So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[stripes4]

Yes, but it doesn't also run the other way. Don't pretend you don't know I'm right!!

[Rum]

It isn't even a philosophy in my view. Its the absence of a belief in a supernatural being called god.

Nope, not always.

There are implicit atheists (the kind you refer to) and there are explicit atheists, which is everyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and ideas and who has made a decision to reject theistic concepts and claims.

Only young children, mental defectives, and people raised with absolutely no exposure to theistic concepts, which lets out just about everyone, can be implicit atheists.

Everyone else has seen, examined and rejected theistic claims and concepts, and they are therefore explicit atheists who have formed a belief system around that rejection, and can, under certain circumstances, practice their beliefs religiously, making Atheism (big "A") every bit as much of a religion as any other.

Nope (as you are fond of saying). There is no practical difference between the two types of atheist you are trying to define. The fact is whether by omission (i.e. someone who has never been brainwashed) or through more rational and deductive means people who do not believe in god(s) are atheists. You are wriggling far too much with this one.

[hiyymer]

The key to arriving at an acceptable definition of religion lies in recognizing that religion is a concept which is at once teleological, normative, and orienting (which also explains its enormous importance). It is teleological in that it aims at practice, or a way of life. It is normative, in that it is concerned with providing standards of both morality, or right and wrong, and teleology, or right purpose. And it is orienting, in that religions offer an account of the nature of human beings, the universe, and the relationship between the two.

We would define religion, then, in this way: religions are bodies of doctrine that specify a way of life centered on the maximization of the good, where the good includes both morality and right purpose. Source: http://www.progressiveliving.org/defini ... efined.htm

I claim that "Atheism" (in the big "A" sense) is a religion because the practitioners meet all the requirements of the definition of religion I've presented.

I don't think atheism is a religion according to your definition, because there is no teleological agenda in the simple assertion that gods don't exist. What is true is that many atheists are rationalists, and rationalism is a religion according to your definition. Rationalism is also what atheism has come to mean in every day parlance, even though it is not strictly defined as such.

[Seth]

It isn't even a philosophy in my view. Its the absence of a belief in a supernatural being called god.

Nope, not always.

There are implicit atheists (the kind you refer to) and there are explicit atheists, which is everyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and ideas and who has made a decision to reject theistic concepts and claims.

Only young children, mental defectives, and people raised with absolutely no exposure to theistic concepts, which lets out just about everyone, can be implicit atheists.

Everyone else has seen, examined and rejected theistic claims and concepts, and they are therefore explicit atheists who have formed a belief system around that rejection, and can, under certain circumstances, practice their beliefs religiously, making Atheism (big "A") every bit as much of a religion as any other.

Nope (as you are fond of saying). There is no practical difference between the two types of atheist you are trying to define. The fact is whether by omission (i.e. someone who has never been brainwashed) or through more rational and deductive means people who do not believe in god(s) are atheists. You are wriggling far too much with this one.

There's absolutely a practical difference. It's recognized by philosophers.

It's an essential difference because in the case of the implicit atheist, only he can rationally be said to have "no opinion" about theistic claims or notions because he has no knowledge of the concepts, and therefore nothing upon which to base a belief, and therefore he cannot practice that belief religiously.

The explicit atheist necessarily knows about theistic concepts and notions, has evaluated the truth-value of those claims, and has rejected them as valid. This is the formation of the explicit atheist's own belief/practice set regarding theism. With the formation of that belief/practice set comes the opportunity to practice those beliefs in a fashion that qualifies as a religious observance.

[Rum]

It isn't even a philosophy in my view. Its the absence of a belief in a supernatural being called god.

Nope, not always.

There are implicit atheists (the kind you refer to) and there are explicit atheists, which is everyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and ideas and who has made a decision to reject theistic concepts and claims.

Only young children, mental defectives, and people raised with absolutely no exposure to theistic concepts, which lets out just about everyone, can be implicit atheists.

Everyone else has seen, examined and rejected theistic claims and concepts, and they are therefore explicit atheists who have formed a belief system around that rejection, and can, under certain circumstances, practice their beliefs religiously, making Atheism (big "A") every bit as much of a religion as any other.

Nope (as you are fond of saying). There is no practical difference between the two types of atheist you are trying to define. The fact is whether by omission (i.e. someone who has never been brainwashed) or through more rational and deductive means people who do not believe in god(s) are atheists. You are wriggling far too much with this one.

There's absolutely a practical difference. It's recognized by philosophers.

It's an essential difference because in the case of the implicit atheist, only he can rationally be said to have "no opinion" about theistic claims or notions because he has no knowledge of the concepts, and therefore nothing upon which to base a belief, and therefore he cannot practice that belief religiously.

The explicit atheist necessarily knows about theistic concepts and notions, has evaluated the truth-value of those claims, and has rejected them as valid. This is the formation of the explicit atheist's own belief/practice set regarding theism. With the formation of that belief/practice set comes the opportunity to practice those beliefs in a fashion that qualifies as a religious observance.

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

[Seth]

The key to arriving at an acceptable definition of religion lies in recognizing that religion is a concept which is at once teleological, normative, and orienting (which also explains its enormous importance). It is teleological in that it aims at practice, or a way of life. It is normative, in that it is concerned with providing standards of both morality, or right and wrong, and teleology, or right purpose. And it is orienting, in that religions offer an account of the nature of human beings, the universe, and the relationship between the two.

We would define religion, then, in this way: religions are bodies of doctrine that specify a way of life centered on the maximization of the good, where the good includes both morality and right purpose. Source: http://www.progressiveliving.org/defini ... efined.htm

I claim that "Atheism" (in the big "A" sense) is a religion because the practitioners meet all the requirements of the definition of religion I've presented.

I don't think atheism is a religion according to your definition, because there is no teleological agenda in the simple assertion that gods don't exist.

Isn't there? I'd say it's an "anti-teological" agenda. Moreover, since there is no critically robust evidence that gods DO NOT exist, in saying that they don't, one is engaging the notion of gods and their potential for existence as a predicate to the dismissal of the god-claims of theists. The explicit atheist must always accept that theistic claims exist before rejecting them as invalid, but the explicit atheist has no critically robust scientific evidence of the non-existence of gods upon which to base that rejection, which makes the rejection every bit as much an unfounded belief as the god-claims themselves.

What is true is that many atheists are rationalists, and rationalism is a religion according to your definition. Rationalism is also what atheism has come to mean in every day parlance, even though it is not strictly defined as such.

Atheism and rationalism are not necessarily interconnected. Implict atheists do not have to be rationalists, do they?

[Seth]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

So many words, so little said.

[Seth]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

So many words, so little said.

So many words said, so few understood.

Sounds like a personal problem to me...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should work on your person problems then.

[Gallstones]

Atheism is nothing more than an idea about the existence of deities.

Correct. It's a belief. And holding a belief is an essential predicate to engaging in religion. It is how you go about observing that belief that determines whether you are doing so religiously or not.

I used the term idea, intentionally not using the term belief.

Despite being atheist I do not practice any rituals attributable to atheism--I simply am not convinced of the existence of a deity. That's all. I think my level of apathy regarding the possibility of a deity negates atheism being any kind of practice on my part, and therefor in no way can I be considered religious or practicing a religion--there are some remnants of catholicism in my psychology that I am happy enough to allow to continue to exist. But, I don't practice Catholicism either--ergo I am not religious in that regard.

Then you may not be a religious Atheist, but merely an atheist.

I intentionally use a small 'a' and I exclude the indefinite article 'an', because using 'an' implies being a thing, whereas I think a thing--the thing being the indirect object, myself the direct object independent of the thing.

[Seth]

You should work on your person problems then.

So should you...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should work on your person problems then.

So should you...

I have pompous well under control. Your turn.

[Seth]

Atheism is nothing more than an idea about the existence of deities.

Correct. It's a belief. And holding a belief is an essential predicate to engaging in religion. It is how you go about observing that belief that determines whether you are doing so religiously or not.

I used the term idea, intentionally not using the term belief.

Is an idea not a belief? A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

An "idea" is "any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity; a thought, conception, or notion."

So, if you have a conception existing in your mind as a result of mental understanding or awareness of theistic notions or concepts, do you not have confidence in the truth of your conception even though it is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof? Is that not therefore a belief?

Despite being atheist I do not practice any rituals attributable to atheism--I simply am not convinced of the existence of a deity. That's all. I think my level of apathy regarding the possibility of a deity negates atheism being any kind of practice on my part, and therefor in no way can I be considered religious or practicing a religion--there are some remnants of catholicism in my psychology that I am happy enough to allow to continue to exist. But, I don't practice Catholicism either--ergo I am not religious in that regard.

Then you may not be a religious Atheist, but merely an atheist.

I intentionally use a small 'a' and I exclude the indefinite article 'an', because using 'an' implies being a thing, whereas I think a thing--the thing being the indirect object, myself the direct object independent of the thing.

Very good. I like the distinction you draw between being "an atheist" and being "atheist." That's a well-constructed argument indeed.

[Seth]

You should work on your person problems then.

So should you...

I have pompous well under control. Your turn.

You might want to work on delusional first...