Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

Ok. Yes sure there are these types and I alluded to that as well here:

"There may be some kind of militant anti-religious group out there, you could call it a lot of things but it isn't a religion. "

You can call them organizations but it's not a religion. No more than any group of like minded people.

They are specifically not worshipping and believing in a god and are not claiming a path to god.

Which is what a religion does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LT,

Does being on this forum make me religious. Going on and being a member of a science forum, where you can interact with like minded people. Does that make Sciforums a religion.

Maybe they just need to feel a part of something which is a pretty normal human desire, and they are not religious so they join thier group. Maybe they are looking to find friends or lovers in which they know their philisophical viewpoint will be similar.

The difference in these groups is that those who worship and believe in a god are religions and those that don't are not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no idea. You're the one making the claim, not me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, their common interests are the impact of religion on society and politics.

 

I have never said atheism was a religion, I am simply saying that it has become more than simply a lack of belief in god. Lets say it has become a movement then.. would you be happy with that..

What about Atheism is an ideal, does the movement of atheism have a set of values?

 

It seemed like you were alluding to the idea. But if you don't believe that it is then we agree.

I don't see atheism being more than a lack of belief and I will explain what I see as a difference here.

Atheism is just that a lack of belief in god(s), that's all it is.

Atheists are the individial who don't believe in god(s) and might decide to form an anti-religious, or political movement intent on elimination of religion from government or it could just be an organization where people can discuss things and have events that are religious free.

Another answer and maybe a better way to look at it.

They form because of the actions of the religious. Here from you.

Is the point. There are none.

However, that doesn't mean that those who advocate for secularism don't have ideals and values.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

and

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

 

Ok so now there is an atheist agenda as you state above, and philosophy, the below exert taken from one of your links. Now I repeat I do not think that atheism is a religion, but you can see how the thread starter might be prompted to ask a question like that?

 

LT,

Yes, because the definition of religion is not considered in the question.

If the thread started with this:

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods.

Isn't being an Atheist a religion ?

Maybe a better question would have been. Do some atheist organizations appear like a religion ?

In which you could say they have a common set of beliefs, have an agenda etc etc.

But the separation is "appear like" and not "is".

 

Agreed

 

Actually I think that Cathars believed in the immateriality of Jesus, and of the world, which was also considered to be a form of hell both material and immaterial. Hence the no marriage and no having children stances. They were dualists also; I would say this demonstrates that theistic philosophy can be quite wide.

 

but the definition of religion is more complicated than that...

Atheists or atheistic groups could fall under a few of these.

And given that Buddhism is generally seen as a religion, it seems like God or gods per se are not a prerequisite.

 

You are describing dualists. So is Wiki. They believe that there is a material world, and a spiritual world, and things like rocks are material, and beings like Jesus are spiritual.

That is the extreme of the theistic positions, as far as I know. It is not the extreme of the atheistic positions.

Those are dictionary definitions of different meanings of the word - including its metaphorical use. Being appropriately characterized metaphorically as, say, a "religion" or a "top banana" or "the elephant in the room" is not the same thing - is exactly (by definition of metaphor) excluded from being the same thing - as being a religion in the sense being debated here.

 

Yes, those are dictionary definitions. Some atheist organizations have a set of beliefs and practices. This is literal and not metaphorical.

And there is nothing metaphorical about Buddhism regularly being included in books on religion, even the non-theist forms of Buddhism which can be considered the core ones.

I don't think there is a single person who thinks that atheists believe in God or gods. Do you? So clearly the sense of the word being debated here is a more broad sense of the word 'religion'. More about the nature of that belief rather than the specific contents of that beliefs or set of beliefs. Perhaps also the behavior of the believers.

I think those who believe it is a religion would also characterize at least some versions of atheism as an ideology (possibly in the pejorative sense). I have also seen atheists refer to communism as a religion - again as a synonym for ideology here clearly in the negative sense.

IOW the idea being that it is not the specific idea itself that makes it a religion, but the way in which that idea is held and how it is communicated about.

I think this is why the issue will come up again and again.

 

Well, you did mention the concept of the immaterialism of reality, so I assumed that it would encompass this area.

 

Doreen,

First of all it is clear that the definitions indicating a belief in something. Not a lack of belief in something.

Which is the first problem with calling atheism a religion, ever.

So without the belief in something how can we have this:

specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

or

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

or

something one believes in and follows devotedly

As far as this part:

a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The use of religion in here doesn't make sense. The better term would be cause or mission. This is the problem with this kind of definition, explain to me why they would need to create a religion to fight prejudice.

Unless they adhered to the other components of a religion and why would they, they would just be called an organization or group or something else that better defines them.

Now, you could say that they act with religious zeal for example.

You tell me:

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

Here from the link:

Buddhism cannot, therefore, strictly be called a religion because it is neither a system of faith and worship, nor "the outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a God or gods having power over their own destiny to whom obedience, service, and honor are due."

IMO, it is because they hold that Bhudda knows the path as I understand it, so yes they are placing a belief in something in which they all hold as the way or the path, correct. That would be a religion.

Funny, they just replace faith with knowledge. So, they are claiming to know the way.

 

Right, but many atheist do have specific beliefs. In the post of yours I responded to you mentioned how it should be 'some atheist organizations appear like'. In this context there are atheist organizations that do not simply lack a belief, but have beliefs about, for example, relgions, generally negative ones, and also, for example, epistemological beliefs they share.

Notice in my response to you I said atheists and atheist organizations could fall under one of those definitions. To say all atheists are religious is problematic, since many simply lack a belief in God. But that there are atheists who do in fact have a set of beliefs, often including negative beliefs about religions and a belief there is no God - as two examples, I do not think the issue is clear.

See above.

Some people say that Buddhism cannot be strictly called a religion. Many others clearly do. Believing that a certain way is the right way is a quality that many kinds of non-theists believe. This would make neo-conservatives religious. Which actually I think is a fair use of the term. Even if we are dealing with atheist neo-cons.

 

To add: I think this is why the question will come up again and again. Because the word religion is often felt/thought to deal less with content than with the way things are believed and how these beliefs relate to actions. I think this is a large part of the criticism aimed by atheists at the religious. It is not so much the content, but the epistemology and the fact that actions are based on what is seen as faulty epistemology. Also that there is a degree of fanaticism - iow degree of belief and fervor that is negative.

Given that that is a strong component of what is seen as wrong with religion, when this is seen as present in atheists - some or all - it will likely seem to be a religion to some. I think actually it is a fair use of the term, though not for all atheists. Just as I think referring to neo-conservatism or communism, for example, as religions is a fair and good use of the term in many cases. That the issue is not content so much as epistemology, fervor, us/them or group thinking, etc.

 

Let's look at a few atheist organizations as they come up first in Google....

1) Atheist Alliance International
actually has a Values option on their menu (along with a mission statement and more) Here are their values....

Their Vision statement...

Note some of their values are likely not supported by empirical testing. Note number 8, for example.

From the next googled atheist organization - their beliefs about religion....

I would say that the first sentence is 1) a belief and 2) one that would be very hard to prove. How do we separate out lust for power and the effects of religion? Or the instability of resources? Etc. But in any case, here we have another atheist group with a set of beliefs. This organization is not simply a group that lacks a belief. They have a set of beliefs.

I could go on in the list of organizations, many of which have overlapping beliefs and missions. Many of which I happen to agree with by the way. This is not the issue.

 

Doreen,

The problem is only using parts or pieces of the broader definition to the exclusion of it's full definition.

This is why we define and catergorize things. What I am suggesting is that it is the wrong word in this instance.

That is why you can refer to something as "religious like" or "like a religion" in a sentence to describe the behaviors or the actions of a secular organization, but you wouldn't say it "is" a religion or "is" religious.

The definition separates out an organization that worships god or gods or higher power from those that do not.

If the OP had said:

Do some atheist organizations behave like a religion ?

There would be no issues with the phrasing of the question itself.


Here:

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

Etymology
Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[3] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[4]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[5][6] However, the French scholar Daniel Dubuisson notes that relying on this etymology "tends to minimize or cancel out the role of history"; he notes that Augustine gave a lengthy definition of religio that sets it quite apart from the modern word "religion".[7]

Thus:

"Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[1]

Aspects of religion include narrative, symbolism, beliefs, and practices that are supposed to give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life. Whether the meaning centers on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws and ethics and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures, with continental differences.

The term "religion" refers both to the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system",[2] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance"

My bold from our previous posts, touches on what you are seeing as a definition. When really it is just some common elements.

So I think it's pretty clear that calling atheism or any secular organization a religion is wrong.

For the Buddhists I guess it depends on the individual and whether they believe in a higher power of some kind or not, because if they believe that Buddhism supports that, I suppose to that individual it is a religion.

 

Doreen,

All sounds pretty good to me.