Is atheism a religion?

[jonesthecurl]

I've never read any Dawkins. Does that make me a schismatic atheist?

[jonesthecurl]

I mean, what's he gonna do? convince me?

[Symmetry]

I've never read any Dawkins. Does that make me a schismatic atheist?

It makes you a heretic. Even if you say that you still don't believe in a god, the moment you deny Dawkins you deny atheism. You are an apostate and the atheist council casts you in, in accordance with the non-existent accords of atheism. Having violated the un-tenets that overpin our lack of belief, you are cast in and now must believe in a god.

Should you re-repent of your ways, we will accept you back with arms of indifference.

If not, then the fires of crematoria will embrace you. Assuming, of course, that you don't prefer burial.

[Army of GOD]

Symmetry nailed it

[jonesthecurl]

I've never read any Dawkins. Does that make me a schismatic atheist?

It makes you a heretic. Even if you say that you still don't believe in a god, the moment you deny Dawkins you deny atheism. You are an apostate and the atheist council casts you in, in accordance with the non-existent accords of atheism. Having violated the un-tenets that overpin our lack of belief, you are cast in and now must believe in a god.

Should you re-repent of your ways, we will accept you back with arms of indifference.

If not, then the fires of crematoria will embrace you. Assuming, of course, that you don't prefer burial.

Should I go to confession?
What sort of penance might be imposed?

[Symmetry]

I've never read any Dawkins. Does that make me a schismatic atheist?

It makes you a heretic. Even if you say that you still don't believe in a god, the moment you deny Dawkins you deny atheism. You are an apostate and the atheist council casts you in, in accordance with the non-existent accords of atheism. Having violated the un-tenets that overpin our lack of belief, you are cast in and now must believe in a god.

Should you re-repent of your ways, we will accept you back with arms of indifference.

If not, then the fires of crematoria will embrace you. Assuming, of course, that you don't prefer burial.

Should I go to confession?
What sort of penance might be imposed?

You can now take confession in any church you want. If you wish to un-ex-communicate yourself from the atheist religion, or any of its denominations, you will have to un-confess, or commit those sins again, which is a much more fun form of penance.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, but that's like comparing GPA and income (seewhatididthar?).

I love how ardent atheists are when people says atheism is a religion. Despite what you want to think, you do not have proof that god does not exist, so it is a belief. There also seems to be a strong central organization of atheism (Pope:Catholics::Dawkins:Atheists), so I tend to believe atheism is a religion.

I don't necessarily believe agnosticism is a religion, because there isn't really a central order (yet, or at least what I'm aware of).

A central order isn't necessary for a religion. (see: Indigenous religions, Goddess religious traditions, etc.).

Agnostics are just flipping from "atheist" to "deist" on a more frequent basis compared to the cool kids like BVP and me. I'll probably become "unbearably Christian" when I'm 78.

[Symmetry]

So how do you define agnosticism vs atheism?

[Juan_Bottom]

Dawkins does pretty much speak for all of us. His book "the God Delusion" was the most concise gathering of our arguments that I have read. That's why/how he speaks for us.

[BigBallinStalin]

So how do you define agnosticism vs atheism?

A mere definition won't really cover the meaning of it. The actions of any particular believer or nonbeliever is what determines whichever category in which they'll be placed.

The following link provides a lovely questionnaire:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=143867

[Neoteny]

I recall an excercise my African Traditional Religion class participated in on the first day of the course. Our goal was to define religion from an anthropological position (is there any other?). It was an interesting discussion on whether the supernatural (possibly), particular traditions (probably not), organizations (no) etc. were required. It's difficult to do, both from within and without religion.

Every time someone tries to convince me that atheism is a religion, I remember how challenging it was to define "religion," and I'm always curious to find out their definition. Sometimes there are good ones. When it turns out to be "atheists believe stuff," I'm forced to reply "Shut the f*ck up or use your fucking brain."

[BigBallinStalin]

I recall an excercise my African Traditional Religion class participated in on the first day of the course. Our goal was to define religion from an anthropological position (is there any other?). It was an interesting discussion on whether the supernatural (possibly), particular traditions (probably not), organizations (no) etc. were required. It's difficult to do, both from within and without religion.

Every time someone tries to convince me that atheism is a religion, I remember how challenging it was to define "religion," and I'm always curious to find out their definition. Sometimes there are good ones. When it turns out to be "atheists believe stuff," I'm forced to reply "Shut the f*ck up or use your fucking brain."

The other common definition I've heard is that religion is philosophy + spirituality + rituals.

For example, many people label themselves as Buddhist, yet they don't go to any temples and perform the rituals of that religion. So then they counter that with, "Oh, I just believe in the philosophical and/or spiritual aspect."

"Religion" for me is defined as "a way of living." It's probably not a commonly agreeable definition because it's too broad, but the definition to me is practical enough for my purposes.

[Neoteny]

That's cool. Within the sociological and anthropological (same same) communities, it seems there are thousands of definitions. It really isn't simple in the least, so it's amusing when poorly thought out definitions arise.

You qualify your definition with "for me" and quotes, rather than simple assertions, which makes it applicable for discussion, or, at the very least, easier to take seriously. You don't spew the first though that comes to your head and present it as fact.

[john9blue]

so who were the other two that answered "kinda"? i bet it was those fucking agnostics.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Mr. Samephage:

What definitions do they go by, or what definitions from that field strikes you as interesting?

[MeDeFe]

Dawkins does pretty much speak for all of us. His book "the God Delusion" was the most concise gathering of our arguments that I have read. That's why/how he speaks for us.

Oh please. The God Delusion is more of a collection of excerpts from and sketches of a variety of philosophical ideas. Dawkins is not a bad writer at all and his arguments are easy to follow, but intellectually he really went out of his depth with that book. Delusion may serve as a brief introduction and as a starting point for further reading and studies, but it's not what I would call a concise gathering of arguments. It most certainly is not the be-all and end-all of atheism.

[jimboston]

My point of view- not supporting a football team, finding the sport boring, and generally finding football fans to be obnoxious does not make you a football fan.

yes but the fervor within which non-believers speak and the ridicule used implies they must be interested, or else why would they spend to much time following around football fans telling them how stupid football is? everyday? over and over again?

Not all "athesists" do this.

I would guess a majority don't... and what you refer to is an example of a vocal minority.

[jimboston]

there is absolutely no practices associated with it. No atheist goes to atheist service at the atheist church and has special atheist dinner during the atheist month of fasting in celebration of athiesm or anything of that sort.

Festivus... for the rest of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus

I disagree.

All the atheists I know have a Festivus Pole that they bring out their Festivus Pole every December.

[Neoteny]

@Mr. Samephage:

What definitions do they go by, or what definitions from that field strikes you as interesting?

The most interesting to me is the idea that religion is a purely western concept, and is inappropriate for use outside of the context of the Abrahamic religions. I don't necessarily think that's true, but it kinda boggles the mind at first. Other than that, I think contemporary definitions refer to a system of symbols (jargon) or rituals or whatever as they relate to the sacred or supernatural or order or whatever that establish feelings or ideas or whatever that are perceived to be powerful or true or whatever.

There are always, it seems, multiple parts that serve to broaden and restrict at the same time. I like to think that the supernatural is necessary, but I'm biased. I'm only an amateur sociologist, too, so my word is fairly useless here. I just wanted to convey that it's not as simple as "belief."

Where's got tonkaed when you actually need a sociologist?

EDIT: some just use "cultural system," or something like that, which is awesome.

[PLAYER57832]

My point of view- not supporting a football team, finding the sport boring, and generally finding football fans to be obnoxious does not make you a football fan.

yes but the fervor within which non-believers speak and the ridicule used implies they must be interested, or else why would they spend to much time following around football fans telling them how stupid football is? everyday? over and over again?

Not all "athesists" do this.

I would guess a majority don't... and what you refer to is an example of a vocal minority.

Atheists are as varied as Christians. To the extent they seem more vocal, it is either because you are paying more attention to them or somehow acting in a manner that asks for confrontation. I mean, some atheists might take offense at displaying a cross at work, just as some Christians would take offense at art objects they see to denegrate Christ or the cross in the workplace. Neither is true of all in every group, but you hear from those who speak out.

BUT, I do think more atheists in the US are somewhat "anti-Christian" in philosophy, if not actions because so many came from a Christian type tradition. Therefore accepting atheism is as much a rejection of Christianity for their families, etc. This is true to a lessor extent for friends and such. I mean, if I see someone suddenly "go missing", I do ask about them. I try not to be pushy, just concerned, however, I am sure not everyone is so "objective" (for lack of a better word).

[FVAISEY]

Perhaps a little off-topic, however I consider myself agnostic because I find there is no more proof of the non-existence of God than there is for his existence. It takes a certain amount of faith to state either belief.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, you hit on something I was going to say... sort of.

Anyway, religion is the definition of how we frame what is not yet factually explained. Some people have complex answers, others more simple ones. However, it all amounts to ideas and beliefs.

On that level, atheism is no different than any other belief or religion. It is just an option.

My question is why so many atheists work so hard to define their ideas and beliefs as "not a religion".. seems a rather unscientific bias, that.

Some people have defined the belief in facts and science as "scientism" and somehow equivalent to atheism, but that is inherently untrue for most people of any belief also accept science. In fact, if you want to look at why the religious right make such a point of attempting to claim things like all scientists are atheists, it is precisely to avert the idea that most people truly do accept both.

Why so many atheists want to pair themselves with the right in this is also beyond me. If you are for logic, you are for ALL logic, not just your own beliefs.

[Symmetry]

My point of view- not supporting a football team, finding the sport boring, and generally finding football fans to be obnoxious does not make you a football fan.

yes but the fervor within which non-believers speak and the ridicule used implies they must be interested, or else why would they spend to much time following around football fans telling them how stupid football is? everyday? over and over again?

Not all "athesists" do this.

I would guess a majority don't... and what you refer to is an example of a vocal minority.

Atheists are as varied as Christians. To the extent they seem more vocal, it is either because you are paying more attention to them or somehow acting in a manner that asks for confrontation. I mean, some atheists might take offense at displaying a cross at work, just as some Christians would take offense at art objects they see to denegrate Christ or the cross in the workplace. Neither is true of all in every group, but you hear from those who speak out.

BUT, I do think more atheists in the US are somewhat "anti-Christian" in philosophy, if not actions because so many came from a Christian type tradition. Therefore accepting atheism is as much a rejection of Christianity for their families, etc. This is true to a lessor extent for friends and such. I mean, if I see someone suddenly "go missing", I do ask about them. I try not to be pushy, just concerned, however, I am sure not everyone is so "objective" (for lack of a better word).

If we're generalising from personal experience here, I'd also say that most atheists I know come from a generally religious background and arrive at atheism through personal questioning of their faith. There's a huge spectrum of positions within that, and some people are, of course, just born into atheist families and communities. Families more so, communities less.

On the whole, converts to any kind of belief are often hostile to the belief they left if that belief demands a harsh penalty for leaving it. Personally I can say that I did that- I was angry. Now I'm not. I don't believe in God, and it doesn't bother me really. I do have a huge amount of respect for people with faith, and especially those with doubt as well.

Faith is something that I class with Beauty- it's irrational. I genuinely think I'm poorer for not seeing it, but I can't force myself, and there's no evidence. You see it or you don't.

[Baron Von PWN]

My question is why so many atheists work so hard to define their ideas and beliefs as "not a religion".. seems a rather unscientific bias, that.

.

mainly because it doesn't feel like a religion. All it means is not believing in religion, I fail to see how that makes it a religion. It has no tenents or practices, it is quite simply not believing in god(s). I would certainly agree it is a religious belief though.

Yes atheism is an unprovable position, so it is unreasonable to claim it with absolute certainty. I self identify as an atheist, but I'll admit I can't know for sure. To me it seems far more likely that there be no supernatural, so i conclude there is no supernatural. I allow for the possibility I may be wrong but I'm very confident there is no god or supernatural.

[Haggis_McMutton]

My question is why so many atheists work so hard to define their ideas and beliefs as "not a religion".. seems a rather unscientific bias, that.

.

mainly because it doesn't feel like a religion. All it means is not believing in religion, I fail to see how that makes it a religion. It has no tenents or practices, it is quite simply not believing in god(s). I would certainly agree it is a religious belief though.

Yes atheism is an unprovable position, so it is unreasonable to claim it with absolute certainty. I self identify as an atheist, but I'll admit I can't know for sure. To me it seems far more likely that there be no supernatural, so i conclude there is no supernatural. I allow for the possibility I may be wrong but I'm very confident there is no god or supernatural.

Pretty much.

Also, I don't know if it's possible for any "group of people with something significant in common" to be less organized than atheists are. This has started being addressed in the past few years, but ask yourself this:
How many minorities that have far less people than atheism does, have members who would be way more likely to get elected to office than an atheist would?
Do you think that if the atheists were even half as organized as other minorities/religions/what have you this would be the case?

Atheism doesn't dictate a way of life, atheism is nothing but a single belief(or lack thereof). Basically, if atheism is a religion, I guess belief in Keynesian economics is also a religion.