Atheism Not A Religion?

[bluebell]

It stops being semantics when the IRS gets involved. Just ask the Scientologists.

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While some may fall within your reasoning, many simply lack belief in the supernatural.

That would make some one an agnostic. An athiest has a postive belief in a negative. So sorry what you had to say after what you did is wrong because your premise is wrong.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nope.

Lacking a belief in God is not the same as actively believing that he "doesn't exist".

 

They know very specifically what characteristics of God they deny "exist".  For example, if one defines "God" to be "the force of nature", or "human compassion" or "the ideal Human" few atheists would contend that such concepts don't "exist".

 

They might argue that such ideas are not what they mean by "God" at all!  So clearly they have a very specific view of God implicit in their position, and their position about their specific definition of what "God" is, is that such a God "does not exist".

 

There is a sense in which even unicorns "exist"- we know what they look like, we have a literature about them, but they are fictitious. 

 

Even a fictitious God exists in some sense as a social or literary entity, but an atheist would say "That's not what I mean when I say God doesn't exist".

 

At that point you could ask your atheist what specifically is the God which they say "does not exist" and they could tell you exactly what the characteristics of God are- what characteristics "do not exist".

 

So really they have a clear definition of God- which they say "does not exist".

 

The position is a religious one, since it is non-falsifiable.  One cannot falsify that a "God" with certain definable characteristics does NOT exist any more than one can prove that he DOES exist.  So both positions are in a sense religious- the belief in propositions which are not falsifiable.

I think you are right on the money on this. Excellent observations.

[mfbukowski]

I think you are right on the money on this. Excellent observations.

[pmccombs1]

Of course atheism is a religion, it is the religion of unbelief. The religon of the communist state. The true religion of Satan, one that discounts God and denies the Holy Ghost, one that mocks all that is sacred and holy, that reduces man to a mere animal that evolved by chance and tries to prove itself claiming "reason" as it's foundation. It is the concept that man is the "measure of all things" and it tries to prevade all of society. It is a philosophy that likes to sit in judgement of all other beliefs as an Anti-Religion, an Anti-belief. It sits in judgement blaming all the ills of mankind, war, hatred, vice, ignorance on religion (believers in a god or gods) and I believe it is a pathetic view that deludes itself of it's own supposed superiority and is really inspired of Lucifer from the very beginning in his own words: "believe it not!" There is nothing in my estimation of value in it's ideals or concepts. That is why I usually chose to not have dialogue with those who aspire to this "unbelief" dogma.

 

I know an atheist who sat each day with those who were terminally ill AIDS patients. They had been cast off by friends and family because of the contagion. This unbeliever told me that sometimes he'd go to a funeral every week.

 

He thought that, if there was no God to wipe away their tears, then he would have to do it himself. That is the sort of judgment he sat in, this Lucifer-inspired atheist.

[mfbukowski]

I know an atheist who sat each day with those who were terminally ill AIDS patients. They had been cast off by friends and family because of the contagion. This unbeliever told me that sometimes he'd go to a funeral every week.

 

He thought that, if there was no God to wipe away their tears, then he would have to do it himself. That is the sort of judgment he sat in, this Lucifer-inspired atheist.

The problem is that we tend to not understand what religion is all about.  The common characteristics of all religions is that 1- the principles which define its belief cannot be proven to be "true" or "False" and 2- those beliefs give us purpose and meaning in life.

 

The person you are describing had both those characteristics in spades.  He believed that it is right and proper and that one should give comfort to those in need

 

That notion cannot be proven scientifically- neither can any other ethical principle.  Yet we believe them and call them "true".  We would easily say that "Yes, I think it's true that we should give comfort to those in need", just as we say that "The church is true".  Yet neither of these can be proven in a scientific sense.

 

Furthermore the person you are describing clearly saw that giving comfort to those in need gave his life meaning, and was rewarding,or he would not have done it.

 

So here you have someone who is motivated to take action on principles which cannot be proven to be true or false in a scientific sense, AND belief in those principles gave his life meaning beyond any other set of beliefs he had yet discovered.

 

To me, that is a VERY religious man!

 

"Supernatural" for me does not enter into it.  "Supernatural" beliefs for me are those which are- just what the word says- superior to nature (as we know it)

 

When we talk about "supernatural" beliefs we are still talking about the natural realm- those things which might exist in the future as "natural" beliefs but as yet are unknown.  Television in the 14th century would be seen as "supernatural".

 

But to me it is not belief in the "supernatural" which is even a characteristic of being religious, really, because the supernatural does not give our lives meaning.   Right now Star-Trek style "transporters" are "supernatural" but believing that they are "real" doesn't give my life meaning.  "Supernatural" to me means"natural but with unknown mechanisms"

 

That's not religion in my book.  Religion is a non-falsifiable belief you base your life on, and take action on, and which motivates your every waking moment.  For me, that is why I find the person you describe to be indeed a very "religious" person.

 

If we truly understood these principles I think there would be no more discussion about "Atheists" and "Believers".  To some degree we are all atheists and all believers.

 

I am an atheist as far as Zeus is concerned, but a believer in Christ.  Christ gives my life meaning- Zeus does not.  Your example person is a believer in Compassion.  God need not be personal to make one a believer!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

I am an atheist as far as Zeus is concerned, but a believer in Christ.  Christ gives my life meaning- Zeus does not.  Your example person is a believer in Compassion.  God need not be personal to make one a believer!

Could a person say that I am a believer in Christ and agnostic to Zues. I mean I am not sure that a whole lot of us hold a negative belief in Zues. Most of us don't need to take it to that point as agnostic is a stronger position. Anyway carry on. 

[Bob Crockett]

The atheism movement is a religious belief. 

No it isn't.   That argument is a canard invented by right-wing evangelicals.  And to what end?  There are various reasons to try and label atheism as a religion, none of which seem compelling to me except to suggest that they are affiliated with Satan.  I'me not going to be an atheist if they really follow Satan, you can be sure.  The argument is little different than saying that Mormons aren't Christian.  Why can't Mormons define themselves as Christians?  

 

A true atheist would eschew any form of mysticism.   To me, religion has to be linked to some degree of mysticism.   The local VFW club is not a religion because it doesn't look to some sort of mysticism.  The Alcholics Anonymous Association is a religion of sorts.  

[Stone holm]

No it isn't.   That argument is a canard invented by right-wing evangelicals.  And to what end?  There are various reasons to try and label atheism as a religion, none of which seem compelling to me except to suggest that they are affiliated with Satan.  I'me not going to be an atheist if they really follow Satan, you can be sure.  The argument is little different than saying that Mormons aren't Christian.  Why can't Mormons define themselves as Christians?  

 

A true atheist would eschew any form of mysticism.   To me, religion has to be linked to some degree of mysticism.   The local VFW club is not a religion because it doesn't look to some sort of mysticism.  The Alcholics Anonymous Association is a religion of sorts.  

 

I agree it is usually classified as a religion in order to make claims like the banning of teacher led prayers in school, or the teaching of Darwinian theory instead of Creationism is the State establishing Atheism as a religion.  Under that logic, it is almost impossible to exert a claim that you do not ascribe to any religion because not ascribing to a religion gets classified as a religion.  But, I return to the point, that we tend to ascribe a greater importance to unbelief in the lives of most atheists than they do because belief is important to us -- so we assume that the unbelief of atheists ranks as high in their life influences as belief does in ours which is simply not correct.  It is difficult for us to accept that something which is so very important to us, is of little or no concern to others.  There is also a tendency to ascribe "evil" to atheists.  It is not surprising to me that some would eventually organize just because we spend so much time villifying them.  Many of them simply have the attitude, "Oh you believe in Christ, well that's nice...what was the score in last Red Sox game?"  Its a way of thinking that we have trouble coping with, that people actually don't seem to give a rip one way or the other about whether God exists, but tend to believe that He doesn't.  Why is that so hard for us to comprehend?  Is it because we spend so much time with fellow believers?

[pmccombs1]

The problem is that we tend to not understand what religion is all about.  The common characteristics of all religions is that 1- the principles which define its belief cannot be proven to be "true" or "False" and 2- those beliefs give us purpose and meaning in life.

 

The person you are describing had both those characteristics in spades.  He believed that it is right and proper and that one should give comfort to those in need

 

That notion cannot be proven scientifically- neither can any other ethical principle.  Yet we believe them and call them "true".  We would easily say that "Yes, I think it's true that we should give comfort to those in need", just as we say that "The church is true".  Yet neither of these can be proven in a scientific sense.

 

Furthermore the person you are describing clearly saw that giving comfort to those in need gave his life meaning, and was rewarding,or he would not have done it.

 

So here you have someone who is motivated to take action on principles which cannot be proven to be true or false in a scientific sense, AND belief in those principles gave his life meaning beyond any other set of beliefs he had yet discovered.

 

To me, that is a VERY religious man!

 

"Supernatural" for me does not enter into it.  "Supernatural" beliefs for me are those which are- just what the word says- superior to nature (as we know it)

 

When we talk about "supernatural" beliefs we are still talking about the natural realm- those things which might exist in the future as "natural" beliefs but as yet are unknown.  Television in the 14th century would be seen as "supernatural".

 

But to me it is not belief in the "supernatural" which is even a characteristic of being religious, really, because the supernatural does not give our lives meaning.   Right now Star-Trek style "transporters" are "supernatural" but believing that they are "real" doesn't give my life meaning.  "Supernatural" to me means"natural but with unknown mechanisms"

 

That's not religion in my book.  Religion is a non-falsifiable belief you base your life on, and take action on, and which motivates your every waking moment.  For me, that is why I find the person you describe to be indeed a very "religious" person.

 

If we truly understood these principles I think there would be no more discussion about "Atheists" and "Believers".  To some degree we are all atheists and all believers.

 

I am an atheist as far as Zeus is concerned, but a believer in Christ.  Christ gives my life meaning- Zeus does not.  Your example person is a believer in Compassion.  God need not be personal to make one a believer!

 

I pretty much agree with this, and I disagree with claims that atheism is a devilish "anti-religion." It is true that atheism is critical of specific things, in the same way that you might be critical of Zeus. I think it was Steven Roberts who once made a similar statement to yours: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

 

I think the delusions of the atheist (some of them, anyway) come when they think that the meanings and values they cling to are somehow justified by objective measurements. Militant atheists clearly care very much about their position and assign some value of "rightness" to it. This value position, of course, is all make-believe in a sense, and thus the irony arises that the atheist is in a way just like those whom he criticizes.

 

Eric Hoffer once said that "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."

 

So I think apathy, and not atheism, is the opposite of religion.

[Bob Crockett]

A little off-topic, but I note that sometimes Latter-day Saints join with atheists in litigation opposing prayer at schools. 

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/religioninschool/a/SantaFeDoeStudentPrayer.htm

 

It probably didn't help that public school teachers were telling the Mormon kids that they couldn't be involved in the school prayer because of their membership in a cult.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Stone holm]

I pretty much agree with this, and I disagree with claims that atheism is a devilish "anti-religion." It is true that atheism is critical of specific things, in the same way that you might be critical of Zeus. I think it was Steven Roberts who once made a similar statement to yours: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

 

I think the delusions of the atheist (some of them, anyway) come when they think that the meanings and values they cling to are somehow justified by objective measurements. Militant atheists clearly care very much about their position and assign some value of "rightness" to it. This value position, of course, is all make-believe in a sense, and thus the irony arises that the atheist is in a way just like those whom he criticizes.

 

Eric Hoffer once said that "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."

 

So I think apathy, and not atheism, is the opposite of religion.

I think you eloquently captured what I have trying to say. The militant atheists are really few, and they are usually activated by a belief that religion is screwing something else up. The Marxists weren't that hot about whether or not God existed, but rather they believed that religion was being used to distract the poor workers from advocating for a better life. Of late it has been some scientists who have been pushed beyond their tolerance level by what they see as simple ignorance adversely affecting science education or important environmental activity...for them again it's not so much they care whether someone believes in God, but rather that religion is perceived as causing bad political actions. But the vast majority really don't care if somebody else believes and they don't spend time thinking about religion, they just don't care so long as people stay out of their face about the subject. They may be inclined to dislike us and the JWs because we keep knocking on their doors to share the good news that they really are not interested in.

[thesometimesaint]

When you have THIS it is kinda hard to deny Atheism is a religion.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/atheist-mega-churches-root-us-world-20845796

[Rob Osborn]

No it isn't.   That argument is a canard invented by right-wing evangelicals.  And to what end?  There are various reasons to try and label atheism as a religion, none of which seem compelling to me except to suggest that they are affiliated with Satan.  I'me not going to be an atheist if they really follow Satan, you can be sure.  The argument is little different than saying that Mormons aren't Christian.  Why can't Mormons define themselves as Christians?  

 

A true atheist would eschew any form of mysticism.   To me, religion has to be linked to some degree of mysticism.   The local VFW club is not a religion because it doesn't look to some sort of mysticism.  The Alcholics Anonymous Association is a religion of sorts.  

Religion deals with beliefs in our existance- where we came from, whom we do or do not worship, how we decide to express ourselves in a worldview, etc. etc. To prove this I ask- This new mega-church who call themselves the  "Sunday Assembly", are they not an organized church? Yes they very much are- they congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existance. etc. They very much fit every description of "church" and as such their views and beliefs fall under "religious" and as such have certain protections by law afforded to churches who express religious beliefs. I did a search for "atheist religions" and this is just one that came up, it explains a recent court case in which the judges define atheism as a religion-

 

http://www.ecfa.org/Content/The-Federal-Government-Defends-Clergy-Housing-Exclusion-and-Argues-Atheist-Leaders-Might-Be-Ministers-Too

[Bob Crockett]

Athiests are not organized as you suggest.  "They" do not congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence.  Perhaps a few of them organize themselves into megachurches, but I'll bet that if you venture onto the RFM board and ask how many of them there are atheists, none of them will say they " congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence."  

 

I am not an athiest. I don't speak for them.  But having seen how enemies of the Mormons try an pigeonhole us as unChristian, cultists and devilworshipers, it seems to me that we should have learned a lesson by now to accept people for the beliefs they say they espouse, not beliefs we think it is politically correct to ascribe to them.

[Stone holm]

Athiests are not organized as you suggest.  "They" do not congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence.  Perhaps a few of them organize themselves into megachurches, but I'll bet that if you venture onto the RFM board and ask how many of them there are atheists, none of them will say they " congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence."  

 

I am not an athiest. I don't speak for them.  But having seen how enemies of the Mormons try an pigeonhole us as unChristian, cultists and devilworshipers, it seems to me that we should have learned a lesson by now to accept people for the beliefs they say they espouse, not beliefs we think it is politically correct to ascribe to them.

Agree.

[Rob Osborn]

Athiests are not organized as you suggest.  "They" do not congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence.  Perhaps a few of them organize themselves into megachurches, but I'll bet that if you venture onto the RFM board and ask how many of them there are atheists, none of them will say they " congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence."  

 

I am not an athiest. I don't speak for them.  But having seen how enemies of the Mormons try an pigeonhole us as unChristian, cultists and devilworshipers, it seems to me that we should have learned a lesson by now to accept people for the beliefs they say they espouse, not beliefs we think it is politically correct to ascribe to them.

The point at hand is if "atheism is or can be a religious view". Yes it very much can be a religious view as we see is directly espoused by the Sunday Assembly church. The problem in defining religion in our language is that for a very long time religion has been coupled with a belief in God or the supernatural as some define it. In truth though, the word religion by itself requires no such coupling as there are groups or churches such as the atheist one we are debating here, who have a distinct belief that there is no god. It is true that not all atheists are religious (meet at churches etc) just as it is also true that not all theists are religious. The word "atheism" by itself to designate a persons position is not itself a religion just as the word "theism" by itself is not a religion. But when one allows himself to agree upon one of these paradigms, however simple or complex it may be, it is an expression of religious beliefs regardless of if they belong to any organized religion. It is the nature of it that counts. That is how we define terms in context in society. A church that assembles and expresses a belief in no gods is an expression of their religious beliefs.

 

If atheist churches do not want to be termed religious in their "nature" then they shouldny meet as a group to support a common belief regarding the existance of deity.

[thesometimesaint]

Athiests are not organized as you suggest.  "They" do not congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence.  Perhaps a few of them organize themselves into megachurches, but I'll bet that if you venture onto the RFM board and ask how many of them there are atheists, none of them will say they " congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence."  

 

I am not an athiest. I don't speak for them.  But having seen how enemies of the Mormons try an pigeonhole us as unChristian, cultists and devilworshipers, it seems to me that we should have learned a lesson by now to accept people for the beliefs they say they espouse, not beliefs we think it is politically correct to ascribe to them.

 

That doesn't conform to the article or logic.

 

There are some 40,000 different Christian religions in the US alone. They are all Christians, even it they have differing specific beliefs about Christ. The same can be said of Atheists. They do congregate, sing songs, ask for donations, have a common belief of their existence as per the article.

 

Whatever the names they call Mormons, and they are often wrong, there is no denying we are a religion.

[california boy]

Of course atheism is a religion, it is the religion of unbelief. The religion of the communist state. The true religion of Satan, one that discounts God and denies the Holy Ghost, one that mocks all that is sacred and holy, that reduces man to a mere animal that evolved by chance and tries to prove itself claiming "reason" as it's foundation. It is the concept that man is the "measure of all things" and it tries to prevade all of society. It is a philosophy that likes to sit in judgement of all other beliefs as an Anti-Religion, an Anti-belief. It sits in judgement blaming all the ills of mankind, war, hatred, vice, ignorance on religion (believers in a god or gods) and I believe it is a pathetic view that deludes itself of it's own supposed superiority and is really inspired of Lucifer from the very beginning in his own words: "believe it not!" There is nothing in my estimation of value in it's ideals or concepts. That is why I usually chose to not have dialogue with those who aspire to this "unbelief" dogma.

 

I have to say, I have a real problem with the kinds of labels you so willingly put on people who do not believe as you do.  Being an atheist does not link you to Satan and communism.  There are plenty of atheists who live lives full of charity and compassion.  Being Mormon, or Christian or any other religion is not what is going to save you.  It is how you live your life no matter what your belief or even lack of belief.  There are plenty of reasons why a person might not want any part of Christianity and their version of who God is.  You have even named a few of them.  I would say there are as many different types of atheists as there are Christians.  Trying to pigeon hole them all to be some kind of monolithic group is silly.

 

The Mormon church is established on earth to help lead people back to God.  But membership in that church does nothing to ensure exaltation.  It is how you treat others that is the determining judgement of God.  Your cries of following Lucifer sound just as hollow as when Evangelist say the same thing about Mormons.

[Analytics]

Nope.

Lacking a belief in God is not the same as actively believing that he "doesn't exist".

 

They know very specifically what characteristics of God they deny "exist".  For example, if one defines "God" to be "the force of nature", or "human compassion" or "the ideal Human" few atheists would contend that such concepts don't "exist"....

 

.... One cannot falsify that a "God" with certain definable characteristics does NOT exist any more than one can prove that he DOES exist.

 

 

 

If you were to ask a self-described atheist what he means by "atheist", he'll likely say something like, "Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." (quoted from http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism)

 

That is how the vast majority of self-described atheists use the term, and goes back to its intrinsic meaning: "theism" comes from Greek meaning "belief in god."  The prefix "a" means "without" in greek, so atheism literally means "without belief in god."

 

This lack of belief doesn't take any religious faith. It's simply the default position one should take on anything until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. 

 

You might think what I'm describing isn't atheism, but rather is agnosticism.  Self-described atheists think that agnosticism is something else--that agnosticism is the positive believe that things are unknowable.

 

Regarding your last point, it depends on the evidence, plausibility, and sensibility of the "God" in question.  For example, if Michael Jordan is God, one can conclusively prove that God does in fact exist.  On the other hand, if God is a square circle, one can  conclusively prove that God does not exist. 

Edited November 13, 2013 by Analytics

[Analytics]

Paraphrasing Bill Maher, if atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position.

[mfbukowski]

Could a person say that I am a believer in Christ and agnostic to Zues. I mean I am not sure that a whole lot of us hold a negative belief in Zues. Most of us don't need to take it to that point as agnostic is a stronger position. Anyway carry on. 

All "agnostic" means is "no knowledge".

 

That makes me "agnostic" about almost everything! 

[Rob Osborn]

A quick test- which of the following would be a religious question

1. Do you believe in black holes?

2. How old is the universe?

3. Do you believe in God?

4. Is nature beautiful?

5. Do you believe in magic?

[mfbukowski]

This lack of belief doesn't take any religious faith. It's simply the default position one should take on anything until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. 

And what is this odd non-falsifiable belief of yours based on?  And what counts as "evidence"?  Whatever does that even mean?

 

And what is your evidence that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

 

Perhaps you don't believe it IS wrong?  After all, there is no evidence for that belief.

[mfbukowski]

Paraphrasing Bill Maher, if atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position.

It certain IS a "position" on sexuality.

 

What a genius Bill Maher is!  The man is definitely someone to emulate in every way!  Kind, generous, loving, all of the best human virtues in one unbelievable package!