Why don't you consider Atheism a religion?

[John 6:29]

I'm just curious. I was read a post by someone on another thread that I found kind of humorous but it lead me to this question.

[Lizzie]

It’s a religion in the sense that it has a belief system. They believe there is no God. They are the same as those who do believe in God. They both believe one way or the other.

The only ones who are not apart of a religion are Agnostic, because they don’t have a belief one way or the other. They are neutral.

[Kryptonite]

Atheism is a lack of religion, or belief?

[Yen]

Funny, the only ones who seem to care whether or not it's considered a religion are religious people trying to tell atheists how stupid they are and how they're going to burn if they aren't saved.

WHY THE EFF IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO YOU THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE A BELIEF?!

P.S. No, not directed at you Michael

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Yen

Funny, the only ones who seem to care whether or not it's considered a religion are religious people trying to tell atheists how stupid they are and how they're going to burn if they aren't saved.

WHY THE EFF IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO YOU THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE A BELIEF?!

P.S. No, not directed at you Michael

Regardless of if it's directed at me, I'm just confused why atheist are opposed to being regarded as religious. They may not practice certain things to a degree that other religions do, but it's still a shared belief of unbelief, there's seminars, etc. IDK, to me it just comes of as being religious they just don't want to be considered religious because when you slap the religion title on it that makes you "ignorant" if you follow a religion. I'm not really going to debate with anyone, I'm just curious as to why? I mean I guess when I was agnostic I didn't consider myself religious, I just didn't really care -- so I guess I can empathize in that tense but I'm talking about neo-atheist such as followers of Dawkins, and misotheist.

I mean technically I am a Christian because I am a follower of Christ, hence CHRISTian and there are atheists who are followers of other leading atheist, which technically is no different than what I am doing, yet I am considered "religious" amongst atheist.

But really it probably matters as much why the word "might" or "bat" has more than one meaning... just pure curiosity more than anything.

[Yen]

Well, I'm not an atheist, just playing the Devil's advocate. I just would like to know why it's important to slap that title on it at all. If they don't want it, fine, kepp it for people who DO want to be considered religious. I think a debate over it is silly, but I'm just trying to get people to see it from that point of view. When I was atheistic, I felt like some one was trying to tell me that I was something I didn't want to be (religious) and I just took offense to that. I think many feel similarly. Just leave atheists alone . However, unfotunately I can't say they'll do the same for you lol.

[Toast]

Originally Posted by Michael.

I'm just confused why atheist are opposed to being regarded as religious. They may not practice certain things to a degree that other religions do, but it's still a shared belief of unbelief, there's seminars, etc.

Atheists are opposed to being regarded as religious? I've never heard that before. Atheism is a belief. I suppose I could see how some people think that "religion" has to be a worship of a god, but Atheism is still a belief.

[Lizzie]

Originally Posted by If You Only Knew

Atheism is a lack of religion, or belief?

No, Atheism holds a belief, a belief that there is no God. Just like a thesist holds the belief there is a God. Agnositics are the ones who don't hold a belief either way.

[Algernon]

It's kind of confusing, because if someone doesn't believe in anything, then there could be no system of beliefs? I mean... You can't have a system for nothing, right?

No, if you believe in science, or yourself that's different.

[Lizzie]

Originally Posted by xHolyValorx

It's kind of confusing, because if someone doesn't believe in anything, then there could be no system of beliefs? I mean... You can't have a system for nothing, right?

It’s a belief because there is no proof that their isn’t a God, just like there is no proof that there is a God. They are making an assumption. So they have to believe there is nothing, they can’t know there is nothing.

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by Lizzie

It’s a belief because there is no proof that their isn’t a God, just like there is no proof that there is a God. They are making an assumption. So they have to believe there is nothing, they can’t know there is nothing.

Ah, that's a little vague though. I personally wouldn't really call it a full blown religion, but maybe a belief.

[St.Vincent]

Belief and religion are not one and the same? I have a belief that I have a brain inside my skull, and that evolution is a valid theory, but I'm not one to go call it a religion.

[Arcenciel]

In regards to the question of why do people care, it's the same deal as if an Athiest said to a Christian, "Why do you believe there is a God."

It's just a question, calm down. It's not that it's being forced and stuff...It was just a question so stop picking it apart and being defensive.

[Yen]

Whatever. I was playing the Devil's advocate, but failed. Screw it. I don't really care . Call it what you all will, then, and I'll stop answering questions I know nothing about.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Those who call atheism a religion by definition are adhering to a different definition of religion. When you look at it, generally religion involves a belief in some being. Atheism for obvious reasons lacks this. However, this argument is a bit iffy because some definitions of religion don't specify a being. The stronger argument is that religion, whether it involves a divine being or not, consists of a shared set of beliefs that are practiced. There is no set of beliefs for atheism, it's simply the belief in no god. Plain and simple. Many do adhere to science but not all as it's not a requirement for the definition to be met. Some atheists adhere to a philosophy for their life but no divine being. Once again, a specific philosophy unique to others isn't required.

Thus, if atheism is a religion, then the definition of religion that is being used is not the traditional one, it's a different, generally unspecified one. If atheists fall under the unspecified definition of religion, then agnostics do also because they do not have a set of beliefs, they're more in the middle. However, like atheism they have only one main belief and if atheism is deemed a religion for that very reason, then agnosticism must also be. If agnosticism is not deemed a religion under this unusual definition of religion, then atheism must not be.

What the definition that is used by those who claim this to be true I have no clue.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

I think this is a matter of interpretation. I myself am an Atheist. Atheism is defined as "The theory or belief that God does not exist."

Now, as I see it, you need to believe in some deity or higher power to be religious, therefore I don't see Atheism as a religion. Again though, this is a matter of interpretation. One of my (former) friends considered Atheism to be a religion. It's all in how you look at it.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

^it matters because the OP is curious. Curiosity and interest is how humans learn...

[Guile]

Because then the Government could levy a Separation of Church and State with it.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Yen

Funny, the only ones who seem to care whether or not it's considered a religion are religious people trying to tell atheists how stupid they are and how they're going to burn if they aren't saved.

WHY THE EFF IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO YOU THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE A BELIEF?!

P.S. No, not directed at you Michael

I'm sorry, but this post really ticked me off. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe any of the things you've stated here. I can understand why you believe these things, and a lot of Christians are idiotic like this. But why would you assume that every single Christian is out to get you? I am fine with you having your own beliefs, it's really none of my business. I'm not going to shove you into a bunch of fire and scream "SINNER!"

One thing I think people forget is that it's not just Atheists that are persecuted for what they believe. There was a time that Christians were slaughtered for believing in God. So no one is innocent when it comes to religious battles, including atheists. We all play a part in the disagreement, whether we choose to or not.

I don't sit saying "I hate atheists," nor do I feel sorry for them. Atheists are people, and so am I. I don't see people as Christian, Atheist, Deist, Agnostic, etc. I see them as people. If they aren't Christian, that is something I can overlook. However; not all Christians are like this, and neither are all Atheists.

As for the actual question....

I think Atheism is a religion, but is often not thought of as one, because atheists do not believe in a higher power, or "divine being.' Commonly, people who belong to religious groups believe in and worship such a being. So, since atheists don't, some people simply don't consider them as religious, which makes sense when you think about it. If they don't believe, how can they be considered religious?

I also don't think that people who deny atheism to be a religion mean any harm, or mean to insult atheists. It's simply how they say things, and it shouldn't be seen as undermining atheists.

[Yen]

Originally Posted by NightOfNyx

I'm sorry, but this post really ticked me off. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe any of the things you've stated here. I can understand why you believe these things, and a lot of Christians are idiotic like this. But why would you assume that every single Christian is out to get you? I am fine with you having your own beliefs, it's really none of my business. I'm not going to shove you into a bunch of fire and scream "SINNER!"

One thing I think people forget is that it's not just Atheists that are persecuted for what they believe. There was a time that Christians were slaughtered for believing in God. So no one is innocent when it comes to religious battles, including atheists. We all play a part in the disagreement, whether we choose to or not.

I don't sit saying "I hate atheists," nor do I feel sorry for them. Atheists are people, and so am I. I don't see people as Christian, Atheist, Deist, Agnostic, etc. I see them as people. If they aren't Christian, that is something I can overlook. However; not all Christians are like this, and neither are all Atheists.

As for the actual question....

I think Atheism is a religion, but is often not thought of as one, because atheists do not believe in a higher power, or "divine being.' Commonly, people who belong to religious groups believe in and worship such a being. So, since atheists don't, some people simply don't consider them as religious, which makes sense when you think about it. If they don't believe, how can they be considered religious?

I also don't think that people who deny atheism to be a religion mean any harm, or mean to insult atheists. It's simply how they say things, and it shouldn't be seen as undermining atheists.

Amanda, nowhere in my post did I even once say it was all Christians. I specifuically referred to the ones who do go out of their way to hate on Atheism. Also, I'm not an Atheist, I just get ticked off when people try to define for people what their beliefs are all about. If you don't have the belief, then leave it alone, is all I'm saying.

Chill, Amanda

[Pelios]

I don't consider it a religion, it's more like a belief. Just like theism is not a relgion.

[Xujhan]

Because atheism isn't a set of beliefs; at least not as I use the word. I'll try to make this as clear as I can. Firstly, it's important to be talking about religion and atheism in the same terms, and since atheism is really just a lack of religion, this isn't really the case. I think it's safe to say though that most atheists adopt a scientific view on the universe.

Religion is an attempt to explain the universe
Science is an attempt to understand the universe

If the difference between the two isn't clear; science deals only with what we can find physical evidence for, and molds itself to fit new evidence. It's a "bottom up" approach, where any religion is "top down;" starting with whatever explanation they have and trying to fit new understanding into the same theory. To illustrate the difference, a question and the usual answers I hear.

"What would it take to change your beliefs?"

Athiest: Evidence; something to indicate that a given religion is more likely to be correct than any other theory we have.

Theist: Proof of the non-existesnce of god, if anything at all.

Is the difference clear enough?

[AnaMZ]

Originally Posted by Lizzie

It’s a religion in the sense that it has a belief system. They believe there is no God. They are the same as those who do believe in God. They both believe one way or the other.

With all due respect, this is bull.

Atheism is a lack of belief, first and foremost. Religion is a set of beliefs. Atheists do not believe. It cannot be a religion.

"I believe there is no God" is NOT the same as "I do not believe there is a God". The latter is what atheism is. Not a religion.

[LittleFish]

The way I see it, religion is more of an organized system of beliefs and philosophical principles, as opposed to a belief, which is simply an idea. Sounds weird, but let's compare atheists to modern Satanists: Satanists don't believe there is a God or an afterlife, and that individuals should treat themselves as their own God. They have a set of nine statements and eleven rules that they follow. They all mostly agree with and act upon the same principles, in other words. Atheists believe that there is no God and no afterlife too, but that doesn't necessarily make it a religion. Not all atheists follow the same exact beliefs. Some atheists go by one scientific theory, some go by another. Sharing a system of beliefs and sharing a few beliefs are not the same thing.

[Lizzie]

Atheists believe there is no God. They believe that they is no afterlife, and the only life they have is this one on earth. That there is no outside power or force affecting our daily lives and the outcomes of those lives.

That is a belief system. Just because it is a negative one, in the sense that they don’t believe things exist, does not make it not a belief system. You can’t know that those beliefs are the truth, you just believe them to be.

And because there are a large amounts of people that agree with these belief systems, and live their daily lives with these belief systems in mind, it affects them. They are uniformed, they believe the same thing. In my mind it is considered a religion.

It almost seems like people are just offended being associated with the word.

I really like this definition of religion:

Originally Posted by ReligiousTolerance.org

"A shared positing of the identity of and relationship between the world, humanity and the supernatural in terms of meaning assignment, value allocation and validation enactment. A religion need not accept or believe in the supernatural, but it takes a position on. Likewise, some religions deny the reality or at least value of the world, but they still take a position."

[Xujhan]

By your definition Lizzie, it is true that atheism is a religion. But that is a much more liberal definition of religion than most people will use, so the argument isn't other whether atheism is a religion, it's over your definition of religion. Hypothetically, if you make a definition loose enough you can say that almost anything is almost anything else. For example: if hockey is a game played on ice with sticks, than both curling and lacrosse are also hockey. See the problem?

So: it is true that atheism is a particular stance adopted by people concerning the nature of the universe and existence. And it is true that most atheists feel that it is reasonably likely that they are correct, at least as regards the nonexistence of god. But if that's enough to call something a religion, then agnosticism and deism are also religions. In fact, under that definition the only way to not be religious is to not think about the matter entirely.

[Gingerbread Latte]

I don't think it's a religion because a religion has faith. Athiests don't have faith there's no God really, they just don't believe there is.

Haha, my wording's really bad but idk how to explain it.

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by cwkguy

I think this is a matter of interpretation. I myself am an Atheist. Atheism is defined as "The theory or belief that God does not exist."

Now, as I see it, you need to believe in some deity or higher power to be religious, therefore I don't see Atheism as a religion. Again though, this is a matter of interpretation. One of my (former) friends considered Atheism to be a religion. It's all in how you look at it.

I can almost bet that you made that definition up instead of looking it up in an online dictionary.

May I add if someone has a religion, wouldn't there be something to worship?

Originally Posted by If You Only Knew

Atheism is a lack of religion, or belief?

Actually, no, its not, its the lack of belief in a god or gods. By definition. You do get atheistic relgions... A Buddahist technically could consider themself an atheist whilst following that 'religion'. Though atheist is commonly used by those who have no religion-type thing/spirituality. But by definition A-theist, like a-sexual (sorry, it was the only example on the top of my head, not linking the actual concepts) is about the theist (God believer, not member of religion). Not all theists have a religion.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

There is no set of beliefs for atheism, it's simply the belief in no god. Plain and simple. Many do adhere to science but not all as it's not a requirement for the definition to be met. Some atheists adhere to a philosophy for their life but no divine being. Once again, a specific philosophy unique to others isn't required.

Thus, if atheism is a religion, then the definition of religion that is being used is not the traditional one, it's a different, generally unspecified one. If atheists fall under the unspecified definition of religion, then agnostics do also because they do not have a set of beliefs, they're more in the middle. However, like atheism they have only one main belief and if atheism is deemed a religion for that very reason, then agnosticism must also be. If agnosticism is not deemed a religion under this unusual definition of religion, then atheism must not be.

Just to put a spin on this.... atheism is like an umbrella term, like theism, ad underneth it fall quite large sects/dominations. Like the way they explain the universe, how they make their moral codes, how they should live their life. These are all things religion covers. And often, these rules are part of your ideological peer group. As in, a certain type of atheist will associate more with their own type, like with religion. For example you get scientific atheists, you get down right crazy (e.g. stuff about aliens making the world) atheistist, and so on. It'd be absurd admittedly to claim atheism is all one big consistant religion... But a religious denifition could probably be place on it in some way.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I think it's safe to say though that most atheists adopt a scientific view on the universe.

You'd hope so, but even if a lot of them think they do, there's a good chance they still don't really get science and therefore arent really truely scietific at all?

Religion is an attempt to explain the universe
Science is an attempt to understand the universe

For my last essay I read a lot of interesting stuff about reductionism and scientific objectivity. Don't get me wrong, they weren't religious, and they also weren't saying these were bad things. However it highlighted that the universe cannot be fully explained by simple objective study. As it breaks down everything into isolated parts, when its not. This is completely off topic, and I'll make a clearer thread about that. I just wanted to go off on one

If the difference between the two isn't clear; science deals only with what we can find physical evidence for, and molds itself to fit new evidence. It's a "bottom up" approach, where any religion is "top down;" starting with whatever explanation they have and trying to fit new understanding into the same theory. To illustrate the difference, a question and the usual answers I hear.

Science actually ideas to very rigid codes, and beliefs. Although theoretical findings may change, there is a set belief of how science 'should' be approached. Science adheres to a man-made doctrine, and these effect a person;s views of life, and explanations, etc. So there are some similarities.

"What would it take to change your beliefs?"

Athiest: Evidence; something to indicate that a given religion is more likely to be correct than any other theory we have.

Theist: Proof of the non-existesnce of god, if anything at all.

I don't think thats quite right, particularly among intelligent theists (yeah they exist). The approach is probably more linked with age and educational status then simply school of thought.

Originally Posted by LittleFish

The way I see it, religion is more of an organized system of beliefs and philosophical principles, as opposed to a belief, which is simply an idea. Sounds weird, but let's compare atheists to modern Satanists: Satanists don't believe there is a God or an afterlife, and that individuals should treat themselves as their own God. They have a set of nine statements and eleven rules that they follow. They all mostly agree with and act upon the same principles, in other words. Atheists believe that there is no God and no afterlife too, but that doesn't necessarily make it a religion. Not all atheists follow the same exact beliefs. Some atheists go by one scientific theory, some go by another. Sharing a system of beliefs and sharing a few beliefs are not the same thing.

What religions do you know, like actual religions that all followers share the exact same belief? Just out of curiousity?

Originally Posted by Lizzie

Atheists believe there is no God. They believe that they is no afterlife, and the only life they have is this one on earth. That there is no outside power or force affecting our daily lives and the outcomes of those lives.

That is a belief system. Just because it is a negative one, in the sense that they don’t believe things exist, does not make it not a belief system. You can’t know that those beliefs are the truth, you just believe them to be.

And because there are a large amounts of people that agree with these belief systems, and live their daily lives with these belief systems in mind, it affects them. They are uniformed, they believe the same thing. In my mind it is considered a religion.

I think the problem with the negative aspect, is, if you believe there is no God, thats the default of the world, thats not so much a belief, as just a way of life. There are issues with this anyway, but it may be better pharsing it positively, like 'atheist belief this is the world, the one shot at life, get born, live and die'. This is a philosphy of the world, and in esscense is a belief, but one that doesn't rely on the mentionning of a God.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

By your definition Lizzie, it is true that atheism is a religion. But that is a much more liberal definition of religion than most people will use, so the argument isn't other whether atheism is a religion, it's over your definition of religion. Hypothetically, if you make a definition loose enough you can say that almost anything is almost anything else. For example: if hockey is a game played on ice with sticks, than both curling and lacrosse are also hockey. See the problem?

So: it is true that atheism is a particular stance adopted by people concerning the nature of the universe and existence. And it is true that most atheists feel that it is reasonably likely that they are correct, at least as regards the nonexistence of god. But if that's enough to call something a religion, then agnosticism and deism are also religions. In fact, under that definition the only way to not be religious is to not think about the matter entirely.

I dont think I've been that clear in this post, so I'll draw it together. Although atheism itself is not a religion, just like theism and deism arent, sub-sects have religion (even organised) type qualities. Now where you draw the line is the question, but there are undeniable parralels. Its more about specific groups then the overall term.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Lizzie

It almost seems like people are just offended being associated with the word.

Possibly some people are because when one thinks of religion, generally worshiping something is associated with it and that's one of the things many atheists don't support. Some go as far as bashing such worshiping. The definition of religion that you gave is not what most consider to be a traditional one, myself included. Using your definition though, any single belief could be considered a religion, even if only the one person adheres to it so there is no uniformity.

Originally Posted by Darth Cara

I don't think it's a religion because a religion has faith. Athiests don't have faith there's no God really, they just don't believe there is.

Atheists do have faith and you just explained why: they don't BELIEVE there is no god. There is no proof they have against it (just as there is none for it) so faith must be involved. If there is no faith involved, then that means atheists have direct evidence supporting their claims. No such evidence exists, hence, it's faith-based. In fact, everything has some amount of faith, doesn't mean it's blind faith but there is some faith nonetheless. For example, suppose you go to a fast-food place and order a ham burger. You have faith that the burger isn't rotten and that the toppings aren't rotten. When you fill a prescription or even buy an over-the-counter (i.e. non-prescription) medication, you have faith that the pills inside the bottle are not the wrong ones and if they are the right ones, you have faith they'll work (assuming it's first-time usage).

Originally Posted by Invert

Just to put a spin on this.... atheism is like an umbrella term, like theism, ad underneth it fall quite large sects/dominations. Like the way they explain the universe, how they make their moral codes, how they should live their life. These are all things religion covers. And often, these rules are part of your ideological peer group. As in, a certain type of atheist will associate more with their own type, like with religion. For example you get scientific atheists, you get down right crazy (e.g. stuff about aliens making the world) atheistist, and so on. It'd be absurd admittedly to claim atheism is all one big consistant religion... But a religious denifition could probably be place on it in some way.

You have me a bit confused here because in a previous post you argued and provided a definition showing how atheism can be one big religion. You then provided an additional argument regarding its uniformity amongst people. So I'm a bit confused now as to what that definition and argument was for if it wasn't for atheism. From what I'm gathering, you're suggesting forms of atheism are likely to be religious but atheism in general is not religious. In other words, the sum isn't equal to its parts. I can live with that depending on the situations but your definition of religion comes back from my memory and it allows certain forms of atheism as well as atheism in general to be religious. I'm confused by this, can you please explain your position?

Originally Posted by Invert

You'd hope so, but even if a lot of them think they do, there's a good chance they still don't really get science and therefore arent really truely scietific at all?

True, it is a possibility however the scientific view isn't required to be adopted by atheists. It commonly is but even if it is without really understanding it, this same phenomenon of believing in something or adopting a certain mindset without fully understanding what it is occurs in other beliefs as well.

Originally Posted by Invert

For my last essay I read a lot of interesting stuff about reductionism and scientific objectivity. Don't get me wrong, they weren't religious, and they also weren't saying these were bad things. However it highlighted that the universe cannot be fully explained by simple objective study. As it breaks down everything into isolated parts, when its not. This is completely off topic, and I'll make a clearer thread about that. I just wanted to go off on one

Agreed, the universe cannot be explained by simple studies. If I recall, you're studying psychology. As a fellow psychology student, you're aware that psychology has many explanations for the same observed behavior. So if we cannot understand ourselves or "lower beings", then it's not likely we're going to understand an area that's all theory (i.e. theoretical physics).

Originally Posted by Invert

I don't think thats quite right, particularly among intelligent theists (yeah they exist). The approach is probably more linked with age and educational status then simply school of thought.

The ones that are more intelligent (only know a few, mostly through online forums) seem to adopt a view of being more scientific in a sense that they adhere to some reductionism by analyzing the individual parts of their belief (or other beliefs). But if one is to be entirely devoted to theism and no science, then even when they're older and more educated, they still take the theist approach Xujhan mentioned.

Originally Posted by Invert

I think the problem with the negative aspect, is, if you believe there is no God, thats the default of the world, thats not so much a belief, as just a way of life.

True but the same is said for beliefs in a god(s) so if there is a problem with it, then the belief in a god(s) shares that exact same problem. When things like this are essentially universal, then to me it's fairly useless to point them out as though they're unique to a certain group. If you can put a certain spin on it then by all means go ahead but stating a problem that's universal and a given as being unique is rather pointless.

[Rican Roll]

re⋅li⋅gion

  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA –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.

Is Atheism a religion? Not by today's offical definition it's not.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Rican Roll

re⋅li⋅gion

  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA –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.

Is Atheism a religion? Not by today's offical definition it's not.

It actually fits a couple of these, but regardless we're not looking for definitions, rather opinions.

[Kryptonite]

Originally Posted by Lizzie

No, Atheism holds a belief, a belief that there is no God. Just like a thesist holds the belief there is a God. Agnositics are the ones who don't hold a belief either way.

I'm sorry, but "belief in nothing" just seems like an oxymoron. :P

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by If You Only Knew

I'm sorry, but "belief in nothing" just seems like an oxymoron. :P

It may sound like it, but it isn't.

I believe that there is no flying spaghetti monster. I don't know for a fact there isn't one because I am not omniscient or omnipresent, which I'd have to be to know for certain there isn't one. An Atheist has a belief that there is no God.

One can call this "unbelief" but it's still a belief in believing there is nothing because one cannot say for certain there is nothing. So it's unbelief in God, but you're choosing to believe there is no God in the same sense. Therefore you're still holding a belief in the non-existence of God.

Anyways, can we close this thread?

[TakeTheLeap]

Atheism is exactly what the name says. A- means a lack of something, and theism is the belief in one or multiple deities.
It's not really a, "belief of nothing" as others have stated. It's that they believe that there are no deities. That is the essence of any religion. If they don't have that, they aren't a religion.
Seems pretty simple to me?

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by ~Emily~

Atheism is exactly what the name says. A- means a lack of something, and theism is the belief in one or multiple deities.
It's not really a, "belief of nothing" as others have stated. It's that they believe that there are no deities. That is the essence of any religion. If they don't have that, they aren't a religion.
Seems pretty simple to me?

Religion isn't exclusive in a belief of a deity as numerous people seem to hastily conclude. It ofttimes embraces a deity, but is not limited to in order define a religion.

Also, not to get picky but you contradicted yourself. You say, "It's not a 'belief of nothing,' as other have stated." However, you continue by claiming that it is a belief there is no deity. In essence you gave the same explanation as the definition "others have stated."

You might say it is unbelief of a deity, but they cannot prove there is no deity so it is still a belief. For example, one either believes in Nessy or one does not believe in Nessy. You can consider the one who does not believe in Nessy to be unbeliever of Nessy, or simply to have a lack of belief. However, they cannot prove it, so their BELIEF is simply that there is no Nessy. Either way you are still embracing a belief in belief or a belief in unbelief (I don't know how to better explain this, but if you don't understand I'll try).

I'll rephrase it this way: the person who believes Nessy is real has an unbelief in the unbelief of Nessy. They don't believe that Nessy is a myth. Therefore even someone who is adopting a belief still has an disbelief or unbelief in something else, namely that which is opposed to their belief.

A Christian has a unbelief that God doesn't exist, but a belief that God does exist. An Atheist has an unbelief that God does exist, but a belief that God doesn't exist. A Christian does not believe that God doesn't exist, rather they believe God does exist. An Atheist does not believe that God does exist, rather they believe that God does not exist. They're both reliant on faith (though one may require more faith than the other -- the Atheist will argue the Christian does, the Christian will argue the Atheist does, but this is besides the point) because neither can prove for 100% certainty to the other that God is real or not.

[OhaiThere]

"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Athiesm, Agnosticism, and hell, even Nihilism are religions (although nihilism can be disputed).

Don't fool yourself.

[*Rainbow*Rider*]

Why isn't it seen as a religion? Because it isn't a religion. Its a lack of religion.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Sitting on the speaker

Why isn't it seen as a religion? Because it isn't a religion. Its a lack of religion.

This isn't a proper definition of Atheism: it's a lack of belief in a deity. Yet a deity isn't necessary to define religion. I have a lack of belief in the non-existence of God; an Atheist has the lack of belief in the existence of God. The only thing that separate the two is God, however, to be religious you don't need a deity. I'm not saying if you're Atheist that you're automatically religious, I am simply pointing out the flaws in this argument. One may be religious without having a belief in the supernatural all together. Therefore, you cannot simply define religion by a belief in God. Atheism is a disbelief in God or deity, not a disbelief in religion or as you say, "a lack of religion." Just a lack of belief in God.

Nick any suggestions? Or can you/someone critique me so I can see where my lack of knowledge is?

[OhaiThere]

Some of you are also under the assumption that atheists, or non-theists in general, are speaking correctly when they say they "aren't religious".

Most people have a skewed view of the term religion itself. I don't feel the need to quote myself, but religion is really just a series of beliefs concerning the nature and cause of the universe. That is all.


In my personal opinion, only someone with complete apathy can say that they are not religious.