Atheism: Is it a religion?

[Holy Roller]

I say yes. The easy way out for the Atheist is to say that Atheism is the "Non belief in a theistic G-d. See? A-theism." OK, but that still doesn't prove that Atheism is not a religion. After all, Buddhists are A-theists, yet Buddhism is a religion...
I am a Theist. That means I have faith in and believe in G-d. If I contend that Atheism is a religion, then what, exactly do they believe in or have faith in that makes Atheism a religion? I further contend that it's the Atheist's faith and belief that their is no G-d that makes Atheism a religion.

If one believes in the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist*, this is religious belief. The obverse holds true, out of inductive reasoning: If one believes in the non-existence of something that cannot be proven to exist, it is religious belief.

*Evolution theory, for example, can be proved, provided tehre's enough time and enough evidence to do so

Note: Something that "doesn't exist" cannot be tested (it doesn't exist; there's nothing to test), thus cannot be proven.

 

[CaDan]

It doesn't have to be, but sometimes it is. I think the tipping point is someplace around where a person's opinion changes from "I don't believe in God," to "I believe in not-God." And yes, there are folks who cross that line. They end up acting just like people who profess a religion--they have special books and people and rituals and required thoughts.

 

[feral]

Atheism: Is it a religion?
I say yes.

I say no.

I am a Theist. That means I have faith in and believe in G-d. If I contend that Atheism is a religion, then what, exactly do they believe in or have faith in that makes Atheism a religion? I further contend that it's the Atheist's faith and belief that their is no G-d that makes Atheism a religion.

You make an interesting point by stating that atheists have "faith" that there is no god. Can you elaborate on this?

To me, the term seems inaccurate. Faith, in my way of understanding it, is belief that requires no evidence. A Christian cannot see God. They cannot touch God. They surrender the need for this type of verifiability and believe "against all odds". Atheism, on the other hand, seems like a position that is continually examining verifiable evidence and relying on logic to make a decision. Perhaps one of the reasons forums like this have a large percentage of atheists is because atheists are interested in seeking out evidence to strengthen or change their position. Someone who relies solely on faith, though, seems to shy away from persuasive counter-arguments and investigating for evidence and "proofs". There are probably many Christians who are well informed on scientific matters, but I've often seen posts on boards like this where a Christian will attempt to refute something like evolution -- and then freely admit they've never studied it but are still against it. That is what I understand as faith. It's "I don't know, I don't need to know, this is what I'm going with". Atheism is more about finding out.

Also, religion involves more than just having an opinion about something or operating as though a particular fact is true or false. Christianity has a whole lot that goes with it. There is an agreed upon text - the Bible - and supplementary materials. There are laws and rules, such as the Ten Commandments and the various 'thou shalt nots'. It has a moral and value system that all are expected to adhere to. There are designated meeting places and a designated practise once there. There are rites. Atheism has none of those trappings. Christianity is a religion, atheism is a world view or perspective. Can you explain why you equate the two -- Christianity and atheism -- as equals?

 

[pgp_protector]

By most peoples standard No, it's not a Religion.

But you may be defining Religion differently than most.

So as a former President once stated.
it "depends on the definition of 'is'"

 

[GryffinSong]

I say no, because for most atheists, there is nothing in that word that says what they DO believe in. If someone takes their non belief so far that they're "preaching" it, I suppose they may have crossed that line, as CaDan has suggested. But most atheists I know find belief or non-belief to be a total nonissue in their lives. And most certainly have no rituals or gatherings to celebrate their non-belief.

 

[Morcova]

I fail to see how seeing no evidence for a god and thus not believing in said god is comparable to budhism.

 

[arunma]

I do not know if atheism can always be defined as a religion, since some people are atheists out of pure apathy. Certainly atheism can become a religion, as it has to many who devote their lives to debating against theism.

I would caution, however, against singling out atheism as particularly evil. Non-Christian theistic religions are no better than atheism, because only Jesus Christ is the way to salvation. Theism never saved anyone. Most theists in the world have ended up in hell because they rejected Christ their Lord and Savior. Furthermore, we as Christians are atheists with respect to all gods but the God of Israel. Indeed, it is easier for an atheist to become a Christian than it is for a non-Christian theist: an atheist doesn't need to first reject his current religious belief before confessing the Lord Jesus. Non-Christian theism is most certainly a destructive form of unbelief, one that will cause people to be condemned to the eternal fire of hell. I would caution all believers against embracing non-Christian theism merely to spite atheists.

 

[LadyDeflora]

re·li·gion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

dictionary.com seems to agree...often times an atheist's "proof" there is no God is as scientifically viable as "proof" there is a God.

 

[Morcova]

re·li·gion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Kindly list the set of beliefs then.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Please list the set of beliefs and practices.

dictionary.com seems to agree...often times an atheist's "proof" there is no God is as scientifically viable as "proof" there is a God.

That's funny, I never hear atheists talk about having proof there is no god. That there is no evidence of a god, yes.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I say yes. The easy way out for the Atheist is to say that Atheism is the "Non belief in a theistic G-d. See? A-theism." OK, but that still doesn't prove that Atheism is not a religion. After all, Buddhists are A-theists, yet Buddhism is a religion...

I personally call non-theistic Buddhism either a dharma or a spiritual path, not a "religion".

But be that as it may, if Buddhism is atheistic and is also a religion, it doesn't follow that "atheism" is a religion. Consider that we don't call "theism" a religion. That's a category in which religions may fall. Atheism could also be seen as a category.

However, one could possibly argue that atheistic philosophies can be religions. E.g., Secular Humanism. But even there I would be more likely to choose a different term, such as a "life stance".

To me, the term religion implies entering into some sort of relationship with a diety or dieties. It could involve anything from the quid pro quo of making ritual sacrifices to ensure that one's city-state is protected from barbarian hordes to accepting a deity as "lord and savior" by submitting to that deity's will. I don't see any of that in atheism. Human beings are on their own.

I further contend that it's the Atheist's faith and belief that their is no G-d that makes Atheism a religion.

I don't see how this makes atheism a religion, assuming we were to agree that this is a valid description of atheists.

(Personally, I have no faith that atheism is true, if faith means some sort of commitment to hold a particular view. I don't regard myself as committed to atheism -- I am simply persuaded by it -- and therefore there is no faith in atheism.)

If one believes in the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist*, this is religious belief.

I don't see how this is definitional. If I believe that there are no leprechauns, is "aleprechaunism" my religion?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[thaumaturgy]

dictionary.com seems to agree...often times an atheist's "proof" there is no God is as scientifically viable as "proof" there is a God.

This is often very difficult for the religious to understand. That's why it is important to explain it as technically as possible.

I am presented with a universe in which I have two competiting hypotheses:

H[sub]o[/sub]: There is no God
H[sub]a[/sub]: There is a God

Now, as in all tests of an hypothesis I can reject the null or fail to reject the null (that's the H[sub]o[/sub]). In this case my test is against the null hypothesis. That means that I can only assess whether God exists. That's all I can do. I look around me and take in as much of the data as I possibly can. And as for me, I fail to see any evidence for God.

While that may be offensive to you or to other religious people, I can only say "sorry, but I used to be religious so I know what it's like looking for serious proof of God, I didn't find any."

That does not mean atheism is a "religion". By everyone's description so far religion is a belief. In the case of atheism it is the absence of a belief.

To hold a belief, in the present case, is to believe something actually is. In the case of atheism as outlined above (technically called "Weak Atheism") there is no belief other than the belief that everyone presumable holds that when you fail to find evidence for something you are correct in assuming that you would be making an error in rejecting the null hypothesis.

Remember, it is never reasonable to make someone disprove the existence of anything. However, if you as the truly religious wish to advance your faith all you have to do is present incontrovertible evidence for God.

Just as in a court of law one never has to PROVE their ABSENCE OF GUILT, but rather it is the prosecutions job to prove the presence of guilt, in this case it is not the atheists' job to prove the absence of God.

If you wish to call this a "religion" then you may as well erase "religion" from the dictionary because it no longer has any technical meaning. The minute a word is so diluted as to no longer carry meaning is the day that word dies.

(also, why is it so important to many religious people to declare atheism a religion. It's like they don't even respect religion enough to keep their own word sacred to any extent. You may as well go around claiming dog feces a religion, it's equally annoying, and equally meaningless.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I do not know if atheism can always be defined as a religion, since some people are atheists out of pure apathy.

That is amazingly offensive. Pure apathy? Sorry but I have spent a lot of painful hours and masses of time trying to come to grips with my religion. For decades I struggled as a Christian. I read the Bible front-to-back (sans apocrypha) and pored over the philosophy class discussions of the ontological and teleological arguments for God. I have a book shelf full of history of the church and books on atheism. I assure you the path I have taken is anything but apathetic.

I have probably put as much or more thought into religion than many supposed christians I meet who just default to a belief set.

Please do not denigrate the efforts most of us have put into religious thought as "pure apathy".

Certainly atheism can become a religion, as it has to many who devote their lives to debating against theism.

Just as journalists who dissect politicians words and seek to find a truth are "religious"?

Sorry, but the reason I debate theism/atheism is because I've put a lot of work into religious thought. But that being said, I would never wish to deconvert anyone. I like talking and thinking about religion, not with a goal of causing anyone to lose their religion based solely on what I say. I have always said on this board that if someone were to believe what I say without checking it out for themselves, they are a fool.

But debating theists is as much a "religion" as "statistics", "logic" and "science" are religions. Again, if religion is a word without meaning I suggest we stop using it.

Most theists in the world have ended up in hell because they rejected Christ their Lord and Savior.

Care to provide proof of that statement?

Furthermore, we as Christians are atheists with respect to all gods but the God of Israel.

QFT!

Atheists just finish the job.

 

[arunma]

That is amazingly offensive. Pure apathy? Sorry but I have spent a lot of painful hours and masses of time trying to come to grips with my religion. For decades I struggled as a Christian. I read the Bible front-to-back (sans apocrypha) and pored over the philosophy class discussions of the ontological and teleological arguments for God. I have a book shelf full of history of the church and books on atheism. I assure you the path I have taken is anything but apathetic.

I have probably put as much or more thought into religion than many supposed christians I meet who just default to a belief set.

Please do not denigrate the efforts most of us have put into religious thought as "pure apathy".

If you feel that I have misportrayed your brand of atheism, then I apologize for it. However, I do not think that what you have said denies that there do exist many who are atheists fo no reason other than apathy. Obviously this forum has a disproportionate number of atheists who are rather passionate about their atheism. But you certainly cannot deny the existence of the apathetic atheist, which demonstrates aptly that atheism isn't necessarily a religion.

Just as journalists who dissect politicians words and seek to find a truth are "religious"?

I disagree with your claim that atheists seek truth. On the contrary, I would suggest that atheists (of the passionate variety), like many non-Christian theists, seek justification. And like many non-Christian theists, they deny the saving work of Jesus Christ so that they may convince themselves that they won't go to hell for their unbelief. So atheism is a religion in the sense that it seeks escape from the just wrath of God.

Care to provide proof of that statement? (that "Most theists in the world have ended up in hell because they rejected Christ their Lord and Savior.")

Of course. It says,

For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:14)
​

and,

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
​

We know that most people in the world are theists, and a very large number of them even profess Jesus Christ. But even intellectual belief or acknowledgment of Jesus Christ does not save. For example, there is a thread on this forum in which a Hindu claims to believe in Jesus. Accepting the name "Jesus" won't save unless one accepts Jesus for who he is. Jesus told us what the will of his Father is,

Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:29)
​

He has also told us what happens to those who do not believe,

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
​

So it is clear that theistic non-Christians will not be saved.

QFT!

Atheists just finish the job.

I see you've incorrectly assumed that the end goal of rejecting false gods is to reject the true God. Whatever you believe, this is a poor assumption for one like yourself who claims to seek truth. The obvious goal of rejecting falsehood is to arrive at the truth. So for you to claim that atheism is the logical conclusion of my own atheism towards false gods is either pure rhetoric, or a gross misunderstanding.

To embrace atheism is to destroy one's soul, for precisely the same reason that believing in non-Christian religions will also lead to spiritual destruction.

 

[dlamberth]

After all, Buddhists are A-theists, yet Buddhism is a religion...

About Buddhism. Your basic premise is not wholly correct. With Buddhism, one can not make the statement that all Buddhist are A-theist. The reason why is that it all depends upon how one practices Buddhism. For some, it clearly is a religion, complete with God and all. For example, I know many Christian/Buddhist. But for other Buddhist practitioner, no, for them it is not a Religion. It’s a way of life.

As for Atheism...no it is not a Religion…unless one calls breathing and eating a religion.

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Of course. It says,

For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:14)
​

and,

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)​

No, I meant do you have any proof that there are people in hell. Proof of hell. and finally proof that people are in hell because they rejected Jesus as their savior. NOT proof that someone once claimed people would go to hell if they reject Jesus as their savior.
​

The obvious goal of rejecting falsehood is to arrive at the truth. So for you to claim that atheism is the logical conclusion of my own atheism towards false gods is either pure rhetoric, or a gross misunderstanding.

The obvious goal of rejecting a false hypothesis must mean you feel confident that in so rejecting it you are not making an error. That would mean there is sufficient evidence to postively believe in your particular God.

For every Christian who confesses belief fervently in God, I bet you can find a non-Christian who fervently believed in their god with equal passion and with equal conviction, and with equal proof to support that belief.

To embrace atheism is to destroy one's soul, for precisely the same reason that believing in non-Christian religions will also lead to spiritual destruction.

For me abandoning religion was a necessity. It was tearing me up to foster beliefs in my head that I found no support for simply for the expedient of "avoiding eternal damnation" or "forcing myself to feel love for an absentee divinity."

But that was just me. I assessed the data available to me and found no reason to reject the null. If you have proof I would welcome hearing it. But do keep in mind, I, like many other atheists, are more than a aware of many of the proof so far proffered. Still, maybe you have something new?

 

[Holy Roller]

This is often very difficult for the religious to understand. That's why it is important to explain it as technically as possible.

I am presented with a universe in which I have two competiting hypotheses:

H[sub]o[/sub]: There is no God
H[sub]a[/sub]: There is a God

Now, as in all tests of an hypothesis I can reject the null or fail to reject the null (that's the H[sub]o[/sub]). In this case my test is against the null hypothesis. That means that I can only assess whether God exists. That's all I can do. I look around me and take in as much of the data as I possibly can. And as for me, I fail to see any evidence for God.

While that may be offensive to you or to other religious people, I can only say "sorry, but I used to be religious so I know what it's like looking for serious proof of God, I didn't find any."

That does not mean atheism is a "religion". By everyone's description so far religion is a belief. In the case of atheism it is the absence of a belief.

We don't respect religion, because faith in Yeshua is a relationship with G-d, not a religion.


Anyway. You said: "Atheism is the absence of a belief." (please note I went through the trouble of capitalizing the 'A' in 'Atheism' out of respect for your religion.). If that's the case, then am I an Atheist if I don't believe the trolley will get to San Diego State University ("SDSU") on time? Am I an Atheist if I don't believe it'll be sunny outside today?
I thought Atheism was the faith (belief) that there's no way G-d can be proven to exist.

 

[Holy Roller]

That is amazingly offensive. Pure apathy? Sorry but I have spent a lot of painful hours and masses of time trying to come to grips with my religion. For decades I struggled as a Christian. I read the Bible front-to-back (sans apocrypha) and pored over the philosophy class discussions of the ontological and teleological arguments for God. I have a book shelf full of history of the church and books on atheism. I assure you the path I have taken is anything but apathetic.

Point taken, but the same can hold true. If the Atheist were to say I'm apathetic towards matters of science (they accuse us Jews/Christians of this crime all the time), I wouldn't necessarily consider the remark offensive. Ignorant ("to ignore"), yes. But not offensive.

Just as journalists who dissect politicians words and seek to find a truth are "religious"?

Aggressive, passionate...

Sorry, but the reason I debate theism/atheism is because I've put a lot of work into religious thought. But that being said, I would never wish to deconvert anyone. I like talking and thinking about religion, not with a goal of causing anyone to lose their religion based solely on what I say.

Of course you're way off here.
Some Atheists say things like, "Just look at those Fundies, spewing their hate. They were responsible for all those crusade atrocities. They burned women at the stake in the name of their G-d because they thought they were withches, etc." Then say things like, "The world would be better off without them; religion has done more harm than good, etc."
If you don't want to convert someone over to Atheism, wouldn't that be apathy on your part? You do want to make this world a better place, right?

 

[thaumaturgy]

We don't respect religion, because faith in Yeshua is a relationship with G-d, not a religion.

That's the stuff! I was wondering when the old cannard of how fundamentalists aren't "religious" would come up. Ha ha! Maybe you need to go back and re-read your fellow co-religionists "definition" lists of what is or isn't a religion.

Anyway. You said: "Atheism is the absence of a belief." (please note I went through the trouble of capitalizing the 'A' in 'Atheism' out of respect for your religion.)

And yet you show amazing disrespect for our efforts. Funny how you cloak disrespect in a thin veil and gussy it up. Lipstick on a pig.

. If that's the case, then am I an Atheist if I don't believe the trolley will get to San Diego State University ("SDSU") on time? Am I an Atheist if I don't believe it'll be sunny outside today?

Well, you really should be going to USD or UCSD instead. But that being said, perhaps I was amiss in not explicitly stating that I was talking about a belief in GOD. My bad.

I thought Atheism was the faith (belief) that there's no way G-d can be proven to exist.

Agnosticism says there's no way to know one way or another. It is a type of "empiricism", if I recall the subtlety correctly. But Atheism when done properly makes no universal negative claims. As such you cannot say God cannot be proven one way or another. As I clearly laid out, I have found no evidence to assume God does exist. Ergo I am an atheist. I did not, nor do "Weak Atheists" such as myself cling to universal negative claims.

Really, there's a lot of work that has gone into atheist thought. It's not as simple to dismiss as the religious may wish.

 

[TheD]

I say yes.

non religious individuals 'unbelieve' and it's called a religion? you're accuracy here is lacking.

The easy way out for the Atheist is to say that Atheism is the "Non belief in a theistic G-d."

Maybe because that's exactly what it is?
they aren't hiding anything in saying they don't believe in a deity or certain phenomena.

OK, but that still doesn't prove that Atheism is not a religion.

It should. I don't understand why 'proof' in involved in the presentation of your opinion.

Buddhists are A-theists, yet Buddhism is a religion.

Buddhism does not promote Atheism from what I've seen. However, to the contrary John 'Chrysorrhoas'/Abd al-Malik may have wrote the story of 'Barlaam and Ioasaph' which Christianized Buddha. Nothing less than the story of the Buddha himself, disguised as a Christian Saint.
In the story, Josephat, an Indian prince has a father who persecutes Christians. At Josephat's
birth his future greatness is predicted, not as a king, but as a convert to Christianity. Eventually
allowed to leave the palace, the young prince for the first time saw a crippled man, a blind man and
a senile man, and so learned of life's darker side (that life is suffering?). Josephat soon met a monk
named Barlaam, who converted him to Christianity and the two lived as hermits. They were canonized by the Catholic Church.
I don't see any 'Atheism' in Buddhism. Is Catholicism part of the 'Atheist' agenda in you're opinion too?

If I contend that Atheism is a religion, then what, exactly do they believe in or have faith in that makes Atheism a religion?

They don't believe. If there's any faith, it's not in a deity or religious idol.

I further contend that it's the Atheist's faith and belief that their is no G-d that makes Atheism a religion.

A lack or abundance of religious 'faith' and 'belief' is some how relative too being religious? explain.

If one believes in the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist*, this is religious belief.

or just a 'belief' in itself.

*Evolution theory, for example, can be proved, provided there's enough time and enough evidence to do so.

'Evolution' has stopped in humanity,
doesn't make it any less 'proven' or
that there is no 'evidence'.

If one believes in the non-existence of something that cannot be proven to exist, it is religious belief.

That's just it though, they would have to believe.
This would contradict the non belief in the 'non existence'
of something/someone. It's not a religious belief, if they don't believe.

Something that 'doesn't exist' cannot be tested (it doesn't exist; there's nothing to test), thus cannot be proven.

At least you're logical here.
You just 'proved' that Atheism isn't a religion in it's non belief (reasoning, instead)
due to a lack of belief in a thing or person that 'doesn't exist'.
~TheDemiprist

 

[Braunwyn]

I agree that the comparison between Buddhism and atheism is ill-thought. Buddhism is, at the very least ime, a practice with a set of beliefs. Lacking belief does not equate to having belief. So no, atheism is not a religion. I could probably be deemed an apathetic atheist but only towards myself. I just don't consider religion any more. But, I see the need many have for deities, religion, etc so I respect it and even support it providing they aren't hurting anyone or trying to push their worldview on to me and my husband.

eta: well said, TheDemiprist