Atheism is just another religion

[Jumi]

I would have no problem with it. The only problem is that atheists would have to claim atheism IS a religion in order to get those tax exemptions.

It probably wouldn't be a problem for organizations to do it, even if they didn't think they were religious just like the JWs do in my country. You know it would probably mean rise of many atheist organizations in the US, just like it did for religion in your country when they received special rights. I think anti

Some have actually tried to make a religion for atheists, so there's an actual project for that. It includes all the things that are normally included in a religion. I don't know how many atheists have joined that religion though, probably not many.

If Congress wants to give you an exemption for whatever reason that is your business, not mine unless I also qualify for the same exemption.

I'm not in the US. Here only Lutherans and Orthodox Christians have special status and collect taxes and are propped with state money Rest of the religions have some special rights, especially JWs with pacifism and Muslims with their diet and prayer schedules. Here some religions like pagans have tried to apply for religion status, but failed, due to the fact that their religion isn't well enough defined.

 

[Ponder This]

I would think if I truely didn't believe in God there wouldn't be any room in all of my awareness and understanding for God and anytime I bumped up against that concept I'd have to go, What?

First I'd ask myself if there was anything missing in my life and if the answer was no then that would be it.

I've had so many threads hijacked by militants (both sides, mind you) to this cause and looking through the threads you will find the same behavior.

So I question, why would it be important for me to let other's know what I really don't believe, why is it important to defend the word, Atheism?

I suppose that a person who shuns social contact with other people might not care, but the majority of us are interested in having other people as friends and therefore, we care what they think.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I would think if I truely didn't believe in God there wouldn't be any room in all of my awareness and understanding for God and anytime I bumped up against that concept I'd have to go, What?

First I'd ask myself if there was anything missing in my life and if the answer was no then that would be it.

I've had so many threads hijacked by militants (both sides, mind you) to this cause and looking through the threads you will find the same behavior.

So I question, why would it be important for me to let other's know what I really don't believe, why is it important to defend the word, Atheism?

I'm having difficulty making any sense out of your post.

"I would think if I truely didn't believe in God there wouldn't be any room in all of my awareness and understanding for God and anytime I bumped up against that concept I'd have to go, What?"

If you don't have any understanding or awareness of what a certain individual is proposing as God, how could you possibly conclude that this God isn't real?

"So I question, why would it be important for me to let other's know what I really don't believe, why is it important to defend the word, Atheism?"

Aside from never having been presented with sufficient evidence to believe in any God that's been proposed, I also have no belief in magical unicorns. I do not feel that it's important for me to let others know that I lack belief in magical unicorns nor do I feel its important to defend my lack of belief in them.

HOWEVER, if a majority of people in this country claimed that they DID believe in magical unicorns, I might well feel differently. Especially if the believers in magical unicorns claimed that the scientific theories we used to harness electrons and make computers were all false and that actually computers only work because of magical unicorns, so THIS theory should be taught in our children's science classes. If believers in magical unicorns started accusing me of having no morals because I don't believe what they do or that I'm an evil agent of Satan, you can bet that I would start loudly defending my lack of belief in magical unicorns.

 

[Ingledsva]

I would think if I truely didn't believe in God there wouldn't be any room in all of my awareness and understanding for God and anytime I bumped up against that concept I'd have to go, What?

First I'd ask myself if there was anything missing in my life and if the answer was no then that would be it.

I've had so many threads hijacked by militants (both sides, mind you) to this cause and looking through the threads you will find the same behavior.

So I question, why would it be important for me to let other's know what I really don't believe, why is it important to defend the word, Atheism?

That is like saying - if someone believes in the Easter bunny dropping off eggs, and I don't, - the fact that I'm going to bump into the concept each Easter, or in books, - means I actually believe in the egg dropping Easter bunny, or that I'm pretty much brain-dead and not capable of having awareness of other people's beliefs, or anything else.

It doesn't hold up from the get-go.

Our brains have to be open to concepts, or we would still be cavemen.

We have to be able to understand any concept, - gods, - monsters, - new science, - etc., - to be able to make informed decisions, and toss them, or move forward with them.

That has nothing to do with gods or monsters under the bed, - actually existing, - or the idea that I must actually believe in them.

The gods idea just grew from peoples experiences over time. Take sun gods for instance. People would see that sometime the sun makes the crops grow, and sometimes the sun dries up the water and crops and they starve. They already have superior people in the group that they are placating with food and other offerings, - eventually called a chief - then a king - ect., and it would be no leap to start making offerings to that sun so it will stay benevolent, like their Chief, - thus the sun god concept evolves over time.

No real gods required; it grows from human group understanding, - and transferring it to things that may impact them, - such as the Chief, or the sun. The sun is more powerful then their real chief.

*

 

[Profound Realization]

I would think if I truely didn't believe in God there wouldn't be any room in all of my awareness and understanding for God and anytime I bumped up against that concept I'd have to go, What?

First I'd ask myself if there was anything missing in my life and if the answer was no then that would be it.

I've had so many threads hijacked by militants (both sides, mind you) to this cause and looking through the threads you will find the same behavior.

So I question, why would it be important for me to let other's know what I really don't believe, why is it important to defend the word, Atheism?

In my perception, there is no conclusive meaning as what "religion" or what "god" or "a god" is.

Same with the word, "atheist" without defining the word "god."

If someone defines "god" as a mythological being..... It would then be lack of belief/no belief in a mythological being rather than lack of belief/no belief in "God." "a-mythological being" rather than "atheist."

If someone defines "god" as a supernatural deity.... It would then be lack of belief/no belief in a supernatural deity rather than lack of belief/no belief in "God." "A-supernatural deity" rather than "atheist."

It is important to some to defend "their" meanings/interpretations of words, a direct or indirect desire of seeking control and attempting to bring others within their own parameters of meanings/definitions.

 

[Jumi]

The gods idea just grew from peoples experiences over time. Take sun gods for instance. People would see that sometime the sun makes the crops grow, and sometimes the sun dries up the water and crops and they starve. They already have superior people in the group that they are placating with food and other offerings, - eventually called a chief - then a king - ect., and it would be no leap to start making offerings to that sun so it will stay benevolent, like their Chief, - thus the sun god concept evolves over time.

No real gods required; it grows from human group understanding, - and transferring it to things that may impact them, - such as the Chief, or the sun. The sun is more powerful then their real chief.

Although many so-called gods are merely symbols that have grown to be worshiped, there are mystical experiences that are not only about natural events in the sky, etc. Though faith-based religions might have combined or opposed experiences of that sort, they're still existing today and can be read about in history.

 

[Profound Realization]

It has more to do with religion that it does with atheism. Those of us who come from a religious background and who have been told we are going to hell and who may have been disowned by friends or family, often feel the need to defend ourselves against the religions which are constantly badmouthing and disrespecting us, all while demanding we respect their hocus-pocus.

Or it could just be we all feel the need to defend a word.

In other words, you can be "areligion" rather than "atheist?"

 

[Ingledsva]

Although many so-called gods are merely symbols that have grown to be worshiped, there are mystical experiences that are not only about natural events in the sky, etc. Though faith-based religions might have combined or opposed experiences of that sort, they're still existing today and can be read about in history.

Most "spiritual" experiences in the past are from hallucinogens . Some today are still from such.

Our brains have evolved receptors for such, and we even produce our own chemicals. Think runner's high, or chanting, rhythmic drum beating, etc, putting you into a trance mode.

No god is actually required for such events.

We put our own interpretations on what we feel, or see, during the event. And obviously what we have been taught plays a role in that interpretation.

*

 

[Jumi]

Most "spiritual" experiences in the past are from hallucinogens . Some today are still from such.

I would say many. But then again I don't think spiritual experiences equal mystical ones. I had plenty of spiritual experiences as an atheist, they're interesting and meaningful but they change nothing. At the end of the day, they're not that much to write home about, but for many folks who use hallucinogens they're probably the end goal of the thing.

Our brains have evolved receptors for such, and we even produce our own chemicals. Think runner's high, or chanting, rhythmic drum beating, etc, putting you into a trance mode.

No god is actually required for such events.

Yes, they're quite basic.

We put our own interpretations on what we feel, or see, during the event. And obviously what we have been taught plays a role in that interpretation.
*

For such "spiritual experiences" I would agree, I can produce them when I want, if I want. They don't "pose a problem" for anyone. Deeper experiences would rather break our expectations badly enough that we might not be enough to able to interpret it at all.

 

[Milton Platt]

I would think if I truely didn't believe in God there wouldn't be any room in all of my awareness and understanding for God and anytime I bumped up against that concept I'd have to go, What?

First I'd ask myself if there was anything missing in my life and if the answer was no then that would be it.

I've had so many threads hijacked by militants (both sides, mind you) to this cause and looking through the threads you will find the same behavior.

So I question, why would it be important for me to let other's know what I really don't believe, why is it important to defend the word, Atheism?

I've never defended the word "atheism". I have had to correct people who seem to want to redefine what it is. I allow Christians to tell me what Christianity is....I expect the same in kind. Seems fair to me.

Not believing something is true does not mean you can't have any idea that the concept exists or how it's adherents define it, so your first statement makes no sense. That logic would mean that if you believe in a god (and you seem to) then you should have no idea what atheism is, therefore your post should not exist. Is that a true statement about you? No. In fact, you cannot reject a god premise until the premise is given to you in the first place.

These threads are not well moderated. You will get hijacked all the time on here. No malice is intended, but emotions come into play and individuals get off on a tangent with other individuals. Properly done, those conversations should maybe be on another thread, or a private message. But in the moderator's defense, it is hard to walk the line between allowing freedom of expression of ideas and becoming thought police.

If it is not important for someone to reject a belief, why would it be important for someone to proselytize about what they do believe? And if proselytizing is happening, which it is, why can't a person voice his rejection of the belief and give his reasons for doing so?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you are reluctant to say what makes atheism a religion?

No it is a belief system like any other and may be defined as religion like any other belief system.

So in your reasoning why is atheism a religion if theism isn't? If atheist Buddhists have at least two religions and theist Buddhists have only one, what could be the reasoning?

Theism is divided into different religions such as; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Atheism usually is not divided.

So then according to your logic Theism also must be a religion.

No.

 

[Jumi]

No it is a belief system like any other and may be defined as religion like any other belief system.

What components are there in your atheist belief system, besides one thing?

Theism is divided into different religions such as; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Atheism usually is not divided.

It's quite hard to divide something that's one thing only, not having gods. Though it's easily divided into weak and strong atheism, though I'm sure you knew this.

But with your logic, if even atheism is a religion, then surely they must all have a second religion from theism since theism is more complex by definition and you are ready to give atheist Buddhists at least two religions. Why would theist Buddhists not also have two then?

No.

Then it's just your bias here.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't get you guys.

You can't say Atheism is a religion, - because it doesn't fit the supernatural reverence definition.

You can say some Atheists are religious about something, - in the same sense as, - Jane is religious about maintaining her Mustang.

Obviously Jane's Mustang maintenance routine is not the practice of religion.

Atheism is definitely Not a religion.

*

 

[Jumi]

I don't get you guys.

You can't say Atheism is a religion, - because it doesn't fit the supernatural reverence definition.

All religions don't deal with the supernatural, but I agree that there's no logic to defining lack of an attribute as either a religion or a belief system, especially if having that attribute is somehow not a religion. It all seems like mental gymnastics. If atheism were made into a religion, then Jane would have the Mustang religion.

It's probably something that comes from church teaching. I don't know how universal it is, but priests would tell us that the only thing we should devote ourselves to was Jesus, we could jog if it was just to keep us healthy but if we did too much(and it was easy to do too much...), it would be a religion competing with God.

 

[shunyadragon]

What components are there in your atheist belief system, besides one thing?

Only one thing, a belief or philosophy that describes ones views of the spiritual nature of humanity, is needed for a religion. A negative view of one thing or another does not exclude one of believing in a religion or belief system.

It's quite hard to divide something that's one thing only, not having gods. Though it's easily divided into weak and strong atheism, though I'm sure you knew this.

Nothing needs to be divided to be a belief. I am perfectly aware of the degrees of atheism and agnosticism.

But with your logic, if even atheism is a religion, then surely they must all have a second religion from theism since theism is more complex by definition and you are ready to give atheist Buddhists at least two religions. Why would theist Buddhists not also have two then?

You are reading things into my posts that are not there. It is possible to divided Buddhism into many sects, and belief systems. and assume would describe different religions, and each may have combinations of beliefs, and each belief system would not be two religions. Each religion may be one belief or a combination of beliefs. There is no specific artificial limitation on a religion or belief system

Then it's just your bias here.

No, nothing 'must' be specifically anything to be a religion or belief system by definition. You are the one that used 'must' not me, which indicates a limiting bias. I simply use belief, belief system and religion as open ended descriptive terms to describe the diversity of human beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't get you guys.

You can't say Atheism is a religion, - because it doesn't fit the supernatural reverence definition.

Atheism is definitely Not a religion.

From: Atheism and Secularism

"3. Atheist Religions
#bahamas #buddhism #confucianism #france #scientology #taoism #theism

There are some religions that are atheist. This means, there are some religions that specifically hold that there are no gods. Most other atheists are not members of any religions and don't share the beliefs of those religions."

4.2. Is Atheism a Religion to Some People?

Atheism is the non-belief in god(s). Some people add to this simple definition and argue that atheists are actually religious by default16,17. One argument is that in order to be an atheist you have to "deny God" and by doing so, you admit that God exists. Others say that "not believing in god" is automatically a "religious" belief and that it requires "faith"16. These positions are obviously daft - most people also deny that unicorns and tooth fairies exist. But this doesn't mean that such people are members of an a-unicornist religion. They are, for various reasons, non-believers. Disbelief does not automatically equate to a religious disbelief. One articulate argument that some atheists are religious in nature was best vocalized by William James:"

“[The more fervent atheists] have often enough shown a temper which, psychologically considered, is indistinguishable from religious zeal.”

"The Varieties of Religious Experience"
William James (1902) [Book Review]18

But however fervent someone is about things that don't exist, it doesn't make it religious. Take football. The psychology and emotionality of followers can be very intense, and we can easily imagine William James say the same thing about football fans as he does about some atheists. The truth is that 'zeal' is a trait that can be applied to any human activity where there is enough enthusiasm. You might as well say that 'religious people, psychologically speaking, have often shown a temper which is indistinguishable from football fanaticism'. In other words, just because there is a strong drive, it doesn't make it a religious drive. This is the case with the most 'fervent' atheists: their zeal does not make them religious.

The following page summarizes the main arguments that atheism is not, de facto, a religion:

• "Is Atheism a Religion?" by Vexen Crabtree (2016)"

 

[Jumi]

From: Atheism and Secularism

So what you are saying is that atheism could potentially be a religion for someone if someone formed a belief system around it, but that as a whole just not believing one thing isn't enough to be a religion? Since you didn't define it, what I thought you were saying is that if someone doesn't believe in god, they have a religion.

 

[Underhill]

In other words, you can be "areligion" rather than "atheist?"

It has nothing to do with what we believe.

It's a self defense response. When religious groups routinely label you as THE problem, the cause for all that is wrong with the world, you tend to react.

 

[Underhill]

From: Atheism and Secularism

"3. Atheist Religions
#bahamas #buddhism #confucianism #france #scientology #taoism #theism

There are some religions that are atheist. This means, there are some religions that specifically hold that there are no gods. Most other atheists are not members of any religions and don't share the beliefs of those religions."

4.2. Is Atheism a Religion to Some People?

Atheism is the non-belief in god(s). Some people add to this simple definition and argue that atheists are actually religious by default16,17. One argument is that in order to be an atheist you have to "deny God" and by doing so, you admit that God exists. Others say that "not believing in god" is automatically a "religious" belief and that it requires "faith"16. These positions are obviously daft - most people also deny that unicorns and tooth fairies exist. But this doesn't mean that such people are members of an a-unicornist religion. They are, for various reasons, non-believers. Disbelief does not automatically equate to a religious disbelief. One articulate argument that some atheists are religious in nature was best vocalized by William James:"

“[The more fervent atheists] have often enough shown a temper which, psychologically considered, is indistinguishable from religious zeal.”

"The Varieties of Religious Experience"
William James (1902) [Book Review]18

But however fervent someone is about things that don't exist, it doesn't make it religious. Take football. The psychology and emotionality of followers can be very intense, and we can easily imagine William James say the same thing about football fans as he does about some atheists. The truth is that 'zeal' is a trait that can be applied to any human activity where there is enough enthusiasm. You might as well say that 'religious people, psychologically speaking, have often shown a temper which is indistinguishable from football fanaticism'. In other words, just because there is a strong drive, it doesn't make it a religious drive. This is the case with the most 'fervent' atheists: their zeal does not make them religious.

The following page summarizes the main arguments that atheism is not, de facto, a religion:

• "Is Atheism a Religion?" by Vexen Crabtree (2016)"

Amen brother...

 

[osgart]

It's the demand for conformity, that many make their mission to do, that makes many atheists religious atheists.

my atheism is simply an observation I find to be true in nature.

I like non creationist ID though. so I don't fit in with most atheists because I see intelligence in nature, something far less than god.