Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Question for those who call themselves atheists:

When a goaltender has yet to allow a goal in a hockey game, do you freely and without worry say the word "shutout"?

If you won't say "shutout", is it because of the Hockey Gods?

If you fear saying "shutout" because of the Hockey Gods, are you really an atheist?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

For example, Buddhists in many of their forms, also do not believe in one or more gods. Yet they are Buddhists, not Atheists. Most Atheists and Buddhists would bristle at the idea that they are the same, or even similar. They are not. Therefore your statement is false, even if as one of the major tenants of Atheism you are required to defend it vigorously.


But I know you disagree. It's part of your belief system. And I know that many of you will be offended by this as well, because that is a part of your belief system too. But if it is part of your belief system, then those beliefs are protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't understand why you wouldn't want that.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I would note that there is a difference between a belief system and a religion. Indeed, I would argue that religion is a type of belief system.

Also, I'm not sure what you think you said that might be offensive, but rest assured that you haven't said anything to offend me.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

Anyway, I think part of it was Buddhists don't have a deity but are a religion.

I don't know enough about Buddhism to comment on what they believe or don't believe, but I'll accept they don't believe in god/s so that makes them atheists by the definition of the word. They may be a lot of other things as well, being an atheist and being a member of a religion are not mutually exclusive; I know Christians who are atheists.

And Buddhism is more than the lack of something, there are a common set of beliefs and such for a Buddhist.

Atheism has nothing like that, there are no tenants, no shared beliefs, no sacred texts, no common history, nothing that would be required to define it as a religion.

EDIT: If it is, where do I read to get the central tenants for atheism?

There may not be a codified set of beliefs, but that set of shared beliefs is there. The Internet is helping to codify this belief set for you, making that system of belief more and more defined. Your "faith" is in it's infancy, but it is there, and all those things you claimed as being missing are there.

To start, the central tenants of Atheism can be found in many youtube videos - some of which are likely to pop up in this thread. Christopher Hitchens, in all his angry glory, has done more to codify what it means to be an Atheist than anyone else, ironically lending many (anti?)religious texts to the new cause. The writings and videos of Richard Dawkins is another source for what could be considered Atheist gospels.

Wikipedia calls these people New Atheists. One thing is clear to me and to others as well - these people are not acting the same way that old fashioned "atheists" act. They act in ways that are much more akin to a faith based community than to a lack of faith.

[Lionel Steel]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Question for those who call themselves atheists:

When a goaltender has yet to allow a goal in a hockey game, do you freely and without worry say the word "shutout"?

If you won't say "shutout", is it because of the Hockey Gods?

If you fear saying "shutout" because of the Hockey Gods, are you really an atheist?

I became a hockey atheist when Matt Cooke won a Stanley Cup

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by Knalus

There may not be a codified set of beliefs, but that set of shared beliefs is there. The Internet is helping to codify this belief set for you, making that system of belief more and more defined. Your "faith" is in it's infancy, but it is there, and all those things you claimed as being missing are there.

To start, the central tenants of Atheism can be found in many youtube videos - some of which are likely to pop up in this thread. Christopher Hitchens, in all his angry glory, has done more to codify what it means to be an Atheist than anyone else, ironically lending many (anti?)religious texts to the new cause. The writings and videos of Richard Dawkins is another source for what could be considered Atheist gospels.

Wikipedia calls these people New Atheists. One thing is clear to me and to others as well - these people are not acting the same way that old fashioned "atheists" act. They act in ways that are much more akin to a faith based community than to a lack of faith.

I think this what it's all about. Theists are concerned that atheists are becoming more prominent and starting push back where theists and organized religion tries to bully them around to get their way.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

I think this what it's all about. Theists are concerned that atheists are becoming more prominent and starting push back where theists and organized religion tries to bully them around to get their way.

Alternatively, if no God/religion can be talked about in the public eye, then isn't Atheism the only belief structure present?

Isn't it the height of vanity to assume that your belief structure should be the only one allowed?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know why the religious keep equating atheism with religion. It's not true, and it cheapens the concept of faith.

This a million times yes.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

There may not be a codified set of beliefs, but that set of shared beliefs is there. The Internet is helping to codify this belief set for you, making that system of belief more and more defined. Your "faith" is in it's infancy, but it is there, and all those things you claimed as being missing are there.

Examples of these codified beliefs?

Originally Posted by Knalus

To start, the central tenants of Atheism can be found in many youtube videos - some of which are likely to pop up in this thread. Christopher Hitchens, in all his angry glory, has done more to codify what it means to be an Atheist than anyone else, ironically lending many (anti?)religious texts to the new cause. The writings and videos of Richard Dawkins is another source for what could be considered Atheist gospels.

This is incorrect. The works of Richard Dawkins are assigned no special status or infallibility because they are the work of Richard Dawkins. Indeed, I would be surprised if there was any reader (with at least modicum of cognitive activity) that doesn't disagree or question at least some aspect of Dawkins' works (either as a geneticist or as an atheist.)

Originally Posted by Knalus

Wikipedia calls these people New Atheists. One thing is clear to me and to others as well - these people are not acting the same way that old fashioned "atheists" act. They act in ways that are much more akin to a faith based community than to a lack of faith.

How so?

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Alternatively, if no God/religion can be talked about in the public eye, then isn't Atheism the only belief structure present?

Isn't it the height of vanity to assume that your belief structure should be the only one allowed?

So my lack of belief in fictional gods in the sky has now become a belief structure in itself? Fascinating.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't know why the religious keep equating atheism with religion. It's not true, and it cheapens the concept of faith.

I believe it's one of two reasons, a person might fall into two camps:

1. Because of their faith it's the only way they understand the world (through that paradigm of believing in something)

2. Or maybe they can understand the difference, but they argue it that way because it makes a more convenient argument when they are trying to preach or combat atheism.

I've seen examples of both.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Alternatively, if no God/religion can be talked about in the public eye, then isn't Atheism the only belief structure present?

Isn't it the height of vanity to assume that your belief structure should be the only one allowed?

No one has ever proposed that God or religion cannot be discussed in public.

However, our laws state that God or religion cannot be promoted by the government. This does not mean that all government-hosted roast beef dinners must open with a government official proclaiming to the entire room that there is no God.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No one has ever proposed that God or religion cannot be discussed in public.

However, our laws state that God or religion cannot be promoted by the government. This does not mean that all government-hosted roast beef dinners must open with a government official proclaiming to the entire room that there is no God.

Fair enough, and that's an excellent distinction on a fairly fine point.

There's a significant difference between not having any particular set of beliefs and actively "proselytizing" that there is no God. Christopher Hitchens may not have had a religion but he certainly had a belief structure that he was passionate about.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Makarov

No one has ever proposed that God or religion cannot be discussed in public.

Interestingly, I found this poll, where 29% of respondants indicated they believe relgion should be banned from all public places: http://www.helium.com/debates/118888...-public-places

[skins]

Originally Posted by photon

You don't even have to believe that there is no God, you can simple not actively believe there is (i.e. say I don't believe because there's insufficient evidence) and you're still an atheist.

Isn't that Agnostic? Athiests would say there is definitely no god.

edit: see Mike F's response below

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

Atheism has no belief structure, it's the lack of belief of something.

Q: Do you believe in one more more gods?

If the answer to that question is no, then you are an atheist. That's it.

That's not entirely fair, IMO, or at least, in my experience, not really an accurate representation of what many / most people who identify themselves as "Atheists" mean.

In my experience, when a person says "I'm an Atheist" they mean that they hold an active belief that there is no God / deity / supernatural being in the universe. To the extent that accurately describes a person's beliefs, they're holding an ultimately faith based belief system. Anyone who has read much on quantum physics and theoretical cosmology knows that the fundamental underlying reality of the universe remains outside our understanding at this time, and certainly outside our common logic and intuition.

Things like Brane theory, the holographic universe theory, and the possibility that we exist in a bubble universe have led me to conclude that, while I believe there is sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of the Gods of the bible, I can't say there is sufficient evidence to conclusively determine that there isn't room in the extended universe for something that would justly be described as a deity. I don't believe in it, but I don't disbelieve it.

IMO, the better description of this belief system is Agnosticism, allowing those with a belief that "the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable". This allows for a clear distinction from the active belief that there is no god, which, as I said, really is what many / most people who describe themselves as Atheists believe.

[old-fart]

Atheism is a religion like abstinance is a sexual position.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Interestingly, I found this poll, where 29% of respondants indicated they believe relgion should be banned from all public places: http://www.helium.com/debates/118888...-public-places

Its not really clear to me what "banned from all public places" means in the context of that poll. In any event, neither the Charter or any provincial Human Rights Codes prohibits discussion of religion in public. That would obviously be a serious infringement of human rights on its own.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

This is one of the major tenants of modern Atheism. But it doesn't make someone Atheist. Small-A atheism may have meant that at one time, but Atheism now is more than just that.

Where are the tenants for "Modern Atheism"?

Originally Posted by Knalus

For example, Buddhists in many of their forms, also do not believe in one or more gods. Yet they are Buddhists, not Atheists.

They lack belief in god/s, they are, by definition, atheists. Though I think I've heard some use the word non-theist rather than atheist because the whole question of god/s is irrelevant to Buddhism.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Most Atheists and Buddhists would bristle at the idea that they are the same, or even similar. They are not. Therefore your statement is false, even if as one of the major tenants of Atheism you are required to defend it vigorously.

I don't bristle at the idea that two groups of people that are very different can happen to share a common lack of belief.

Conservatives and Liberals both lack belief in Santa, but I don't think either will bristle that they share a common lack of belief.

Athesism and Buddhism share one common thing, but that's not saying they're the same or similar.

And again, where's this tenant and where am I required to do anything? What happens if I don't defend this tenant?

Originally Posted by Knalus

But I know you disagree. It's part of your belief system.

It's part of your belief system to say atheism is a religion despite it not being one, I know you disagree, it's part of your belief system.

(Hint, atheism isn't a belief system. Secular Humanism is a belief system.)

Originally Posted by Knalus

And I know that many of you will be offended by this as well, because that is a part of your belief system too.

Telling other people what their belief system is doesn't do much other than setup a convenient straw man to argue against.

Originally Posted by Knalus

But if it is part of your belief system, then those beliefs are protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't understand why you wouldn't want that.

What do you mean you don't understand why I wouldn't want that?

I want my beliefs protected by the charter therefore Atheism is a religion? That's fallacious reasoning (appeal to consequences).

[Rathji]

I think the answer to this question depends on how you define religion. There are literally hundreds of definitions that scholars of the subject accept.

Just because there is no 'god' of atheism, and no 'bible' of atheism, does not mean that it does not meet many of the criteria that most scholars of religion (note: I did not say religious scholars) would use to define a religion. I think it becomes even more clear, as Knalus mentioned, when if you consider New Atheism as the definition of Atheism.

If this trend continues, then I have no doubt that in 20-40 years, you will see a "culture of Atheism" develop that will mirror many things that current religions do.

In the immortal words of Pythia, "All this has happened before. All this will happen again."

[photon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Question for those who call themselves atheists:

When a goaltender has yet to allow a goal in a hockey game, do you freely and without worry say the word "shutout"?

If you won't say "shutout", is it because of the Hockey Gods?

If you fear saying "shutout" because of the Hockey Gods, are you really an atheist?

I think all superstition is silly, and when the forum gets irate at a poster for saying shutout in a thread I roll my eyes, because an equally pointed question the other way (do you honestly believe that what you say has any outcome on the game) will result in a no most of the time.

But I also appreciate that we're social animals and people saying shutout can be anti-social behaviour (if it's done to be intentionally disruptive), so if I'm with a group I won't say shutout for their benefit.