Is atheism a religion?

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Who do you think god is? (based on personal experience?)

 

[exchemist]

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.

That's not a ritual. At most it would be evangelising, I think.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...`God`...A transparency of nothingness in a non-existent void !
Gaze into that space if one wishes, I'll never attempt to convert one !

 

[Audie]

Ahhh...`God`...A transparency of nothingness in a non-existent void !
Gaze into that space if one wishes, I'll never attempt to convert one !

It is so simple, and then people concoct all this so-elabourate
vapourware of "theology" and "philosophy" to try to bring order
and reality to their chimera.

 

[Audie]

That's not a ritual. At most it would be evangelising, I think.

He did say "can be considered" which is so,
in that one can consider, or think, as they like.

As the great poet put it,

There's never a ship
That couldn't be sunk
Nor never a thought
That couldn't be thunk.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Scientism is an odd term used more as an attack on science, and is not a religion. Some use it to attack science in general, or as a derogatory reference to the sciences of evolution and abiogensis. Probably more accurately used as a derogatory reference to Philosophical Naturalism,

 

[ecco]

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.

What is "god" or "Gods"? Are Atlas, Ogun, Pinga or Shiva gods? Is there any basis in reality to posit that they are anything more than the creations of man's imaginings? No.

Our distant forefathers had questions: Where did man come from? What happens when we die? Why did our crops get eaten by locusts? There were two possible answers: "I Don't Know" and "GodDidIt". Have you ever heard a leader say "I Don't Know"? Gods were created to answer unanswerable questions.

Man created god in his own image. To pretend otherwise is, well, pretending.


This article touches on some other aspects as well.
The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Can you provide an example?

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God.

Which atheists were disallowing your belief in God, again? Because I don't recall any atheists ever telling me what I was permitted to believe.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are atheistic religions. USSR politics were atheistic religion. They had clergy and dogmas. One might say Zen is an atheistic religion. Atheism is itself only a philosophical stance.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Buddhism is a tricky one. It doesn't meet the requirements of the various definitions of religion. But many people are happy to call it a religion, many are not.

It is absolutely a faith though

Atheism on the other hand does not require faith all it requires is proof.

And i see you like to stereotype atheists. A bad move .Every single one is an individual, the only thing(s) that bind them is
1/ their disbelief that any gods exist
2/ the theists who delight in misrepresentation of atheism because it suites their personal sensibilities to do so.

P.S. you can add to 2 all the strawmen theists throw up to justify 2

 

[ecco]

Atheism on the other hand does not require faith all it requires is proof.

Atheism on the other hand does not require faith all it requires is evidence.

 

[Segev Moran]

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.

This is only partial true.
Atheist claims are not against believers rather against using beliefs as an excuse for horrible actions.
The issue is not against any specific religion per say rather the idea of allowing people to rule others based on non factual ideas.
the idea of racism as an example (NOT to compare it with a specific religion), is a rule using non factual concepts that led to millions of murders, abuse and many horrific things.
In the name of religion, people have made an unmeasured amount of horrors.
The atheist claim is to separate one's beliefs from one's rule.

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 is far from the truth.
There is yet to be an atheist claim that can "excuse" a killing or harming another person.
Atheism can take many forms. you can be a spiritual person who is an atheist.
Atheism is not a belief in a specific thing rather the dis belief in one entity as an all powerful ruling authority.
The God we all refer to in the scriptures is many time understood as such, yet that is not the true nature of the scripture.
Many times people who claim to have knowledge of "God's will" use it as an excuse to commit crimes beyond our craziest imagination.
I have yet to meet an atheist who had a problem with Jainisim for example

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.

Agreed.
It is more concerning when these discoveries are also backed up by the religion yet some choose to overlook it and claim they know the real knowledge better than anyone else.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters.

Agreed.

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.

This is a made up God that is a misinterpretation of the scriptures.
God doesn't command genocides or killing innocent people.
Many people however, interpret it like so, causing them to believe others should die for not sharing the same beliefs they do. sad.

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.

Same as the above
(When i refer to God, i mean the Hebraic god)

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

Agree.

nor is it responsible.

disagree.
I think when people hear the term intelligent design they imminently imagine a person sitting on a desk and sketching and planning.
This is not the case for the claim of God's intelligent design.
Like it or not, our universe is bound to rules.
These rules, unlike the literal term "rule" are not the same as man made rules, rather rules that are "etched" in nature.
Even if we go back in time prior to the big bang, there has always been some kind of a force that eventually caused on universe to act as it does.
As science discovers every day, the more we discover, the less we understand.
The scientific concepts today suggest we live in a subjective reality and each person "generates" he own reality.
We know time is not linear, we know space is not real, we know matter is not real, we know sound is not real.
Every sense we have, is literally an electrical signal in our brain.
It is enough to study the basics of Quantum physics to realize that everything we knew about the universe is not really as it seems.

For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms.

That's not true.
Yet think about the fact that there are forces (4 as far as we know) that each affects the particles of the atom as cause it to be just that, an Atom.
If any of these forces didn't work as it does, nothing will exist.

But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so?

What laws of physics do you refer to?
Time can bent.
Space can be bent.
Gravity can be overcome.
Sight can be enhanced.
Hearing can be enhanced.
We overcome the laws of physics every day. why is it hard to imagine that whatever made these laws in the first place can do the same with much ease?

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?

Not human
Not yet at least

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?

Its not a question of want.
Have you ever wondered why things work?
Not why it rains or why there is wind... not why the stars orbit in space or why the sun projects energy, rather why particles behave as they do?
Why is there a force that binds EVERYTHING together?
The universe is constantly in motion.
Wouldn't you say its an interesting question what gave it the first "shove".
No matter how far back you will learn, there MUST be something that started this motion.

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false.

I partially agree.
Humans set the moral codes for society.
The question is what do we base it on?
If you'll study the pure, basic moral rules that we have from God (Hebraic), you will quickly realize that only today we understand why they are so important to humans.
The most basic moral code of God is to treat others as if you were treating yourself.
This means that EVERYTHING you do, should be in order to help ALL humans have the same pleasure of life as you do.
Don't take it to a minority of sick or lost people who wish harm to themselves or find pleasure in pain and abuse, rather the normative human.
Every biblical law the does not comply with this moral code is NOT TRUE.
Killing others is not a moral thing in the bible.
Killing animals is not a moral thing in the bible.
Treating your wife as an object or property is not moral in the bible.
Ruling your kinds or family in an abusive way is not moral in the bible.
Every morality issue that you face in the bible is as a consequence of humans inability to follow God's basic and "original" rules.

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.

Don't know about Christianity or Islam, i can tell you for a fact that the Hebrew bible is more compliant with today's science than you think.
There are still many open question that we cannot yet explain, but the majority of recent discoveries (last 200 years) reveal a surprising resemblance to the studies of the Hebrew bible.

This world contains pain and suffering.

Of course it does.

Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical.

Of course it is.
There are endless of cliches that i am sure you are familiar with...
There is no good without bad.
You cannot understand right without wrong.
And so on.
But your approach regarding God is misleading (you).
You assume god is an entity that has a human nature.
It is not nature, and it is not human.
Saying God is bad will be the same as saying electricity is bad.
It depends what you do with it
God gave humans the ability to do as they please.
Murder, abuse, rape, torture, hate.
Heal, care, love, treat and love.
If you couldn't hate, why live at all?
There will be no purpose for humans if we couldn't experience the worst side of things.
I know you might not agree, but if you will take a few minutes and really "deep dive" into this idea, you will come to realize that it is so in EVERY aspect of life.

Can there be Hot without Cold?
Can there there Happy without Sad?
Can there be Up without Down?
Everything that is relative in our reality can only exists if it has Both sides of the coin

Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering

How can it now allow it? what good will we be if we were prevented form such things?
Read some stories about kids that were born without the ability to feel pain. it sound "super power" and very appealing at first. until you understand the horrific reality they live in.

implies God is not so good after all.

After all what?

And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea.

That is not true.
Read the first two chapters of the bible. this is the initial state of creation. This is what life should have been like.

And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

What do you mean?
It is the same as saying that water are not water because they can be both hot and cold?

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God.

Obviously. The day atheists will have the power to deny one from having his own beliefs (as long as they are not harmful to others), it will be the end of humanity.

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.

It is interesting you make this statement.
The recent scientific studies suggest that our reality is exactly that. Our mind!

Why should anyone object to a God like that?

No one objects God per-say, they object abusing God's concepts.

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 think atheism is a very important thing in our society and has a very big part of letting go the awful things humans do in the name of BS.
Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

Atheism on the other hand does not require faith all it requires is evidence.

Evidence is too open ended, different people have different thresholds of evidence. For example there are many religious people who make the claim that just about anything in nature is evidence of their god.

 

[David T]

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.

Atheism is Not a religion but more directly is religion. You cant have believers with out atheists and agnostics. All three process identically and all three reinforce each other in disagreement is all.

 

[Curious George]

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.

This is a tricky discussion which plays on the semantics involved in defining "religion."

Classical or philosophical Atheism is very much a worldview.

New Atheism views atheism as a psychological state.

In some regards, one can play with the the former atheism and fit it into a box labeled religion. The latter atheism, however is resistant to such claims. Perhaps it is for this reason that the latter definition has gained so much approval. While I personally hold to the former and make the claim that no god exists, I do not view atheism as a religion per se. Doing so, requires a distortion of the word faith.

 

[PureX]

That's not a ritual. At most it would be evangelising, I think.

Evangelism is a kind of ritual for some people. Like when the Mormons go one their missions, or when charismatics "witness". But as I pointed out, it's not the rituals that make a religion a religion. It's a whole collection of ideals, rules, rituals, practices, etc., that help the adherent to maintain and express their theological truth.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

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 think this firmly fits into a category of anti-theistic philosophy rather than atheism. When looked at through this lens I feel that this is easily cleared up.

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.

If a select section of vehement and angry turned you away from the whole group why were you needlessly a Christian for 30 years? The most angry and vile people I've ever witnessed were either Christian or Muslim. Far worse than any atheist youtube comment lurker. But perhaps we just have seen different parts of the world.

 

[exchemist]

Evangelism is a kind of ritual for some people. Like when the Mormons go one their missions, or when charismatics "witness". But as I pointed out, it's not the rituals that make a religion a religion. It's a whole collection of ideals, rules, rituals, practices, etc., that help the adherent to maintain and express their theological truth.

Yes I know. It was the ritual element specifically that I was questioning. But I think that has now been dealt with.

 

[`mud]

As to religions...the worship of those sovereign creators of mankind and the Earth that contains them.
The creator would have to be enormously larger than the Cosmos, and it spreads on forever.
Of that list in the OP, how many humans worship the Cosmos, like most atheists, sans any `gods`.
I really wonder why so many humans don't think of the Cosmos as a `god`, the creator of mankind ?
Just wondering here !
NuffStuff

 

[PureX]

As to religions...the worship of those sovereign creators of mankind and the Earth that contains them.
The creator would have to be enormously larger than the Cosmos, and it spreads on forever.
Of that list in the OP, how many humans worship the Cosmos, like most atheists, sans any `gods`.
I really wonder why so many humans don't think of the Cosmos as a `god`, the creator of mankind ?
Just wondering here !
NuffStuff

I think we do. But "the Cosmos" is too big and too vague and too mysterious for us to find personally useful. So we personify it, and give it some sort of anthropomorphic "character" that we can interact with in our minds. And we call this conception, "God/gods".