Religion and Atheism

[sealchan]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is the Greek word for 'religious', as used by Paul in his Athenian speech:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. Acts 17:22

The root of this word is 'fear of the gods'.

Another greek word that is translated 'religion' is θρῆσκος, which also carries a sense of 'fear' or 'trembling' toward deities.

So an atheist, who does not believe in God, and presumably has no 'fear' of deities, would not be 'religious' under this definition and usage.

But in modern usage, and especially in legal and constitutional matters, atheism is considered a religious belief. It is protected under the first amendment, and nobody can be denied freedom of conscience, for their 'religious' beliefs. The supreme court has ruled that atheism is protected, as a religious belief, under the first amendment.

There is a phony narrative that confuses this issue: 'Christians have Religion! Atheists have Science!' This is an attempt to move the atheistic opinion/belief about the nature of the universe into a false dichotomy.. a 'religion vs science!' dilemma. But atheism is not 'science!', anymore than a theistic belief. It is an opinion about the nature of the universe. It is a philosophical belief, and is not grounded in empirical science.

I have no problem defining atheism as a 'religious' belief, by the common usage of the term. It is a philosophical opinion, and 'religious' applies. It relates to a belief about deities, and is a valid opinion.

To deny the 'religious' nature of atheism would remove it from protected status, under the first amendment. Businesses, govts, or other human institutions could deny access, if one insists on a positive religious belief in a deity.

So, why is acknowledging the religious nature of atheism a problem, for many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?

No

 

[Trailblazer]

Is atheism a religion? It depends on context and definitions. Most atheists bristle at the suggestion that atheism is a religious belief, and go to great lengths to distance themselves from the term.

I do not think atheism is a religion. It is lack of a religion. By the definition of religion I believe in atheism cannot be a religion because atheists do not believe in Revelations from God.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

 

[Augustus]

Would you be so kind as to provide a couple or maybe several examples of "religious type" beliefs that atheists hold, that you find equivalent to the religious beliefs that religious people hold? (I won't try to define what you might mean by "religious type belief," as that's what I'm hoping you'll do in providing examples.)

Beliefs that make us more than animals simply pursuing narrow biological interests. The things that irreligious people use to replace religious beliefs in constructing their worldviews.

Can call them metaphorical truths: things which are not actually true, yet which it can benefit us to act as if they were true (religious tenets often fall into this category).

The idea we belong to and have a responsibility towards "Humanity" for example (which exists largely a legacy of monotheism). It's as preposterous an idea as assuming monkeys belong to a collective Simianity and have responsibilities which derive from this.

Human exceptionalism, such as the ideas being human gives you specific rights that cannot be denied you is obviously a religious type belief (as well as a religious one).

The idea of progress, virtue ethics, diversity and equal rights, nationalism, etc. basically any ideology you can think of from racial supremacism, marxist communism, to Secular Humanism relies on such beliefs.

All ideologies and pretty much all ideological tenets are 'religious type' beliefs, things which are not actually true, yet we act as if they are.

 

[usfan]

I get it. Atheists don't want their beliefs to be labeled, 'Religious!' That term is exclusively for theistic beliefs.

I acknowledged that earlier:

Ok, so 'religion', means 'anything connected to a belief in deities'. Buddhists are excluded, as well as atheists. So only theists can be 'religious'. It is a synonym for 'theist', and means the same thing.

The 'freedom of religion' clause is just for legal purposes, and just implies atheistic belief.

But 'religion' is only for theists. Is that how atheists prefer to see the term?

I disagree, however, for these reasons:

1. The Supreme Court has ruled atheism to be a religion, for protection under the first amendment.
2. The gallup poll has a poll about religious beliefs every so often, and 'atheism' is always an option.
3. Religious forums and threads are packed with hordes of proactive atheists, zealously defending their worldview, and attacking the competition.
4. The obvious religio/philosophical nature of atheism, as a belief about the Big Question.

Evidence that the term 'religious' has become a pejorative:
1. The indignation expressed by some atheists for their beliefs to be called, 'religious!', exemplified in this thread alone.
2. The accusation that i am insulting atheists, for using a term that they consider demeaning. Also many examples here.
3. The disdain directed at 'religious' people, from the more militant atheists.

It is quite common, in the human experience, to use language to target ideological enemies, and demean or stereotype them as a group. I see this happening with the term, 'Religious!', which renders it useless as a descriptor. It has become a term of derision, to lump ideological enemies into a broad streotype.

This is, unfortunately, a precursor for increasing religious bigotry, historically. It is an Orwellian redefinition of words, to demean a worldview or ideology that is considered, 'dangerous!', or to make them a scapegoat for current social ills. The last century had gruesome examples of genocide, and it began the same way.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~George Santayana

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I get it. Atheists don't want their beliefs to be labeled, 'Religious!' That term is exclusively for theistic beliefs.

Who has made that claim in this forum?

 

[usfan]

I suggest that you leave the heathen alone and keep your theory to yourself. You're not going to get anything but "stings" by sharing that opinion. Of course, if you like to mess with hornets, by all means, .... knock yourself out.

I wouldn't mind, though, watching you screw around with the bigger buggers, ... in mainstream science, just to see how long it takes for them to ban and block you. Now, mainstream science is very much a religion, .... advanced, to be sure, but a religion none the less.

Lol! Good quip.

I did not expect such heated reactions for a discussion about word definitions. But it goes to show, the power of words, and the intensity of beliefs that are reflected in those words.

Also easy was pointing out your sloppy tactic of trying to cast "atheism" as something very much like your own worldview. With as much as you seem to dislike atheism, why would you ever do this? Seriously... just think about it. And if you care at all for the (supposed) sanctity of your position, STOP.

I do consider 'atheism' to be a valid and growing worldview, or belief about the nature of the universe...just like any other..

Your other accusations are either projections, or designed for polemy. I do not 'hate atheists!', as you accuse. The discussion is about terminology and definitions. It says more about you, your reactions and indignation toward me, personally. This is a concept, and vilifying me is just an ad hominem fallacy.

I realize this is likely too subtle for some-- but it's important.

Thus? ATHEISM IS NOT PHILOSOPHY

..right. its not a religious belief, nor a philosophy..
/shakes head/

Nobody who is honest, does that-- calling "atheism" ==> "science".

Science is 100% indifferent to both atheist and theism.

My point exactly. I'll remember this in the next science discussion, when some militant atheist makes this very claim.

Bad philosophy is quite deserving of derision. That's how it works in the Community Of Ideas.

It is always easy to label an opposing ideology as "bad philosophy!', but since atheism isn't a philosophy, it can't be bad, can it?

So label the opposition, 'Bad!', then pour out the derision. ..seems like a repition of history, to me..

Thus-- atheism is far from homogeneous!

The belief is homogeneous. 'No God'. That was very clear.
Perhaps you are in over your head, Intellectually. I sometimes use too big of words, and need to remember to dumb it down for progressive indoctrinees..

that in accusing atheists of being 'religious', some of the accusers are trying to insult them by pulling them down to their own level ─ a peculiar kind of attack.

Perfect example.

By me including 'atheism' as a religious belief, is insulting to you, because you see the term as a pejorative, for insult purposes.

It is no longer a descriptive term, but an insult, to demean the enemy.

@usfan As I understand it now, the whole point of this thread for you is to complain about the behavior of people

Yes, like all other threads, on all other forums.. /roll eyes/
I presented a topic, about terminology and definitions. How do you get, 'complain about the behavior of people!', from that?

@usfan The issue that concerns me in relation to what you’re saying is endless gossiping, complaining and fault-finding, without any constructive aim or purpose, and what you’re doing in this thread looks to me like part of that problem.

ROFL!!

Yes, that is my secret agenda.. 'endless gossiping, complaining and fault-finding!'

No other threads have word definitions, or subtleties of meanings in terminology, just mine.. which are obviously designed for 'endless gossiping, complaining and fault-finding!'

 

[usfan]

Who has made that claim in this forum?

Umm.. everyone? Have you read the thread? None of the militant atheists consider their beliefs to be, 'religious', and most are indignant for them to be included in that descriptor.

Why is 'religious!' considered a pejorative by so many of the more militant atheists? Why are they so offended that their beliefs would be included in a set of 'religious' beliefs?

I find it very curious, is all.. the intense reaction over a generic descriptor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get it. Atheists don't want their beliefs to be labeled, 'Religious!' That term is exclusively for theistic beliefs.

I acknowledged that earlier:


I disagree, however, for these reasons:

1. The Supreme Court has ruled atheism to be a religion, for protection under the first amendment.
2. The gallup poll has a poll about religious beliefs every so often, and 'atheism' is always an option.
3. Religious forums and threads are packed with hordes of proactive atheists, zealously defending their worldview, and attacking the competition.
4. The obvious religio/philosophical nature of atheism, as a belief about the Big Question.

Evidence that the term 'religious' has become a pejorative:
1. The indignation expressed by some atheists for their beliefs to be called, 'religious!', exemplified in this thread alone.
2. The accusation that i am insulting atheists, for using a term that they consider demeaning. Also many examples here.
3. The disdain directed at 'religious' people, from the more militant atheists.

It is quite common, in the human experience, to use language to target ideological enemies, and demean or stereotype them as a group. I see this happening with the term, 'Religious!', which renders it useless as a descriptor. It has become a term of derision, to lump ideological enemies into a broad streotype.

This is, unfortunately, a precursor for increasing religious bigotry, historically. It is an Orwellian redefinition of words, to demean a worldview or ideology that is considered, 'dangerous!', or to make them a scapegoat for current social ills. The last century had gruesome examples of genocide, and it began the same way.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~George Santayana

the problem is that many theists dishonestly try to use equivocation fallacies when they attack atheism. They do so because they know that there is no reliable evidence for their beliefs so they try to claim that others have the same sort of beliefs that they do (which of course is not the case) and demand that they prove their beliefs.

I will agree that by the Supreme Court standards and definition atheism is a religion, but not by the definition that the OP appears to be using.

So if you want an answer as to whether or not atheism is a religion then you must clearly define the version of "religion" that you are using first.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Umm.. everyone? Have you read the thread? None of the militant atheists consider their beliefs to be, 'religious', and most are indignant for them to be included in that descriptor.

Why is 'religious!' considered a pejorative by so many of the more militant atheists? Why are they so offended that their beliefs would be included in a set of 'religious' beliefs?

I find it very curious, is all.. the intense reaction over a generic descriptor.

Eh got to be able to represent a side correctly or take the heat. Like I could call you a "theism ponderer" but that wouldn't be right.

 

[usfan]

Here is a set of beliefs, about the nature of the universe:

One God
Many gods
No God
Islam
Judaism
Buddhism
Hinduism
Wiccan
Christianity
Atheism

What would you call this list? Philosophical opinions? Religious beliefs?

How is this list NOT a list of religious beliefs? Why the outrage, at being included in a descriptive term?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a set of beliefs, about the nature of the universe:

One God
Many gods
No God
Islam
Judaism
Buddhism
Hinduism
Wiccan
Christianity
Atheism

What would you call this list? Philosophical opinions? Religious beliefs?

How is this list NOT a list of religious beliefs? Why the outrage, at being included in a descriptive term?

Your list does not include atheism as defined by most atheists here, so it is a rather pointless list considering the OP.

By your list atheism is not a religion. This is why you need a clear definition of what you mean by "religion" .

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why is it that believers need to conflate 'a'-theism with theism? Or, to conflate belief in God with non-belief in God? By this logic no one can disbelieve in anything, since the act of disbelieving is itself a belief. Who benefits from this twisted, self-affirming, and obtuse form of logic? If you are a-political, does this mean that you are still political or not political? All religious beliefs are conceptual, and based entirely on faith, fear, and early childhood indoctrinations/experiences. All scientific beliefs are perceptual, and based entirely on logic, falsifiability and objective evidence. If any theist could deposit just one objective piece of evidence, Atheism would cease to exist. Unfortunately the same can't be said about theism. Rather than argue about the evidence supporting the belief, theists create these silly wars, using semantics, false equivocations, and misdirection. This distracts from their burden of proof, and give a false perception that "Atheism" is just like any other spiritual, political, or philosophical belief system. Atheism is not a religious belief system. It is the only rational position one can take, in the absence of any objective or verifiable evidence.

I'm pretty sure that not many people chose "Atheism" as their religion to avoid the draft. Or, as a legal tax exemption. People have the right to religions, but also the right from religions. Atheism is always the default position, not any Theism/God claims. We have mountains of physical evidence to suggest that a Theist's God does not, and cannot exist. But, we have zero evidence that a Theist's God does exists. Science is not religious. Nor is it a belief itself.

 

[PureX]

Again, how would that work?

What would the "practice of atheism" even be?

One might spend hours on the internet trying to convince theists of the 'righteousness' of atheism. One might practice the idea in their mind of the superiority atheism through their belief in 'scientism', and then reflect this in their relations with other people. One might choose to avoid known or outspoken theists in their social interactions. Religions are collections of ideals and behaviors that people use to define, hold onto, and maintain their theological positions. That gods do not exist IS a theological position. And can therefor be held onto and maintained "religiously".

 

[usfan]

the problem is that many theists dishonestly try to use equivocation fallacies when they attack atheism. They do so because they know that there is no reliable evidence for their beliefs so they try to claim that others have the same sort of beliefs that they do (which of course is not the case) and demand that they prove their beliefs

There is 'no reliable evidence!' for ANY religio/philosophical beliefs. Unless you're going to the 'Christians have religion! Atheists have Science!' mantra..

Attack? Why such hyperbole for a word definition thread? I'm not attacking anyone.. but there are certainly attacks and false accusations leveled at me.. why is that? Over word definitions?

Eh got to be able to represent a side correctly or take the heat. Like I could call you a "theism ponderer" but that wouldn't be right.

I'm not 'representing!' any side. I'm examining terminology. I am not responsible for the hysteria and triggering of other people, over word definitions.

I will ponder the mysteries of the universe, and enjoy existential musings on that subject. I cannot help the groupthink intolerance and stereotyping of competing views that happens, if a topic is breached.

 

[usfan]

Your list does not include atheism as defined by most atheists here, so it is a rather pointless list considering the OP.

By your list atheism is not a religion. This is why you need a clear definition of what you mean by "religion" .

I accept that some people have a narrower, groupthink definition of the term. That is my point. The term has become useless as a descriptor of opinions about the nature of man, God, and the universe, and has morphed into a pejorative, to demean an opposing ideology.

Moving goalposts, with word definitions, is a problem with any communication medium.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is 'no reliable evidence!' for ANY religio/philosophical beliefs. Unless you're going to the 'Christians have religion! Atheists have Science!' mantra..

Attack? Why such hyperbole for a word definition thread? I'm not attacking anyone.. but there are certainly attacks and false accusations leveled at me.. why is that? Over word definitions?

Please, no false attacks. That only demonstrates that one is being dishonest. Try to answer the questions put to you. You appear to be guilty of an equivocation fallacy. That is why you need clear definitions so that people cannot accuse you of that error.

I'm not 'representing!' any side. I'm examining terminology. I am not responsible for the hysteria and triggering of other people, over word definitions.

I will ponder the mysteries of the universe, and enjoy existential musings on that subject. I cannot help the groupthink intolerance and stereotyping of competing views that happens, if a topic is breached.

This is pure BS and waffling. I made a reasonable demand and you ran away. That makes it look as if using an equivocation fallacy was your goal from the start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept that some people have a narrower, groupthink definition of the term. That is my point. The term has become useless as a descriptor of opinions about the nature of man, God, and the universe, and has morphed into a pejorative, to demean an opposing ideology.

Moving goalposts, with word definitions, is a problem with any communication medium.

Then quit moving the goalposts. Make a definition and stick with it.

 

[usfan]

Why is it that believers need to conflate 'a'-theism with theism?

Why do some atheist bristle at THEIR opinions being just another religious/philosophical opinion? Why the need or desire to be on some higher existential plane, above the mundane beliefs of ordinary humans?

 

[usfan]

Please, no false attacks. That only demonstrates that one is being dishonest. Try to answer the questions put to you. You appear to be guilty of an equivocation fallacy. That is why you need clear definitions so that people cannot accuse you of that error.



This is pure BS and waffling. I made a reasonable demand and you ran away. That makes it look as if using an equivocation fallacy was your goal from the start.

Then quit moving the goalposts. Make a definition and stick with it.

ROFL!
Ok. I get it. I can see that 'debating' with you will not be productive. Thanks for the brief encounter.

 

[PureX]

Why do some atheist bristle at THEIR opinions being just another religious/philosophical opinion? Why the need or desire to be on some higher existential plane, above the mundane beliefs of ordinary humans?

Because for a lot of people the ego has identified individual righteousness with a chosen ideological position. So that to question or debate the position, is to "attack" the individual (to the egocentric mind). Once we let our egos adopt our opinions as part of our identities, it becomes nearly impossible to discuss them reasonably, because the ego will defend the "self" against all threats, real or imagined, by any means available.