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

[Santa_Claus]

It's called Krissmiss......re-branding.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it's not. It's a philosophy. Religions have rituals, dieties, leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights.

It's neither a religion, nor a philosophy.

Atheism is the belief that there are not gods, or the lack of any belief in any gods, or at least the position that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that any gods exist. No philosophical position is necessitated by atheism - one may be a nihilist, objectivist, existentialist, Epicurean, or whatever, and still be an atheist.

There is no philosophy of atheism.

But atheism may be practiced as a religion, and often is.

It can't.

Atheism can be a belief held within a religion, but there is nothing in atheism itself to "practice." Ever. It's just a belief, or nonbelief, depending on how you think of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

n the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes

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

That's true. But, it's not a religion. It's "equivalent" to a religion in the sense that it is akin to a religious view, and that the right to practice any religion you like entails the right to not practice any religion, or not hold any belief. It's the free exercise of non-belief.

It can't be an "equivalent" to religion, it's either religion or it's not religion, and the Constitution only protects the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of other liberties unconnected to religion.

It's not a religion. However, the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses require the right to freely not practice or exercise a religion. If you aren't free to reject all religion, then you don't have free exercise (because you could be compelled to adhere to some kind of a religious belief).

The Free Exercise clause does not protect activities that are unrelated to religion.

Atheism is not a religion, but it is related to religion, because almost all religions have a concept of a god or gods, and atheism is rejection of that concept. Atheism could be part of a religion, if that religion is godless, but it is not necessarily part of religion.

What the SCOTUS means is that "irreligion" is "religion." In other words, a religiously held belief in the lack of gods and theistic claims is a protected religious exercise, albeit not a theistic one, for the purposes of the First Amendment.

What opinion of SCOTUS are you referring to here. It doesn't sound like anything they ever said.

Thus, an implicit atheist may not be compelled to subscribe to a religion against his will, and an explicit atheist can practice his religion just as freely as a Catholic.

...or not practice...

But if an atheist claims he has no religion, and no belief, he cannot use the excuse of atheism to claim the protection of the First Amendment for activities unrelated to religion.

Please provide an example of an activity unrelated to religion that an atheist might engage in and then seek the protection of the First Amendment.

Thus, Richard Dawkins can claim First Amendment protection for his speeches and writings on atheism and anti-religious beliefs and practices. But he could not argue that he can weaponize Anthrax in his lab on the basis that it's protected religious expression.

Nobody can do that, regardless of the religion or non-religion.

[Chuck Jones]

n the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes

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

That's true. But, it's not a religion. It's "equivalent" to a religion in the sense that it is akin to a religious view, and that the right to practice any religion you like entails the right to not practice any religion, or not hold any belief. It's the free exercise of non-belief.

It can't be an "equivalent" to religion, it's either religion or it's not religion, and the Constitution only protects the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of other liberties unconnected to religion.

It's not a religion. However, the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses require the right to freely not practice or exercise a religion. If you aren't free to reject all religion, then you don't have free exercise (because you could be compelled to adhere to some kind of a religious belief).

The Free Exercise clause does not protect activities that are unrelated to religion.

Atheism is not a religion, but it is related to religion, because almost all religions have a concept of a god or gods, and atheism is rejection of that concept. Atheism could be part of a religion, if that religion is godless, but it is not necessarily part of religion.

What the SCOTUS means is that "irreligion" is "religion." In other words, a religiously held belief in the lack of gods and theistic claims is a protected religious exercise, albeit not a theistic one, for the purposes of the First Amendment.

What opinion of SCOTUS are you referring to here. It doesn't sound like anything they ever said.

Thus, an implicit atheist may not be compelled to subscribe to a religion against his will, and an explicit atheist can practice his religion just as freely as a Catholic.

...or not practice...

But if an atheist claims he has no religion, and no belief, he cannot use the excuse of atheism to claim the protection of the First Amendment for activities unrelated to religion.

Please provide an example of an activity unrelated to religion that an atheist might engage in and then seek the protection of the First Amendment.

Thus, Richard Dawkins can claim First Amendment protection for his speeches and writings on atheism and anti-religious beliefs and practices. But he could not argue that he can weaponize Anthrax in his lab on the basis that it's protected religious expression.

Nobody can do that, regardless of the religion or non-religion.

You write a lot but you don't like actually addressing what others say.

[Coito ergo sum]

I addressed exactly what he said. Try to keep up.

[Chuck Jones]

I addressed exactly what he said. Try to keep up.

You didn't. You just changed the subject and tried to pass it off as a response to the points made.

[Coito ergo sum]

He wrote:

It can't be an "equivalent" to religion, it's either religion or it's not religion, and the Constitution only protects the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of other liberties unconnected to religion.

I wrote:

It's not a religion. However, the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses require the right to freely not practice or exercise a religion. If you aren't free to reject all religion, then you don't have free exercise (because you could be compelled to adhere to some kind of a religious belief).

So, I agreed with him. It's either not a religion or it is a religion. And, I pointed out that it's not a religion. However, the 1st amendment requires the right to freely not practice a religion. That's why unbelief is "equivalent" to a religion for constitutional purposes, because rejection of all religious belief is, like rejection of all but one religious belief, required to be constitutionally protected, if "free exercise" is to mean "free exercise."

Hopefully that clears it up for you, and clearly I did address his point - exactly.

You weren't, of course, specific in whatever you were suggesting I didn't directly respond to, so I just went with the first point. If there's another, identify it, and your inability to understand English can be addressed.

[Seth]

No it's not even a philosophy. Atheist can be an adjective describing a philosophy, or anything else, that lacks theism.

Nope. Nothing in the various definitions of religion require theistic beliefs. Buddhism and Secular Humanism, and even Scientology for example are all non-theistic religions.

Right, so there are a few different religions that an atheist can have. Methinks this big "A" atheism of which you write (do you mean gnu-athism?) would be more of a social cause and/or political position.

...which may be practiced religiously. The definition of religion I presented (which is as valid as any other) does not distinguish between theistic/spiritual religions and social/political religions. For example, Marxism is a religion to hard-core Marxists.

As I pointed out, and has been pointed out by a prominent atheist speaker at the WAC in Australia last year, atheism is taking on the classic aspects of a religion, with its own dogmas, texts and high priests, Richard Dawkins being chief among them.

The failure of most apologists for atheism is that they mistakenly believe that religion requires resort to supernaturality. It doesn't. Religion is how you practice what you believe, not what you believe.

[Seth]

Richard Dawkins is an anti-theist, also an atheist.

And he's a religious zealot...

That could be true but it doesn't change that atheism isn't a religion. YOUR definition is that of an anti-theist.

That's a valid point, but since Dawkins and most other anti-theists refer to themselves as "atheists," I believe it's perfectly rational to identify them properly as "Atheists." After all, a fundamental precept of Atheism is the active rejection of belief in theism. One might properly say that Dawkins is a radically anti-theistic Atheist.

[Seth]

Jesus fucking Christ! How the hell did I miss this little gem? Atheism is a religion? No, in order for atheism to be a religion, it would at the very least need to be a philosophy. Simply lacking belief in a god is not a system of belief. It is a lack of belief (specifically in a god). One might argue that secular humanism is a religion because it is a philosophy or belief system. To argue that atheism is a religion is to misunderstand the definition of the word atheism. There are different dictionary definitions of the word atheism, but the consensus among ALL of them is that it is "lack of belief in deities".

I'd say that Richard Dawkins has a "philosophy" of atheism. His system of beliefs and practices goes far, far beyond a simple "lack of belief." This is the case for most atheists in fact. As I said, to be an explicit atheist, which must be the case for anyone who has been exposed to and has rejected theistic concepts or ideas, one must have formed both a belief set about theism, and in the case of those who are vocal in their opposition to "religion" (theism, actually) in either society or politics, there exists a significant philosophy surrounding their objections to religion. One can hardly deny that Dawkins has a complex and well-documented atheistic anti-theist philosophy.

It's perfectly typical for atheists to deny that they have beliefs about theism, but it's almost always an obfuscation and evasion of the truth. They do not have a "lack of belief in deities," they have a positive disbelief in deities, which is precisely the same thing as a positive belief in the non-existence of deities, which makes it a belief system that may be practiced religiously.

It is not a misunderstanding of the definition of the word atheism by those who characterize atheism as a religion, it's a misunderstanding of the true nature of their own beliefs on the part of most vocal atheists.

One becomes an Atheist, in the sense of being religious, when one engages in activities that indicate a devotion to the "cause" of atheism as a matter of ethics or conscience. One of those activities includes atheist apologia in discussion fora.

Shoe--->fit--->don

[Seth]

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

No, but they often are. Let me put it this way. I am technically an atheist. I think I understand what gods are and what function they serve in our experience. It is my opinion that life as we live it is irrational. We don't get to choose our motivations. So God told me to do it is a perfectly fine model of the life intention that compels us. It's just that a god is not something that is transparently real to me; no emotional connection. I actually have no desire to make the world a better place, so I am not sure if I have a religion at all. Rationalists generally believe that having good reasons and spurning "superstition" are shoulds. I have no such delusions. Rationality is simply a tool to make nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs or whatever moves you. So do I have a religion? I'd be interested in your opinion.

Do you adhere to your belief set with devotion, as a matter of ethics or conscience?

[Seth]

No, it's not. It's a philosophy. Religions have rituals, dieties, leading figures, holy books, faith-based beliefs, and passage rights.

It's neither a religion, nor a philosophy.

Atheism is the belief that there are not gods, or the lack of any belief in any gods, or at least the position that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that any gods exist. No philosophical position is necessitated by atheism - one may be a nihilist, objectivist, existentialist, Epicurean, or whatever, and still be an atheist.

There is no philosophy of atheism.

But atheism may be practiced as a religion, and often is.

It can't.

Atheism can be a belief held within a religion, but there is nothing in atheism itself to "practice." Ever. It's just a belief, or nonbelief, depending on how you think of it.

All religion begins with a belief. Atheism is a belief that gods do not exist. That alone does not a religion make. But add to that various social and political beliefs, actions and philosophies, like "god has no place in public schools" or "the Pope is a cunt," and leaven it with actual activities by the individual in promoting atheism as a social philosophy and political ideal such as those advocated and supported by PZ Myers, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins and you have all the elements required to classify Atheism as a "religion."

This is because explicit atheists, particularly today, are rarely satisfied just to disbelieve in gods, they find it necessary to proselytize vigorously about the supposed evils of believing in gods and the supposed benefits of nihilism and disbelief in gods. That is every bit as much a religious practice (and frequently just as annoying) as the worst sort of evangelical theistic religious zealotry.

[camoguard]

I think there are separate things being mingled into atheism and they deserve separate consideration.

Take the idea of your implicit atheist, a person who never had a belief in deities. That person goes to dine with some American friends. The friends ask them what his religion is and now the implicit atheist is forced to imagine a religion in order to communicate that the atheist does not have any of this structure. It's not fair to say we have a definition for the gods that we do not believe in or any twist on the subject. I reject gods in general. I wouldn't even say that if I were in a country where the majority of people didn't believe in a god. I bring it up because they wonder why I act differently.

I don't know if political activism constitutes a religion or not. But some atheists are active about making room for more nonbelief. I think atheists are promoting the idea that it's okay to not have a religion. They are doing that because having a religion is so popular it is considered the default. If religion were not the default, I would think atheists are overdoing it. Right now I think atheist activism is necessary.

Atheism does fill a conceptual space similar to a religion but only in a current cultural context. That context is based on the fact that there are so many religions and many of them are strains of the big monotheistic prototypes. We ignorantly say all gods don't exist without thinking of Pentocostals or Muslims specifically. And we do that because otherwise we're expected to pray before dinner. My atheist activism and the reason atheism fills a conceptual spot as if it were a religion are the fault of the environment. It is different than a positive belief such as Christianity which promotes a series of facts and moral answers although it appears to be similar because it unravels the series of moral answers our community has accumulated based on a majority Christian faith.

So you might call atheism a religion. And I'll understand what you're saying. But then I'd like your help in coming up with the keyword that makes it clear that while atheism has belief like elements, it is a default potentially pre-religion state that does not advance a position. Atheism doesn't suppose someone existed or that some moral code is better or that your faith should go anywhere. The only supposition is that the gods of existing religions aren't real. If you think atheism is advancing change as opposed to undoing the changes that were consequences of religious dogma, I think you are mistaken.

[Seth]

I think there are separate things being mingled into atheism and they deserve separate consideration.

Take the idea of your implicit atheist, a person who never had a belief in deities. That person goes to dine with some American friends. The friends ask them what his religion is and now the implicit atheist is forced to imagine a religion in order to communicate that the atheist does not have any of this structure. It's not fair to say we have a definition for the gods that we do not believe in or any twist on the subject. I reject gods in general. I wouldn't even say that if I were in a country where the majority of people didn't believe in a god. I bring it up because they wonder why I act differently.

I don't know if political activism constitutes a religion or not. But some atheists are active about making room for more nonbelief. I think atheists are promoting the idea that it's okay to not have a religion. They are doing that because having a religion is so popular it is considered the default. If religion were not the default, I would think atheists are overdoing it. Right now I think atheist activism is necessary.

Atheism does fill a conceptual space similar to a religion but only in a current cultural context. That context is based on the fact that there are so many religions and many of them are strains of the big monotheistic prototypes. We ignorantly say all gods don't exist without thinking of Pentocostals or Muslims specifically. And we do that because otherwise we're expected to pray before dinner. My atheist activism and the reason atheism fills a conceptual spot as if it were a religion are the fault of the environment. It is different than a positive belief such as Christianity which promotes a series of facts and moral answers although it appears to be similar because it unravels the series of moral answers our community has accumulated based on a majority Christian faith.

So you might call atheism a religion. And I'll understand what you're saying. But then I'd like your help in coming up with the keyword that makes it clear that while atheism has belief like elements, it is a default potentially pre-religion state that does not advance a position. Atheism doesn't suppose someone existed or that some moral code is better or that your faith should go anywhere. The only supposition is that the gods of existing religions aren't real. If you think atheism is advancing change as opposed to undoing the changes that were consequences of religious dogma, I think you are mistaken.

Thank you for your insightful reply, something that is relatively unusual.

Unfortunately, while "atheism" as a pure philosophical concept (lack of belief in gods), in the "implicit atheism" sense advances no position, all forms of explicit atheism do in fact advance a position; that gods do not exist. This is a natural function of the examination of the evidence presented by theistic claims and the active rejection of the truth of those claims. By levying a negative truth-value judgment upon a theistic claim, one necessarily advances the claim that the claim is invalid. That in and of itself does not a religious act make, but that is the foundational belief upon which an edifice of religion may be constructed.

How is deconstructionism, which is what you're claiming about atheism, any different than any other religious dogma? Undoing a change is change. A philosophy of change, whatever it might be, becomes religious practice when it meets the standard of being followed "devotedly" as a "matter of ethics or conscience."

[Thinking Aloud]

Derail posts moved to http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26267