Why don't you consider Atheism a religion?

[TheBabyEater]

I'm still confused. A lot of people say they consider religion to be faith in a higher power of some sort.
But what about the religions that don't? Buddhism, Satanism, ext? I think a lot of people consider them religions of some sort, but they don't really believe in a higher power at all.
Thoughts?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Vlora

Religion is where you believe in God or Gods. You believe in the bible or whatever holy book your religion has, be it the quaran or some other. There are things you believe in.

I don't see why, that if you don't believe in these, it isn't a religion.

So any belief about any higher being automatically constitutes a religion, is what you're saying. Would you consider beliefs that are influenced by one's acceptance (or lack thereof) of a higher being, to have another religion? In other words, if one believes in a god, and if for topics such as evolution, if one adheres to theistic evolution, would that not make theistic evolution a religion? One could argue then that evolution could then be religious.

The point I'm getting at is if you believe that religions are simply beliefs pertaining to a higher being, then you can make many things a religion because of their possible affiliation with higher beings. If you are fine with calling theistic evolution, evolution, abortion and so forth to be religions, then carry away doing so but if not, then your definition of what constitutes a religion needs to have something added to make it more restricted.

[i_like_black]

Religion:

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhumanagency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conductof 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

Atheism:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Consider the above definitions.
Is atheism: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe?

Nope. Atheists have many and varied views as to the cause, nature and purpose of the universe - there is no uniform belief for them.

Is atheism a specific fundamental set of beliefs agreed on by a large amount of people?

In a sense, yes, they all believe in the lack of deities. But this is just one belief, not a set thereof.

Is atheism a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practises?

No. The only belief any randomly picked atheists are likely to have in common is that they don't adhere to a particular set of beliefs and practises.

Is atheism a way of life?

No. I have never heard of a group of atheists going to live together or immerse themselves in deep study to become more atheistic or go through some ceremony to be considered a "true" atheist.

Is atheism a practise of religious beliefs?

Most definitely not, as atheism is the lack of religious beliefs therefore there is nothing to practise.

Is it something a person may believe in and follow devotedly?

As there are no prescribed deities for an atheist, it would be hard for them to believe and follow devotedly. However an atheist may be very devoted about their lack of belief.

Please note: atheists (individually) may comfortably fit into either of the archaic definitions of the word "religion", however it would be difficult to put them there as a group.

Also, atheists do not have cause to "believe", when they can know. A scientific experiment is repeatable and gives approximately the same results every time, and is therefore empirical evidence. Empirical evidence does not require belief as it is proof.
To get an atheist to change their mind about something, you do not get them to "believe" in it. You prove it to them using scientific ways and means.

I personally do not consider atheism to fit within the definition of religion as it is a lack of religion and belief.
Personal opinions may differ of course and you are free to refer to it as a religion.

However I think I made the case pretty clear for it not being one, even if I borrowed my definitions from dictionary online

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by i_like_black

Is atheism a way of life?

No. I have never heard of a group of atheists going to live together or immerse themselves in deep study to become more atheistic or go through some ceremony to be considered a "true" atheist.

Oh man, this gives me all sorts of hilarious mental images. Richard Dawkins in full british gentleman's regalia, standing in front of the fireplace of a moodily lit room, a portrait of Charles Darwin hanging on the wall above, welcoming a new member into the atheist collective. My mind goes all sorts of funny places.

[l0stCause]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Oh man, this gives me all sorts of hilarious mental images. Richard Dawkins in full british gentleman's regalia, standing in front of the fireplace of a moodily lit room, a portrait of Charles Darwin hanging on the wall above, welcoming a new member into the atheist collective. My mind goes all sorts of funny places.

first national church of athiests!!!

[MermaidMassacre]

Any system of beliefs can be a religion. So Atheism IS in fact a religion.

[Blazer]

Originally Posted by DeadlySin

Any system of beliefs can be a religion. So Atheism IS in fact a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god and even if you consider that a belief then it is still not a religion. One belief does not make an entire religion. So it ISN'T a religion.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Blazer

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god and even if you consider that a belief then it is still not a religion. One belief does not make an entire religion. So it ISN'T a religion.

Expressing lack of a belief in something is in fact a belief. The problem is that without God, atheism must come up with thoughts concerning the nature and purpose of our universe, much like religion tries to explain and though none of this can be proven 100% fault proof it is thus a faith. If it is a faith shared by a group of people it is condoned a religion. Many atheist have different thoughts on different aspects of life or if you wish specific doctrines. Therefore if you wish to say that atheist embrace different beliefs, true. However, Christians share different beliefs but one universal belief that Jesus is God and Savior of the world (most of them anyways). Between the lines and in the gray there is a numerous amounts of beliefs. May I even suggest that not even a single Christian shares the same exact beliefs on other doctrines apart from the redemption of sinful man by Christ. Therefore this is a single belief yet qualifies us as a religion simply because it is a deity. However, as mentioned a deity is not needed to condone a religion. Therefore I would suggest there are even practicing atheist in that many are worshipers of self doing what pleases them and though you may not consider self to be your "lord" I would revise otherwise. Not only this there are many idols within the atheist community, Dawkins being one of many.

I can drag on, but either way I believe they are refusing the word because they do not want to be considered a religion. Even though they are just in fact that. If it is not a religion an atheist should no longer refer to themselves as thus (atheist) because in saying such it is promoting a sect of beliefs that they have concerning the nature and cause of the universe. I am certain majority of people know what an atheist and separate them amongst a group of people as people separate Christians as another group of people. In other words, we stereotype such as a religion; much like people do Christianity. If you do not have a sect of beliefs concerning the nature and cause of the universe that coincide with other people than this would be nullified as a religion. However, since you consider yourself amongst a group of people I think it redundant to say it is not a religion. None the less, I don't think it matters either way. I was just curious because in my mind it qualifies as a religion. I suppose it's relative though.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Michael.

Expressing lack of a belief in something is in fact a belief. The problem is that without God, atheism must come up with thoughts concerning the nature and purpose of our universe, much like religion tries to explain and though none of this can be proven 100% fault proof it is thus a faith. If it is a faith shared by a group of people it is condoned a religion. Many atheist have different thoughts on different aspects of life or if you wish specific doctrines. Therefore if you wish to say that atheist embrace different beliefs, true. However, Christians share different beliefs but one universal belief that Jesus is God and Savior of the world (most of them anyways). Between the lines and in the gray there is a numerous amounts of beliefs. May I even suggest that not even a single Christian shares the same exact beliefs on other doctrines apart from the redemption of sinful man by Christ. Therefore this is a single belief yet qualifies us as a religion simply because it is a deity. However, as mentioned a deity is not needed to condone a religion. Therefore I would suggest there are even practicing atheist in that many are worshipers of self doing what pleases them and though you may not consider self to be your "lord" I would revise otherwise. Not only this there are many idols within the atheist community, Dawkins being one of many.

I can drag on, but either way I believe they are refusing the word because they do not want to be considered a religion. Even though they are just in fact that. If it is not a religion an atheist should no longer refer to themselves as thus (atheist) because in saying such it is promoting a sect of beliefs that they have concerning the nature and cause of the universe. I am certain majority of people know what an atheist and separate them amongst a group of people as people separate Christians as another group of people. In other words, we stereotype such as a religion; much like people do Christianity. If you do not have a sect of beliefs concerning the nature and cause of the universe that coincide with other people than this would be nullified as a religion. However, since you consider yourself amongst a group of people I think it redundant to say it is not a religion. None the less, I don't think it matters either way. I was just curious because in my mind it qualifies as a religion. I suppose it's relative though.

The problem with this argument is simply that the definition of religion you choose to use is not at all specific. "A set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe" is part of it, certainly, but not the whole of it. Religions prescribe a set of rules or ideals by which one should live, for example; atheism does not.

Consider CanandaCraig as an example - hopefully he'll forgive me for dragging him into this. He calls himself a non-religious Christian, meaning that he believes that Christ exists, but is not a follower of the religion. If belief were all that defined a religion, then this would make no sense.

And the other main thing that separates atheism from religion is the type of belief. Almost every religion requires some amount of faith above and beyond what evidence we can find in the real world. So, for example, most Christians have more faith in the existence of Christ than in impartial observer would, given the evidence. Most atheists, however, strive to only be as confident in their world view as the evidence suggests. It is a different type of belief: belief in the quantifiable rather than belief in the unquantifiable. I feel this is an important distinction between the two.

That said, it is certainly possible to be a religious atheist. An atheist for example who actually claimed certainty in the validity of the big bang theory, and felt that there is a superior way to live as regards work, relationships, sexuality, etc; someone like that could probably be called a religious atheist. But the vast majority of us are not like that. As my roommate just so eloquently put it: "Most of the atheists I know just don't give a damn." And that is my experience as well.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by DeadlySin

Any system of beliefs can be a religion. So Atheism IS in fact a religion.

So loving a certain hockey team while rejecting others is a religion? It's religious to go to a game and cheer for your favourite team while booing when the opposing team scores? In this sense, fans of certain sport teams are religious whereas people who are not as devoted and watch simply to enjoy are not religious. This is the problem when you begin saying any system of beliefs constitute a religion; students who worry about up-coming tests are adhering to a religion, people who love one band but dislike another are religious and so forth. Thus, while you've argued atheism is a religion, you also have argued sports, school and pretty much everything can be a religion, so that's not a terribly great argument.

Your argument is further weakened because you state a "system of beliefs". Atheism is not a system of beliefs, it's one belief and that's of no god or higher being existing. Hence, your definition of religion excludes atheism so you have no argument to suggest otherwise unless you change your definition of religion.

[cuttingsolitude]

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is simply a lack of belief.

[AnaMZ]

Originally Posted by cuttingsolitude

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is simply a lack of belief.

This. A million billion gazillion times, this.

What I find offensive is when people say that I just like to "believe" that there is no God, as if trying to level some perceived playing field, where they're on the back foot because they believe without evidence. If we both believed in things without evidence, then clearly we wouldn't be having this discussion, so stop trying to treat atheism like it's just another religion.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. I know I've said this before, but people need to take it in.

[TheBabyEater]

I love how everyone just kinda, ignores my point

What about the ones that don't believe in a God? Yet people still consider them religions. Like, Satanism, Buddhism... Possibly others that my tired, overworked mind can't come up with right now

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The problem with this argument is simply that the definition of religion you choose to use is not at all specific. "A set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe" is part of it, certainly, but not the whole of it. Religions prescribe a set of rules or ideals by which one should live, for example; atheism does not.

Consider CanandaCraig as an example - hopefully he'll forgive me for dragging him into this. He calls himself a non-religious Christian, meaning that he believes that Christ exists, but is not a follower of the religion. If belief were all that defined a religion, then this would make no sense.

And the other main thing that separates atheism from religion is the type of belief. Almost every religion requires some amount of faith above and beyond what evidence we can find in the real world. So, for example, most Christians have more faith in the existence of Christ than in impartial observer would, given the evidence. Most atheists, however, strive to only be as confident in their world view as the evidence suggests. It is a different type of belief: belief in the quantifiable rather than belief in the unquantifiable. I feel this is an important distinction between the two.

That said, it is certainly possible to be a religious atheist. An atheist for example who actually claimed certainty in the validity of the big bang theory, and felt that there is a superior way to live as regards work, relationships, sexuality, etc; someone like that could probably be called a religious atheist. But the vast majority of us are not like that. As my roommate just so eloquently put it: "Most of the atheists I know just don't give a damn." And that is my experience as well.

But you've just followed a rule: by denying you do not follow rules, you imply that there is a rule within Atheism that you do not follow rules. I don't mean to get technical... however, this is a philosophy of a philosophy that contradicts and is redundant in itself.

CanadaCraig may not be a "follower of the regligion," but I am a follower of Christ because I love Him and I want to obey Him not because I have to, but because I want to and am in what I consider to be in an active relationship with a living and physical human being who is also God. However, if you say that you do not follow a set of rules, the rule of Christianity is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore in essence you are religious on just believing and therefore this example is not sufficient. Although I suggest that if you do believe in Christ this believe is also an active and not a passive believe in that you do not simply sit back and relax because you have a get out of hell free card. No, if I knew a meteor was coming to my house and wished to live would it be enough to believe the meteor was coming? No. I'd get up and move. It's an active believe that promotes an action based on what you believe and I suggest the same is with faith in Christ. This isn't a religious activity (by your definition). It is me responding to the gospel in a proper manner.

Also, you are implying that the different types that separate a Christian and an atheist is that the "evidence" the atheist has is correct to begin with. You are BELIEVING your interpretation of the world to be correct, yet I am certain you have been wrong before and therefore can be wrong again (yes, this goes both ways I know). Let me give you an example, many people believed the earth was flat. Is it flat? No. And if you said otherwise at that time period and spoke up against the scientist you would be scoffed at and called ignorant. Might I suggest that this may be the case today? You are putting your faith in the evidences that we have to day that may be in fact all false. I am certain that if the earth lasts another 1000 years our knowledge will look so ignorant and insignificant to those during that time period, much like our view of people 1000 years ago is today. Not that ALL people were ignorant, but much of their evidences which they believed to be right 1000 years ago are in fact proven false today. Therefore you must take into account that your evidence is in fact true to begin with and therefore implementing just as much faith as any other religion.

The problem is that people can get 2 completely different views on one topic and therefore whichever view they adopt they are putting in an aspect of faith which I will argue is NOT different than that of a religious view. I can argue that this world suggests much evidence for a creator, you may argue the other way. However: You cannot prove to me God does not exist and I cannot prove to you God does exist (though God can prove it to you by faith and repentance -- He says He will reveal Himself) and therefore each of us is putting faith in a worldview that we have adopted and our beliefs are not different.

[Algernon]

Someone make this a poll. THEN we'll know.

[AnaMZ]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

I love how everyone just kinda, ignores my point

What about the ones that don't believe in a God? Yet people still consider them religions. Like, Satanism, Buddhism... Possibly others that my tired, overworked mind can't come up with right now

I am personally of the opinion that people consider them religions because the people who call them that are usually people who do not participate in the lifestyles, and therefore consider them to be incorrect. In this way, it's easier to criticise them if they are addressed as "just another religion that's got it wrong", rather than having to actually examine what these lifestyles are all about and make a more detailed judgement on whether you agree with them or not.

It also has a lot to do with xenophobia, and ways in which these lifestyles contradict the beliefs of the person talking about them. Xenophobia, in that Eastern belief (in comparison to Western Christianity etc) must be inherently wrong because it does not adhere to the stories of the familiar Abrahamic religions. Because they do not match up entirely in -this- regard (i.e. what makes Abrahamic religions distinct from others), they must therefore also be a religion of sorts, just different. I have to say, the name "Satanism" really really doesn't help the Satanist cause. Much as I feel they're unfairly prejudiced against, it was a bit stupid on their part to name a belief system after such a controversial icon of evil and then attempt to go back and say "But that's not what we meant!".

Basically, I put it down largely to ignorance on the part of those who label them as such.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Michael.

But you've just followed a rule: by denying you do not follow rules, you imply that there is a rule within Atheism that you do not follow rules. I don't mean to get technical... however, this is a philosophy of a philosophy that contradicts and is redundant in itself.

Every object is at least one colour. Many objects have the property of being not red, but "not red" it not itself a colour. There is no authority dictating to atheists "this is how you should live," the way there is in many religions. Some atheists subscribe to one viewpoint or another, some form their own viewpoints, some simply go about their lives without bothering. Whether or not there is a generalizing rule that categorizes how atheists live isn't the relevant point; that there is no (ostensibly) moral authority attempting to dictate - or even suggest - what such a rule whould be is.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Also, you are implying that the different types that separate a Christian and an atheist is that the "evidence" the atheist has is correct to begin with. You are BELIEVING your interpretation of the world to be correct, yet I am certain you have been wrong before and therefore can be wrong again (yes, this goes both ways I know). Let me give you an example, many people believed the earth was flat. Is it flat? No. And if you said otherwise at that time period and spoke up against the scientist you would be scoffed at and called ignorant. Might I suggest that this may be the case today? You are putting your faith in the evidences that we have to day that may be in fact all false. I am certain that if the earth lasts another 1000 years our knowledge will look so ignorant and insignificant to those during that time period, much like our view of people 1000 years ago is today. Not that ALL people were ignorant, but much of their evidences which they believed to be right 1000 years ago are in fact proven false today. Therefore you must take into account that your evidence is in fact true to begin with and therefore implementing just as much faith as any other religion.

You're arguing about black and white when the entire point I was making was the existance of a grey scale. How confident are you about the truth each of the following?

"The Earth is round"
General Reletivity
P=NP
The Theory of Evolution
The Collatz Conjecture
The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
"The Universe is expanding"
"2+2=4"
Fermat's Last Theorem
The Big Bang Theory
"God exists"

In each case an atheist has confidence relative to the evidence available. That meaning: confidence in "2+2=4" being as close to 1 as makes no difference, also in "The Earth is round" and, if they're into mathematics, also the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Other things on that list are either difficult to prove, unproven, or unprovable, so confidence will be relative to the evidence available. The evidence for evolution or relativity is pretty good; the big bang theory less so. For a religious person there is certainly more evidence for the existance of god than there is for an atheist, because of differences of feeling in what qualifies as evidence, but that evidence is still generally less than the confidence a religious person will have in the existence of their god. You are yourself a good example of that, though more fervent than most.

[TheBabyEater]

Originally Posted by AnaMZ

I am personally of the opinion that people consider them religions because the people who call them that are usually people who do not participate in the lifestyles, and therefore consider them to be incorrect. In this way, it's easier to criticise them if they are addressed as "just another religion that's got it wrong", rather than having to actually examine what these lifestyles are all about and make a more detailed judgement on whether you agree with them or not.

Originally Posted by AnaMZ

It also has a lot to do with xenophobia, and ways in which these lifestyles contradict the beliefs of the person talking about them. Xenophobia, in that Eastern belief (in comparison to Western Christianity etc) must be inherently wrong because it does not adhere to the stories of the familiar Abrahamic religions. Because they do not match up entirely in -this- regard (i.e. what makes Abrahamic religions distinct from others), they must therefore also be a religion of sorts, just different. I have to say, the name "Satanism" really really doesn't help the Satanist cause. Much as I feel they're unfairly prejudiced against, it was a bit stupid on their part to name a belief system after such a controversial icon of evil and then attempt to go back and say "But that's not what we meant!".

Basically, I put it down largely to ignorance on the part of those who label them as such.

Personally, I believe they're religions but I also believe Atheism is a religion also, because the fact that they don't believe in a God, is some sort of belief, by not believing. Hard to explain

The reason it's called Satanism, is not because we worship Satan of course, as you seem to already know. However, we do often live by a lot of the things that Theistic Satanism also teaches, and a lot of the same principles that it had way back then when the religion first came around. (which, ironically enough, was before Judaism and Christianity were around to make Satan an evil character) You won't often see a Satanist practicing magic as they did in the olden days, but LaVeyan still has similar things like the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, Nine Satanic Sins, Nine Satanic Statements... (funny how the number 6 is not in there at all)

Usually if someone mistakes Satanism as worshiping Satan, we try to be understanding, since most of us at one time thought the same thing. Now, if we try to explain the truth and they still can't see that a lot of us don't even believe Satan or the Devil exists... Well, that is annoying.

Though there will always be people who aren't like that, just like there will always be big headed Atheists and obnoxious Christians trying to convert everyone. There's always someone ruining it for the rest of a group
But, people like that are rather hypocrites since a big thing in Satanism is respecting others. (Thanks to Manson, people who don't think it's about worshiping Satan, think it's about worshiping yourself. Which, is not entirely true either...)

But, I will definitely agree with you there that a vast majority of people who consider Satanism a religion, also think so because we're apparently worshiping Satan.
Everyone's got their own opinion on what a religion is, but if someone think Atheism is not because it is a lack of belief in God, I just want to see how they think about Buddhism and Satanism, since those also don't usually believe in a God.
(though, a friend of mine brought up that Buddhism does believe in Karma, which is kind of like a god? It's an interesting point. Still on the border there if I would consider something like Karma, which is a sort of supernatural thing, to be a 'God' so to speak)

And I really do tend to ramble on and on when I’m posting something like. All the time. lol

[forfrosne]

Religion is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore, Atheism is not a religion.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by RainOnMe

Religion is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore, Atheism is not a religion.

Although I support the conclusion you arrived at, the argument you used is faulty. Allow me to explain: if religion is a belief, then atheism is a religion because it's a belief about a certain disbelief. So your argument contradicts your conclusion.

[forfrosne]

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

Although I support the conclusion you arrived at, the argument you used is faulty. Allow me to explain: if religion is a belief, then atheism is a religion because it's a belief about a certain disbelief. So your argument contradicts your conclusion.

No, actually this argument has no conclusion. It's all dependant on what people see it as. Some people see it as a lack of belief in a higher being. Some See it as a belief of a lack of belief (doesn't make much sense to me). Therefore this thread is, in the end, rather pointless.

[hopefaithlove]

Since another post was created, I'm going to go ahead and close this.