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

[photon]

Originally Posted by skins

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

edit: see Mike F's response below

No, agnosticism is a position on knowledge, athesim is a position on belief.

Some atheists say there is definitely no god, most would not. Not even Dawkins would commit to definitely on all definitions of God in The God Delusion.

[old-fart]

Put me down in the Agnostic Atheist bucket. Lack of proof is not proof, but there are certain inferences that make believing in a God pretty difficult.

[Cheese]

Count me in the Gnostic Camp of atheists.....

"There is no God".
Here have some cheese....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I suppose a religion requires a deity and belief system to be a religion, so yes Makarov you are correct.

Relgion doesn't require a deity, although the most common ones do seem to lean that way.

[Daradon]

Well, is there not a difference between a philosophy and a religion? Using the Buddhist example again I always thought of it more as a philosophy (especially certain versions of it).

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

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.

It's a wide definition, and what one sub-group say doesn't mean the whole definition changes.

People that lack belief are often called weak atheists, whereas people that believe god does not exist are often called strong atheists.

But they're both atheists, because they both answer no to the question "do you believe".

In my experience I know far more weak atheists than strong ones (depending on the definition of god in question).

Most atheists I know (including most on this board) would likely agree that given sufficient evidence they could be convinced that there was a god, so they're not strong atheists in that they aren't completely confident there is no god, they still allow for some uncertainty and could be convinced given evidence.

Originally Posted by Mike F

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.

Well atheism isn't a belief system, it's the absence of belief. Atheists do have belief systems (all different kinds), and I'm sure some of them are faith based.

But just because something likes beyond understanding at this time doesn't necessarily mean one has to take up a faith based belief system, one can simply acknowledge that something simply isn't known. Religious people often do pick up that faith based belief, that's the whole god of the gaps fallacy.

When Newton's theory of gravity could not explain Mercury's orbit, people didn't suddenly jump to a faith based belief system of gravity; they simply waited until someone could explain it (Einstein).

Originally Posted by Mike F

Things like Brane theory, the holographic universe theory, and the possibility that we exist in a bubble universe

Keep in mind that those things aren't theories, not in the scientific sense. A better word in a scientific sense would be hypothesis, or even speculation.

A theory in science is robust, well supported by evidence, makes predictions that have been confirmed, etc. None of those things come close to being a scientific theory yet.

Originally Posted by Mike F

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.

Exactly, so you are a weak atheist. You don't believe in a god, but you would be open to the concept with more evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...sitive_atheism

Originally Posted by Mike F

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.

I disagree that most atheists would put themselves in the active belief that there is no god for all definitions of god, even Dawkins doesn't. As you say they'd have a stronger opinion with respect to a specific God, but that's because the more specific, the more claims there are by which to evaluate.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Count me in the Gnostic Camp of atheists.....

Shocking!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well, is there not a difference between a philosophy and a religion? Using the Buddhist example again I always thought of it more as a philosophy (especially certain versions of it).

Good question, I saw this when looking for something but I haven't read it yet:

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbu...philosophy.htm

[GGG]

When people say Atheism is a religion I think they are refering to people essentially evangelizing (not the right word as that implies faith) their position with the same zeal that the evangelical movement in the states does.

So this is a group of Athiests that behave much like some religious groups. That does not make them a religion though.

I would think though that athiesm is protected under the charter as the same way the Freedom of Speech does not mean you have to speak, remaining silent is a way to exercise that right, than choosing not to believe is exercising that freedom as well.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well, is there not a difference between a philosophy and a religion? Using the Buddhist example again I always thought of it more as a philosophy (especially certain versions of it).

Considering that Buddhism does have some supernatural elements (ie. the belief that dead ancestors can affect your life), I would say it falls into religion, albeit non-theist.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

When people say Atheism is a religion I think they are refering to people essentially evangelizing (not the right word as that implies faith) their position with the same zeal that the evangelical movement in the states does.

That's probably part of it. Though if that were valid, that would mean Flames fans are religious because they advocate the superiority of their chosen team, or Liberals are religious because they advocate the superiority of their political beliefs.

And I think it's a bit of a foolish view as well, since often in forums like this atheists get accused of evangelizing, when really they're just engaging in a discussion freely entered into by all parties.. that's not evangelizing, that's just discussing the merits or flaws of a given idea.

If someone tries to convince me of something in a discussion forum where I'm engaging them, I don't see that as evangelizing at all.

Or some criticize atheists for defending their conclusions with zeal, but that same zeal is found in any group (Flames fans, political parties, cat owners, car enthusiasts).

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Considering that Buddhism does have some supernatural elements (ie. the belief that dead ancestors can affect your life), I would say it falls into religion, albeit non-theist.

True. But how about Confucianism? Here exists a religion, as defined by modern society (and ancient ones as well) as a religion, that believes conversation about supernatural things is irrelevant.

The definition of religion becomes more than just theism vs. anti-theism. It is far more complex and subtle than that. In fact, there are religions that fit in each and every one of the boxes listed above in the Gnosticism/Agnosticism, Theism/Atheism. Modern, western Atheism fits in with this complex situation better than most of it's adherents would believe.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by 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."

I am curious. Could you give me a couple of those definitions of religion that would include Atheism?

[HPLovecraft]

Before you can define atheism and lump it in with religion, you need to define religion itself, since atheism is merely a response to it.

Daniel C. Dennett's definition of religion, which I tend to ascribe to, for simplicity's sake:

A social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.

He goes on to say that this is a starting place, and not carved in stone, and that any "religion" that goes beyond this has evolved beyond the point of being called a religion. Buddhism, for instance, would not fall into the category of religion. Not because Buddhists don't believe in a God (many do), but because a supernatural agent whose approval is to be sought is irrelevant in the context of the teachings of Buddhism itself.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

That's probably part of it. Though if that were valid, that would mean Flames fans are religious because they advocate the superiority of their chosen team, or Liberals are religious because they advocate the superiority of their political beliefs.

And I think it's a bit of a foolish view as well, since often in forums like this atheists get accused of evangelizing, when really they're just engaging in a discussion freely entered into by all parties.. that's not evangelizing, that's just discussing the merits or flaws of a given idea.

If someone tries to convince me of something in a discussion forum where I'm engaging them, I don't see that as evangelizing at all.

Or some criticize atheists for defending their conclusions with zeal, but that same zeal is found in any group (Flames fans, political parties, cat owners, car enthusiasts).

I would agree with that but I think there is a line between engagement and evangilizing in anything. I dont think it is defined but i think you can tell when someone is engaging you in a friendly discussion or trying to convert you.

Continuing the hockey example i will tell a canucks fan their team sucks for x reasons but i wont try to convince them to chear for the flames.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Um, it should count as one. Practitioners sure treat it like one.

How so, exactly? I suppose I'd be called a "practitioner" of this "religion".

I don't do anything, as a "practitioner", beyond gabbing about it on a hockey message board under a fake name with a bunch of strangers. That's it.

It almost seems like an insult to religious people to call this my "religion". I would imagine they actually do something about their religion. Believe something, attend something, do something, talk about it, expect something, pray to someone, spread the word... whatever.

I just don't believe, and occasionally I talk about it on the internet. There's more to being religious (or a religion) than that I'm sure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It almost seems like an insult to religious people to call this my "religion". I would imagine they actually do something about their religion. Believe something, attend something, do something, talk about it, expect something, pray to someone, spread the word... whatever.

I just don't believe, and occasionally I talk about it on the internet. There's more to being religious (or a religion) than that I'm sure.

Well thats more than a lot of "religious" people do. I mean there is a large portion of people who would check a religous box on the census but the extent of their practice is to go to church on christmas and easter. So the amount you practice should not be a differentiator.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would agree with that but I think there is a line between engagement and evangilizing in anything. I dont think it is defined but i think you can tell when someone is engaging you in a friendly discussion or trying to convert you.

Continuing the hockey example i will tell a canucks fan their team sucks for x reasons but i wont try to convince them to chear for the flames.

True, though even given that, if I'm trying hard to convince someone of my position on a forum discussion, I still don't really count that as evangelizing, just advocating, because the discussion is still entered into voluntarily, evangelizing to me is trying to enter the discussion in a situation where the other party isn't entering voluntarily.. knocking on doors, standing on a street corner with a megaphone, mailing literature, etc.

And I don't think evangelizing is necessarily bad either, society is a marketplace of ideas and ideas have to be communicated to reach new people, the Canadian in me just has a pathological need to not be offensive.

[Gozer]

I consider myself an anti-theist and disagree with labelling it a religion.

"I'm pretty sure those guys are lying or wrong about knowing God's will" doesn't fit any concept of religion as I perceive it.

[Hack&Lube]

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?

It's because superstition is embedded in our genetic code as both the practice of repeating routines and behaviors and the practice of erring toward the side of fear and caution were survival traits passed down from our evolutionary ancestors.

The hunter that made sure his spear was sharp every morning was more assured of bringing home food. The caveman who got up to check when he heard a strange noise was more likely to survive being attacked than the one that went back to bed.

Therefore hockey players have their routines about what they eat, how they tape their sticks, which posts to tap first, etc. That's why people would rather not say shutout than say it just in case.