Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

I posted an article about the bus signs paid for by atheists that are making the rounds in Canada. I made it clear that I thought the signs were hilarious and I have no problem with them being run -- after all, religious groups are allowed to advertise on buses and have been for quite some time -- the Knights of Columbus comes to mind.

Then I read this article, which I thought was great because by my reading he isn't saying they shouldn't be allowed to put up the signs but rather he engages them in debate. His assertion that atheism is a religion fascinated me and I wanted to see what you all have to say. Here be the link.

 

I don't know if it qualifies as a religion, but it certainly qualifies as a belief system. In this case, it is the non-belief in any type of god. I guess it all comes down to how you define religion - I don't think there's any set it stone definition of it. If you define religion as a belief system concerning the existence or non-existence of a god, then yes, it's a religion. But I'm a bad person to ask - perhaps you should get the opinion of some atheists - I think there's a few on BoM.

 

Is bald a hair color?

And spreading atheism has one simple reason: Followers of religion are often intolerant and even violent because of their religion. They try to force their opinions, their morals, their views on people who don't welcome being told what they should do. And religious people counter by listing how many people atheists have killed - because they have killed due to their utter lack of faith in something.

A lot of people have been killed by theists. A lot of people have been killed by atheists. A lot of people have been killed for a religion. How many have been killed for atheism?

And no, Foppish Idiot, Atheism in it's most hardcore form isn't a belief system either.

Atheism isn't belief in there being no god. Atheism is the strongly held conviction that theists are stupid for believing in something without proof.

EDIT: Or in short: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and if that evidence isn't provided it's a reasonable assumption the person claiming it is just deluded.

 

Sigh......

Einstein was an Agnostic -see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views

That piece is truly...... well I dont know how to put it. As an athiest it makes me shake my head. It disappoints me that people think the way this guy does.

No, athiesm isnt a religion, its precisely the opposite of a religion. Athiesm means not having to follow any particular creed or philosophy defined by someone else. Religion is a means of control - all people of a certain religion are told to conform, to obey, to not ask questions. Athiests are told nothing, they arent even told whether to not ask questions or not, because thats not the point of athiesm. The point of athiesm is believing A) there are no gods at all, B) because of A), all religions are false and thus not worth defining yourself by, or following.

Athiesm frees me - it means I dont have to listen to someone telling me how evil and imperfect I am. It means I dont have to attempt to reconcile all of the logical problems with religion. It means I dont need to fear anything, or anyone. I dont need to fear that god will strike me down for doing something stupid. Or that I will spend eternity in Hell. In fact, it makes me realize that I only have one life, and at the end of the day I'm only answerable to the people I touch in my life. If I do something bad, I have to make it up to them. I'm quite happy to return to nothing when I die.

Is life hopeless for me? No, I have faith in myself, and in humanity, and thats all I need. I believe in having faith, but I believe in having faith in people, including myself, and not in having faith that Someone Up There will make things right for me. I believe in personal responsibility, and that includes taking responsibility for my faults, instead of saying "The Devil made me do it", and also choosing my own way.

Am I immoral because I'm an athiest? No, I dont see it that way. I dont steal or kill, I'm honest, I dont ever cheat people, I'm polite and good to my friends. My lack of religion in no way means I'm a cold hearted killer who does anything because he doesnt believe god will punish him for it (in fact, I find that connotation particularly offensive). Also, regarding that, if I was God, I would think better of someone who was good because he was truly good, than someone who was only good out of fear of punishment.

Athiests like me dont like religion because of stories like the one from last year - in which it was found that an eccentric christian cult was grooming young teenage girls to marry much older men, and to practically be sex slaves to them. Then theres the Spanish Inquisition, the current war(s) in the Middle East, the Crusades...... Oh and how much has scientific progress been hindered because of religion (see: evolution in US schools, Galileo, etc)

I know someone will bring up both Adolf Hitler and Stalin, which brings me to my next point. The central problem with all of these examples is in fact control. A group of people wield a large amount of control over a bigger group of people, most often through indoctrination (Adolf Hitler definitely falls into this category).

So, as an athiest, I not only oppose the idea that there is a god, I also oppose the idea that we must all adhere to one particular idea, to worship one man or one god. Because we've all seen where that leads.

 

No, it isn't. It is a rejection of a certain belief system. It does not offer anything to replace it.

 

In my opinion, from the very point on, when you ask yourself questions like
Where is this (anything being) from and why,
and you answer or better you try to answer that question:
From that point you believe in something, and if you believe in something
you are religious, if only your own made up religion.
Even science can't explain all, so one have to believe certain aspects it tries to explain.
Believing in nothing but science, is a kind of religion, too, imho.
I can't imagine that an atheist is not believing in anything.
Well, at least, I don't know anyone.
Of course, it all depends on the definition of religion.

 

Of course it isn't a religion. The people who argue its a religion either:

1) Twist the definition of a religion beyond its scope, to include essentially any worldview whatsoever.

2) Don't understand what atheism is.

Or sometimes they do both!

Intelligent religionists don't consider atheism a religion. The only people who consider atheism a religion are fundamentalists, and people who have been lied to by the charlatans leading the intelligent design movement.

 

Atheism is the rejection of religion. IMO, some atheists feel as strongly in the beleifs they hold, as some very religious people. But that can be applied to any system that has its proponents and opponents. But, IMO, it is not a religion.

 

I agree, it's a hilarious article. Wait, that wasn't what you said? Still, saying:

... and then going on saying:

I.e. generalising and making assumptions about what a group of people thinks, does nothing to convince me of his point.

Following the definition of atheism, I don't consider myself an atheist. Rather than denying the existance of any god, I oppose the idea of religion. The things that have been done in the past, and are even today still being done, in the name of a god, made me realise from an early age already that religion is a Bad Thing. Granted, in lieu of religion, people would no doubt have found a different excuse to wage war or commit atrocities, but looking back, you can't deny that religion has a bad track record in these areas.

If you turn on the TV and switch to some religiously oriented program, you'll no doubt find many people proclaiming that their faith in some god has saved them from whatever bad thing was happening to them, in fact we even have people here on the BoM that claim the same thing, but to me this is a form of fooling yourself.

No matter what the reason, you still have to work yourself if you want to change your situation. If you say that your belief in god gave you the strength to pull through, that is a valid reason to me, but some guy claiming that the pebble in his backyard made him change his ways is just as good a reason to me. Therefore, I believe in myself. No matter what, you will accomplish nothing if you do nothing. Praying to god won't help if you don't act upon what you're praying for.

This may sound very individualistic, but for me it doesn't work like that in daily life. It just means that I try to solve my problems myself instead of relying on some greater power to help me with it.

 

This, to me, is the best few paragraphs ever written on the subject:

To me, the Atheism that some claim to have, is indeed a religion. A belief backed up by no grounded argument. I've known some who claim to be atheists who were more preachy with less logical arguments than many Christians I've known. When you start believing/knowing their is no god, just because that's the social norm (or what ever), without giving it proper thought, then what you have is a belief. However, the majority of time these sorts of people will claim to be Agnostic, so...

 

They are being fooled by people who are asking for their money. It's a great sales pitch: "Send me your money and God will pay you back 10 times over." Those guys make so much money with that pitch, it's just unbelievable. And then there are all the theatrics to go along with the pitch; all that pacing around and stomping and yelling. And then they fire people up by putting down "gays," and abortion, socialists and liberals; the IRS, and the government. They get them all cheering and holding up their hands. It's just a great gig for aquiring wealth - if you don't have any principles.

 

Oh, I understand that a lot of people won't agree with his points. I too found it somewhat shrill and highly hilarious. I just liked the fact that at no point in his article did he say anything like

"The signs are blasphemy! All those who were involved in their creation should be killed immediately!"

Or any such nonsense. He just stated that he didn't agree with them and went on to explain why. So much more civilized than some of the stuff that goes on in other places. Or even other people on this issue. I mean, I haven't heard of any death threats, but there have been some yo-yos who have said that the signs should be disallowed. I firmly believe in God, but freaking out about the signs is a colossally stupid move. Engaging them isn't.

 

That is the simplest definition of atheism, I think. I would classify myself an atheist because I do not believe. But atheism in and of itself does not offer an alternative - being an atheist does not mean you have to believe in the scientific approach to everything, or anything like that. It simply means 'the lack of theism.'

 

As others have said, it depends on how you define 'religion'. If a 'religion' is any set of beliefs concerning gods, the supernatural, etc., then the belief that they don't exist is one. If you define religion as something more structured, then it isn't. There is no Church of Atheism, that I know of at least.

Some of the things atheists have said in this thread have been as stupid as anything in the subject article.

Taza:

Then atheism is actually a subset of agnosticism. If you believe this, then you must believe that everyone who believes there is no God without proof are equally stupid. I don't think that's what you mean.

Proteus:

I can say the same about atheism and it would probably be true about the same percentage of atheists. I don't know if you've been there when I pointed this out before, but the Bible actually encourages people to question it's statements and make sure they're consistent with both itself and the world.

 

EEEDIIIIT: Whole post was far less clear than I wanted.

Someone believing in something there's no proof for - stupid.
Someone believing in the absence of something there's no proof for - fails scientific rigor, but not stupid per se.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - when it comes to science. But it does make sense to assume that out of convenience. Dragon in my garage, Russel's Teapot, etcetera.

And Agnosticism is just Atheism for people who don't want to think about it.

Edit the fourth, the latest in a grand saga of edits: Also, I am an atheist. Can I say there's no god with scientific proof and accuracy? No. Can I say that religions are bad for mankind overall? Yes. I don't believe in any god or divine force, but neither do I claim to have all the answers nor to speak for every atheist there. All gays, all atheists, all Arabs - they're not an united group with a hive mind, whatever the some groups may think. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes, and they have exactly one common factor - that they don't believe in a god or a divine force, and don't see any reason why they should - with what lack of proof and everything.

Edit 5: Any atheist who says he has proof there is no divine force or god is stupid as well. Now, the Christian God as described in the bible? Better shot there. The more properties you assign to a "divine force", the easier it is to find contradictions.

 

I agree that it isn't stupid, but I have a problem with the certainty so many Atheists display. God is neither testable or provable. This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. To my mind, the person who argues that there is absolutely no God on the basis of the fact that there is no evidence of God's existence is only slightly less* delusional than the evangelical Christian arguing that the existence of God is absolute.

* Slightly less, because the Atheist merely argues that there is no God. The evangelical not only claims God's existence to be absolute, but goes on to specify in great detail the nature of that God. Were the evangelical merely arguing that the existence of God were absolute (leaving the rest of the argument out of it), I would view both parties as equally delusional.

 

Absence of evidence where evidence ought to exist is evidence of absence.

 

Sure, but who says that evidence of God ought to exist? I certainly see no reason for it. What if God merely doesn't care what the plebian masses think? Such a God would be unlikely to see a reason to affirm its existence for the rest of us.

 

I have a problem with the certainty many individuals display in regards to leprechauns. Leprechauns can't be proven not to exist, so by rights we should follow every rainbow hoping to score a free pot of gold.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 13 seconds later... ----------

I find it difficult to believe that an all powerful, all present deity could exist for millenia without once being detected. He may make some sort of conscious effort to conceal himself, but then we're just making ad hoc rationalisations to justify absence of evidence.

The fact of the matter is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If such evidence is lacking, then it is reasonable to remain skeptical of the claim. Assuming non-existence of a deity is the default position, a position which can only be changed via extraordinary evidence.

 

I like Pascal's gambit... betting that there is a God is the way to go