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

[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

[Svartalf]

I believe that there is real benefit in encouraging free thought and take any chance I get to correct people on their misinformed notion of what exactly atheism is.

I love free thought. So, I was thinking that it might be probative to discuss what it is that you think "atheism" is, exactly.

Did you know that "Atheism" is a religion?

Gahk, I hoped you were giving me something to bash on you from point one seth... where did neo write that , for context?

[Seth]

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

Thanks, man!

[Seth]

I believe that there is real benefit in encouraging free thought and take any chance I get to correct people on their misinformed notion of what exactly atheism is.

I love free thought. So, I was thinking that it might be probative to discuss what it is that you think "atheism" is, exactly.

Did you know that "Atheism" is a religion?

Gahk, I hoped you were giving me something to bash on you from point one seth... where did neo write that , for context?

In his welcome thread introduction...

[Svartalf]

If we're going to be a religion then can I be a Cardinal? I love the hats.

the rest of your habit is in the room next to Zmonsterz', you know where.

[Svartalf]

I would want to be a cardinal sin.

Well, I already got envy, sloth and lust cornered, want to be gluttony? or pride?

[MrJonno]

As you can be an atheist and be everything from a communist to a libertarian I'm not really sure being without a belief in god says anything about a person bar a lack of existance of a supernatural mastermind.

There is the humanist philsophy (or possibly religion depending on how you define it) which definitely does have a lot to say on life (its not really incompatible with liberal christianity which it evolved from)

[Svartalf]

It's semantics. You are saying rejection of beliefs constitutes its own belief, others are saying it doesn't. You aren't going to convince anyone and they aren't going to convince you. Then again I suppose that's how most these discussions go

shhh, don't wake up the troll, facts make it angry

[Svartalf]

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.

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.

proof that atheism is not a religion.

me, I'm waiting to get any reliable data on deities before I start believing in anything. I regard it a agnosticism (not knowing), but for all practical purposes, the differences with atheism are negligible, except I deem atheists make a leap of faith I know better than to meddle with.

[Svartalf]

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.

Well, a religion, in the proper meaning , is a common set of beliefs, and more importantly practices, that keep a given group together.

I doubt you atheists have that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would want to be a cardinal sin.

Well, I already got envy, sloth and lust cornered, want to be gluttony? or pride?

Has pure fucking evil been taken?