Why atheism isn't a religion.

[Goblinmonger]

I think this is a good blog post that puts a lot of things into perspective.

There are a lot of people who mistakenly treat atheism like a religion -- most are theists but even the occasional atheist does it as well. This makes no sense whatsoever because if atheism were a religion, then theism would be as well. But who treats mere theism as if it alone could qualify as a religion?
...
After all, atheism isn't even a system of thought in the first place. Anything that is going to be a "religion" has to be some sort of system and atheism just isn't that.

[HopeHoops]

1. There is no god. There is only FSM.

[ladjf]

2. I agree that atheism isn't a religion. I don't agree that atheism is

not a system of thought, i.e. a philosophy.

[ZombieHorde]

5. I don't believe my toaster is self aware, is that a system of thought? nt

[ladjf]

8. No, that's an opinion. Philosophy is the study of human values. In that

sense, atheism could be a system of human values based that is not based upon the premise that the belief in God, or Gods is required. However, and I believe this is where you were going with your question, atheism could simply be the opinion that there is no God or Gods.

I didn't say that atheism was a system of thought, only that it could be.

[Goblinmonger]

6. I think the problem is the way people use the term

to mean a whole crapload of different things.

But I don't think that not believing in something gets elevated to a philosophy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. And there, possibly, is a perceived difference between atheism and

secularism.

To my mind they are generally synonymous. What they both posit is that a person need not rely on the supernatural to develop a positive, well-rounded moral framework for his life. Atheism is not THE framework, but it is the soil in which it grows (yeah, I know, mixed metaphor).

I personally have difficulty understanding how anyone develops a moral code in a theistic framework. "Because HE said so" is not a moral philosophy - it's an instruction book.

[cleanhippie]

15. Would you accept that Atheism is the LACK of belief?

regarding religion, it simply just the LACK of belief. Thats not a system of thought, right?

[Iggo]

21. It's an absence of belief.

We ain't lacking shit...lol.

[cleanhippie]

23. Ok, I can agree with that!

[ladjf]

22. A system of thought could be based upon the concept of atheism.

However, I'm getting the feeling that we are just parsing definitions. Some could have a philosophy that includes a belief in God. Others might not feel that the existence of God is a prerequisite.

[humblebum]

27. I always chuckle when I see atheists spending so much time saying what they are not.

Courts have declared that they are a religion. They have been organized and disorganized for many, many years. All philosophic posturing aside -organized atheism is a religion without a god.

[Goblinmonger]

28. I always chuckle when I see people doing something

that they would bust a nut over if someone did to them. Like telling people what they really think.

MILITANT ATHEISTS!!!!!! There, I got it into this thread for you so that you don't have to.

[humblebum]

32. so now you are the cheerleader for militant atheism? nt

[Goblinmonger]

33. Not surprised that that is what you took from it.

Whatever gets you through the night.

[humblebum]

34. Not surprised you don't realize that's what you really are. nt

[darkstar3]

35. You truly have nothing to offer, do you? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

36. I know you are but what am I? n/t

[PassingFair]

72. If you love atheists so much, why don't you MARRY one?

Oh wait, I DID!

[Goblinmonger]

75. I married a Deist. Damn it. n/t

[cleanhippie]

30. Puh-LEASE! If a court "decided" what you did or did not believe, the militant atheists would be

first in line to defend YOUR right to believe what ever you wanted to believe.....


You ARE hypocrisy in action.


And what court "decided" that atheism is a religion and that as an atheist, I must accept that?

[darkstar3]

31. None of them.

He's talking about the SCOTUS decision that recognized atheism as equally protected under the First Amendment. From my recollection, you will NOT find the words "atheism is a religion", or anything remotely close to them, in that decision. Judges have a tendency to avoid such accidental labeling, but that doesn't stop misguided morons from completely misconstruing legal decision.

[humblebum]

39. You are always kinda one step behind the curve aren't you?

"The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said, “"Atheism is religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.'”

http://archives.neuralgourmet.com/2005/08/19/court_rules_atheism_a_religion

[darkstar3]

40. What is it with you and right wing memes against people who aren't religious?

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x9681

[cleanhippie]

41. I guess not. Thanks for the back-up darkstar. Seems like its you that is behind.

That court did not rule that atheism is a religion. Not at all. You want to try again?

[humblebum]

42. Well, I guess just because they ruled "Atheism is religion" doesn't mean

"Atheism is religion." To me when they say "Atheism is religion", they are expressing the opinion that "Atheism is religion." I admit there is much room for interpretation there, I think what they really meant to say was that "Atheism is religion." Silly me.

[darkstar3]

43. Read the ACTUAL judgment, bum, you'll find they never said that.

Your slanted source is misconstruing the facts.

(Of course, you can't actually read this, but at least others will.)

[cleanhippie]

44. Does he have you on ignore?

IS that why he refuses to look at the actual judgment and see that his source is misconstruing the facts of the case?

[darkstar3]

45. He can't stand being constantly proven wrong.

He's had me on ignore for a while now. I consider it a badge of reason.

[cleanhippie]

46. I wish he would put me on ignore!

I want to put him on, but the things he posts are just to priceless to pass up.


Can I get a MILITANT ATHEIST!!!!!



MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:

MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:

MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:

MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

47. Amen, Brother. MILITANT ATHEIST! n/t

[humblebum]

49. I'm not sure which case you are looking at. There are several.

Kaufman v. McCaughtry

"The problem here," noted the Seventh Circuit, "was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a 'religion, perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture." The court held, therefore, that 'atheism is religion, and the group that he leads is religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The court was relying, of course, on a number of U.S. Supreme Court precedents that treat a range of nonreligious' beliefs as the equivalent of religion. The court continued: "The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a way of life,' even it that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith." Thus, the court concluded, atheism is equivalent to religion for purposes of the First Amendment and Kaufman should have been given the right to meet to discuss atheism and related topics with fellow inmates.

http://openjurist.org/419/f3d/678/kaufman-v-r-mccaughtry

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140409171.html

IT'S A RELIGION

[darkstar3]

50. Guess what, bum, that's commentary, not the decision. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

52. You quoted the key part and ignored it

whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."

They defined it as a religion for First Amendment protections ONLY. They were not making a philosophical conclusion.

[cleanhippie]

53. I was hoping he was gonna figure that out for himself.

Perhaps the Militant Atheist mantra is just too much for his brain?

[humblebum]

54. Finally, we agree on something. You are reading more into my

statements than was ever actually said. I made no qualifications other than to say they declared atheism to be religion, period. To make a philosophical conclusion would have been beyond their mission and purpose, and far too subjective. Their limitation was the First Amendment and that is exactly what was addressed and expected, according to the free exercise clause.

[cleanhippie]

57. If you mean we agree that you are moving the goalposts, again, then yes.

Because you emphatically stated "ITS A RELIGION" right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=263953&mesg_id=264184


oh yeah, I almost forgot....


MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:
MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:
MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:
MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:
MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:
MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:

[humblebum]

58. Yep. And so did they. I claimed nothing more or less than the court.

From my post #27: "Courts have declared that they are a religion. They have been organized and disorganized for many, many years. All philosophic posturing aside - organized atheism is a religion without a god." Where in there have has anything changed or goal posts moved? And yes I know you are very proud of your status as a militant atheist.

[cleanhippie]

59. Squirm, squirm, squirm

[humblebum]

60. And blather, blather, blather ...

You really are always kinda one step behind the curve aren't you?

[Goblinmonger]

62. Not if you are talking about the MILITANT ATHEIST curve! n/t

[cleanhippie]

68. What curve? The only curve is your militant atheist curve. And you went over the rail long ago...

[Goblinmonger]

61. Let me introduce you to your post #41

To me when they say "Atheism is religion", they are expressing the opinion that "Atheism is religion." I admit there is much room for interpretation there, I think what they really meant to say was that "Atheism is religion."

Why are you trying to interpret the claim now? You weren't talking about the First Amendment in post 41, but go ahead and pretend that's what you were talking about all along and that you didn't just google "Atheism is a religion" and found that court case and creamed your jeans and posted it on here.

[humblebum]

64. Well I guess you can jump up and down, scream and holler all you want

but all I ever claimed was that they said "atheism was religion", and that is what they said. Spin it anyway you like. That's what they said and that's what I said.

[Goblinmonger]

65. You're creating a nice little melodrama in your mind.

I am much more calm than that due to my debating years. You said atheism is religion. You made no qualifier that that was only in a First Amendment protection sense as the SCOTUS was doing. I would venture to guess you would not give atheism First Amendment protection if it were up to you.

[humblebum]

66. On the contrary, I personally think the decision was the right one.

Honestly, I haven't changed anything since my first post on the matter. The court said something to the effect that they couldn't attach any philosophical judgement to the ruling and that a "religion" as pertaining to the first amendment need not be associated with a supreme being. I mentioned those things in my first post. I really have nothing more to say on the matter, except to repeat that they did say that atheism is religion. How ever you want to take that is up to you.

[darkstar3]

67. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

If only you could see me to appreciate the irony there...

[cleanhippie]

69. Its always a laugh to see someone get cought up in their own web....

I love watching him squirm....

[rrneck]

3. In my experience

most atheists tend to not lead with their hearts (including me). While atheism has no codified system of thought that lack is less important than it appears that atheists have no codified system of feeling. That doesn't mean that atheists are machines or Spock clones or anything of the sort. It just means that they are unlikely to get in a bunch periodically and feel the same way about something for its own sake. They certainly won't do so for some deity for which there is no evidence.

Creating an atheist religion would be like herding cats with a polo pony.

[immoderate]

55. Maybe you have it backward.

Religions take advantage of emotional "hooks" that all humans have. They use rituals, music, recitation, introspection, and other emotional and social devices to build their following.

Atheists choose other outlets for these same instincts and memes. They find associations that achieve some common feelings, like being Dead Heads or Cowboy fans.

--imm

[humblebum]

56. Very perceptive. There is a famous study of that very thing (sigh).

If I could only remember who conducted it.

[PassingFair]

73. Or Democrats.

Next to "black" a voting block, "non-religious"
votes BLUE most consistantly.

[Angry Dragon]

4. So unless someone fits into a box they have no religion??

[Goblinmonger]

7. Call it what you will

but I think definitionaly religion is a box. It has a set dogma and rules.

[Angry Dragon]

9. I take a expanded view of religion

and consider religion is just a set of beliefs that we try to live by.
This may or may not contain a belief in a god.
No two people view god in the same way, so how can these people fit into
a box??

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. "No two people view god in the same way".

What, then, is the purpose of the Nicaean Creed?

Religion is nothing BUT boxes. Christianity is a huge box, along side Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Within the box are smaller boxes - Catholicism/Protestantism. Within, still more boxes - Methodists, Baptists, Epicsopalians, etc.. And within them, yet smaller boxes - Westboro Baptist, Waco Branch Davidians, etc.

At each box, people try to gather others who believe EXACTLY as they do. All along the way they, as a group, adopt some and discard other precepts the 'others' follow or don't follow. Faith or belief might be about the individual, but religion is about the group - always about the group. The box you choose.

Atheists think outside the box.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Very good points about boxes

I do not consider myself an atheist, but think outside the box.
I do not know everything, but continue to seek and search.
I am just an one-person religion

[cleanhippie]

16. I like what you are saying...

but I would not classify your personal belief a religion, just a personal belief. Belief (or lack of it) does not a religion make, right?

[Angry Dragon]

17. To me religion is just a set of beliefs

This may or may not contain the belief in a god.
A person can not have a non-belief.
Atheists, to my understanding, have a belief that there is no god.
I do not know if there is a god.
I do know, and can prove, that there is a force in this vast
universe that is larger and stronger than man.
If a person believes in Jesus, but does not practice what the Bible
teaches, does that make them a Christian??

I have my beliefs that help me live and travel in this world.
My beliefs are my religion. Does that make it any less than
a religion that follows an organized set of dogmas and rules??
My beliefs are always in flux as I gather new information and
ideas. To me that is true religion. A religion that grows.

[cleanhippie]

19. Allow me to clear up the misunderstanding.

Its a common mistake that many make, so let me explain, so that there is no confusion.

To me, and (from what I have seen) every other atheist on DU, we do not "believe there is no god", we "don;t believe there is a god." I know the difference is subtle, but its really such a large distinction, that it merits pointing it out.

I also feel that you will find nearly no one one DU (I could be mistaken) that will state unequivocally, that there is no god. We just don't know, and no one else does either, but the severe lack of verifiable evidence to support the idea that a god exists logically leads one to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that one does exist.

One thing that I DO claim (as do many others) is that any RELIGIOUS viewpoint on the existence of god, as they tell it, is as false as can be.

I think that from what I have read you post so far, you will get no beef from atheists on DU. Yours is a personal belief and you care not to further that belief onto anyone else. And for that, I thank you.

[Angry Dragon]

20. Just some questions so I understand better

You state "We just don't know, and no one else does either"
Is that not the agnostic view??

So it is more that atheists believe that the belief in a
hands-on god is false??

Hate labels.

edit: fixed header

[cleanhippie]

24. I think that would also depend on who you ask.

[PassingFair]

74. Can we say: We don't know for sure, but it is IMPROBABLE,

being that there is NO evidence at all for the
all-knowing, omnipotent, supernatural creature
worshiped by most major religions.

I am an atheist, and I can not tell you
with 100% certainty that "there is no god".

I CAN say that I see no evidence for one,
and that my degree of "belief" in gods is
the same as my degree of belief in Leprechauns.

[AlecBGreen]

14. The Creed was written to explain to Jews & Gentiles what Christianity means

Like much religious dogma, personal beliefs dont always align perfectly with churchs "official" beliefs.

When I moved to this area a year ago, I looked for a church full of like-minded people. Does that mean I (or they) wanted people who think EXACTLY the way I do? Of course not! I think 90% of Christians recognize the fact that no-one will ever believe EXACTLY as you do. Anyway, when I chose a church, it was because the community of people shared my values and fundamental beliefs. We dont all agree though, but thats OK. Some of them are very literalist/fundamentalist. Its hard sometimes to have discussions, but Im not running. I am trying to show them that I think its OK to see homosexuals as equals, its OK to believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth, etc. You might think its a fools errand, but if we dont try, what hope will we have of them changing?

As a white, southern male Christian democrat science teacher who believes in evolution, the 2nd amendment and loves bluegrass & reggae, I dont fit into any one box very well :)

edit to add - When I say I looked for likeminded people, I meant people who value charity, social justice and compassion above all else. I found some who do, and I joined them. Like I said, we have VERY different beliefs on some issues, but we are in agreement on the big ones, and thats what counts with me.

[Angry Dragon]

18. I have never fit into a box

that is why I have for most of my life kept my beliefs to myself.
The only thing I have against organized religions is when they
try to force others outside their religion to believe as they do.

As a white northern white male that is a non-science teacher who believes in
evolution, the Constitution, the right of everyone to live their life to
reach their full potential as a person. I believe in all music except
hip-hop and rap. :hippie:

[darkstar3]

48. Everybody fits in a box.

Some of them are specially made...

[trotsky]

51. "We're ALL individuals!"

"I'm not."

[Igel]

11. It's an utterly meaningless debate.

"Religion" and "atheism" have such a range of meaning--with nobody authorized to stipulate the One True Meaning that not only must be accepted but which is actually intended by everybody in the debate--that there's no way to construe the cacophony of sides as actually forming a dialog.

Hell, it's not even possible to construe either "side" as forming a single side.

I was taught that things like Confucianism and Taoist aren't religions. Yet they're often considered religions--even by their adherents. Then there's Hinduism--hardly a coherence religion, but amalgamated into one; the same holds for Xianity and Islam. The more I've thought about what I think of as possible Christianities, the more I'm convinced that it's defined by list. I can think of nothing uniting the Christianities except designating one of the deities involved as "Jesus Christ" (aka "Christ Jesus"). Yet there is such a variety of Jesuses out there that the mind boggles and either that definition becomes trite or we use protoype semantics (without acknowledging it, a dangerous sleight of mind played on the self).

My wife is, or was, an atheist. (So hard to know these things.) She considered it a philosophy: You start with the premise that there is no god, but that there is a need for humanity to form a consistent, coherent moral philosophy to guide their decisions. So you need to pick your moral premises, figure out how they work out in practice, judge whether they reach the desired end or if the premise justifies the end and repeat the process until you wind up with a set of premises to guide right conduct, with the ranking of the different values and premises just so (or the principles allowing impromptu reranking elucidated).

Now, this doesn't yield a consistent philosophy among a large set of people, a "there can be only one" philosophy that allows everybody to pull together in unison. But ultimately if atheism is an -ism (as opposed to just saying "no" with no other thought processes behind it) there has to be a relatively limited set of types of such philosophies just as there is a limited set of types of Christianities or Islams.

Yet some people say "atheism" is there mere denial of "theism," which seems to be trying to achieve the etymological fallacy in order to avoid dealing with what the denial consists of. (After all, real denials of belief systems that must have behavioral outworkings tend to be rather more than "just say no". One denies Jesus not so much in word as in deed; does it really mean much if one denies being a Democrat and yet votes Democratic, is a registered Democrat, and sends money to the local Democratic representative's campaign fund?) The point being that being against something is far, far easier than being for something. Most movements break at precisely that point.

[skepticscott]

25. You certainly wasted a lot of words

on an "utterly meaningless debate"

And "religion" may be all over the map as far as what it means to people, atheism isn't quite so sprawling. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in any gods. If you can provide a definition of religion as brief, I'd love to hear it. No definition and no label is perfect, but that doesn't mean that they are all useless and meaningless. I suspect you get plenty of mileage out of them yourself, without considering what you say to be worthless babble.

As far as atheism being a "philosophy", it isn't, any more than not believing in sasquatches or lake monsters is. It is simply a state of being unconvinced of the existence of one thing out of a universe of uncountable numbers of things. It tells you nothing about how to act or how to live or how to treat others. If you want something to label as a philosophy, try skepticism or secular humanism.

[dimbear]

26. Need a little clarification. Theism isn't a religion, but Deism is, isn't it?

Why dat be? Derived from different languages?

[darkstar3]

29. The same language, actually, but one is more specific than another.

Deism describes a belief in a single, creator-type, non-personal god. A First-Mover if you will. It gets its name from the single yet nearly unknowable deity involved. Theism is a much broader definition, taking into account anyone who believes in any type of god(s) at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. They are from 2 languages - 'theism' from Greek, 'deism' from Latin

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=theism&title=21st
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=deism&title=21st

I agree with your definitions, anyway. I'd argue that deism isn't a religion either - with no ritual, priesthood, organisation, defining literature or uniting ethical precepts, I think it fails the definition of 'religion'. It might pass muster as a 'philosophy', but I'm not sure of that either. It may just be a philosophical proposition.

[darkstar3]

38. Egg and my face are in alignment.

The funny thing is, I actually knew that now that I stop to think about it.

[dimbear]

63. I say bravo. This much argumentation over a purely semantic question

would do credit to any theological forum. We are a force in that universe.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. www.cthulhu.org

Cthulhu for President.

Why vote for a lesser evil?


:shrug:

[laconicsax]

71. Dare you to post that in GD:P in about a year and a half.

:rofl:

[Dash87]

76. It's impossible for atheism to be a religion,

If atheism were to be a religion, then it wouldn't be atheism, which would be a paradox. The word literally means no religion. :)

[humblebum]

77. No, acually it means no theism. There is a difference. nt

[crumb77]

78. because it's our nature to classify labels on every ideology

I've run into this problem before. I've realized that a crucial step in further distancing ourselves from religious prejudice, and theist delusions of grandeur, is to not use a label to define your own personal relationship with nature and the unknown. Not all christians hate gays, not all muslims are terrorists, not all jews refrain from eating pork, and not all atheists are open-minded. The simple truth is that there are 6 billion people in this world who posses their own unique interpretation of reality. Categorizing yourself to a mainstream label often prevents independent thought, and categorizing others to a mainstream label will only lead to ignorance.

If anybody asks you what you are, just say you are a man/woman with ideas

Peace