Is atheism a religion?

[struggle4progress]

The poll question, of course, is motivated by repeated claims in this forum that "Atheism is not a religion." In a sense, this is a continuation of the question I raised in an earlier thread on the usefulness of regarding atheism as a religion

The question now is motivated by the following LBN thread

Satanist father and Christian mother fight for Sunday morning custody rights

But that thread links The Telegraph, so I'll take my article excerpts from the Chicago Trib instead:

In Satanist's custody battle, law may play devil's advocate
His ex-wife wants judge to force him to take daughters to Christian church
By Manya A. Brachear
Chicago Tribune reporter
July 9, 2008

... Meyer's ex-wives say he also has turned their children's lives upside down since he joined the Church of Satan—an organization that eschews spirituality and celebrates man's selfish desires. One of Meyer's ex-wives is citing his religious affiliation as the main reason an Indiana judge should restrict his visitation time to allow his three youngest daughters to attend Christian church ...

... the burden of proof might be on Meyer to prove the Church of Satan is an authentic faith.

"If Satanism is treated as religion, that's strike one to her case," Ferro said ...

... the Internal Revenue Service defines the Church of Satan as a religion. Furthermore, that's how it defines itself.

... said Peter Gilmore, high priest of the .. organization .... "Satanists are .. atheists ..."...

It may also be relevant to note the great importance, to some atheists, of desecrating communion wafers, indicated in another thread

I hope, of course, that this will shed some instructive light on the question:

[The Magistrate]

1. No, Sir, It Is Not, Nor Is The Play-Acting Passing Itself Off as 'Satanism' Today Atheism

[CoffeeCat]

2. Hmmmm...

...I believe it is.

;)

[The Magistrate]

15. Well, Ma'am, Which Have You Come For...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

[CoffeeCat]

37. I came for the free cheesecake!

...and I'm still patiently waiting.

[The Magistrate]

39. Cake Or Death, Ma'am --- Who Could Refuse?

[struggle4progress]

14. Here's a link to an interview where Gilmore says "Satanism begins with atheism"

... One of the most visible Satanic organizations—though one that was never a suspect or charged in any of the Satanic Panic cases—is the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey ... On a windy October day in Central Park, Wikinews reporter David Shankbone sat down with the High Priest of the Church, Peter H. Gilmore, who has led LaVey's congregation of Satanists since his passing in 1997 ...

DS: What is the Church of Satan?
PG: Satanism begins with atheism ...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore

[The Magistrate]

17. So What, Sir?

Idiots talk a lot of bosh, and no one who thinks on such matters is under any obligation to take it seriously. The fellow simply substitutes one deity for another, and at best takes simple dis-enchantment with a particular representation of diety of synonymous with atheism. He is mistaken to do so, but he is mistaken about a lot of things, so what else is one to expect?

[struggle4progress]

21. Indeed, Sir, Idiots Are In Plentiful Supply:

Absolutely anyone, who wants to find an idiot for some purpose, need only look in the mirror

[The Magistrate]

40. Providing One Casts a Reflection In the Glass, My Friend....

"The world abounds in human insects ready to acquaint you with the Will of God on any conceivable question."

[struggle4progress]

73. "The usual problem is not, that they themselves are insects, but that they regard others to be such"

[ladjf]

71. I think that Satanism begins with disillusioned religious people.

Satanism seems to be based on anger. Atheism has a completely different mindset. Most Atheists just don't have a value system that includes a God.

In fact, I see no relationship whatsoever between Satanism and Atheism.

[beam me up scottie]

72. Yes, exactly! It's more like anti-theism than a-theism.

Satanists just prefer more drama.

[ladjf]

113. Yes, good point.

Further, Satanism shows their relationship with Christianity by defining their ten satanist commandments as exact opposites of the Christian ten commandments. Atheists would never bother to contradict another religion is such a silly manner. Satanism comes perilously close to being a
childish and almost cartoon style set of ideas.

[flyingfysh]

3. absolutely not

Atheists do not believe that there are any supernatural beings at all. This includes "Satan".

[beam me up scottie]

4. Been asked and answered many times.

It was "no" in case you weren't paying attention.

[bowens43]

5. NO, it isn't a religion.

[The Traveler]

56. Explain

It is based on the belief of a supernatural intelligence which is responsive to prayer and sacrifice of a certain form, and which informs an ethos to which its worshippers should adhere. Sounds like a religion to me ... a sucky one, but a religion nonetheless.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Wait, what? I am an atheist and I have no idea what you just described.

It certainly isn't atheism.

[The Traveler]

99. My confusion

I thought the article was about Satanism ... which is certainly NOT aetheism.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Ah, gotcha.

I thought there was some new source of propaganda making the rounds on the internet. :)

[The Traveler]

112. There probably is

But ours was an honest comms glitch.

[Muttocracy]

6. no, by definition. a-theism. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. No, but it holds an equivalent place in the lives of adherent

The courts have generally been very clear in this.

[Warpy]

48. What, pray tell, do we adhere to?

Where are our sacred texts, our liturgies, our community organizations, our marble buildings?

That's what drives believers crazy, you know, that we do not adhere to anything. We are completely outside of belief systems. We have no belief system, no belief, no religion, nothing. We don't have anything in those places you file your religious life. There is no "there" there.

Since we've never seen any evidence of the supernatural, we simply lack belief in it, much as you lack belief in the purple and green striped winged hippo that is shitting down your chimney right now.

The whole idea is absurd to us.

[TechBear_Seattle]

66. If you can come up with a more accurate expression, feel free

To pick two examples with which I am familiar: United States v. Seeger and Welsh v. United States.

In Seeger, given in 1965, the US Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "religious training and belief" included any belief, including non-religious beliefs, which occupies an equivalent role as religious belief. While the specific ruling referenced conscientious objector status in the draft, latter rulings have broadened Seeger's application to include other areas where the law made allowances based on an individual's religious beliefs, affirming that the moral directives of non-religious philosophies are legally equivalent to the moral directives of religious doctrines.

This expansion was affirmed by the US Supreme court itself in 1970, when it issued its ruling in Welsh v. United States.

There are a number of other legal cases in the US where atheism was held as being equivalent to religious belief. The 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins was about Maryland's state constitutional requirement that candidates for notary public must declare a belief in God. In the lead ruling, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States." In other words, Torcaso's refusal to declare religious belief was, itself, a religious belief.

More recently, Kaufman v. McCaughtry, decided by the 7th Circuit in 2005, held that the Wisconsin prison system violated the religious rights of an inmate when they refused to give him permission to start an atheist study group.

To summarize: Atheism is not, itself, a religion. However, almost 50 years of court precedent have clearly established that, under the First Amendment, atheism holds an equivalent place to religion and thus merits the same rights and protections -- and also is limited by the same restrictions -- as religion.

[Warpy]

68. Well, the first two don't apply to many of us since we lack

such beliefs. You'd be surprised, but many of us don't consider that stuff at all.

The second is in error. The absence of something does not indicate its presence. An atheist is a believer like a lifelong abstainer is an alcoholic. The idea is utterly absurd, although it's nice to be able to testify in court without having to tell a useless lie right off the bat.

As for the third, I find it bizarre, but obviously religious rights can be construed as the right to avoid exercise of religion.

I'm afraid you've proven nothing and will refer you back to my first post. Do try to understand it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

69. Take your objections up with the United States Supreme Court

If you would rather that atheism not be protected by the First Amendment, fine. I am quite happy that it is.

[Warpy]

101. Nice straw man

now go outside and play with him and try to knock him down.

If you ever get around to addressing any points, let me know.

[TechBear_Seattle]

107. I'm sorry you don't like facts

The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of atheists using exactly the same parts of the Constitution that uphold the rights of theists. The basis for this is that a lack of religious belief holds a similar place for a non-believer that the presence of religious belief holds for a believer. This is what I said in both my posts upstream.

Now, what points am I not addressing?

[beam me up scottie]

104. TechBear, aren't you an atheist too?

If I'm correct you're not trying to tell atheists we have a religion but just pointing out the fact that we deserve equal protection under the law.

[TechBear_Seattle]

106. Not quite. I define myself as an apatheist

From the Wikipedia:

Apatheism, also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life; nor to human affairs.

Yeah, yeah, I'm being picky and pendantic. Moving on....

I did not make any claims about "deserving" equal protection under the law. I have pointed out that the Supreme Court has declared that non-believers already DO have equal protection under the law, exactly for the same reason that believers have equal protection under the law: the Establishment and Free Excercise clauses of the First Amendment. Atheism is not a religion any more than baldness is a hairstyle or transparent is a color; but legally it is considered the equivalent of religion as it holds the same place for atheists as religion does for believers.

[cyborg_jim]

108. If you want clarity of meaning then appeals to the Law are the last thing one should do

[SecularMotion]

8. Is bald a hair color?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. I don't think atheists, as a rule, are Satanists

I know the atheists that frequent this board tend to say that Satan, too, is an outdated concept just as God is. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, atheist friends).

[struggle4progress]

19. I did not claim "atheists, as a rule, are Satanists." The particular Satanist in my

link, however, identifies himself with a group, whose spokesman says their beliefs begin with atheism

[gcomeau]

24. He's stupid enough to be a Satanist in the first place....

...and you're going to give any weight to his opinions on matters of theology?

[struggle4progress]

33. Which of his theological stances do you think I accept?

I merely note that the "Church of Satan" calls itself a church and has historically also called itself a religion and that its current "high priest" says their beliefs begin with atheism

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

97. But as I understand atheism

they don't think there are any supernatural beings, including Satan.

[beam me up scottie]

119. Thanks, ayeshahaqqiqa!

You can't have one without the other. :)

[beam me up scottie]

10. It's hilarious that the worst thing you can do to criticize atheism is to call it a religion.

And the worst thing you can do to an atheist is call us one of you!

:rofl:

[Fridays Child]

11. It's been said that atheism is a religion...

...like not collecting stamps is a hobby. That sounds about right to me.

[eppur_se_muova]

88. I was going to say, like sitting on your ass is a sport. nt

[gcomeau]

12. Atheism is a religion...

...like sobriety is a drinking problem.

(Edit: Awww, I like that stamps one better. :( )

[Starry Messenger]

13. no.

And I didn't see anyone on that thread advocating the "desecration" of communion wafers either.

MPK

[struggle4progress]

29. "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? ... I’ll show you sacrilege .. and

and .. will .. treat it with profound disrespect" is in the OP

[Starry Messenger]

43. sorry

Missed it. Still don't think it's typical.

MPK

[parasim]

16. Who cares? Both sides are full of it.

I like to think about when people die, whether atheist or religious, they both go, "Whoa, this is nothing like what I expected!"

[gcomeau]

20. Since there are only two sides...

...you basically just said the whole planet is full of it. Which you're entitled to believe I suppose.

[parasim]

25. No, I don't think there are only two sides.

There are those of course, that absolutely believe there is a God. Likewise, there are those that absolutely believe there is no God. Then, there are those that have no idea if there is or is not a God.

The two sides that I am referring to are those that have absolute faith in their minds that they know whether there is or is not a God.

[gcomeau]

26. The options you just described...

...were not either theism OR atheism, they were subsets within both. Absolute belief is not required for either one. Just belief or lack thereof.

[parasim]

30. Ok, so I don't know what I'm talking about, I guess...

But to me, saying that there is no god, is saying that you believe there is no god. Belief is there.

A friend of mine, who considered himself an atheist told me that there is no way, shape or form any sort of god. He just knew it. To me, that's a belief.

[gcomeau]

121. I don't follow your point.

I dispute nothing you said in that last post, but it didn't address anything I said in the one before it.

[Growler]

59. Actually, none of us says anything...

:hi:

[jobycom]

18. I dunno, but atheism isn't Satanism, and Satanism seems to be a religion.

To me, religion isn't about believing in a god, it's about organizing your actions around a central set of beliefs and acting on those beliefs in some way, whether that means going to a church (as Christians and Satanists do) or just developing systematic arguments about God's non-existence. So I guess some atheists sort of make their lack of belief into a religion. Hell, science can be treated like a religion, and some people follow it blindly, too, without acknowledging the possibility of its limits. It seems to me that the atheists who get angry about other religions, and mock other people's beliefs, are almost religious in doing so. It's like they see a competition, and have to win it, just as the "Thou shall have no other gods before me" Commandment seems to say about Christianity.

For me, I'm an atheist in that I don't believe in a god, but I don't organize my life or behavior around it. I don't care about anyone else's beliefs enough to get angry at them, unless their beliefs are interfering with the rights of others. I don't go to church, or think about it, or much of anything that even resembles religion. I think most atheists are like that. That's not a religion.

[varkam]

22. No, it isn't.

I'm not even sure the Church of Satan is a religious outfit, either. Those folks seem to be more interested in power and backstabbing than anything else (hmmm...maybe they are a religion).

But regardless as to whether or not the CoS begins with atheism, or whether it's adherents are atheists, says nothing about whether or not atheism in and of itself is a religion - which, of course, it is not.

I don't really know what desecrating communion wafers has do to with any of this. Myers merely had the temerity to point out what most of us know - that a communion wafer is a cracker.

Some people, however, will be convinced that atheism is a religion in that it suits their own ends. People seem to want to use it as a pejorative against atheists, as a way of saying "Look! You're just as irrational and bat-shit crazy as we are!"

[struggle4progress]

70. Meyer announced he hoped someone would supply a communion wafer for him to disrespect

Such desecration, in medieval lore, forms part of Satanist ritual ("Black Mass"). The Catholics take it very seriously

I posted a link on a child custody case involving a "Satanist": having his atheistic "Church of Satan" identified as a "religion" might be useful in his child custody battle. If an atheist can't possibly be religious, of course, the claim is meritless but that's to his disadvantage in the child custody case. What are his "beliefs", then? Mocking Christian beliefs seems to be among them, since he has an upside down crucifix over his bed. An interview with the "high priest" of the "Church of Satan" reveals a point-of-view not alien to this forum:

... My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane ... Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, “It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!” So you then have to make a decision that places yourself at the center of your own subjective universe ... <link posted upthread>

Aside: I doubt whether Myers would quarrel with the statement "anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane", which has often been made in this forum. Myers goes somewhat further than that, by making a point of his willingness to do something many people would find offensive, namely, to reproduce a traditionally alleged element of Satanic ritual. On any secular theory of free speech, he certainly has some political right to do that -- but I can't see any productive consequence of it: it pointlessly provokes people so he can crow about his superiority to them. That phenomenon is well-exhibited in the communion wafer thread

Resuming: It takes little investigation to determine that the "Church of Satan" thrills at shocking some peoples and using that reaction as a basis for ridiculing people

So does the father in the child-custody case have a religion? On my theological view, his "church" apparently has a very common religion, which teaches him his own superiority and finds evidences of it by ridiculing others; of course, this religion is not confined to any "church" or even to any "denomination."

Of course, theology is different from law. The next questions should be: Should it help him at law for him to claim the "Church of Satan" his religion? Are his "beliefs" from the "Church of Satan" relevant to the raising of his children? But I will stop here.

<edit: insert quotemarks>

[varkam]

75. Hrmm...

Such desecration, in medieval lore, forms part of Satanist ritual ("Black Mass"). The Catholics take it very seriously

So Myers is therefore taking part in a Satanist, ergo religious, ritual? Huh? What are you smoking? BTW, the Catholics take all sorts of things seriously that they shouldn't, including themselves.

I posted a link on a child custody case involving a "Satanist": having his atheistic "Church of Satan" identified as a "religion" might be useful in his child custody battle. If an atheist can't possibly be religious, of course, the claim is meritless but that's to his disadvantage in the child custody case. What are his "beliefs", then? Mocking Christian beliefs seems to be among them, since he has an upside down crucifix over his bed. An interview with the "high priest" of the "Church of Satan" reveals a point-of-view not alien to this forum:

The question of whether or not an atheist can be religious is a completely different question from whether or not atheism is a religion.

I doubt whether Myers would quarrel with the statement "anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane", which has often been made in this forum. Myers goes somewhat further than that, by making a point of his willingness to do something many people would find offensive, namely, to reproduce a traditionally alleged element of Satanic ritual. On any secular theory of free speech, he certainly has some political right to do that -- but I can't see any productive consequence of it: it pointlessly provokes people so he can crow about his superiority to them. That phenomenon is well-exhibited in the communion wafer thread

Myers is doing this to "reproduce a traditionally elleged element of Satanic ritual"? Again, what might you be smoking? He's not doing it to engage in Satanic ritual, he's doing it because it's a fucking cracker and, as I noted, the Catholics take all sorts of things entirely too seriously (including crackers, apparently).

So does the father in the child-custody case have a religion? On my theological view, his "church" apparently has a very common religion, which teaches him his own superiority and finds evidences of it by ridiculing others; of course, this religion is not confined to any "church" or even to any "denomination."

Of course, theology is different from law. The next questions should be: Should it help him at law for him to claim the "Church of Satan" his religion? Are his "beliefs" from the "Church of Satan" relevant to the raising of his children? But I will stop here.

Again, none of this has anything to do with whether or not atheism is a religion. I know that you're trying to stretch it into making CoS = atheism, but it's not going to work. As Mag noted upthread, just because the founder of CoS says atheism is where CoS starts doesn't make it so.

[struggle4progress]

85. "The question of whether or not an atheist can be religious is a completely different question from

whether or not atheism is a religion" seems to be a useful distinction

Much of the rest involves claims I did not make, such as "CoS = atheism"

When one offends people accidentally, then they take themselves too seriously might sometimes be a reasonable defense. If however, one sets out deliberately to offend harmless people, merely for the pleasure of offending them, then they take themselves too seriously is simply asinine. Myers is an educated man: he cannot have failed to notice that Catholics take desecration of the eucharist very seriously, and he proposes to do so, simply in order to mock them and to feel superior to them, despite the fact that he cannot know most of them. I am not inclined to assume that he is so culturally ignorant, that he is completely unaware of the medieval black mass stories (whether those stories are true or not). While I do not personally believe in literal demons, demonic seems to me an accurate description of such an attitude, which rejoices in giving pointless offense. And I suspect Myers behaves so with an essentially religious fervor

[cosmik debris]

23. Same old crap. You never get tired of insulting atheists.

The only statement that all atheists agree on is "I do not believe"

I'm sure you can fashion some semantic argument that makes "I do not believe" into a religion.

But nobody will care. It is clear that you are just looking for ways to be insulting.

Ho Hum. :boring:

[parasim]

27. So you're saying that atheists say that there *might* be a god...

and that they are just saying that they themselves don't believe in it?

Or are they saying that they believe that there absolutely is no god?

I'm not suggesting that it is a religion. I'm just suggesting that it is a "belief system".

Am I wrong?

[cyborg_jim]

28. I don't think you can call it a belief "system"

There's nothing "system" like in it - it's a simple statement with no presumptions as to how it was arrived at.

[parasim]

31. Alright, take out the word "system". Just a belief.

If you say you know something to be true yet there is no scientific evidence to back it up, is that not a "belief"?

[cosmik debris]

36. What belief?????

"I do not believe" does not even imply belief.

?????

[parasim]

46. Where's the belief?

)sorry, bad attempt at parody of the old commerical there...)

Ok, I'm not trying to piss anybody off here... I'm just wondering what is the difference between these two statements:

"I do not believe there is a God"

"I believe there is no God"

?

Please enlighten me, if you so desire. or just tell me to fuck off...

[cosmik debris]

47. absence of belief is not belief in absence.

Atheist fall into a wide spectrum. Your friend (from your other post) is not representative of all atheists any more that Mullah Omar is representative of all theists.

When you boil down atheism to the bare essentials, the only thing you have is the statement of DISbelief.

[parasim]

50. Thanks for bearing with me... ok, so...

Essentially atheists are saying "I don't believe it is true that there is a God. It could be true, I just don't believe it to be." Right?

[cosmik debris]

53. That opinion falls within the spectrum

But it is not a universal statement of atheism.

For example some atheists don't recognize that there is a coherent definition of god. Therefore no discussion of the subject can be meaningful until a verifiable/falsifiable testable definition of god is provided, "god is love" is not a suitable premise for a debate. To those atheists, any discussion of god is like discussing the length of a unicorn's horn.

[parasim]

57. You keep using the word "statement"... that's intriguing to me...

because both the religious people and the non-religious (atheists, perhaps) always make statements about how they think the world works. That's the thing that bothers me about this whole topic. I don't consider myself religious (ugh, not in the least bit!) but I never felt right saying that I was an atheist either, because frankly I just don't know what it's all about. Making a statement about something, to me, seems to mean that you are saying "This is the way it is. Period."

Whatever, I guess I'll never quite understand the difference between the religious folks and the atheists. Thanks for trying to help me understand it all... Sorry for taking up so much of your time.

[cosmik debris]

60. The statement "I do not believe" is not a

statement about "how they think the world works." It is a statement about the failure of the theists to make a rational argument for their belief. Likewise saying that you don't believe in unicorns is not a statement on how the world works. It is just a statement that you are not convinced about the existence of unicorns, nothing more.

[parasim]

64. Then I guess I'm an atheist...

Because I am certainly not convinced of the existence of an all-powerful God watching over us. (I always thought the word for that was "agnostic" but whatever...) thanks again for helping me understand.

[cosmik debris]

65. agnostics also fall into the spectrum

But it is still just a label. If you don't feel comfortable with the label, you are not required to use it.

And thank you for trying to understand.

[cyborg_jim]

41. What's science got to do with it?

If I hold a belief I hold a belief regardless of how I arrived at that belief.

[Growler]

62. I'm an atheist...

and I simply don't care if there is or is not a god. I seriously doubt there is, and do not feel there is any need to invoke a god to explain anything around us.

OTOH, if there turns out to actually be a god, I would continue to pay as much attention to it as I do now: none.

Frankly, there is no possible way that any creator god could resemble the tradtional Judeo-Christian god, so I can't imagine it would need us to worship it.

And if it did need worship, I still wouldn't. :)

[cosmik debris]

34. How can you take the statement "I do not believe"

and call it a belief system or a belief. Re read the statement "I do not believe"

That is not a statement of belief. It is a statement of disbelief.

[struggle4progress]

38. What's insulting you here? There's a link to a Chicago Trib article on a child custody case,

which says it is to the advantage of one party "if Satanism is treated as religion." An inspection, of the beliefs of the person involved, suggests that his "Satanism" explicitly includes an atheistic component

The most common argument, made in this thread for "Atheism can't be a religion," is that "religion" always involves a theistic belief: that view would imply that the "Satanist" has no "religion." But the organization calls itself a "Church" and Blanche Barton (a wife of the founder) wrote a book called "The Church of Satan: A History of the World's Most Notorious Religion"

[cosmik debris]

42. Is religion a mental illness.

If I find an article discussing the comparison of religion to mental illness and post it with a header that says "Is religion a mental illness?" would that be the same kind of flame bait you posted?

Yep.

[struggle4progress]

51. On your view, "religion" itself is an insulting label

However, it seems not all atheists share your view, insofar as there is a book written by one of these "Satanists" titled Church of Satan: A History of the World's Most Notorious Religion

[cosmik debris]

54. I'm pretty sure that your next statement will be a denial

That your mis-characterization of my "view" is not a straw man.

But it seems to me that it is the epitome of straw men.

Let the denial begin!

[struggle4progress]

74. Perhaps I have misunderstood your analogy between

"An atheist is religious" & "A believer is mentally ill," both of which you apparently regard as insults

I am guessing it works for you in the following way: weak-mindedness is the common feature you imagine for "religious" and "mentally ill"

So I think what you are trying to say by comparing "An atheist is religious" (respectively, "A believer is mentally ill") is that the proper parsing is "An atheist is weak-minded" (respectively, "A believer is weak-minded")

You are free to clarify, of course, should this differ from your intent

[cosmik debris]

76. You guessed wrong

But that's the way the whole straw man thing works, right?

[struggle4progress]

80. Again: you are free to clarify, if I have missed your intent

[cosmik debris]

96. No thanks

I regret responding to your flame bait.

It is obvious to me that the OP was intended to stir up hard feelings and insult those with whom you disagree.

I should have not allowed your petty spitefulness to lure me in. That was my fault.

I will not compound that fault by trying to make a rational conversation with a person who intends to insult rather than understand.

[struggle4progress]

105. Once more I say: you are free to clarify the intent of your #42

[cosmik debris]

109. see post #96 n/t

[struggle4progress]

110. Strike three

[cosmik debris]

111. I covered that in post #96.

[Growler]

61. wackjobs can SAY anything they want

..and still be wrong. Saying that Satanism includes an atheistic component does not make it true. It is obviously UNtrue.

[cosmik debris]

63. But flame bait requires a little kindling to get the fire going. n/t

[uberllama42]

32. How stupid do you think we are?

Do you really think that we might not realize that you're just trying to stir shit up? Aren't you embarrassed by this thread? You start with a premise that you know will draw fire, plop down a link that has no relevance to the question you are supposedly asking, and then hope "that this will shed some instructive light on the question" like your mom caught you masturbating and all you could think of to say was "It wasn't me."

The chip on your shoulder is plain for all of us to see. I have no idea what you hoped to get out of this petty farce of a post, but I sure got a good laugh out of it. Whatever fix you were aiming for, I hope you got it, and won't have to clutter this board with your pablum for a while.

[TZ]

35. Could you post something MORE offensive, please?

I don't think you've insulted atheists enough in this thread...:sarcasm:

Why are you also brining up the atheism leads to Satanism meme..which is what you REALLY are trying to say here, even though you used a smoke screen title here..Thats a fundie myth...Is this in response to the "cracker desecration" thread? If so, you are proving PZ Meyers point about how rediculous people can get over a goddamned symbol.
Its also petty and childish..They insulted me, so now I'm gonna insult them....:eyes:

[cosmik debris]

45. Sometimes they just get desperate

to prove that atheists are just defective models of religionists. They are too narrow minded to comprehend that atheists can be whole and complete without a religious belief. So anything we say is taken to be some sort of religion.

That's the way superstitious people operate.

[struggle4progress]

49. I never claimed "atheism" leads to "Satanism"

Ridiculing Catholic belief apparently plays a role in the "Church of Satan": the Trib article I linked begins by noting that the "Satanist" in the story hangs a cross upside-down over his bed; further evidence of this ridicule is provided by the fact that the "Church" has published several "Black Masses"

There is of course a tradition, dating back to at least medieval Europe, concerning the desecration of the eucharist in Satanic ritual ("Black Masses"). I do not know the actual historical basis of this tradition: for example, it could be entirely fictional or it might have its origins in some actual events unfamiliar to me. But such an issue was, and remains, serious enough for Catholics that it found a place in Canon Law:

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See

Ridiculing Catholic belief apparently plays, for some DUers, exactly the same juvenile role that it plays for the "Church of Satan," your post providing an excellent example

[beam me up scottie]

52. You're going to need traction after that.

:rofl:

[varkam]

79. To assert that the motivation is to ridicule...

seems to me to be making a large assumption on the part of adherents of the CoS.

[struggle4progress]

81. From the "Church" website:

THOUGHTS ON DEALING WITH CHRISTIANS AND OTHER KINDRED VERMIN

... if you sneer, mock, or laugh at him, show him that you find his beliefs to be too ludicrous to possibly debate seriously, then he will flee ... One definition of “roast” is to severely ridicule. As I said earlier, if a “lamb of God” gets out of line, make “roasted lamb chops.”

I won't link it: you can find it easily enough for yourself

[varkam]

82. That doesn't say that the motivation for...

official church policy and ceremony is to "ridicule".

[struggle4progress]

87. My words in #49 were "Ridiculing .. plays a role"

Perhaps I need not feel obliged to support your rewording of my language

[varkam]

89. Nor does that even say that it plays a role. It says nothing about policy or ceremony.

All that could mean is that some individual members, or indeed whomever wrote that page thinks ridiculing is good fun, but it does not mean that the reason for policy and ceremony is to ridicule the church. It may be just that, but I don't believe that such a notion is supported from what you have posted and remains, consequently, an assumption.

[knitter4democracy]

103. Oh for the love of Pete. That's a terrible answer.

Atheism is older than Satanism and has different roots. Try again.

[beam me up scottie]

55. In this thread? How about in the forum ?

You'd think he'd learn his lesson since he gets his butt whooped every. damn. time.

Maybe he's misinterpreting our body language. It's possible holding our noses, pointing and laughing at someone means something else where he comes from...

[frogmarch]

44. Atheism isn't

a religion, and it's stupid to call it one. Is non-belief in other imaginary entities (fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, fairies, etc.) a religion? No, and neither is not believing in some invisible, magical sky guy.

[ZombieHorde]

67. Satanism is an atheistic religion, just like Buddhism.

Atheism and religion are two different things. They can exist together and they can exist apart.

[varkam]

77. That's a good way of looking at it. eom

:hi:

[ZombieHorde]

83. H.P. Lovecraft is one of my favorite authors. (your avatar)

[varkam]

84. Indeed.eom

[arKansasJHawk]

78. Of course it is. And of course it is not.

The problem, obviously, is that the noun "religion" has a number of different meanings. From the Oxford English Dictionary, for a start, there are three definitions:

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense "life under monastic vows": from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

Clearly, No. 1 is out. No. 3 might apply, depending on the particular atheist you're trying to define. I suspect, however, that the OP is aiming for definition No. 2. Atheism is, indeed, a "particular system." What it's a particular system OF seems to be the question at hand. Is atheism a faith, we may well ask. Do atheists worship at the altar of non-belief?

It all seems a bit pointless to me, all this work at defining a word as being equivalent to some other word. Clearly, atheism is a "belief system." I believe there are no gods. I also believe there's no invisible dragon in my garage. Conventionally "religious" people most likely also believe there are no invisible dragons in their garages. So does that mean that religious people are atheists?

They certainly have been attacked as such, in the annals of history. I imagine we're all aware that Christians were actually the first historical atheists, not believing in all those pagan gods like true "religious" people did in AD 33.

So what I'm saying, basically, is that the question in the OP is, on its face, rubbish. It doesn't lead any of us to any sort of enlightenment on the nature of belief and/or non-belief. It just flops around like a fish out of water, gasping and straining for something it will never find.

[struggle4progress]

86. "the question .. is .. rubbish" seems a good philosophical view to me

though it doesn't help at all with the legal issues

[varkam]

90. But the fellow isn't asserting that atheism is a religion.

He's asserting that CoS is - which isn't atheism.

[struggle4progress]

91. But I am not committed to a Platonist view of "religion"

There is no one thing "Religion," floating about abstractly somewhere, upon which we may definitively discourse

The word "religion" may be used in different contexts, for different purposes. One might discuss "religion" as a sociological study; one might consider the question of the usefulness of "religion" as a concept in legal arguments; one might have a theological perspective on "religion" -- and so on

The "Church of Satan" was founded by LeVey, apparently influenced by the philosophy of Ayn Rand: it seems entirely appropriate to me to say that Rand's philosophy is a religion for some people -- just as the free market philosophy of "The Family" seems to be a religion for some people

Nor do I think there is a definite notions "Atheist," existing abstractly somewhere, upon which we may meaningfully discourse. This forum frequently contains meaningless claims such as "An atheist cannot have a religion." The distinction you raised earlier, between "an atheist having a religion" and "atheism as a religion" seems a useful distinction: "atheism" might be a religion in some particular material contexts and not in others; "atheism" might be a religion for some atheists and not others

Some atheists seem to have ideas similar to those of CoS; of course, it is also true that the ideas of CoS seem to be the real religion of some people who otherwise call themselves Christian

[varkam]

92. So then why ask "Is atheism a religion"?

I mean you seem to view that it can be in some aspects and not in others, so then why ask the question concerning atheism, as it abstractly floats about somewhere?

Some atheists have similar ideas to Christians, such as you should help the poor. Does that make atheism a religion, then? I think you're seeing a correlation where perhaps one does exist, and reading entirely too much into that.

Moreover, the legal issue has nothing to do with "is atheism a religion", but again, it is concerning the CoS, which you seem to think is atheism.

[Evoman]

94. Easy. Because he's still mad about us laughing at his crackers.

[Evoman]

93. What? Again? I had to check the date on your post just to see if this was recent.

This shit is plain ol' stupid. Not only do people keep changing the meaning of "religion" until it plain ol' doesn't mean any fucking thing, then they want to know if something else is the same as their meaningless word.

I don't even care anymore.

Call atheism a religion if you want to. What are words anyways? As long as everyone here understands that I don't believe in bullshit like crackers turning into Jesus morsels, or that a magic man made the cosmos, or that people were made from clay, or that a man came back to life after being dead for 3 days, then I'm fucking happy.

I'm too busy laughing at you to give a shit.

[YankeyMCC]

95. No

[NashVegas]

98. It Depends on How You Express It, IMO

"God does not exist" is an affirmative statement designating one's belief as an absolute truth.

On its own, not that big a deal, UNTIL you go looking for a group of like-minded individuals and promote the belief. Then, yeah, you're veering into religion, IMO.

[knitter4democracy]

102. No. It's more of a philosophy. And why the Satanism reference?

That's shady.

[struggle4progress]

114. Not shady at all: According to the lawyer quoted in the OP, it may have child custody suit ..

implications, if the "Church of Satan" member can claim "Church of Satan" as his religion. But he's an atheist. If one holds that an atheist can't have a religion, then surely an atheist can't claim "Church of Satan" as his religion

[knitter4democracy]

115. Isn't up to anyone how they define themselves?

If he says he's a Satanist, then he's a Satanist. I can't see a judge second-guessing that.

Implying atheists are Satanists is shady.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Right on, k4d!

Thanks for not taking the bait, I'll make sure to return the favor. :hi:

[knitter4democracy]

117. I'll settle for a hug.

:hug:

I have never understood why atheism scares some. What do I care what someone belives or not?

[beam me up scottie]

118. You got it!

:hug:

[varkam]

122. Really?

Because that quote didn't say a god damned thing about atheism - you did.

[Az]

120. Atheism on its own is not a religion

Just as theism on its own is not a religion. Both can be components of religion. But on their own they do not carry sufficient social consideration to qualify as a religion.

Thus an atheist standing around on the corner minding his own business is not part of a religion. But an atheist that joins a group of other atheists who band together and share a devout passion for their atheism and form a social order, complete with ethical trappings and other such things may form a religion. But the atheism on its own is not a religion.

[cosmik debris]

123. Welcome back

I noticed that you have been gone for a while. I'm glad to see that you've returned.

[varkam]

124. Second what cosmik said.

Welcome back :toast: