Will Atheism Replace Religion?

[andys]

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.

My, my. Quite the potty mouth. Perhaps you should consider meditation techniques to calm your nerves.

I am quite familiar with a number of so-called religions which cozy up to atheism and actually refer to themselves as "atheist" religions. I suppose that is their prerogative, but this is an oxymoron, you do realize, and utterly incorrect.

A little "atheism 101" appears to be in order.
I implore you to follow this link which I will paraphrase: Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion

Atheism is generally defined as the absence of belief in theism. But that is deceptively simplistic. All aspects associated with gods and religion such as sacred objects, places and times, are absent in atheism. Also absent are moral codes or transcendental beliefs so often taught by religions. Atheism has nothing to teach or say on this matter.

Also associated with religions are religious or transcendental experiences. Atheist themselves may enjoy a sense of awe in their personal lives, but atheism has no association with these experiences, so they are not attributable to atheism.

Another feature of religion is the promotion of a certain (ideal) world view. Since atheism is not a philosophy or ideology, it cannot and should not be associated with any such system of thought or teaching, particularly when members join for the purpose of worship, rituals, prayer, whatever. Atheist are notorious non-joiners. Certainly, if they do join a so-called non-theistic religion, that is their personal choice, but atheists' membership or endorsement does not make a religion an atheist religion.

I have no real quarrel if people wish to unite and form an -ism which sports certain rituals, philosophical views, transcendental experiences, world views, etc. Although I have no idea why they would want their organization to be referred to as a religion when no gods or religious beliefs are involved. Belief in a god is normally what we think constitutes a "religion". If some groups want to disregard or blur that common understanding, that's up to them, I suppose. Personally, I think any non-theistic organization that wishes to be called a religion is inviting confusion and unwittingly dumbing down its image as being just another irrational, blight on society.

In any case, bravo to these non-theistic so-called religious organizations for not including a god, or any attending religious dogma, into their system of beliefs and teachings.

But the mere absence of god-beliefs does not make a so-called religion an atheist religion. Granted, by implication, no inclusion of theism in an organization implies, I suppose, a sense in which atheism is an ingredient, but it is absurd to conclude that an absence of theism constitutes a case of atheism! That entirely misses the point of what atheism means (as I explained above). I ask you, does the absence of theism in the Theory of Gravity make it an atheist theory or an atheist system of thought?

I found one author on this topic who is willing to grant that atheism can be considered a component of a non-theistic religion. But even that (overly) generous concession does not, he cautions, mean that a religion can be considered atheistic.

"...it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs. They aren’t even remotely comparable.
Austin Cline, About.com Guide

 

[Rhizomatic]

Atheism is generally defined as the absence of belief in theism. But that is deceptively simplistic. All aspects associated with gods and religion such as sacred objects, places and times, are absent in atheism.

Maybe in the sense that a lack of belief in theism is not a belief in sacred objects, places, and times, but plenty of atheists believe in sacred places/ objects/ times/ people/ rituals/ magical languages/ heavenly realms of reincarnation/ etc. I'm graduating undergrad with a degree in religious studies this May and pretty much all that I have studied (aside from classes focusing on specific, theistic traditions) is sacrality in atheist religions (particularly transgressive atheist new religious movements).

Although I have no idea why they would want their organization to be referred to as a religion when no gods or religious beliefs are involved. Belief in a god is normally what we think constitutes a "religion".

In the Euro-American West, sure. That's hardly a global phenomenon, though.

I ask you, does the absence of theism in the Theory of Gravity make it an atheist theory or an atheist system of thought?

This seems like a poor example, because unlike some atheist religions, the theory of gravity does not explicitly deny the existence of gods. Even in religions that are merely compatible with atheism, and subsequently can lack belief in deities, the term denoting a lack of belief in deities seems like (and is widely accepted in the academic study of religion as) an accurate label.

 

[andys]

...plenty of atheists believe in sacred places/ objects/ times/ people/ rituals/ magical languages/ heavenly realms of reincarnation/ etc.

I highly doubt that. Regardless, an atheist's personal beliefs is their own business. But none of their beliefs can be attributed to atheism. Because atheism has no beliefs. Period. So much for so-called atheist religions.

I'm graduating undergrad with a degree in religious studies this May and pretty much all that I have studied (aside from classes focusing on specific, theistic traditions) is sacrality in atheist religions (particularly transgressive atheist new religious movements).

You have, no doubt, been exposed to a number of religions that relish in calling themselves atheist religions. I'm sure your professors have no quarrel with this practice since these religions are exercising their right to ascribe anything they want to their organization. But understand that this practice is not a legitimate use of the word atheist. Atheism makes no assertions; it has no beliefs; it has no rituals; it is devoid of all the things associated with a religion - theistic or non-theistic. These so-called "atheist religions" ought to know better and refer to themselves as "non-theistic", or "secular" religions, or better yet, quit calling themselves religions. Then they would bypass all the confusion and eliminate the need to distinguish themselves from theistic religions, which is what most people understand religions to be, at least in the entire Western hemisphere.

I have another bone to pick with the term "atheist religion". It eliminates, or seriously obscures the important distinction between church and state; secular and nonsecular; theism and atheism. Allowing some religions to be considered atheist religions, disregards the legitimate demarcation needed to distinguish these polar opposites. It invites the misguided perception that religions reside along a continuum, with theism on one end merging with and eventually dissolving into atheism at the other end. This is completely wrong. Atheism can never be a religion. It has nothing to preach or teach.

If atheism can be construed as a religion (I cringe as I type such nonsense) then it is on a slippery slope leading toward its demise as the negation of theism.

"Even in religions that are merely compatible with atheism, and subsequently can lack belief in deities, the term denoting a lack of belief in deities seems like (and is widely accepted in the academic study of religion as) an accurate label.

No, no, no. Compatibility with atheism does not constitute atheism. It's as simple as that.

The Theory of Evolution is certainly compatible with atheism, but it is not, and should not be considered an atheist theory, right? Secular schools and government offices are compatible with atheism, but would you classify them as atheist institutions?

Even if atheism were mandated as a necessary component of a school or government institution, that wouldn't make either of them an atheist organization. Why not? Because atheism, as I keep repeating, cannot be associated with any system of beliefs, assertions, procedures, policies...nothing. To do so automatically contradicts the meaning and essence of atheism.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Stalin tried it but that seriously backfired. In fact his brand of "state atheism" is the last thing any free thinking atheist would want and is totally counterproductive to the cause of atheism.

 

[Madhuri]

I highly doubt that. Regardless, an atheist's personal beliefs is their own business. But none of their beliefs can be attributed to atheism. Because atheism has no beliefs. Period. So much for so-called atheist religions.

So what would you call those religions that claim there is no deity/God? Because they aren't theistic.

Furthermore, I've never come across a person or a reading that explains atheism to be more than a lack of belief in a deity. Never.

 

[Tathagata]

I am talking about atheism, not me. Read more carefully.

Do you have amnesia by any chance? You said:

We have no deep philosophy

"We" also includes "YOU" so my comment was directed at "YOU" as an Atheist given the context of your statement. So if Atheists have no "deep philosophy" and you are an Atheist, then it follows that you, as an Atheist, have no "deep philosophy." So why would you deny that when I made the accurate statement?

Atheism is merely the rejection of theism.

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

-- Dictionary.com

Origin: Greek áthe ( os ) godless
^^^^
Even the etymology suggests that it's the rejection of gods. I don't know why you insist that it's the rejection of Theism, when Theism is merely the belief in a personal God, so really, it means the same thing.

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.

Yeah, I already know that. However, I agree that it has no philosophy or goals, it is indeed a belief claim. It is a world view that posits a godless universe. Let's say a person believed that a car had no engine, that is still a belief claim and an assertion.

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.

Again, I already know that. However, Atheism can be combined with or incorporated into other philosophies, or in some cases, philosophies can derive from Atheism, and thus constituting them as an Atheist philosophy, "Atheism" being a descriptive word of the philosophy.

I never said it was, nor would I say such a thing.

You implied it in your post. You listed all the Buddhist practices and then followed with "We just want nothing to do with theism. Simple as that. Unlike you, we have nothing to proselytize" which was directed at a Buddhist. Also, if you want nothing to do with Theism, then why do you want nothing to do with Buddhism? Unless Buddhism was Theistic, you have nothing to reject in Buddhism as an Atheist. And you said it yourself, Athiests have no other beliefs other than "rejection of Theism."


.

 

[Tathagata]

My, my. Quite the potty mouth. Perhaps you should consider meditation techniques to calm your nerves.

I don't believe in censorship.

I am quite familiar with a number of so-called religions which cozy up to atheism and actually refer to themselves as "atheist" religions. I suppose that is their prerogative, but this is an oxymoron, you do realize, and utterly incorrect.

A little "atheism 101" appears to be in order.
I implore you to follow this link which I will paraphrase: Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion

Atheism is generally defined as the absence of belief in theism. But that is deceptively simplistic. All aspects associated with gods and religion such as sacred objects, places and times, are absent in atheism. Also absent are moral codes or transcendental beliefs so often taught by religions.

Atheism is a position that ONLY concerns the existence and belief in God. Nothing else. Atheism has nothing to do with sacred objects, moral codes, or transcendental beliefs. But it doesn't reject them though, so it's entirely possible for an Atheist to have moral codes, sacred objects and transcendental beliefs.

Atheism has nothing to teach or say on this matter.

Exactly my point. So why do you imply that it rejects other things that don't have to do with deities?

Here you tried to imply that Atheism is something more than rejection of gods:

"Atheism is generally defined as the absence of belief in theism. But that is deceptively simplistic. All aspects associated with gods and religion such as sacred objects, places and times, are absent in atheism."

Another feature of religion is the promotion of a certain (ideal) world view. Since atheism is not a philosophy or ideology, it cannot and should not be associated with any such system of thought or teaching,

Non-sequitur. Just because Atheism is not a philosophy doesn't mean it can't be associated with philosophies or religions. By your flawed line of reasoning, fries are not ketchup, therefore fries should never be associated with or dipped in ketchup. Yes, very sound reasoning! You are a real champion for the Atheists! Not.

particularly when members join for the purpose of worship, rituals, prayer, whatever. Atheist are notorious non-joiners. Certainly, if they do join a so-called non-theistic religion, that is their personal choice, but atheists' membership or endorsement does not make a religion an atheist religion.

Atheism is the position that there are no gods. If a religion holds that same position, then it is Atheistic, thus it is an Atheistic religion.

I have no real quarrel if people wish to unite and form an -ism which sports certain rituals, philosophical views, transcendental experiences, world views, etc. Although I have no idea why they would want their organization to be referred to as a religion when no gods or religious beliefs are involved. Belief in a god is normally what we think constitutes a "religion". If some groups want to disregard or blur that common understanding, that's up to them, I suppose.

So Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism are not religions according to you? Then why did you just go off listing all the aspects of Buddhism that you reject as if it were due to your Atheism? And I can quote you:

"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."

But if Atheism is nothing but the rejection of gods, then why do you assert that all Atheists reject Buddhist beliefs and practices? There is no reason why an Atheist should reject any of the things you just listed above, so long as the Atheist maintains disbelief in gods.

In any case, bravo to these non-theistic so-called religious organizations for not including a god, or any attending religious dogma, into their system of beliefs and teachings.

But the mere absence of god-beliefs does not make a so-called religion an atheist religion. Granted, by implication, no inclusion of theism in an organization implies, I suppose, a sense in which atheism is an ingredient, but it is absurd to conclude that an absence of theism constitutes a case of atheism!

Um, no those non-theist religions aren't merely Atheistic because of the absence of Theism. They have an explicit rejection of gods and Theism.

That entirely misses the point of what atheism means (as I explained above).

But you don't know what Atheism means. It's the rejection of gods or nonbelief in gods. If those non-theistic religions share that same view, then they are Atheistic.

I ask you, does the absence of theism in the Theory of Gravity make it an atheist theory or an atheist system of thought?

No, and I would never make such an absurd assertion. Strawman on your behalf.

"...it’s not possible to call atheism a religion.

I never once claimed that Atheism is a religion. In fact, I explicitly stated the contrary. Again, strawman on your behalf.

It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to pound through your head this whole time! You're finally getting it! However, you have just conceded the argument.

They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs. They aren’t even remotely comparable.
Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell you this whole time.


.

 

[andys]

Stalin tried it but that seriously backfired. In fact his brand of "state atheism" is the last thing any free thinking atheist would want and is totally counterproductive to the cause of atheism.

Atheism doesn't have a cause! Where do you people get these silly ideas?

We're not anything like our nemesis, the bible-thumper at the door, eager to sell his product like a used car salesman.

We atheists just want to be left alone and live life without the stink of religion stamped on our national anthem, our currency, our courtrooms, our winter solstice celebration, our residential streets, and in my country, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The list of intrusions is endless.

Personally, I'd love to live in an atheist state. How idyllic. Of course, these so-called "atheist states" are not promoting atheism, they are denying religious freedom - and for a very good reason. Believers have this particularly nasty habit of thinking that the laws of the land do not apply to them. Oh no. Their god is the supreme lord of the land, and this attitude definitely crimps the style of your average dictator.

So it is not the case that atheism, itself, is a movement, or a cause with any ambitions for violence and domination. That's one of the many positive attributes of atheism that distinguishes it from theism.

 

[andys]

Do you have amnesia by any chance? You said: "We [atheists] have no deep philosophy."
"We" also includes "YOU" so my comment was directed at "YOU" as an Atheist given the context of your statement. So if Atheists have no "deep philosophy" and you are an Atheist, then it follows that you, as an Atheist, have no "deep philosophy." So why would you deny that when I made the accurate statement?

(Western logic! Hope that's not against your Eastern religion.)
Common English 101: An assertion like "we scientists are impartial and unbiased", implies that science is impartial and unbiased, not that these attributes are personality traits coincidentally shared by a group of people who just happen to be scientists.

In any case, what bearing would the personal inclinations and habits of certain individuals, who happen to be atheists, have on this discussion? The subject is atheism, not the daily practices of Joe, Frank and Betty, the neighborhood atheists. I regret any confusion this caused you.

Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-Dictionary.com
Origin: Greek áthe ( os ) godless

Even the etymology suggests that it's the rejection of gods. I don't know why you insist that it's the rejection of Theism, when Theism is merely the belief in a personal God, so really, it means the same thing.

As a Buddhist, you strive for enlightenment, well it's your lucky day: First off, your source's definition (1) is incorrect. (I must seem pompous challenging an "authoritative" definition, because most people think dictionaries are infallible.)

Atheism is not a belief in anything. That includes the belief that there isn't a god. Beliefs, to atheism, are the root of the problem behind theism. A belief is simply a strong conviction, that something is true. A belief does not require a stitch of evidence to justify itself. Theism is the belief in a (personal) god. As such, this personal belief is correctly dismissed by atheists (atheism), as a groundless assertion. Do understand that he dismissal of a belief is not the assertion of a belief! One might as well say, "Your lack of belief in fairies is a belief in itself!" How silly.

Incidentally, the "a" in atheist does not mean "anti" as against or opposed to, (the opposite of pro or for). The "a" is a simple negation, meaning not. So atheism isn't in opposition to belief in a god, rather it is the (harmless) negation of the belief in a god (theism). This may seem to be a subtle distinction worthy of a lawyer, but it is a legitimate distinction. To negate theism is simply to reject its assertion of belief, (like rejecting the belief in fairies); but to be opposed to theism and assert that there is no god, (there are no fairies) is to substitute an equally unjustified belief in place of another. Atheist are (or ought to be) careful not to make this mistake (and dictionaries ought to get their facts straight).

"[Atheism] is indeed a belief claim. It is a world view that posits a godless universe. Let's say a person believed that a car had no engine, that is still a belief claim and an assertion.

Since atheism doesn't have any beliefs, it certainly does not - could not - have a belief system, let alone a "world view" as you suggest. This curious conviction of yours, which has no evidence to support it, is a classic example of a belief. As a self-proclaimed atheist, you really ought to be more careful. If, however, you still insist that the universe is at the mercy of these heathen atheist devils, It is your duty to expose this sinister atheist plot to posit a godless universe! Hark...Reveal this godless document!

"...Atheism can be combined with or incorporated into other philosophies, or in some cases, philosophies can derive from Atheism, and thus constituting them as an Atheist philosophy, "Atheism" being a descriptive word of the philosophy."

This is an extremely good question and probably deserves its own thread to answer sufficiently. And I acknowledge that there is an intrinsic ring of truth to what you say. If, for example, a chef were to include a large portion of sugar in his new recipe for a sweet pie, he is entitled to call it a "sugar pie". So your point of view seems valid. Except, atheism is not an ingredient, like sugar.

Take Buddhism, for example. It's is an atheist pie. It incorporates atheism into its complex system of beliefs. Bravo, I say. Our public schools and government institutions are incorporating (indeed mandating) the absence of theism within their walls. Granted, this is not a philosophical rejection of theism as may be the case for Buddhism, but a unilateral policy to provide a "theism-free zone". Yet it would be folly to refer to either of these institutions as "atheist institutions", you will agree, because that is not their primary function. This reference would be extremely misleading. Worse, and this is to the point, calling a secular school an "atheist school" is an abuse of the word atheist.

A fundamental "absolute" of atheism is its universal indifference to anything asserted, postulated, promoted, or proclaimed. Other than its exclusive denial of theism, atheism is the mother of neutral ground. It is nothing more/nothing less than the absence of belief in a deity (its weak form,) or, the rejection of belief in a deity, (its strong sense). In short, atheism rejects belief in gods, but makes no assertions or claims. Therefore it is disingenuous to use the word "atheism" or "atheist" as a descriptor or as a title in association with extraneous beliefs or philosophies. Doing so is to create the false impression that atheism is proclaiming or endorsing a set of beliefs outside its exclusive domain. Titles such as "atheist religion" ingenuously imply that atheism is venturing forth, beyond its limited scope, and entering into partnership with an organized movement or philosophy. That is dirty pool and a lie.

For that reason, Buddhism is not an "atheist" religion - implying that atheism has adopted the beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, customs, etc., of Buddhism. In fact, it is the other way around: Buddhism has adopted atheism as an ingredient into its long recipe of beliefs and customs! Rightfully, Buddhism ought to be called a religious atheism, rather than an atheist religion. That at least would be closer to the truth.

You listed all the Buddhist practices and then followed with "We just want nothing to do with theism. Simple as that. Unlike you, we have nothing to proselytize" which was directed at a Buddhist. Also, if you want nothing to do with Theism, then why do you want nothing to do with Buddhism? Unless Buddhism was Theistic, you have nothing to reject in Buddhism as an Atheist. And you said it yourself, Athiests have no other beliefs other than "rejection of Theism."

I couldn't find this quote, but I have no trouble dealing with it. It's a simple matter. First, Buddhism prescribes a solution to deal with suffering. This is its main directive, I take it. Healing the suffering of the world is all very noble, but it has nothing to do with atheism. No quote was provided to indicate that I wanted nothing to do with Buddhism, but this assertion is certainly compatible with atheism, since Buddhism is not something atheism expresses any interest in. This remark is also compatible with my personal viewpoint, since thanks to LSD ("instant Zen"), I feel I have bypassed the need for this Eastern religion.

[By the way, "atheism" is not capitalized.]

 

[Rhizomatic]

I highly doubt that. Regardless, an atheist's personal beliefs is their own business. But none of their beliefs can be attributed to atheism. Because atheism has no beliefs. Period. So much for so-called atheist religions.


You have, no doubt, been exposed to a number of religions that relish in calling themselves atheist religions. I'm sure your professors have no quarrel with this practice since these religions are exercising their right to ascribe anything they want to their organization. But understand that this practice is not a legitimate use of the word atheist. Atheism makes no assertions; it has no beliefs; it has no rituals; it is devoid of all the things associated with a religion - theistic or non-theistic. These so-called "atheist religions" ought to know better and refer to themselves as "non-theistic", or "secular" religions, or better yet, quit calling themselves religions. Then they would bypass all the confusion and eliminate the need to distinguish themselves from theistic religions, which is what most people understand religions to be, at least in the entire Western hemisphere.

I have another bone to pick with the term "atheist religion". It eliminates, or seriously obscures the important distinction between church and state; secular and nonsecular; theism and atheism. Allowing some religions to be considered atheist religions, disregards the legitimate demarcation needed to distinguish these polar opposites. It invites the misguided perception that religions reside along a continuum, with theism on one end merging with and eventually dissolving into atheism at the other end. This is completely wrong. Atheism can never be a religion. It has nothing to preach or teach.

If atheism can be construed as a religion (I cringe as I type such nonsense) then it is on a slippery slope leading toward its demise as the negation of theism.

No, no, no. Compatibility with atheism does not constitute atheism. It's as simple as that.

The Theory of Evolution is certainly compatible with atheism, but it is not, and should not be considered an atheist theory, right? Secular schools and government offices are compatible with atheism, but would you classify them as atheist institutions?

Even if atheism were mandated as a necessary component of a school or government institution, that wouldn't make either of them an atheist organization. Why not? Because atheism, as I keep repeating, cannot be associated with any system of beliefs, assertions, procedures, policies...nothing. To do so automatically contradicts the meaning and essence of atheism.

All of your rebuttals to my point seem to be based on the absurd notion that for a religion to be properly described as "atheist", it must have no properties other than atheism (ie: beliefs). Which is absurd. For a religion to be atheist it needs to lack belief in deities (atheism). It doesn't need to bar things like ritual that don't fall under the purview of atheism. The "meaning of essence of atheism" isn't lack of ritual, it's lack of belief in deities. It's not lack of belief in reincarnation, it's lack of belief in deities. It's not lack of scripture, it's lack of belief in deities.

 

[andys]

Rhizomatic,
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but this attempt at a retort isn't worthy of a serious response.
I'll wait to see what you have to say about my most recent post.

 

[Rhizomatic]

If you're not even going to acknowledge the problem that I have with your argument (ie: my argument, which is also my fundamental problem with your most recent post), then this conversation can't really go on.

 

[andys]

All of your rebuttals to my point seem to be based on the absurd notion that for a religion to be properly described as "atheist", it must have no properties other than atheism (ie: beliefs).

You want a response, fair enough. But we are going in circles and I am running out of new ways to articulate my simple point.

Here is the issue.
You believe that there are true atheist religions. Buddhism is one example. Your reason is that these religions do not posit a deity. Therefore, you conclude, they are actually atheist religions. Correct?

I assert that atheism can not be a religion. Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. That is all, end of story. Look it up. Atheism is not a belief system; it has no teachings, no scriptures, no world view, no wisdom to impart. It is virtually vacuous. It is merely the absence of theism. That is a fact. Correct? Therefore, no atheist belief system can exist, much less an atheist religion. The term "atheist religion" entails atheist beliefs. There is no such thing as atheist beliefs, therefore it is incorrect to posit this self-contradictory oxymoron.

For a religion to be atheist it needs to lack belief in deities (atheism). It doesn't need to bar things like ritual that don't fall under the purview of atheism. The "meaning of essence of atheism" isn't lack of ritual, it's lack of belief in deities. It's not lack of belief in reincarnation, it's lack of belief in deities. It's not lack of scripture, it's lack of belief in deities.

I have pointed out that incorporating atheism into an existing belief system is possible, so long as the implied credit for this system is not (falsely) attributed to atheism by calling it an "atheist" organization, or an "atheist" religion. An example I provided were secular institutions that are "theism-free" zones. While they have, in affect, adopted atheism, you would never dream of calling these places atheist institutions, e.g., public schools are not "atheist" schools. Correct? Because atheism is only a component implied within a large body of policies, procedures, philosophies, etc. None of these is "atheist", because atheism has no policies, procedures, philosophies, etc., period.

Here is a simple example: Suppose that inside a box is a round object. Would you call the box a "round box"? Of course not. Well, atheism is a component "inside" your religion, yet you feel entitled to call your religion an "atheist religion".

And that example doesn't even take into account that atheism and beliefs are like oil and water. Again, atheism has no beliefs of its own, so no belief-system can truthfully call itself "atheist".

Finally, I offered a solution to this (non) issue.
"Buddhism is not an "atheist" religion - implying that atheism has adopted the beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, customs, etc., of Buddhism. In fact, it is the other way around: Buddhism has adopted atheism as an ingredient into its long recipe of beliefs and customs! Rightfully, Buddhism ought to be called a religious atheism, rather than an atheist religion. That at least would be closer to the truth."

 

[Rhizomatic]

You want a response, fair enough. But we are going in circles and I am running out of new ways to articulate my simple point.

Here is the issue.
You believe that there are true atheist religions. Buddhism is one example. Your reason is that these religions do not posit a deity. Therefore, you conclude, they are actually atheist religions. Correct?

I assert that atheism can not be a religion. Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. That is all, end of story. Look it up. Atheism is not a belief system; it has no teachings, no scriptures, no world view, no wisdom to impart. It is virtually vacuous. It is merely the absence of theism. That is a fact. Correct? Therefore, no atheist belief system can exist, much less an atheist religion. The term "atheist religion" entails atheist beliefs. There is no such thing as atheist beliefs, therefore it is incorrect to posit this self-contradictory oxymoron.

Considering the fact that I've already expressed my problems with your point, I don't know why you feel the need to re-articulate it in favor of simply addressing my response.

You are correct in concluding that I consider religions accurately described by a lack of belief in deities to be religions, but you are incorrect in making an argument out of "atheism can not be a religion" as if that responds to my points. I'm not saying that atheism is a religion, I'm saying that "atheist" is an adjective that correctly describes a number of religions.

An example I provided were secular institutions that are "theism-free" zones. While they have, in affect, adopted atheism,

Here's my problem with your secularism example. Secular space is not a "theism-free" zone; it's often full of theism. It's an area where expressions of theism are regulated, not an area that lacks theistic belief. Unlike a religion that explicitly denies (or affirms non-belief in) deities, where there is an actual lack of belief.

Space where theism is regulated =/= atheist space.
Religion where theism is denied or absent = atheist religion.

Here is a simple example: Suppose that inside a box is a round object. Would you call the box a "round box"? Of course not. Well, atheism is a component "inside" your religion, yet you feel entitled to call your religion an "atheist religion".

This analogy fails because religion is not a physical object (not that your point always works for them, either--are you familiar with the concept of a lunchbox?). It's a prototypically-generated category; it's definition arises precisely from a description of its contents. Thus we say that Christianity is a transcendent (even though it contains beliefs other than transcendence), theistic (even though it contains beliefs other than theism), soteriological (even though it contains doctrines other than those of salvation), scripture-based (even though it contains non-textual elements), supernatural (even though it contains teachings that do not contradict empirical understandings of the world) religion. The fact that these are all parts of Christianity, and though it would not do to simply define Christianity as "soteriology" or "theism", they are all accurate labels for describing it.

And that example doesn't even take into account that atheism and beliefs are like oil and water. Again, atheism has no beliefs of its own, so no belief-system can truthfully call itself "atheist".

Again this confuses the lack of one specific belief with the lack of all beliefs. The fact that atheism is not Jainism and Jainism is more than atheism does not prevent Jainism from being atheist.

"Buddhism is not an "atheist" religion - implying that atheism has adopted the beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, customs, etc., of Buddhism. In fact, it is the other way around: Buddhism has adopted atheism as an ingredient into its long recipe of beliefs and customs! Rightfully, Buddhism ought to be called a religious atheism, rather than an atheist religion. That at least would be closer to the truth."

Honestly that seems to do exactly the opposite of what you want. When we say "atheist religion", atheism is an adjective describing the religion. The substantive thing, Buddhism, is not atheism (which in necessary because, as you noted, atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief system); "atheist" is the adjective that denotes that the substantive thing lacks belief in gods. When you say "religious atheism" then atheism is suddenly used as a noun, with the implications that it is the thing in question, which you have acknowledged as patently absurd in a religious context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I assert that atheism can not be a religion. Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. That is all, end of story. Look it up. Atheism is not a belief system; it has no teachings, no scriptures, no world view, no wisdom to impart. It is virtually vacuous. It is merely the absence of theism. That is a fact. Correct? Therefore, no atheist belief system can exist, much less an atheist religion. The term "atheist religion" entails atheist beliefs. There is no such thing as atheist beliefs, therefore it is incorrect to posit this self-contradictory oxymoron.

Are you taking "atheist religion" to mean "the religion of atheism"?

If so, then I don't think you need to. It works just fine to think of it as "a religion that is atheistic"... i.e. a religion that does not include a belief in any gods.

Finally, I offered a solution to this (non) issue.
"Buddhism is not an "atheist" religion - implying that atheism has adopted the beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, customs, etc., of Buddhism. In fact, it is the other way around: Buddhism has adopted atheism as an ingredient into its long recipe of beliefs and customs! Rightfully, Buddhism ought to be called a religious atheism, rather than an atheist religion. That at least would be closer to the truth."

I think this confuses things even more. Buddhism is a religion. It's not "an atheism", as would be suggested by calling it "a religious atheism".

Frankly, I don't see what your issue is. I don't see how the term "atheist religion" implies that atheism is a type of religion any more than "blue car" implies that the colour blue is a type of car. And I think that the term "religious atheism" makes about as much sense as "automotive blueness" would make when describing a blue car.

If a religion doesn't include beliefs in any gods, then it's perfectly acceptable to call it an atheist religion. This doesn't mean that atheism is a religion; it just means that the particular religion doesn't include any theistic beliefs.

 

[TEXASBULL]

Closet Atheist? :yes:

One reason I think we are at least 100 years away, is because its hard to say publicly in some places you don't believe in Gods.

Family, social stigma, and even my marriage is on the line. I even have to tip toe around the subject with my wife.

I am still in church every Sunday. I think there are a lot of cowards like me out there.

Public atheism is still a new radical idea. Imagine running for political office as an open atheist. You would get blown away. I say in around 100 years our society will have warmed up enough. As a side note, I think homosexuality will not even be discussed as even being remotely wrong in 100 years also. its all about evolving.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Public atheism is still a new radical idea. Imagine running for political office as an open atheist. You would get blown away. I say in around 100 years our society will have warmed up enough.

Robert Ingersoll was the Attorney General of Illinois, and while he described himself as an agnostic, not as an atheist, he was more outspoken about religion than the "Four Horsemen" of "new" atheism are today.

It seems things have moved backward in the last 100 years.

 

[andys]

All of your rebuttals to my point seem to be based on the absurd notion that for a religion to be properly described as "atheist", it must have no properties other than atheism ([i.e.]: beliefs)."

That's right grasshopper. (Intended humour, not sarcasm)

Actually, the very sight of "atheist" beside "religion", makes my flesh crawl. The word religion is so ambiguous it can mean anything. Buddhism, for example, calls itself a religion. In fact, it is essentially an elaborate form of self-help psychotherapy that prescribes a certain state of awareness to alleviate suffering. How that qualifies as a religion escapes me. I guess it's the orange robes.

In any case, just because any kind of belief system can be called a religion, doesn't mean anything can be atheism. Because atheism isn't an ill-defined ambiguous word. It's definition is clear as a bell. It is nothing less than the absence of theism, and nothing more. To repeat and expound upon this definition: atheism has no beliefs; it is the absence of belief in one thing, theism. It does not associate itself with any assertions or beliefs. Yet by entangling it with religion, by insisting there are atheist religions, you are (unwittingly?) doing just that - associating atheism with assertions and beliefs.

For a religion to be atheist it needs to lack belief in deities (atheism). It doesn't need to bar things like ritual that don't fall under the purview of atheism. The "meaning [and] essence of atheism" isn't lack of ritual, it's lack of belief in deities. It's not lack of belief in reincarnation, it's lack of belief in deities. It's not lack of scripture, it's lack of belief in deities.

Well, plants and and animals lack belief in deities, so do you assert there are atheist plants and atheist animals? Why not? Because they aren't a complex system of beliefs or thought? Well what about Geometry; this is a highly complex system of thought, lacking in beliefs about deities. So why do we make no references to atheist geometry? Perhaps because geometry doesn't prescribe how to live a better life. Well there are many doctors and health books that prescribe miracle diets, yoga and meditation to flocks of committed followers. This sounds a lot like Buddhism, which also offers mind-body healing techniques which do not involve belief in deities. Yet no one would not dream of associating atheism with these healthful "teachings". What then makes certain religions so special that, in your mind, warrants the title "atheist religion"?

The answer is obvious. Religions are generally associated with the belief in god - theism. You dispute this and contend that many religions do not embrace theism, but most searches for a definition of religion will produce answers such as this:
"Religion is a belief of some superhuman power or powers, in particular a god or gods, which usually involve obedience, reverence, and worship; and as part of a system which defines a code of living, especially as a way of achieving spiritual or material improvement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

In any case, should a (so-called) religion not subscribe to theism and strive to distinguish itself from the theistic religions, it requires a descriptor to negate or disassociate the important feature of "theism" from itself. Regrettably some choose "atheism". Hence the oxymoron "atheist religion".

I do not discount the fact that there are certain organizations that prescribe ways to achieve a more fulfilled life without theism, but I do question the rationale for describing these non-theistic organizations as religions. At the very least this seeming contradiction creates considerable confusion as to what exactly constitutes a religion.

This confusion is only compounded when non-theistic religions are referred to as atheist religions. As though such a juxtaposition of words is comprehensible.

Why not call a spade a spade and refer to these non-theistic religions as "non-theistic religions"? That is exactly what they are, and this reference avoids the false impression that atheism has the any affinity to religion, (i.e., an atheist religion).

One writer has this to say, "Atheism isn't a religion, no matter what conservative evangelical Christians think, but some atheists are religious -- all that's necessary is for them to belong to an atheistic religion. The most common of these may be Buddhism. Not all forms of Buddhism are atheistic, but some are and atheist Buddhists point out that the Buddha never regarded gods or belief in gods to be important -- he didn't deny them or argue against them, but he didn't think they deserved any attention if they did exist." Defending Bare-Bones, Atheistic Buddhism

I can live with "atheistic religion". I do much prefer "non-theistic religion", which is far less contentious and misleading, but if either of these suggestions is acceptable to you...let's toast to an acceptable compromise, or agree we can't agree.

 

[jmvizanko]

There's more to religion than belief in deities. Some religious people are indeed atheists.

You probably couldn't swing a cat in a UU congregation without hitting at least a few atheists.

Could one even call UU religion though? I mean, if you have absolutely no unifying doctrine or set of beliefs, what makes you more than just a social get together?

 

[waitasec]

Robert Ingersoll was the Attorney General of Illinois, and while he described himself as an agnostic, not as an atheist, he was more outspoken about religion than the "Four Horsemen" of "new" atheism are today.

It seems things have moved backward in the last 100 years.

"to make an impact you must offend as many people as possible"- gene simmons of kiss




or something to that affect.