Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[JChnsc19]

I understand perfectly, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Atheism is a religion.

Is that a fact? How about the prescribing of certain responses to persuade theists that " SCIENCE" circumvents the Word of God in creation and to encourage them to see the "truth" that Christians are uneducated in the sciences and that they are fools for believing in a different and more sensible, reasonable and logical view of the world around us?

I cant believe you said this!

Your religion is only Science, your dogma which is a principle or set of principles laid down by your authority (science) as unquestionably true. Your tenet,
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of your religion of Atheism and your philosophy of evolution is quite hypocritical when you openly state you posses none of these things!

I was recently told Atheism is a religion with tenets, and dogma. So I have a ? for those theists who think atheism is a religion.

1. For the theists who believe in a single god, I assume you're an atheist towards other gods. For example, let's say you don't believe in, you have an atheist view towards, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna. So if you're a theist who believes atheism is a religion; when you "practice" your atheism towards those gods you don't believe in, who gives you your dogma, tenets, doctrines, creeds etc? I haven't found any for atheism so I'm willing to be educated on this matter when you tell me where yours come from. Thanks!

2. I was curious so I looked up some surveys about atheist beliefs. Re: atheists: Conservapedia said 32% believe in an afterlife, 6% believe in resurrection, they also found atheists who believe in ghosts, souls, pseudoscience, UFOs. Pews Forum reports 9% don't believe in evolution. 32% rely on science to determine right from wrong while 44% rely on past experience and common sense. And a large number of Dutch atheists believe in a "universal force". So...with all these beliefs all over the map, who is giving atheists their doctrines, tenets & dogma and why are they giving them a religious structure that's so varied & inconsistent?

 

[Earthling]

I was recently told Atheism is a religion with tenets, and dogma. So I have a ? for those theists who think atheism is a religion.

1. For the theists who believe in a single god, I assume you're an atheist towards other gods. For example, let's say you don't believe in, you have an atheist view towards, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna. So if you're a theist who believes atheism is a religion; when you "practice" your atheism towards those gods you don't believe in, who gives you your dogma, tenets, doctrines, creeds etc? I haven't found any for atheism so I'm willing to be educated on this matter when you tell me where yours come from. Thanks!

You're most certainly welcome! I'm an odd one. I'm a theist. I'm a Bible believer. The Bible refers to many gods. Some were mere mortals not unlike ourselves. Some were supernatural. A person or a thing has to become a god by being venerated which is to say, to be attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it. So I believe in several gods mentioned in the Bible. Veneration isn't worship. So, the Bible mentions a man, a King of Sumeria whose name was Tammuz, as a god. I believe this man existed, as a god, but not my god. So! do I believe in a single god? I believe in many gods, some who have existed, some who haven't. Some who were supernatural some who weren't. One, Jehovah, which I place above, that is, foremost, over all others.

2. I was curious so I looked up some surveys about atheist beliefs. Re: atheists: Conservapedia said 32% believe in an afterlife, 6% believe in resurrection, they also found atheists who believe in ghosts, souls, pseudoscience, UFOs. Pews Forum reports 9% don't believe in evolution. 32% rely on science to determine right from wrong while 44% rely on past experience and common sense. And a large number of Dutch atheists believe in a "universal force". So...with all these beliefs all over the map, who is giving atheists their doctrines, tenets & dogma and why are they giving them a religious structure that's so varied & inconsistent?

Very good question, and surprising survey results, if they are accurate they certainly are surprising to me as that hasn't been my experience, either as an atheist for the first 27 years of my life, and having 99% of the friends and family I've known all my life that are atheists, or over two decades discussing the subject with atheists online. I think that the reason for this is that the atheists we tend to encounter on forums like this are, more what I call, militant, meaning more outspoken and aggressive. I think they tend to be more narrow in their approach. Then again, Buddhist, Confucians, Shintoists, and Taoists would be atheists that we would likely encounter who weren't "Atheists" as such, but atheists never the less. And there's the rub, you see?

Really all religiosity is, is a specific system of beliefs or principles strictly adhered to. For example, I watch South Park religiously.

So, there's all this debate about 1. Whether gods are supernatural or not, whether or not a god has to even exist to be a god and therefore do gods exist, and does one have to worship a god in order to believe in it? and 2. Does a religion need gods, does a religion need rituals, etc. or are those religions without gods, rituals etc. really only philosophies and, apparently from the militant atheists perspective especially, are commonalities other than a lack of belief necessary?

 

[Quintessence]

As a polytheist, the first question doesn't apply to me, so I won't respond to it. That said, I'm going to point that the "distinction" between atheism and theism is either contextual or meaningless. That is, everyone is both a theist and an atheist if context is not provided. I can expand on that if need be.

In a fashion, that answers the second question in of itself. It's very important to remember that (a)theism is not the same thing as (ir)religion. The ambiguity of what (a)theism means compounds that, especially when combined with the ambiguity of what religion is. I find it better to think about it as culture. Everybody has culture. The ideas and practices a person holds to - regardless of whether we slap the label atheist, theist, religious, or irreligious onto them - emerge from their surrounding environment. For humans, that means a combination of both culture and nature.

I'd also like to note that atheism in of itself is rarely a religion, per se. It can be (or is often the functional equivalent thereof), but it is not always the case. What I look for when I label someone a religious atheist are the things I consider to be the hallmarks of religion: mythos, ritual, values, and community. If a decent chunk of a person's way of life centers around atheism for those four things, they're treating their atheism religiously. In my experience, atheists in my country tend to have one foot in and one foot out as far as that goes. It'd be more accurate to call it "secular humanism" and/or "scientism" though, because the non-theism is really a small component of the overall mythos and value system that's in place. For better or worse, atheism has become a catch-all term for a host of ideas that really are not directly connected to it, which is the main reason why I capitulate that it can be considered a religion in some cases. I find it annoying - as I do for the term theism that suffers from the same problems - but it is what it is.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheism means without theism so yes, it is a religion for those that have not figured that out yet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism means without theism so yes, it is a religion for those that have not figured that out yet.

What?

 

[Liu]

Not sure whether I count as a theist; I'm an agnostic pantheist (or agnostic pandeist, to use a more precise but also ambiguous term). So, I believe in a deity that everything is a manifestation of, but I'm agnostic whether it's a personal deity. It is the source of consciousness, so I assume it at least is conscious, but I'm not sure whether it has one coherent self-aware consciousness.

Question 1: I am agnostic about other deities. I have heard stories that strongly imply the existence of non-physical entities, but well, who knows whether those stories are correct and/or whether they have another explanation.
Therefore I treat deities sometimes as actual beings, sometimes as metaphors, as I have no idea which they are.

Question 2: Atheism might be a religion in that some of the people who call themselves atheists hold their disbelief in deities as dogma, but lots of people who call themselves atheists are instead agnostics.

 

[Nakosis]

I was recently told Atheism is a religion with tenets, and dogma. So I have a ? for those theists who think atheism is a religion.

1. For the theists who believe in a single god, I assume you're an atheist towards other gods. For example, let's say you don't believe in, you have an atheist view towards, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna. So if you're a theist who believes atheism is a religion; when you "practice" your atheism towards those gods you don't believe in, who gives you your dogma, tenets, doctrines, creeds etc? I haven't found any for atheism so I'm willing to be educated on this matter when you tell me where yours come from. Thanks!

2. I was curious so I looked up some surveys about atheist beliefs. Re: atheists: Conservapedia said 32% believe in an afterlife, 6% believe in resurrection, they also found atheists who believe in ghosts, souls, pseudoscience, UFOs. Pews Forum reports 9% don't believe in evolution. 32% rely on science to determine right from wrong while 44% rely on past experience and common sense. And a large number of Dutch atheists believe in a "universal force". So...with all these beliefs all over the map, who is giving atheists their doctrines, tenets & dogma and why are they giving them a religious structure that's so varied & inconsistent?

I'm tired of fighting it. Atheism is a religion. The only tenet would be to not have a belief in a God. No additional requirements, no rules to follow, no tithing, no additional beliefs to have or not have.

So meh, Atheism is a religion, now what?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'm tired of fighting it. Atheism is a religion. The only tenet would be to not have a belief in a God. No additional requirements, no rules to follow, no tithing, no additional beliefs to have or not have.

So meh, Atheism is a religion, now what?

So your logic is, Theism is the religion for anyone having a belief in god(s). Atheism is the religion for anyone without a belief in God(due to lack of evidence). People who have never heard of a religion, also belong to a religion whose tenet is ignorance of God. And, the animals belong to a religion, whose tenet is survival from God. Makes perfect sense to me. Or maybe there is a very clear difference.

 

[PureX]

It depends on how we choose to define "religion". I would define religion as a collection of tools (myths, rituals, practices, images, rules, principals, etc.,) used to help people live in accord with their accepted theological proposition. And since atheism is a theological proposition, a "religion" could be constituted and attributed to it, and practiced by willing adherents of atheism. I don't think most atheists do so, however, simply because it would be difficult to create a "religion" based on the NON-existence of deity.

However, in recent years there has been a significant increase in atheistic "scientism" which I have to recognize as functioning as a religion in nearly all aspects.

 

[ratiocinator]

I totally fail to see how just not having a belief god(s) (which is what atheism is) can be a religion. It's certainly not compatible with the normal meanings of the words.

Individual atheists, of course, believe all sorts of different things, so I guess some of them might be classed as religious in some respects, but to try to claim that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, just doesn't make sense.

In fact, I don't think theism (belief in a god or gods) is a religion either, although obviously many theists also have a religion.

 

[Nakosis]

So your logic is, Theism is the religion for anyone having a belief in god(s). Atheism is the religion for anyone without a belief in God(due to lack of evidence). People who have never heard of a religion, also belong to a religion whose tenet is ignorance of God. And, the animals belong to a religion, whose tenet is survival from God. Makes perfect sense to me. Or maybe there is a very clear difference.

I don't recall speaking for anyone other than myself.

If you want to include animals or folks who are ignorant of God, that's up to you. For me personally, if folks want to consider that I'm part of a religion, I see little point in arguing with them.

 

[Nakosis]

I totally fail to see how just not having a belief god(s) (which is what atheism is) can be a religion. It's certainly not compatible with the normal meanings of the words.

Individual atheists, of course, believe all sorts of different things, so I guess some of them might be classed as religious in some respects, but to try to claim that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, just doesn't make sense.

In fact, I don't think theism (belief in a god or gods) is a religion either, although obviously many theists also have a religion.

Religion : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Atheism is part of my attitude towards religion. That's true, so if other folks want to consider it a religion, don't know why it should bother me.

 

[PureX]

I totally fail to see how just not having a belief god(s) (which is what atheism is) can be a religion.

That's because that isn't what atheism is. Atheism is the proposition that gods be presumed not to exist unless and until proven otherwise. And because it is a theological proposition, it could be practiced 'religiously' if one so chose.

... to try to claim that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, just doesn't make sense.

No one with any verbal acuity is making that claim. Theism is not "religion". Nor is atheism. Religions are the tools and methodology by which their adherents act on their theological beliefs.

In fact, I don't think theism (belief in a god or gods) is a religion either, although obviously many theists also have a religion.

Bingo! Which is why atheism can be conceived of and practiced as a religion (though few atheists actually do so).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Neither theism nor atheism are religions, but they do contain religions under their umbrella.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So meh, Atheism is a religion, now what?

I feel like this is the tack more atheists should take and stop fighting against the notion so hard.

Calling atheism a "religion" is nothing more than a distraction so that theists of whatever religion don't have to answer to the real crux of the issue - the fact that they have no sufficient evidence and that their belief is unwarranted. Better to just say what you basically said: "Let's say atheism qualifies as a religion - so what? You still don't have any valid basis for your belief in god." Done.

Another funny thing to note is that the theist making this claim knows that it is like an indirect insult - but just think about that for a second. Using this tactic is tantamount to admitting that being caught up in a "religion" is something offensive. They may as well be eating their own feet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So meh, Atheism is a religion, now what?

Now tax breaks! Woo!

 

[Audie]

Atheism means without theism so yes, it is a religion for those that have not figured that out yet.

Seriously? That is never going to be "figured out".
it is beyond the reach of logic.

 

[Audie]

Now tax breaks! Woo!

The goddies will change their tune if it turns
out that either the atheists get tax breaks,
or they lose theirs.

 

[Audie]

Neither theism nor atheism are religions, but they do contain religions under their umbrella.

Uh, no.
Both words have "theism" in them.
Being opposite does not make them the same.

 

[Skwim]

First, one has to know what they're talking about; that is, have a good idea of what religion is. Looking over a few dictionary definitions, they all seem to be pretty much in agreement: This one is from Merriam-Webster.

religion
noun
re·li·gion | \ ri-ˈli-jən

b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
​

Then I came across the following from Wikipedia that I think nicely addresses the subject.

The very attempt to define religion, to find some distinctive or possibly unique essence or set of qualities that distinguish the religious from the remainder of human life, is primarily a Western concern. The attempt is a natural consequence of the Western speculative, intellectualistic, and scientific disposition. It is also the product of the dominant Western religious mode, what is called the Judeo-Christian climate or, more accurately, the theistic inheritance from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The theistic form of belief in this tradition, even when downgraded culturally, is formative of the dichotomous Western view of religion. That is, the basic structure of theism is essentially a distinction between a transcendent deity and all else, between the creator and his creation, between God and man.

The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a

[…] system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
__________________

The theologian Antoine Vergote took the term supernatural simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency. He also emphasized the cultural reality of religion, which he defined as

[…] the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings.
___________________

Peter Mandaville and Paul James intended to get away from the modernist dualisms or dichotomous understandings of immanence/transcendence, spirituality/materialism, and sacredness/secularity. They define religion as

[…] a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing.
___________________

According to the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religions, there is an experiential aspect to religion which can be found in almost every culture:

[…] almost every known culture [has] a depth dimension in cultural experiences […] toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behavior are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience—varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.


​

Now, if anyone here thinks atheism falls within any of these definitions, please elaborate.

.