Atheism is just another religion

[Augustus]

Religion, @Augustus , neither needs nor benefits from theism.

So?

Monotheisms are based on theism and that is what I was discussing seeing as they have significantly affected the world we live in.

You would do well to reflect on that.

While at it, try to learn how empty generalizations about "god" - or for that matter, "religion" - are.

Then maybe I will have a shot at taking your claims at face value.

Jesus wept.

If you are going to patronise someone, at least make some attempt to do so in the context of the discussion you were having rather than making supercilious remarks that betray an elementary lack of comprehension.

It was not a thorough discussion of every single religion and concept relating to gods in the history of existence where we try to show how 'enlightened' we are based on an ability to see past the Abrahamic paradigm and smugly pat ourselves on the back accordingly.

It was a discussion of where atheism can have consequences in the world that we live in. That was one of them, you know, an example.

You would do well to reflect on elementary argumentation and logic.

 

[Jumi]

In a society that had been so fundamentally shaped by theistic religions, it is practically impossible for someone to be cognisant of gods yet remain completely uninfluenced by their atheism. IMO this is why many atheists desire to recast atheism as literally nothing, rather than an epistemic position taken in response to theism.

You are taking a different turn with this. What if you for some reason don't hear notes in punk music? You won't go to punk concerts except if your buddies go or your whole village goes unless you can come up with a reason not to go. How will it shape you? You probably won't become a fan of the music unless you like listening to something that your ears can't make out.

Based on the evidence from our social evolution, would you agree that belief in gods (broadly defined) is at least as 'natural' as not believing in gods?

It's natural that cultures form concepts for things they don't understand and create "natural" gods from that. Then there are also the people who've personally experienced God, who will talk about it so it will influence people who don't really have that experience but codify some of it. So it's natural that gods arise in societies. Even when I was an atheist, I understood that various spiritual or mystical experiences could be construed as visits by gods by people who believed in them. What I didn't know was that there was an altogether different experience of God... neither would I have believed in it if I didn't experience it.

How would someone who rejected the role of the Pagan gods of their society be viewed? I don't know much about this, but I guess is that many people would find this consequential. Pagan Greeks created the term after all.

Well our Norse neighbors respected people who believed in their own arms instead of the gods. I expect such approval to have been the same here also. The gods, after all, didn't decide much. They were considered to care more about heroes or things under their domain. If you wanted kids, you would get drunk in the name of a god and go into the wheat field and someone with the same wish would possibly meet you there. Bears were all gods, more respected than the rest since you could meet them alone, and when they were hunted and killed, it was a heroes act and a cause for a special celebration. There was a god that caused knocking or rapping sounds on wood where you couldn't find the culprit, you had to know it was done by this god.

My folk believed that all people went to a shadowy world of forgetfulness after death. A neighboring tribe believed that there was a heaven of sorts just like this world, where all the reindeer were huge where they would all go to.

There are still religions alive that are related to my ancestors' religion and even some efforts to decode the beliefs. Some even formed a religion that was accepted as a religion around the bear just like the old days.

Interestingly the Soviets participated in this film of a traditional religious myth here along with producers from my country, the music isn't related to the film...

More consequentially, the rejection of the dominant monotheist paradigm was, by extension, a rejection of the foundations on which contemporary morality and other aspects of society were built. This was certainly consequential for the Marxists and factions within the French Revolution. Someone like Robespierre was conscious of this and promoted a form of Deism to counteract the even more radical atheist factions.

You like to talk about the anti-theists who were historically called atheists too. Yes, those were different times. As you remember from earlier debates also, the Marxists had materialist dialectic which is a god concept.

And are you saying Western contemporary morality is superior to say that of China or Japan?

Secular Humanists had to borrow a concept of Humanity from the monotheists in order to ground their moral code.

Much of this was grounded in Roman law. I don't know how an individual who realizes they don't believe in gods is supposed to think about these things at that moment.

Humans need to construct myths/narratives to justify their beliefs and values and gods have proved particularly good foundation stones. This legacy can't really be ignored.

You have taken this discussion on a far off tangent from how consequential something is to an individual to a discussion of theories of humanity. You seem convinced that every atheist is hiding an anti-theist in their head who will reject anything religion has done, which is of course not the case.

 

[Jumi]

Therefore, it does indeed fall into the belief of all atheists.

Unless they believe something else caused life or don't have beliefs about what started life or believe life is present everywhere...

 

[Jumi]

Rarely? There are atheist churches where atheism is the central belief.

You're saying it like those atheist churches are a huge phenomenon, from what I've read they are small gatherings of people who see value in religion and want atheists to form some kind of a religion to provide same kind of social atmosphere as the churches they left. My country has around 50% people who believe in no gods and we don't have any of these churches.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

atheists would have to claim atheism IS a religion in order to get those tax exemptions.

That's not the argument. The argument is that atheists deserve equal protection under the law, and are entitled to whatever government benefits theists receive. We don't need atheism to be considered a religion to petition to be treated equally with religions.

In KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, an appellate court ruled that a prisoner named Kaufman was entitled to meet with other atheists in a study group, a privilege afforded theists in the prison, but not atheists. The court ruled in Kaufman's favor. Notice the language: The court is calling atheism "no religion at all" but qualifies as a religion for this purpose:

"But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all ... As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise"

In related matter, the Freedom From Religion Foundation just won a landmark decision invalidating the law that gives clergy a tax exemption for the portion of their income received in the form of a housing allowance: FFRF Wins Lawsuit Over Parsonage Exemptions

This is part of the fight Tmac wonders about. This, among other reasons, is why we fight back.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're saying it like those atheist churches are a huge phenomenon, from what I've read they are small gatherings of people who see value in religion and want atheists to form some kind of a religion to provide same kind of social atmosphere as the churches they left. My country has around 50% people who believe in no gods and we don't have any of these churches.

Come to think of it, the well documented phenomenom of huge quantities of people who frequent Christian churches out of support for family and friends as opposed to belief is much more noteworthy.

 

[Augustus]

You are taking a different turn with this.

It's the fundamental basis for my entire argument: If you live in a society shaped by theistic religion, rejecting the foundations for such beliefs often has consequences for how you perceive significant aspects of society.

Well our Norse neighbors respected people who believed in their own arms instead of the gods. I expect such approval to have been the same here also.

Thanks for the info

I know belief only starts to be a dominant component with monotheism, some Greeks didn't see the gods as being literally true. They still accepted the role of them and their rituals in society and culture though.

This is why I focused on monotheistic societies as the equivalent of atheism in historical pagan societies would have been closer to the rejecting of the dominant cultural narrative.

And are you saying Western contemporary morality is superior to say that of China or Japan?

When making the point that atheism can have significant consequences, it is easiest to focus on certain societies - the ones primarily influenced by Abrahimisms.

In traditional Chinese society, the role of god would be something like the family patriarch. The equivalent of atheism would have been the rejection of his status.

You have taken this discussion on a far off tangent from how consequential something is to an individual to a discussion of theories of humanity. You seem convinced that every atheist is hiding an anti-theist in their head who will reject anything religion has done, which is of course not the case.

None of this requires anti-theism. If morality is believed to have come from God's design, not believing in this god automatically removes this foundation stone.

It's perfectly possible that someone could adopt Christian morals for non-theistic reasons, they would still have to justify this to themselves via another method though.

Again, it is easiest to work with the clearest cut examples, so I used the ideologies that sought to radically reshape morality due to the belief that traditional religious values were founded on a false premise and could thus be discarded.

 

[Underhill]

I beg to differ. Atheism is about as inconsequential and superficial a stance as they come.

A part of me remains surprised that it was even named.

So belief in a fairy tale being in the sky is substantive?

Faith, by its very nature has no substance. It is based in nothing but faith or it isn't faith. You don't get much more superficial than that.

I cannot speak for all religions but most western religions are based upon the notion that faith is the evidence. Atheist demand more substance than religion can offer.

 

[LuisDantas]

So belief in a fairy tale being in the sky is substantive?

Hardly. But it is consequential for those inclined to take it too seriously.

Faith, by its very nature has no substance. It is based in nothing but faith or it isn't faith. You don't get much more superficial than that.

We would need to establish what variety of faith we are talking about here. There are healthier, more useful forms than the one brandished by your run-of-the-mill Christian or Islamic proud denier of reality.

I cannot speak for all religions but most western religions are based upon the notion that faith is the evidence. Atheist demand more substance than religion can offer.

I would rather not call that misguidance "religion", but I certainly understand where you come from.

 

[DavidFirth]

Unless they believe something else caused life or don't have beliefs about what started life or believe life is present everywhere...

Which most don't, most adhere to abiogenesis, especially the ones on here.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's not the argument. The argument is that atheists deserve equal protection under the law, and are entitled to whatever government benefits theists receive. We don't need atheism to be considered a religion to petition to be treated equally with religions.

In KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, an appellate court ruled that a prisoner named Kaufman was entitled to meet with other atheists in a study group, a privilege afforded theists in the prison, but not atheists. The court ruled in Kaufman's favor. Notice the language: The court is calling atheism "no religion at all" but qualifies as a religion for this purpose:

"But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all ... As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise"

In related matter, the Freedom From Religion Foundation just won a landmark decision invalidating the law that gives clergy a tax exemption for the portion of their income received in the form of a housing allowance: FFRF Wins Lawsuit Over Parsonage Exemptions

This is part of the fight Tmac wonders about. This, among other reasons, is why we fight back.

I'm not arguing about those topics.

 

[Underhill]

We would need to establish what variety of faith we are talking about here. There are healthier, more useful forms than the one brandished by your run-of-the-mill Christian or Islamic proud denier of reality.

I've studied Buddhism enough to understand what you are getting at. But I don't consider them to be religious teachings so much as a moral code of conduct. Buddha is not considered a deity so much as a wise teacher, at least in the purest form of his teachings. (Like anything else, there are variations.)

 

[LuisDantas]

Has it occurred to anyone that the bases for the argument was that believers believed in spirit and matter and non believers believed in matter sans spirit. Science has proven that there is no difference between matter and spirit except in density and they introduced us to infinity a concept that most believers and non believers have difficulty trying to understand. I really don't understand why you have chosen to fight this battle, what satisfaction do you gain? Seinfeld was a show about nothing and this argument is about nothing.

Where have you found some scientific reference to spirit again?

 

[LuisDantas]

I've studied Buddhism enough to understand what you are getting at. But I don't consider them to be religious teachings so much as a moral code of conduct. Buddha is not considered a deity so much as a wise teacher, at least in the purest form of his teachings. (Like anything else, there are variations.)

Uh, so?

I take it that you consider belief in a deity necessary for religious practice?

To say the absolute least, I definitely do not partake of that stance.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are atheist churches where atheism is the central belief.

I belong to a local Freethinkers group that happens to meet today, the third Wednesday of the month. We will be meeting in a banquet room in a restaurant. Usually, only atheists attend our meetings. The topic of discussion will be faith based thought and its attendant confirmation bias, with a discussion of an essay by Old Earth Creationist Glenn Morton.

The word atheism might never be mentioned, although it is the one thing all unbelievers have in common. We won't be doing any of the things that occur in a church. We have no clergy and no doctrine. We won't be trying to indoctrinate, just teach. Nobody cares whether anybody believes anything in particular.

Is that an example of an atheist church? Should I say that I am going to church today? What makes an atheist meeting place a church, which to me is a place for Christians to congregate and fellowship just as a synagogue is for Jews and a mosque for Muslims?

 

[Underhill]

Uh, so?

I take it that you consider belief in a deity necessary for religious practice?

To say the absolute least, I definitely do not partake of that stance.

Without a god, what makes it a religion?

If you go to the dictionary, this is the definition of religion...

- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

So something like Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's more like a Tony Robbins course than religions like Christianity or Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

Without a god, what makes it a religion?

Things of consequence and substance, such as doctrine, goals, values and teachings.

Sure, it is a challenge to delimit what is a religion from what is not - and that will definitely vary according to who is tasked to do the separation - but it is very clear to me that "a god" is basically irrelevant there.

Religion is a far cry from theism, and in fact is much greater than theism.

If you go to the dictionary, this is the definition of religion...

- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Yes, that definition is certainly flawed.

So something like Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's more like a Tony Robbins course than religions like Christianity or Islam.

Haha. If you say so. I will not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Religion, imo, is a (transcendent) ideology that gives meaning to the world and also comprises some ritual aspects.

This is not necessary for a belief to be called a religion. You chose a narrower definition of religion, and mine is a broader definition that considers more alternitives of bleif.

[/quote]
Atheism on its own is simply a belief and calling it a religion really can't be rationally supported by any remotely consistent usage of the term religion. [/quote]

I gave a reference that describes atheism as possibly being referred to as a religion. If some chose not to refer to it as a religion, that's ok with me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Without a god, what makes it a religion?

If you go to the dictionary, this is the definition of religion...

- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

This is not the only definition of religion.

From: What is "religion"?
All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might requite a belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief. Also, Unitarians, who are called Unitarian Universalists in the U.S., do not require their members to believe in a deity, and many members don't.

Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.

Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion. These are fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature."

So something like Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's more like a Tony Robbins course than religions like Christianity or Islam.

Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are considered religions, but do not necessarily fit the definition you gave.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Without a god, what makes it a religion?

If you go to the dictionary, this is the definition of religion...

- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

So something like Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's more like a Tony Robbins course than religions like Christianity or Islam.

Also want to point out that especially doesn't mean only. The superhuman controlling power being worshipped could be divine order, karma, ultimate unity of the cosmos or others.

Although ultimately I personally prefer to go to encyclopedias over dictionaries for things like theology, philosophy and even natural sciences because dictionaries can be so oversimplified that it has an overgeneralozed sort of incorrectness.