Should atheism have the same rights as religion?

[Spirit of Light]

Merriam Webster defines "religion" as:




Merriam Webster defines "Atheism" as:



I'd like to know how Atheism qualifies as a religion, considering the above?

I have not called atheism areligion, just that they should get founded too

 

[SomeRandom]

Atheism is a religious world view but it's a bit semantical

Nowadays most atheists want to say it's not a religion

How is not believing in God religious?
I know there are non theistic and atheists sects of various religious traditions around the world. Though usually in the West an atheist is someone who doesn’t follow any religious doctrine at all.
It’s like saying not attending/watching sports games makes one a sports fan.

 

[Niblo]

I don’t think so, because atheism is not useful, it has no teaching, it only fights against Christianity and tries to stop people to believe in “love your neighbor as yourself”. By the actions of atheists, it seems to be very evil ideology. Why else it would try to lead people away from loving their neighbor and even enemies?

I have several atheists in my immediate family - and a number of atheist friends and colleagues. Their behaviour towards others - including myself - is exemplary. I have a sneaky feeling that they are far from being alone in being good (atheist) people

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I actually thought you were saying it is not right for a Christian to impose their beliefs on a non-believer and I agreed. I then was saying I think it is important for non-believers to determine whether someone claiming to be a Christian is really living a life which reflects Christ or is instead a Christian in name only.

If your religion's teachings are so unclear that its own adherents can't all figure out what its supposed founder wanted them to do, this really isn't non-adherents' problem to solve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is a religious world view but it's a bit semantical

Nowadays most atheists want to say it's not a religion

But you say it is, so what rights, benefits, and privileges do you think should flow from this?

 

[ChristineM]

I actually thought you were saying it is not right for a Christian to impose their beliefs on a non-believer and I agreed. I then was saying I think it is important for non-believers to determine whether someone claiming to be a Christian is really living a life which reflects Christ or is instead a Christian in name only.

Ok

But the vast majority of people claiming whatever faith they claim are of that faith. Their personality may make them a good or not so good in their faith, they are still of that faith and it is no ones prerogative to claim they are not of that faith.

 

[Altfish]

There have been a few "is atheism a religion?" threads recently. They've had a few people insisting that yes, atheism is a religion.

This raises a question that I've asked a few times without response:

Religions, religious ministers, religious adherents, etc., often have special rights, privileges, and benefits. If atheism is a religion, shouldn't atheist groups get the same special treatment that churches receive? Shouldn't individual atheists get the same treatment that religious individuals receive?

Do you agree that atheism should be protected by religious freedom laws?

If you think that churches should be tax-free without having to file financial statements, do you agree that atheist organizations should also have this privilege?

Should donations to atheist organizations get the same tax credits as donations to a church?

Should "atheist ministers" be entitled to the parsonage allowance that religious ministers receive?

I'm a bit late to this thread, so apologies if this has been said before but I don't think atheists should get tax breaks or whatever BUT neither should religions.
The parts of the organisation that carries out relief work, education, healthcare may be eligible - as long as there are no exemptions to who they will look after - but that does not include church buildings, the pastor's car or airplane.
As soon as a religion is seen to discriminate or favour a political party it loses and tax breaks.

 

[sooda]

I hope not. Atheists in Switzerland pay much less taxes than Cristians. And I hope it stays that way. Therefore, I am not a big fan to make them equal.

Ciao

- viole

How is not believing in God religious?
I know there are non theistic and atheists sects of various religious traditions around the world. Though usually in the West an atheist is someone who doesn’t follow any religious doctrine at all.
It’s like saying not attending/watching sports games makes one a sports fan.

LOLOL..

Atheists should have civil rights like everyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One of the reasons why organized churchs don't pay taxes is because doing so would give them a voice in government that would negate the separation of church and state.

Where's this place where churches don't have a voice in government?

However, for the question of atheism, I'd say no, it doesn't meet the criteria nor should it want to.

If you don't think that atheism is a religion, then you're really not one of the people this thread was directed at.

Choose. What's better? Not paying taxes along with whatever other perceived benefits being a religious order may bring or having a voice in government.

In my country, secular charities and religious charities (including churches) have the same restrictions on political activities and lobbying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is not believing in God religious?
I know there are non theistic and atheists sects of various religious traditions around the world. Though usually in the West an atheist is someone who doesn’t follow any religious doctrine at all.
It’s like saying not attending/watching sports games makes one a sports fan.

That's probably a very good question for one of the many "is atheism a religion?" threads.

Just so I'm clear: the intent of this thread isn't to rehash whether atheism is a religion; it's to ask the people who say "yes, atheism is a religion" about the implications of their position.

 

[Sky Rivers]

I have not called atheism areligion, just that they should get founded too

I suspect you mean "funded"? Why? Atheism isn't a religion. Why should it be treated as one, having the benefits of one?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I suspect you mean "funded"? Why? Atheism isn't a religion. Why should it be treated as one, having the benefits of one?

I dont see the problem, yes they do not belive in a God or a Buddha, but that does not make them evil and not accepted to gain some help

 

[ChristineM]

I suspect you mean "funded"? Why? Atheism isn't a religion. Why should it be treated as one, having the benefits of one?

It would better if religion didnt get its tax breaks on its free money that people give to it

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect you mean "funded"? Why? Atheism isn't a religion. Why should it be treated as one, having the benefits of one?

Psst: this thread is directed at the people who say that atheism is a religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

As soon as a religion is sen to discriminate or favour a political party it loses and tax breaks.

This I feel a bit uncertain about, in two different ways.

One is that it is not really very clear when a religious group would be favoring a certain party. There might be no specific statement, nor much of a need for one. It might also turn out to be a gradual transition, or a part of a more complex situation (for instance, involving two or more parties).

However, I am not certain of the legitimacy of the principle itself. Religious beliefs are not IMO supposed to be grounds for loss of political choice any more than it should enable political privilege. Nor should we create reason for hiding such beliefs, either.

Maybe I am missing some piece of the overall picture?

 

[Altfish]

This I feel a bit uncertain about, in two different ways.

One is that it is not really very clear when a religious group would be favoring a certain party. There might be no specific statement, nor much of a need for one. It might also turn out to be a gradual transition, or a part of a more complex situation (for instance, involving two or more parties).

However, I am not certain of the legitimacy of the principle itself. Religious beliefs are not IMO supposed to be grounds for loss of political choice any more than it should enable political privilege. Nor should we create reason for hiding such beliefs, either.

Maybe I am missing some piece of the overall picture?

You might as well give the political fundraisers tax breaks then - but I do understand your concerns.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would better if religion didnt get its tax breaks on its free money that people give to it

But it does get these tax breaks... and this isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future.

So given this, should we address the disparity in a way that might actually be practically viable?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You might as well give the political fundraisers tax breaks then - but I do understand your concerns.

I'm not sure how it works where you are, but here, donations to political parties are tax deductible as well.

 

[ChristineM]

But it does get these tax breaks... and this isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future.

So given this, should we address the disparity in a way that might actually be practically viable?

Getting rid of tax breaks on religion solves the problem of disparity.

Looking at it the other way atheism is not an organised club, who would get the tax breaks? Please sir, me sir.

 

[Sky Rivers]

I dont see the problem, yes they do not belive in a God or a Buddha, but that does not make them evil and not accepted to gain some help

Help for what? If they are doing something collectively to benefit the community, aren't they already able to recieve the same benefits as any other secular non-profit or charity?