Will Atheism Replace Religion?

[andys]

Look, to confuse atheism for a religion is as silly as mistaking creationism with a science.

I will allow that that some (misguided) atheists in the world may get themselves involved in philosophical ideologies which may smack of religion, such as Confucianism, or even Buddhism, to a degree. But to go as far to assert that such an unlikely entanglement constitutes an atheist religion is absurd.
This confusion reveals a misunderstanding of what constitutes a religion, in the first place.

 

[Rhizomatic]

Look, to confuse atheism for a religion is as silly as mistaking creationism with a science.

I will allow that that some (misguided) atheists in the world may get themselves involved in philosophical ideologies which may smack of religion, such as Confucianism, or even Buddhism, to a degree. But to go as far to assert that such an unlikely entanglement constitutes an atheist religion is absurd.
This confusion reveals a misunderstanding of what constitutes a religion, in the first place.

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that atheism in and of itself constitutes a religion in this forum, but the idea that "what constiutes a religion" is belief in gods/ other supernatural elements/ faith/ dogma is really just a Western bias from a culture overwhelmingly dominated by Abrahamic traditions. I don't think you can find any scholars in Religious Studies today who would argue that Buddhism, Unitarian Unviversalism, Jainism, LaVeyan Satanism, Scientology, etc., aren't religions because they are either atheist or compatible with atheism. Since religion doesn't really exist (it's an invented, abstract category, not a thing) we're ultimately reduced to arguing about the most valid way to imagine an imaginary object (which is odd and generally not productive), but is seems significantly more absurd to dismiss long-accepted world religions (and quite a few new religious movements) as such because they don't share some of the same charecteristics as the religions that you are more culturally familiar with than it does to use an operational definition of religion that can address all of the phenomena that are commonly and/or historically understood to be reilgion.

 

[andys]

I don't think you can find any scholars in Religious Studies today who would argue that Buddhism, Unitarian Unviversalism, Jainism, LaVeyan Satanism, Scientology, etc., aren't religions because they are either atheist or compatible with atheism.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Atheism is not "compatible" with any beliefs, religious or otherwise. Period.
You most certainly have no clue what atheism means. Please look it up right now. I'll wait.....

There. Got it now? Atheism is nothing more, nothing less than the rejection of theism. The "a" is a prefix that serves to negate the word "theism". Hence, a=anti theism. (Other examples: "atypical", "asymmetrical", "amoral" "asocial", etc.)

So, you see, it is incorrect - dead wrong - to assimilate atheism with a belief system.

 

[Engyo]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Atheism is not "compatible" with any beliefs, religious or otherwise. Period.
You most certainly have no clue what atheism means. Please look it up right now. I'll wait.....

There. Got it now? Atheism is nothing more, nothing less than the rejection of theism. The "a" is a prefix that serves to negate the word "theism". Hence, a=anti theism. (Other examples: "atypical", "asymmetrical", "amoral" "asocial", etc.)

So, you see, it is incorrect - dead wrong - to assimilate atheism with a belief system.

Are you so sure that all of the referenced 'religions' are theistic?

 

[Willamena]

There. Got it now? Atheism is nothing more, nothing less than the rejection of theism. The "a" is a prefix that serves to negate the word "theism". Hence, a=anti theism. (Other examples: "atypical", "asymmetrical", "amoral" "asocial", etc.)

Technically, "a-" is a different prefix than "anti-". Where "a-" negates, "anti-" is in opposition.

Something atypical, for instance, isn't actively opposed to other things being typical. It's just doing its own thing.

 

[andys]

Are you so sure that all of the referenced 'religions' are theistic?

You miss the point. It doesn't matter if these so-called religions are theistic, or not. The point is that atheism is a-theism (a negation) of theism. It is not an assertion of anything. Since no assertion can be associated with atheism, no system of thought can be associated with atheism.

Look, a theistic religion cannot, by definition, be considered atheistic, but that does not mean a non-theistic "religion" can be atheistic! For, as I have said, atheism is not a religion, a point of view, a philosophy, a theory, a belief, or any sort of assertion.

This conversation is plain silly. And I haven't the patience to play teacher any longer.
Follow this link if you are interested in learning what atheism is, and is not:
Atheism Myths: Is Atheism a Religion?

 

[Engyo]

You miss the point. It doesn't matter if these so-called religions are theistic, or not. The point is that atheism is a-theism (a negation) of theism. It is not an assertion of anything. Since no assertion can be associated with atheism, no system of thought can be associated with atheism.

Look, a theistic religion cannot, by definition, be considered atheistic, but that does not mean a non-theistic "religion" can be atheistic! For, as I have said, atheism is not a religion, a point of view, a philosophy, a theory, a belief, or any sort of assertion.

This conversation is plain silly. And I haven't the patience to play teacher any longer.
Follow this link if you are interested in learning what atheism is, and is not:
Atheism Myths: Is Atheism a Religion?

And they said Atheists don't proselytize!

 

[Tathagata]

No, because Atheism itself can be religious. It's not entirely inseparable from religion.


.

 

[andys]

Technically, "a-" is a different prefix than "anti-". Where "a-" negates, "anti-" is in opposition.
Something atypical, for instance, isn't actively opposed to other things being typical. It's just doing its own thing.

Yes, I am quite aware of that and I appreciate the clarification for those who may not be. Formal logic draws a similar distinction. I'm just trying any way I can to explain in simple terms, a simple definition. (It's like pulling teeth.)

 

[andys]

And they said Atheists don't proselytize!

Proselytize?

What prompted that idiotic remark?

You see, we atheists don't sport orange robes, or shave our heads, or chant cross-legged in the Himalayas to statues of fat people. Alas, we have no such trappings or paraphernalia. We have no deep philosophy, no goal to reach nirvana, and certainly nothing to sell.

We just want nothing to do with theism. Simple as that. Unlike you, we have nothing to proselytize.

 

[Engyo]

Proselytize?

What prompted that idiotic remark?

You see, we atheists don't sport orange robes, or shave our heads, or chant cross-legged in the Himalayas to statues of fat people. Alas, we have no such trappings or paraphernalia. We have no deep philosophy, no goal to reach nirvana, and certainly nothing to sell.

We just want nothing to do with theism. Simple as that. Unlike you, we have nothing to proselytize.

I would stand corrected, if your remarks were accurate.

 

[andys]

No, because Atheism itself can be religious. It's not entirely inseparable from religion.

Please educate yourself. I'm a retired teacher and would prefer not to return to the classroom. A few clicks away will avail you of a plethora of information that will spare me this inconvenience. So if not for me, do yourself a favour, and apprise yourself of the facts.

 

[andys]

I would stand corrected, if your remarks were accurate.

I genuinely appreciate that and regret my nasty tone. Accept my apology.

 

[Engyo]

I genuinely appreciate that and regret my nasty tone. Accept my apology.

No prob - happens to everyone now and again.

 

[Tathagata]

Proselytize?

What prompted that idiotic remark?

You see, we atheists don't sport orange robes, or shave our heads, or chant cross-legged in the Himalayas to statues of fat people.

The Buddha wasn't fat. Get your facts straight.

Alas, we have no such trappings or paraphernalia. We have no deep philosophy, no goal to reach nirvana, and certainly nothing to sell.

How great! You have no "deep philosophy" or goals, that's really something to be proud of!

We just want nothing to do with theism. Simple as that. Unlike you, we have nothing to proselytize.

Buddhism isn't Theistic. Get your facts straight.

 

[Tathagata]

Please educate yourself. I'm a retired teacher and would prefer not to return to the classroom. A few clicks away will avail you of a plethora of information that will spare me this inconvenience. So if not for me, do yourself a favour, and apprise yourself of the facts.

I am a Strong Atheist just as you are. I know what the hell Atheism is and a personal fan of Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens.

Notice that I did NOT claim Atheism is a religion. I said Atheism CAN be religious. If you think otherwise, then I point you to the three Atheist religions of Taoism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Again get your facts straight before you start spewing utter nonsense.

 

[Sententia]

Tathagata... Misspelling words to elude a filter does not elude normal people and I can't believe you couldn't make that particular point without doing so. Not cool mate.

That aside I felt like the original post was like Pepperidge farm bread. You can open it and read it but it still ain't open. (Miss ya Mitch!)

Referenced in the same article is why the author thinks he knows why atheists have higher IQs then theists: The real reason atheists have higher IQs | Psychology Today

In terms of fodder... there is the socialist claim made:

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion.

I mean I am surprised people didnt harp on this point:

with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion.

What do you think they are implying and beyond implication does it ring true?

 

[ellenjanuary]

I love it, but no. Simply, if atheism were truly the default, then to say - I have a lack of belief of gods - is to say nothing. I'm simple like that. I don't have a lack of beliefs about the eighty zillion things other people believe in, I have a singular, positive belief - evolutionary deism - which is not so much a name of being, thus finite; it is a direction of becoming. Forward, yet infinite.

While I consider the bulk of religion to be detrimental, counter-productive, and downright insane; the moral imperative must be preserved, and it will not find rest in a mortal body. I know, I hate it too. I like secular humanism, pretty much there; but it is doomed. Because if it did succeed, it would become a religion; in fact I consider it would become a particularly nasty religion. Because your general regular joe needs to believe in something "greater" than finite as all mortal structures perish, yet doesn't have neither the intellectual capacity nor the impetuous of will to derive his own moral imperative.

It seems that atheism is modern, the sign of intellect, the coming thing; but it ain't. There has always been atheism, in one form or another; and it has always waned. In a sense, the question is already answered. Atheism does not replace religion, atheism produces religious diversity.

 

[ninerbuff]

I think eventual it will. Kids are questioning more and when the answer seem more simple and logical they accept it. Religion is by no means a simple answer. Contradictions, several denominations and religions, different rules and rituals. When I asked and questioned, I was eventually told that "that's how it is! You need to follow it or else!" which of course only made me think that it was a way to control people rather than enlighten them.

 

[andys]

You have no "deep philosophy" or goals, that's really something to be proud of!

I am talking about atheism, not me. Read more carefully.
Atheism is merely the rejection of theism. It asserts nothing; it has no philosophy, no goals, no beliefs. You really ought to look up so you will not require me to correct you. It would save me time, and you embarrassment.

Personally, I have quite a number of philosophical views. Each atheist is entitled to their own views. But even if by some strange coincidence, all atheist shared the same personal philosophy, this shared viewpoint would not constitute an atheist philosophy. For, as I keep repeating (in vain), atheism is not - does not - have a philosophy.

Buddhism isn't Theistic. Get your facts straight.

I never said it was, nor would I say such a thing. Now, scoot off and look up "atheism" so that you will get the facts straight.