The Religion of Atheism

Ok, and as a European, I'd like to know what exactly of the above is relevant to me?

 

I think it's fundamentally a perception thing. Atheists have convinced themselves that it is the religion that is a problem, when in actuality, I believe that they mean that religion mostly comes with a few things they view as bad. Nobody has an objection to the Catholic Church because they have the label religion, the objections arise with respect to dogma and actions. When most people learn about atheism, they learn of it in contrast to religion, which means that there is something that doesn't make sense in the transition when you call atheism a religion. Even so, it shouldn't really matter, only you'd have to change your wordings to "religion does this'n'that" to "religions that adhere to these principles and fall into these categories do this'n'that", which, if nothing else, would be a hassle.

"Religion" does not have a good definition and thus, you can't tell linguistically whether atheism is a religion or not. Therefore, I think it better to do what you did, call it an ideology and attack it on its merits instead of its label.

 

Athiesm is not a religion, and there is no case whatsoever that can prove it is.

Athiesm, by definition, is the absence of religion. The lack of belief in a divine being. There is also a simularity between the sun and moon, but that does not mean they are the same.

 

Religion has been the cause of more wars, and more deaths than anything else in the history of mankind. That is not to say that religion does not have it's good parts, but the fact remains that it has caused far more death and destruction that anything good.

 

I'm not trying to argue for or against that. Actually, I specifically try to stay away from that in order to not alienate half of the debaters. Whether that is true or false is irrelevant to my argument.

If we decide to use a definition of religion which includes atheism, then would you not agree that it's not the label religion that makes a notion bad? After all, that would include atheism (I'm not arguing that that is my definition, but I want you to consider the question). Similarly, even if we use a definition that does not include atheism, it's not the label that's the problem, it is actions and/or dogma.

 

Most atheists I've met would qualify as "Christian atheists" - that is, they were raised with a kind of Christian tradition (Christmas had Santa as well as wise men, Easter has bunnies and eggs), but they don't really believe that stuff, know much about it, or have reason for it to cross their minds very often. Most people can find enough of interest and importance in the mechanics of their daily lives that they really don't have much use for a layer of myth, hearsay, fiction, etc. which comprises the substance of most religions.

I think relatively few people do anything noteworthy (start wars, assassinate enemies, etc.) for primarily religious reasons. Instead, religion might serve them as a post-facto rationalization. In wars between primarily Christian-worshiping countries, BOTH sides say Christ (and the same nominal god) are on their side. No prayers to the Christian god I've ever heard of result in God telling the supplicant he's full of baloney and his opinion is stupid. Instead, the god of prayer supports, justifies, and rationalizes what the supplicant wanted to do or think anyway.

Atheists are no less self-serving or moral than religious believers, they just find different excuses.

 

The problem once again comes down to standards. Those things that drive atheists, reportedly anyway, absolutely nuts about religion are present in atheism as well. Tell me, do atheists Proselytize? Can they be dogmatic? Rude? Pushy about their beliefs? Etc. When atheism becomes the very thing it is supposedly 'in contrast with' .... things get interesting do they not?

 

I thought what drove atheists nuts about religion is the belief in a supernatural god. If religion did not believe in supernatural stuff, I think atheists would have no objection above that of anyone else regarding the rudeness or proselytizing.

You can't just pick and choose which aspects of either notion overlap. Both communists and capitalists eat potatoes, that doesn't make capitalism into a subgroup of communism.

The only things I listed were "dogma and actions", and in hindsight, I should probably amend that actions are usually in combination with dogma. Violent actions in the name of God would be a non-issue if they didn't adhere to a dogma which they claimed was good and/or non-violent. There might be more, but that's what I can think of at the time.

 

Agh, so what drives atheists nuts is that religious people accept the miraculous? Nothing unexplained ever happens in the world of atheism? There are no great unsolved mysteries out there? So what happens when an atheist acknowledges that there are some thing happening in the universe that are beyond our ability to comprehend? Do you stone him ....?

 

It's fascinating, how it's so emotionally important for a few theists to twist logic about and redefine common words so they can call atheism a religion.

If they're that obsessed with and threatened by the simple concept that many people are non-religious, they're plainly not very secure in their beliefs. They mainly appear to be trying to convince themselves that atheism is a religion, but they're not doing a very good job of it, hence the endless repetition of the faulty logic and emotional appeals.

 

Of course, this varies from atheist to atheist. I'd say most atheists aren't driven "absolutely nuts" at all, and those who are usually go nuts over all kinds of things, not just religious stuff. Even my last post should have included the caveat that not believing in a supernatural god does not require not believing in supernatural stuff. Some believe in miracles, some don't, some believe everything can be explained by materialistic means, some don't. There is no other common denominator among atheists than that they don't believe in any gods. If that's not in contrast with religion, then I don't know what is. Some versions might be more common than others, but letting that affect your view of the rest of them is roughly equivalent to blaming Christians in general for the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

I, of course, can't speak for all atheists, but here is why I care. Every serious argument I've ever had with a religious person regarding their religion has been because of something their religion is pushing/driving/forcing them to do based purely on faith. These are things like "I hate gays because god hates gays" or "I'm waking you up at 7 a.m. to tell you about my faith because god commands it." During every one of those arguments, the religious individual has tried to make atheism out as a religion for the purpose of making a "you're just like me" argument. I have a problem with proselytizing, well you can try to generally tar atheists with that same brush if you claim it's a religion, too. The same goes for faith and irrationality and all of the other hang-ups that come with religion. The word "religion" has a lot of baggage, a lot of which is legitimate. Atheists as individuals may have similar baggage, but atheism as a word or as a lack of belief does not.

Put a bit more simply, yes, it is about perception. Perception is important.

 

What things don't you understand? Are you baffled by the things that bothered Job in Job chapters 38 & 39? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38-39&version=NLT

 

And therein lies the problem, its not picking and choosing. By many definitions of the word, atheism qualifies as a religion. As others have pointed out, atheists have sought, and been granted, legal status and definition as a religion. You toss out belief in the supernatural, yet many atheists believe in the supernatural. Well, now its JUST a failure to acknowledge a supernatural God that means atheism is not a religion .... then neither are certain forms of Buddhism, and other spiritual ideologies. And yet, even between religions there ARE differences.

Its only atheists that highlight their differences to the extent that they deny their commonalities. And the real problem isn't the difference, is the finger pointing and accusation, coupled with the super natural belief that by making the choice to be atheist, you suddenly defy humanity itself ... even as you demonstrate the very qualities you supposedly hate? Its quite curious.

 

Perception is not important to science - hard facts and analysis are. And there is something to be said about challenging perceptions.

 

Yep, Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby

 

Stay out of voting booths, don’t run for office and keep your silly imaginary friends to yourself, and we wouldn't.

Its truly amazing how a christians make up an imaginary friend. Then wants to make up laws based off this imaginary friends. Then when an atheist questions this imaginary friend, then the christian asks why we care.

GET REAL!

 

It is picking and choosing when you notice the commonalities between religion and atheism but conveniently miss out the very definitional difference between them.

By some definitions, it qualifies, by some definitions it does not. The commonly accepted way of dealing with such instances is to make no argument based on the words used and/or to avoid using the word.

The US Supreme court does not have the power to define words for a language, it only has the power to define words within its own context. We don't actually live in 1984, you know. And as far as I know, the Supreme court only deemed it equivalent to a religion for first amendment purposes. It was the 7th court of appeals that ruled it to be one, and some ruling said something similar about secular humanism, but guess what, they don't have the power to change the English language either. Even more, these are national courts, no similar court ruling has been made for instance here in Sweden. Someone, I can't remember if it was you, tried to argue that I'm somehow bound by American law, but that's just silly.

The next paragraph, I don't really understand. I haven't particularly found that atheists highlight their differences more than, let's say, Protestants and Catholics. Nor do I think we have a statistically relevant number of atheists on internet forums to make such a distinction, coming on internet forums require a certain sort of person in itself. However, mostly, I don't understand how it ties into the argument. I don't understand how "making the choice to be an atheist" (which for our purposes often makes one a humanist) is a supernatural belief to deny humanity. Some atheists support a vocal discussion, an open debate to discuss issues, others are less argumentative (but tend to stay away from the internet).

 

Not very good in Greek , the English equivalent of the word is godless / godlessness , to say that godlessness constitutes a religion is rich lol

Atheists who believe in supernatural are not atheists

 

That's what I wonder. This is the least of anyone's worries. If you folks ever wise up, you won't be calling it a religion. So it's not like anybody's going to convince you of this one thing before you wise up.

 

They can be. For instance, some believe that there is no god, but that spirits stay around on earth instead of going to an afterlife. They lack a god, yet still believe other supernatural things. Atheist Buddhists often believe a set of other supernatural things going on, but they still have no god.

 

I don't think that believing in another "level" of existence makes you believe in the supernatural .
The main virtue of an atheist is reason , i don't doubt that some may have found enough reasoning in reincarnation but it doesn't qualify as supernatural but rather as a natural process for those who believe it.

 

By definition, miracles are not unexplained.
They are simply explained without data to support the explanation.
That is where the difference lies.
Atheists embrace the unexplained. Believers reject the notion.
Atheists seek explanations of the unexplained. Believers create them.

 

If that other level of existence is not natural, then it is supernatural. Those who believe in ghosts without believing in gods can still view ghosts as supernatural. All supernatural claims do not hinge on the existence of gods.
It doesn't matter if you became an atheist through reason, indoctrination or cognitive brain surgery, if you do not believe in any/all god(s), you are an atheist. The appeal to reason as the virtue of an atheist is a very modern concept, it applies to a subset of atheism which includes the nowadays common "new atheism", but there are many forms of atheism which do not come from reasoning.

 

Interesting, i don't know any "old age" atheists, care to enlighten me ?