Is atheism a religion?

[tayla]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

 

[Altfish]

I don't think I've ever read so many strawmen in one opening post.

Well done, I need a lie down.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheism just means, "Without gods".

I suppose I could light a stick of incense and call it a day.

 

[osgart]

Atheism is not a religion. Scientism is. Those that rely on science for absolutely everything in their way of life. It aint true if it aint scientific.

 

[exchemist]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

I read an interesting perspective on this question in "Dawkins' God" by Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian and biochemist. He argued that atheism, which he defined as the conviction that there is no God, is just as much a faith-based belief as belief in God. This was on the basis that it is a fairly well known result in philosophy that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Interestingly Dawkins conceded the same point, in a discussion at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford with the Archbishop pf Canterbury, some years ago, agreeing that strictly speaking he was agnostic rather than atheist - although he qualified it by saying he was 99% confident no God exists.

However while one can thus argue that atheism is a worldview based on a belief or conviction that cannot be definitively demonstrated, I do not think it is fair to call atheism a religion, as it has none of the trappings of a religion.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is not a religion, but it can become a kind of anti-religious religion for some people, in that it becomes a collection of ideals, rules, rituals, dogmas, etc., that they engage in to help them live by their theological position; that no gods exist.

To posit and maintain that no gods exist, is a theological position. And religions are collections of ideals and practices that humans use to help them live according to their chosen theological positions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I read an interesting perspective on this question in "Dawkins' God" by Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian and biochemist. He argued that atheism, which he defined as the conviction that there is no God, is just as much a faith-based belief as belief in God. This was on the basis that it is a fairly well known result in philosophy that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Interestingly Dawkins conceded the same point, in a discussion at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford with the Archbishop pf Canterbury, some years ago, agreeing that strictly speaking he was agnostic rather than atheist - although he qualified it by saying he was 99% confident no God exists.

Many atheists, myself included, would self-identify as agnostic atheists.

 

[exchemist]

Atheism is not a religion, but it can become a kind of anti-religious religion for some people, in that it becomes a collection of ideals, rules, rituals, dogmas, etc., that they engage in to help them live by their theological position; that no gods exist.

To posit and maintain that no gods exist, is a theological position. And religions are collections of ideals and practices that humans use to help them live according to their chosen theological positions.

I'd agree with much of this but I'm intrigued by your reference to rituals in atheism. Can you give examples?

 

[wellwisher]

Buddhism is considered a religion even though it does not worship deities. Buddhism shows that the concept of religion does not require deities to be called a religion. Atheism is based on this type of religion.

The difference between Buddhism and Atheism is Buddhism attempts to evolve human nature through introspection and avoidance of the mass mind. Atheism does it through extroversion and materialism and the mass mind of science consensus, which can change based on money flow.

For example, it was discovered, in 2004, that the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface. This changes everything the consensus though is knew about earth and climate science. Yet, this has yet to be included into science consensus modeling. The reason is there is not yet enough money to make all the needed connections, so Atheism has yet to make it part of its materialistic religion. It still remains in fairly tales of yesterday.

 

[ecco]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

I don't think you will find too many like that. I'm an atheist but I don't feel a need to convert anyone in order to save civilization.

I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

Where did you encounter raging atheists?

 

[PureX]

I'd agree with much of this but I'm intrigued by your reference to rituals in atheism. Can you give examples?

Repeatedly signing onto religious discussion sites on the internet to promote one's anti-religious theology might be considered a ritual. And being that it is a ritual intended to help the practitioner maintain and live by his/her theological position, it could be considered a kind of 'religious' ritual, by definition. But not all religions insist on ritual practices, nor do all religious adherents practice all the rituals of their chosen religion. So an atheist need not engage in an actual atheistic ritual to be considered atheisticly religious. Religions include a whole plethora of ideas, practices, traditions, and admonishments from which their adherents may choose those that they deem useful, or disregard.

 

[ecco]

Atheism is not a religion. Scientism is. Those that rely on science for absolutely everything in their way of life. It aint true if it aint scientific.

Nonsense. There is no god of science, there is no religion.

 

[Audie]

Atheism is not a religion. Scientism is.

It would be if it had practitioners.

 

[Audie]

Repeatedly signing onto religious discussion sites on the internet to promote one's anti-religious theology might be considered a ritual. And being that it is a ritual intended to help the practitioner maintain and live by his/her theological position, it could be considered a kind of 'religious' ritual, by definition. But not all religions insist on ritual practices, nor do all religious adherents practice all the rituals of their chosen religion. So an atheist need not engage in an actual atheistic ritual to be considered atheisticly religious. Religions include a whole plethora of ideas, practices, traditions, and admonishments from which their adherents may choose those that they deem useful, or disregard.

OMG I practice religion when I brush my teeth!!!

Thanks, Obi. I will cease this grim and unnatural
ritual.

 

[PureX]

Nonsense. There is no god of science, there is no religion.

Theology is not defined by the assumption that gods exist. Theology is the designated category of philosophy related to the proposition of gods existing. To propose that no gods exist is a philosophical/theological proposition. To believe that no gods exist is likewise a philosophical/theological position. And since religions are the mechanisms by which we humans express and maintain our theological positions in life, such a theological position can be accompanied by a "religious" life expression. I realize that the use of the term in this instance is counter-intuitive, but it is logically valid, nevertheless.

 

[shunyadragon]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

This does not determine whether atheism is a religion or not. IT is very very rare that atheists actively try and convert.

 

[ecco]

Buddhism is considered a religion even though it does not worship deities.

People pray in front of statues of Buddha.
Buddhists believe in the supernatural.

Neither applies to atheists.

 

[ecco]

Theology is not defined by the assumption that gods exist. Theology is the designated category of philosophy related to the proposition of gods existing. To propose that no gods exist is a philosophical/theological proposition. To believe that no gods exist is likewise a philosophical/theological position.

See post #16.

 

[Altfish]

Atheism is not a religion. Scientism is. Those that rely on science for absolutely everything in their way of life. It aint true if it aint scientific.

Do you know anyone who does such a thing?
I don't.

 

[PureX]

See post #16.

I saw it, it is absurdly inaccurate and unreasoned. There is no way of determining the nature or existence of "God/gods" beyond ideological speculation, scientifically or otherwise. Nor is our doing so the pertinent issue, philosophically.