Is Athiesm a Religion?

[Ingledsva]

Is Athiesm a Religion?

Obviously not.

*

 

[Heim]

I suppose you are right. Atheist in this case would mean a newborn has no position with regard to God.

The question would be whether a baby is born a skeptic?

A baby is neither born a believer nor a skeptic.

Some want to call that atheism.

The interesting thing is that a child born into a religious family will have a very high chance of espousing the same beliefs as his or her parents. We know as. I wouldn't be prepared to back a view where parents' beliefs are completely 'transferred' to the child, but we can at least speak of a strong influence, a directing influence that steers the child into a particular direction.

On the topic of atheism as a religion, though, insofar religion concerns itself with the divine or the sacred, atheism cannot be seen as a religion. A more fruitful way is viewing religion as a set of meanings and meaningful practices. In this view certain movements within atheism fit the description. Take for example the (what is often called) 'New Atheism' movement centered around atheist writes like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are explicitly comparing the stature of Christianity as the basis of your analysis.

To be fair, not only did scholars from the early modern period onward do so as well, but so much so did Christianity serve as the quintessential or paradigmatic model of "religion" that
1) scholars of antiquity "made-up" religions by combing through Homer, Hesiod, Ovid, etc., such that they could identify particular beliefs & myths as e.g., "Ancient Greek" religion. Modern historians are aware of how thoroughly any mythology collection (in particular, Greco-Roman mythology books), are characterizing what were understood as stories and entertainment to a concept (religion) which for the most part didn't exist.
2) Increasing contact between "East" & "West", largely due to colonialism, resulted in a number of Eastern intellectual and spiritual developments in order to (in part) model or reconstruct e.g., Hinduism in terms of the Western (Christian) understanding of the concept.

For most of history, regardless of culture, religion was neither conceived of as something different than socio-cultural standards, norms, practices, and general dynamics, nor in terms of doctrine, belief systems, or orthodoxy. It was rather fundamentally a matter of practice.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am starting to believe that Athiesm starting to be like a religion. They already have their own scholars, proselytization, and prophets(hawkins)

Don't confuse ideology with religious ideology or a worldview with a religious worldview. Everybody constructs an interpretive lens (grounded in everything from language to cultural norms) through which they access, process, react to, and organize information (from a political argument to whether depression presents mostly with physical symptoms or with those in the DSM/ICD). It is true that religions in which orthodoxy (or at least a belief system) exists tend to be similar in many ways to "state religions" like Nazi Germany or those for whom atheism provides a foundational basis for epistemological, ontological, and sociological beliefs/interpretations/etc. However, most religions have lacked anything like this and are more comparable to getting one's weekend off from work or funerals. Most people, religious or no, are given funerals when they die and often (again, regardless of whether they are or aren't religious) in accordance with the deceased's wishes (e.g., burial vs. cremation). Funerals, at least when considered in general, aren't about beliefs but are clearly custom practices much the way such practices made up most religions.

Given the disparity between modern conceptions of religion and what "religion" has generally consisted of, it becomes extremely important to not only provide a definition but a justification for one based on its utility to explain socio-cultural dynamics throughout history (including today).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Common as theism is, I can't in good faith deny that I don't find it healthy.

"the vast majority of research completed to date indicates that religious beliefs and practices are associated wit better mental and physical health. These associations are as consistent and robust as associations between health status and other psychosocial variables (like social support, marital status, and certain health behaviors). Plausible psychological, social, and behavioral mechanisms exist by which religion can and should have a positive influence on health."

Koenig, H. G. (2001). Religion and medicine IV: religion, physical health, and clinical implications. International Journal of psychiatry in Medicine, 31(3), 321-336.

Chatters, L. M. (2000). Religion and health: public health research and practice. Annual review of public health, 21(1), 335-367.

Hummer, R. A., Rogers, R. G., Nam, C. B., & Ellison, C. G. (1999). Religious involvement and US adult mortality. Demography, 36(2), 273-285.

Levin, J. (2010). Religion and mental health: Theory and research. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 7(2), 102-115.

McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & Thoresen, C. (2000). Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review. Health psychology, 19(3), 211.

Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion and spirituality: Linkages to physical health. American psychologist, 58(1), 36.

The above is not a representative sample of research which contradicts your view that "theism...[isn't] healthy", and I have deliberately excluded research which posit a causal and direct relationship between the health and religious belief (including specifically theistic; I know of one study that found spiritual beliefs lacking a theistic or similar framework are not conducive to well-being/health) . It is simply intended to introduce some academic/scientific research concerning a claim made via (I assume) subjective experience/evaluation. That is, the above may highlight that this is a nuanced issue and so sweeping a statement (couched though it is in qualifiers) is perhaps more limiting than one would think.

 

[LuisDantas]

Religious practices, sure. Theism, not so much.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Religious practices, sure. Theism, not so much.

The vast majority of studies on the benefits of religious beliefs on health have concerned theism, if for no reason other than that theists make up most of the sample space of the religious. Also, religious practices haven't been shown to have much effect relative to religious beliefs (perhaps you meant that, but I wanted to be clearer).

 

[LuisDantas]

The vast majority of studies on the benefits of religious beliefs on health have concerned theism, if for no reason other than that theists make up most of the sample space of the religious. Also, religious practices haven't been shown to have much effect relative to religious beliefs (perhaps you meant that, but I wanted to be clearer).

What I mean, quite simply, is that theism is all too easy to use in destructive ways and should not be encouraged.

Despite some unfortunate historical accidents and widespread misconceptions that resulted, theism is not particularly advisable for religious doctrine or religious practice, either.

Theism happens naturally for most people, and should be accepted for the actual need that it is for many of them, and dealt with constructively.

But it is not something to be actively sought, except on a per-individual person basis according to actual convenience. Each and every religion that emphasized supernatural beliefs, particularly those in deities and spiritis, paid too high a price for that, most often losing their way to some degree.

It is possible and in fact necessary to counteract and compensate the religious damage caused by theism and other forms of supernaturalism. It must be done, because after all people rarely have much of a choice about whether they are theists or atheists. But it takes considerable effort, because it involves reaching the religious truths and wisdom hidden under the cover of supernatural beliefs, dealing with a lot of serious disadvantages and dangers that simply could not very well exist without the supernaturalism.

Come to think of it, it is supernaturalism, and not religion proper, that acts much like a drug.

 

[ArtieE]

Religious practices, sure. Theism, not so much.

Of course "religious beliefs and practices are associated with better mental and physical health." Otherwise they wouldn't have evolved and still be here. We are scared of the unknown, and religions act like anxiety medication providing answers and comfort. Are you scared of dying? Believe in a religion that says that you'll never die but will live happily forever in Heaven and down goes the blood pressure and stress level.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Its silly to call atheism a religion. Now if you wanted to take a specific sect of secular individuals and typecast them as some kind of religion then that might work. Lets say if I had a secular humanist society that had weekly meetups and had leaders and we worked on furthering the goal of secular humanism. That would be "closer".

However what are the primary functions of religion? Or specifically a "belief system?"

1) Answer's fundamental questions about us. Usually in the form of origin

2) Has a deity or other form of higher power

3) Forms a moral code of do's an don'ts.

Atheism doesn't have any of those three. Even a secular humanist society would only have one of those three (which would be the morals). A scientific society might try to answer the first one but it is usually understood to be some kind of profound mystical answer rather than an answer based upon evidence.

Now these three requirements tend to be kind of rough and not all religions fit them perfectly but it is a rule of thumb that they all have them. And atheism does not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[QUOTE="pro4life, post: 4002334, member: 55624" I have taken many evolution courses from human paleontology to evolution of primates.[/QUOTE]

Liberty University doesn't count.

 

[pro4life]

Its silly to call atheism a religion. Now if you wanted to take a specific sect of secular individuals and typecast them as some kind of religion then that might work. Lets say if I had a secular humanist society that had weekly meetups and had leaders and we worked on furthering the goal of secular humanism. That would be "closer".

However what are the primary functions of religion? Or specifically a "belief system?"

1) Answer's fundamental questions about us. Usually in the form of origin

2) Has a deity or other form of higher power

3) Forms a moral code of do's an don'ts.

Atheism doesn't have any of those three. Even a secular humanist society would only have one of those three (which would be the morals). A scientific society might try to answer the first one but it is usually understood to be some kind of profound mystical answer rather than an answer based upon evidence.

Now these three requirements tend to be kind of rough and not all religions fit them perfectly but it is a rule of thumb that they all have them. And atheism does not.

You just answered yourself. Athiesm in the modern day have all those 3 points.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You just answered yourself. Athiesm in the modern day have all those 3 points.

How so because to me none of those points represent us....

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I am starting to believe that Athiesm starting to be like a religion. They already have their own scholars, proselytization, and prophets(hawkins)

Your statement to me is incoherent, if any statement ever was.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You just answered yourself. Athiesm in the modern day have all those 3 points.

How so? I musta missed my regular Atheists Collective meetings, and the official Atheists Bible was eaten by the dog(ma).

Hehe...get it? Dogma??
Bah...tough crowd.

 

[LuisDantas]

You just answered yourself. Athiesm in the modern day have all those 3 points.

It is rare enough for it to have the first, outright contradictory if it turns out to have the second, and one would of course expect people to have the third (a moral code), albeit there is hardly an unified or even very typical "atheist moral code".

 

[Robert.Evans]

What I mean, quite simply, is that theism is all too easy to use in destructive ways and should not be encouraged.

And good ways. just to keep the argument balanced. Of course we might also add that atheism has tortured and kille d many also, and should not be encouraged.

 

[Robert.Evans]

....

 

[LuisDantas]

How so? I musta missed my regular Atheists Collective meetings, and the official Atheists Bible was eaten by the dog(ma).

We are just not hanging around with the "in" people.

 

[LuisDantas]

And good ways. just to keep the argument balanced. Of course we might also add that atheism has tortured and kille d many also, and should not be encouraged.

We might add that, I suppose. But we should attempt to find out whether there is any truth to it first, which I doubt to be the case.

While with theism there is not room for any reasonable doubt, and has not been for centuries if not millenia.