Is Atheism a Religion?

[rug]

January 22, 2013

Introduction

In Britain, where the Church of England is a laughing stock lately, the percentage of Britons professing no faith has nearly doubled in the last decade — which might explain the rise of an atheist church.

In the U.S., Susan Jacoby recently wrote, moments of tragedy can be a reminder “of what atheism has to offer.” The philosopher Gary Gutting adds that atheists, like religious people, ought to articulate reasons for their beliefs (or lack thereof).

Can atheism replace religion? Is it a religion?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/22/is-atheism-a-religion

Six opinions at the link.

[FBaggins]

1. Depends on how you define the term "religion"

If your religion is the system of beliefs upon which you build your understanding of reality/creation, determine right/wrong, and judge your actions... Then sure, it's a religion.

For others, the term necessarily involves belief in some higher power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. 'Sure'? How can you be 'sure' of that?

"the system of beliefs upon which you build your understanding of reality/creation"

I'd say that such as 'system of beliefs' for me is that effect follows cause, that there are physical laws such as gravity, laws of motion, electrodynamics, and so on that are consistent in time and space, and that other people are, like me, autonomous individuals who make choices in roughly the way I do. Why is that connected to my atheism?

"determine right/wrong, and judge your actions"

That would be a democratic society. Again, not my atheism.

So you seem to be saying that my 'religion' is my belief in the physical fundamentals of the universe, and my participation in democratic society. Why were you so sure that 'atheism' was my religion?

[Trajan]

2. This never gets tiring ...

NOT!

[digonswine]

3. I think this has been done to death-

it is not a religion.

But can it replace religion?
Probably not. Whatever people get from their church or religion can't be replaced by some disbelief.

The question is absurd.

[jeff47]

4. Is transparent a color? (nt)

[Mr.Bill]

6. Is baldness a hair color? n/t

[rug]

9. Does the absence of hair mean hair does not exist?

[Mr.Bill]

11. On the head that is bald, no it does not.

[rug]

14. That's not a very objective measure.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Is "off" a tv show? (But it is a choice of tv viewing.)

[cbayer]

5. A real diversity of opinion there. That generally means that there is no

*correct* answer to this question. As said above, it all depends on what you mean by "religion".

The legal cases are interesting as well. IMO, atheists and non-believer organizations should have the same rights and protections as religious groups, so does that make them default religions? Also, atheism is about religion, a distinction often hard to delineate.

[skepticscott]

48. Horseshit

You just love the "people disagree, so let's let everyone be right" BS, don't you? Well, here's a newsflash....sometimes there IS a right answer, and the majority of people are too stupid to realize their view of things isn't it...it's not always "complex"...sometimes it's very simple.

[longship]

7. Yawn!

Jesus! Look the freaking word up!

It is the absence of religious belief.

For Christ sakes!

If you can demonstrate the existence of god(s) I would immediately adopt a theistic belief. But no theist has been able to do that for thousands of years because there is no definitive data.

So, I choose William of Ohkam's methodology. His razor shaves off the logical fallacies and leaves what data...
Effectively none.

But if there were actual data, I might be forced to adopt a theistic viewpoint. Alas, there is none that stand up.

My mind is open. But not so open that my brains fall out.

Atheism is not a religion no matter what theists want to argue for the reasons I have given.

[rug]

12. You may like Cord Jefferson's essay.

[longship]

23. Maybe, but this question is merely another theistic snipe hunt.

It is like Pascal's wager, which is another bullshit story that atheists never hear the end of.

And, of course, there's the you cannot be moral without god argument.

And the Hitler and Stalin were atheists argument.

And the if you don't believe in god you must worship Satan argument.

Atheists are rude and strident.

Blah, blah, blah.

I have heard them all, over and over again. None of them have anything to do with what I believe. And none of them have anything to do with atheism.

Of course, many DU Religion group hangers on already know these things. But it does kinda get tiring to see these same old topics coming up again and again here.

However, I guess rust never sleeps, and neither do these memes.

It's back into battle yet again, my friend.

[Phillip McCleod]

53. i think that might be the impediment to dialogue

between believers and nones. we've heard all the pro-invisible-intanbile-but-still-somehow-existent deity arguments for lifetimes on top of lifetimes. at some point one just shuts it all down. i too will wait for the exceptional event and until then live without religous belief.

[rurallib]

8. NO

[wandy]

10. I have known a number of people who were as whacker as fundies about the "there ain't no god stuff".

To them it was a form of religion. They would preach from on high about the "there ain't no god stuff".
Maybe they could not find their own path.
Maybe they could not find faith in themselves and their own beliefs.

[trixie]

16. snooooooooze!

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I wanted to throw up a little in my mouth, but couldn't be bothered.

[trixie]

13. It's as if you have no allowance for others in your world

Do you have any interests at all? Bowling, poker, skiing? This is getting old and very tired.

[rug]

17. You'd be surprised at the range.

I suppose I could just say sky daddy / no sky daddy repeatedly if it makes you feel better.

[djean111]

15. I suppose that if it can be said, for instance, that golf is a religion for some, then okay.

BUT - I feel whenever religious folks bring up this point, they are trying to drag some sort of kinship between atheism and theism.
Trying to force atheism into the same sort of mold, which is silly, really.
One of the opinions linked to intones that atheism lacks the mystery of religion. I understand we atheists also lack transcendence and beauty.
le sigh. And le snort. How pompous.
Like someone here said a while back, atheism is a religion in the same way not believing in stamp collecting is a religion.
No need to have a meeting about it.
I do resent the assertion by some that atheists are devoid of caring and morality.
Then again, perhaps some people needed religion to possess caring and morality.
I don't wish religion to have any effect or place in my life. That's all - and that's not a religion. I feel the same way about the tea party and scrap-booking.
Not trying to be flip, but it does get comical, trying to explain why not believing in a god is not a religion.

[rug]

18. You'll find Phyllis Tickle's comments interesting.

[djean111]

26. Yes, I was sort of quoting her - it seems we athesists can possibly be as moral and all that,

but we cannot be as wondrous.
Not even sure there is a point to all that - is the pomp and ceremony and body of writing just as important as an actual god?
Her description could have just as easily been about golf -

No, golf is not a religion. Like a religion, it can offer community and common cause to its adherents. It can have a powerful and solid moral code and even, under cordial circumstances, may develop a body of oral and written material that is analogous to, or is a form of, wisdom literature. In all this, it resembles religion.

Maybe I am not a "good" atheist - I don't find atheism a common cause or whatever - except for not wanting religious dogma to affect me.

[trixie]

28. You know what?

I find myself rolling my eyes at every one of your threads. I find myself scrolling away from your posts and threads. I am sorry to say this on this board.

Here is what I really think about people so invested in religion:
they are a little creepy
a little stupid
a bit off
and not anyone I would associate with.

I gave up unicorns, Santa and other fantastical ideas as a small child.

Is it that you have no moral barometer within yourself? Do you need a group of people to agree with you and hold hands and dance around a circle? I don't get it at all. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Why must every thread be about your derision of others. With all the ills in the world you only discuss athiests and I think you are on your own conversion rampage. This is not the way to do it. It kind of sickens me. The only reason I put up my beliefs is because you must ram your beliefs about my beliefs down my and others throats.

Let me try this: Would you say in regards to Buddihsm or Islam that you are an athiest?

[rug]

30. You should see an opthalmologist.

And maybe a reading coach. Granted this is such a warm and cozy place to seek religious validation, that is an bizarre comment.

Oh, and that's a cute question. "I contend we're both atheists. I simply believe in one less god than you." I'd inset an eyeroll smilet but I don't want to make your difficulty more difficult.

[trixie]

37. I find you bizarre and boring

On to topics that mean something and you are ignored.

I love how you can't even discuss your own thread in a proper manner. Head on over to the Baptist Board dot com. They will love you over there.

[rug]

42. You must live a sheltered life.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. For a good time, try asking what he actually believes in.

It is fascinating for a while.

[rug]

41. Why don't you?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I have. It was fascinating, for a while.

[rug]

44. I cannot recall a single fascinating conversation with you.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. I never claimed it was fascinating for you.

[rug]

46. The statement still stands.

[trixie]

19. I agree to your entire post

And will be stealing that line about stamp collecting.

[djean111]

35. I totally stole that from someone else, and am happy to see it continued!

[rhett o rick]

20. It's very difficult to get the religious to understand atheism. It isnt a substitute.

Atheism is more like a position or stand that one assumes. They simply dont believe in what the religious believe. If I say that I dont believe in God, then I am labeled an atheist whether I agree or not.

In the U.S., Susan Jacoby recently wrote, moments of tragedy can be a reminder “of what atheism has to offer.”

She obviously only sees thru the eyes of religion. She is making the assumption that atheists have nothing to comfort them in the event of a tragedy. That's a very closed minded view.

The philosopher Gary Gutting adds that atheists, like religious people, ought to articulate reasons for their beliefs (or lack thereof).

This is plainly absurd. If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese and I say I dont believe it. I dont owe them an explanation. The onus is on the person making the assertion not the person that isnt convinced.

I dont believe I am smart enough to rule out the existence of a god, so I dont consider myself an atheist. I certainly dont believe in the Christian's concept. Taoism, Buddhism and the Native American beliefs seem to make more sense to me.

[rug]

21. You'll like Penn's essay.

[rhett o rick]

22. Sorry but I dont understand. nm

[rug]

24. He's one of the six at the link who responded to the question.

[rhett o rick]

34. Thank you very much. I didnt realize there was more to their statements than

what was shown on the first page. And I also didnt recognize Penn Jillette. Not a good likeness.

I liked what he wrote. But further, it seems to me that religious people think that religion is a necessity of life and if you dont have one, you must have another. Therefore, IMO they believe atheism must be a religion.

[stopbush]

25. Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

[djean111]

29. Okay - now I can't stop laughing. Thank you!!!!!!!!

[digonswine]

27. This is a silly question-

as I said-atheism is not a religion.

I work with troubled children. It is a belief that we, in the business, need to find a viable substitute, or alternative behavior, to maladaptive ones. Take an act or a behavior and substitute an appropriate one.
I think this is not always correct.

Atheism cannot take the place of fellowship, social connection, or give one a sense of certainty. Religion can do these things.

Atheism is not a substitute for religion like a baby bottle is a fake breast.

We can't help it and we don't care to. There is no replacement-there is nothing to replace.

[rhett o rick]

40. I so agree that atheism is not a substitute for religion. Only a religious person

would even think of such a thing.

I work with troubled children. It is a belief that we, in the business, need to find a viable substitute, or alternative behavior, to maladaptive ones. Take an act or a behavior and substitute an appropriate one.
I think this is not always correct.

Agree, but religion isnt the only choice for the substitution. In fact it may not be the best.

Atheism cannot take the place of fellowship, social connection, or give one a sense of certainty. Religion can do these things.

Exactly. Atheism isnt a group, dogma, ideology, etc. It doesnt try to be any of those things. You can have fellowship, social connections and whatever else you want without religion. Too often religion goes waaaaaaaaay beyond those things and starts telling us to fear the gays or people of color or people of horrible "other" religions.

[Speck Tater]

31. I think I've seen this thread before!

And to be perfectly honest, I've argued for BOTH sides of the question.

Presently, I am agnostic on whether atheism is a religion or not. I have no beliefs one way or the other.

My reason is simple: Semantics. A person can define "religion" and "atheism" in what ever shades are necessary to bolster their favorite point of view. But it's all empty symbol-manipulation. I reject the question as meaningless, and so I take no position on any answer.

Now if the person asking the question cares to define, very precisely, what those two words mean to him or her, and if any person supporting one or another point of view would care to define, very precisely, what those two words mean to him or her, then it would become blindingly obvious that everybody agrees on the facts, but disagrees on the definitions. Hence, the question, sans definitions, is meaningless.

But, of course, everyone will object by stating that "my definition is the true definition," and proceed to argue from their definition, that accomplishes nothing, because the parties in the discussion still have no common, agreed-upon definitions, and so the question, and all its answers remain meaningless.

Why not skip the bullshit and argue the real argument? The real argument is: "How do you define religion and atheism." Settle that argument and the OP question goes away.

[djean111]

36. I do want to mention that the opinions at the link are interesting.

No proselytizing, just very, er, interesting takes on what atheism is or lacks or whatever, from the standpoint of thinking that atheism needs to be explained as a sort of religion. Somehow. Tortuously in some cases. But interesting to read.

[cbayer]

38. Agree with that, but it seems that respondents in this thread are much

more interested in their own answers than the ones at the link, lol.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. The ones at the link are behind a paywall

and it is, as has been pointed out, a tired old question, that it's unlikely that 6 random NYT pontificators will shed much light on.

[cbayer]

60. I didn't find a paywall and I found the answers thoughtful, different and interesting.

But that's ok. Like I said, most people responding are much more interested in their own responses than the responses of those chosen for this article. And most of them think they are *right*, even though nobody, including the ones in the article, are.

I disagree that this either tired and old. The rising organization of non-believer organizations and some of the interesting legal issues surrounding those organizations make it increasingly relevant. When some atheist groups are claiming that they are entitled to the same protections as religious groups, the question becomes quite interesting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. The NYT limits the number of articles it will show non-subscribers

so one has to be discerning about whether an article sounds worthwhile. Look at a boring one now, and you may not be able to see a good one later.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+atheism+a+religion%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB fficial&client=firefox-a

Looks tired and old to me. 38,400 results.

[cbayer]

62. They keep threatening me with some random number, but have yet to deny me access.

Anyway, I know it's an old point of contention with some really, really pat answers, but I found some of the ones at the link refreshing in their perspective.

And one was reposted in the A/A group, so I guess some atheists found it not so old and tired as well.

[GeorgeGist]

47. Is stupidity a philosophy?

[Deep13]

55. No, it's theology. nt

[cleanhippie]

49. No.

Next question.

[another_liberal]

51. Good one.

That needed to be said.

[Kalidurga]

50. Thanks for the laughs...

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists might desire to have a place to meet. But, generally they don't talk about spiritual matters, because well they don't believe that the spiritual realm exists. However, how to deal with theists is a topic that comes up a lot. But, mostly the ones I know talk about books, movies, and their hobbies, the most popular it seems is not stamp collecting. My favorite hobby is not curling. I also like not boxing a great deal.

I understand that some people want atheism to be a religion so they can believe hey, they are just like us, only their god doesn't exist. I think they are trying to find common ground. They are looking in the wrong place. If they want common ground just look at the way atheists are just like everyone else except they don't go to a church that believes in some weird jealous dude that no one can see.

[Phillip McCleod]

52. this again?

[Deep13]

54. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural god...

...so, no.

[Trajan]

56. flame bait likes yesterday's thread

I earned my first hidden post on that thread ...

The instigators can take a flying FUCK at a rolling donut ...

[JoeyT]

57. No.

Soft (agnostic) atheism is a lack of belief. Could be for any number of reasons. Hard (gnostic) atheism is a belief there aren't any gods. Again for any number of reasons.

Neither fits the definition of religion. Neither believes in any manner of higher power, neither has any shared philosophy, and neither attempts to explain anything.

It can't "replace" religion either, because it doesn't serve the same function. The number of religious people is going to grow and shrink, but the existence of religion isn't going to end. The religions we recognize will probably be replaced by other religions in the end*, but that's not the same as religion going away.

*Ironically, religions evolve to fit their times. Most modern Christians would have been burned for heresy a thousand years ago. Give it another thousand years and who knows what it'll become.