist because I'm atheist for a while. I'm glad I sorted that out.
Yes, but god only exists functionally as a concept and the only way to objectively access that concept is through the Bible.

Atheism is a belief system that excludes religious beliefs and the concept of Intelligent Design as a reality. I myself actually exclude religious beliefs as in my reality perceptions, however I do embrace the concept of Intelligent Design.

In my view, science will affirm this notion eventually.

I encourage any belief system that a person is comfortable with.

John