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

[AshtonBlack]

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.

[Evabot]

I never talk to my brother and this is a perfect example why...

I mildly touched on my views on Atheism the other day and he laughed and compared Atheists to Scientologists. I think he was grasping for any "radical religion". He also rambled on about "Don't you believe in your own existence?!" which made no sense,as if to compare Atheism to being a nihilist. Even so....

btw, he goes to the gym for 8 hours a day, sings about killing me while he's in the shower, and is clinically insane. So let's not take him too seriously.

[charlou]

The wiki article on atheism doesn't mention the word 'religion'. It does link to irreligion as a related article though.


The etymology of the word 'atheism' is interesting ...

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[18]

The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[19] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[20] and again in 1571.[21] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[22] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme, and appears in English about 1587.[23] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[24][25] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[26] theist in 1662,[27] deism in 1675,[28] and theism in 1678.[29] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[7] In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God;[30] atheist meant not accepting the current conception of the divine.[31]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[32] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[33]

Some atheists have doubted the very nature of the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:[34]

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

[Santa_Claus]

Atheism is a label applied to normal people by the theists - so they know who to load onto the train.

[Robert_S]

The wiki article on atheism doesn't mention the word 'religion'. It does link to irreligion as a related article though.


The etymology of the word 'atheism' is interesting ...

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[18]

The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[19] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[20] and again in 1571.[21] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[22] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme, and appears in English about 1587.[23] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[24][25] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[26] theist in 1662,[27] deism in 1675,[28] and theism in 1678.[29] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[7] In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God;[30] atheist meant not accepting the current conception of the divine.[31]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[32] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[33]

Some atheists have doubted the very nature of the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:[34]

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

I'll start calling myself as an Irreligious Atheist who Still Enjoys Christmas.

[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