Athiesm is a religion?[MOVED TO PHILOSOPHY]

[Archaeopteryx]

Dear nolongerhome,

Interesting. So religion is: "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". I gather you got this definition from Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com, where these exact words are the 1st definition under the word "religion". But if one takes the 2nd, 3rd or 6th definition, Atheism could be termed a religion. But let's just look at the 1st definition which you have given:

Clause 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"

Atheism most certainly holds a belief concerning this first clause, albeit usually in a negative statement rather than a positive statement; a "There is not" rather than a "There is". The statement that, "In the beginning God did not create..." is just as much a belief as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

As an example, the cosmologist Stephen Hawking, a man highly respected among atheists (yet he has never come out and stated whether or not he is in fact an atheist, although his ex-wife maintains that he is), in his book The Grand Design maintains that the universe came from nothing and that God did not create the universe.

Hawking declares in the same book that the laws of physics "created" the universe; who could deny that the laws of physics are not a "superhuman agency or agencies"? Many other atheists maintain the eternality of the universe itself, or else that the creation of the universe is inevitable from the inner workings of its own purely natural, impersonal "self" (i.e. Hawking's just-mentioned belief). Likewise, who could deny that the universe itself is not a "superhuman agency or agencies"? In this sense atheism is a throw-back to the days of Aristotle, great arguer for the eternality of the universe, and the ancient Greeks who believed their gods and goddesses to be expressions of the natural forces of the cosmos. A kind of Pantheism in disguise.

Clause 2: "usually involving devotional and ritual observances"

Atheism also holds such observances, albeit observances more negative, more decentralized and anti-clerical, and more seemingly private, personal, even isolationist. Some time ago I witnessed a whole slew of YouTube videos (starting as The Blasphemy Challenge by The Rational Response Squad) where atheists posted videos of themselves reciting the ritual devotional: "I deny the Holy Spirit."

Clause 3: "often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"

If one watches the "The Root of All Evil?" documentaries made by atheist Richard Dawkins on how religion (supernatural religion that is) is evil, harmful to society, and, in the words of another famous atheist Christopher Hitchens, "religion poisons everything", one can see atheists striving to present an anti-religion moral code to govern the conduct of human affairs.

Atheism can thus provide conclusive examples of all three clauses of the 1st definition of religion. Examples being very important in a belief that doesn't really possess an orthodoxy like an Apostles' Creed or a Westminster Confession, except perhaps the simple statement: "There is no God, and the supernatural does not exist." Reminds one of the Islamic Shahada or Kalimah: "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his messenger."

There is still a problem, even with these examples. People are united in a religion by a common belief system, common rituals and rites of passage, common institutions (e.g. the Church), and various other commonalities. All Atheists have only one thing in common: a belief that there are no gods. They don't share common rituals or institutions, since only some Atheists engage in the apparently 'religious' behaviours you highlight above. What's more, their belief system (Atheism) does not mandate that they participate in any of these 'rituals' or institutions. Religions usually mandate that their followers engage in this or that behaviour if they are to accepted into the religious community.

 

[Subordinationist]

The problem here is that you are extrapolating from the positions of a number of famous atheists, as well as some not-so-famous ones as well, much more than is contained within atheism per-se.

Simply, atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity/ies. That is all. It does not entail any particular belief about a first cause (it is entirely possible to be an atheist and to dismiss the concept of a first cause entirely), it does not entail any particular ritual or devotional observances (what you described is definitely an exception rather than a rule), and it does not entail any particular moral code (there is great divergence and no necessary unifying rules when it comes to the form of morality an atheist proposes). Atheism does not propose anything on any of these matters. Any specific beliefs or actions that individual atheists take or make on any of these issues is necessarily beyond atheism because on them atheism is completely silent.

Dear nolongerhome,

As I edited my post above, the simple Atheist Creed: "There is no God, and the supernatural does not exist," or, in your words, "The lack of belief in a deity/ies", may be a simple belief, but a very large belief it remains, one with imposing repercussions and effects/affects. This belief is a foundational cornerstone which can lead to positions that may appear "beyond atheism" but are anything but. For example, the simple belief, "There are no deities", must lead to the belief "Jesus Christ is not the Son of God"; a belief which likewise nixes many more beliefs which are attached to it. You maintain that atheism is "completely silent" on all matters besides the simple statement "There are no deities"; I would propose that this is not so, instead, there are echoes coming forth from this simple statement, sometimes whispers and sometimes full-voiced statements. Some of these echoes can be dismissed as "exceptions to the rule" or matters on which true atheism is actually silent, but surely not all such ripples of the pool of this fundamental belief can be so easily dismissed.

Some atheists may remain silent on the question of a first cause, but when many atheists deny a first cause and maintain the eternality of the universe, believe that the universe was created by something non-supernatural (the laws of physics or even aliens from another dimension) or simply dismiss the idea altogether as altogether irrelevent, they are simply building upon their cornerstone of atheism--for whatever belief they choose, they cannot choose the belief that God created the universe.

It is very convenient to say that anything more than the simple statement "There are no deities" is not atheism, or in no way is connected with atheism in any manner whatsoever, when many atheists take this belief to some of its logical conclusions. It is an easy way for atheists to escape responsibility and accountability for their fellow atheists; the same responsibility that atheists place on Christians and accountability that atheists demand (or desire or expect) from Christians for all the intellectual errors or inhumane actions that their fellow Christians have committed throughout the ages. In fact, one belief leads to another; one belief entails another. Christians cannot simply believe that "Jesus is the Son of God"; such a belief is connected to several other necessary beliefs: Jesus rose from the dead on the third day to everlasting life, was seen by witnesses for 40 days and then ascended to Heaven, the real God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, eternal life comes through having faith in Jesus, God created the universe, there will be a Last Judgement when all individuals will be judged by the Lord Jesus Christ, etc. A Christian cannot only have "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord..." the first two propositions of the Apostles' Creed, and nothing else; one must also have the next ten propositions of the Apostles' Creed for the first two propositions even to make sense.

 

[Monarchist]

I don't doubt that individual atheists might have their own personal rituals, but none of these are inextricably tied to "atheism".
Mark

So what rituals personal or otherwise do you percieve Christians have or are told by the bible to apply that would make us religious

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So what rituals personal or otherwise do you percieve Christians have or are told by the bible to apply that would make us religious

Just a stab in the dark here but, church, prayer, baptising,

 

[quatona]

Dear nolongerhome,

As I edited my post above, the simple Atheist Creed: "There is no God, and the supernatural does not exist," or, in your words, "The lack of belief in a deity/ies", may be a simple belief, but a very large belief it remains, one with imposing repercussions and effects/affects. This belief is a foundational cornerstone which can lead to positions that may appear "beyond atheism" but are anything but. For example, the simple belief, "There are no deities", must lead to the belief "Jesus Christ is not the Son of God"; a belief which likewise nixes many more beliefs which are attached to it. You maintain that atheism is "completely silent" on all matters besides the simple statement "There are no deities"; I would propose that this is not so, instead, there are echoes coming forth from this simple statement, sometimes whispers and sometimes full-voiced statements. Some of these echoes can be dismissed as "exceptions to the rule" or matters on which true atheism is actually silent, but surely not all such ripples of the pool of this fundamental belief can be so easily dismissed.

Yes, of course a lack of belief in the claim that deities exist includes the lack belief in any specific claim involving deities. That´s not much of a surprise, is it?
I mean, if I don´t believe in pink elephants I naturally will also not believe in pink elephants dancing in my living room.

Some atheists may remain silent on the question of a first cause, but when many atheists deny a first cause and maintain the eternality of the universe, believe that the universe was created by something non-supernatural (the laws of physics or even aliens from another dimension) or simply dismiss the idea altogether as altogether irrelevent, they are simply building upon their cornerstone of atheism--for whatever belief they choose, they cannot choose the belief that God created the universe.

Yes, exactly: The cornerstone is the lack of belief in deities, and this lack of belief is leaving the atheist with a lot of positive options what else to believe or not believe in - none of which is a necessary consequence of atheism.
Until anyone can come up with a positive belief that my lack of belief in deities necessitates I see no reason to consider atheism a belief - even less a religion, a belief-system or a faith.

It is very convenient to say that anything more than the simple statement "There are no deities" is not atheism, or in no way is connected with atheism in any manner whatsoever, when many atheists take this belief to some of its logical conclusions.

Talk to me about those necessary logical conclusions. I´m not aware of any.

It is an easy way for atheists to escape responsibility and accountability for their fellow atheists;

A responsibility/accountability that we could at least start to consider or discuss as soon as you would have given us at least one positive necessary logical conclusion from atheism.
Until then I will feel justified not to take responsibility for viewpoints I don´t hold and even less those actions that result from those viewpoints.
Speaking of convenience: Au contraire, I think your approach is a convenient way to associate beliefs and worldviews that have nothing to do with each other. It´s the good old "Hitler was a vegetarian, too." fallacy.
E.g. my worldviews and convictions have pretty much nothing in common with those of Stalin (except for the fact that he didn´t believe in deities, too). So it appears that any further association you assume or even postulate mutual responsibility from is just fallacious. I am not a totalitarian (like Stalin), Stalin was not a pacifist (as I happen to be). So any attempt to hold me accountable for Stalin´s totalitarianism or to hold Stalin accountable for my pacifism is absurd. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate how either my or his views are necessarily entailed in atheism (which, though, funnily would mean that one of us is not an atheist).

the same responsibility that atheists place on Christians and accountability that atheists demand (or desire or expect) from Christians for all the intellectual errors or inhumane actions that their fellow Christians have committed throughout the ages.

You are not responsible for the beliefs of other persons or their actions.
Your observation that there are atheists who commit association fallacies just like you do is correct. The mere fact that atheists do it doesn´t render it a valid argument, though. ;-) (Rather, you are adding the "tu quoque fallacy" to it).

In fact, one belief leads to another;

Again, you would have to give us at least one example of a positive belief or statement that the lack of belief in deities necessarily leads to.
I am an atheist. Tell me what positive beliefs I must necessarily hold. I´m curious.
I mean, not even theism (although being a positive statement) necessarily leads to any further specific statements.

Christians cannot simply believe that "Jesus is the Son of God"; such a belief is connected to several other necessary beliefs: Jesus rose from the dead on the third day to everlasting life, was seen by witnesses for 40 days and then ascended to Heaven, the real God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, eternal life comes through having faith in Jesus, God created the universe, there will be a Last Judgement when all individuals will be judged by the Lord Jesus Christ, etc. A Christian cannot only have "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord..." the first two propositions of the Apostles' Creed, and nothing else; one must also have the next ten propositions of the Apostles' Creed for the first two propositions even to make sense.

Yes, that´s why we call Christianity a "belief-system", but we don´t call theism or atheism a belief system.
That´s also the reason why I am not going to hold you responsible for (or not even associate you with) things that Muslims, Hinduists or Pagans (or Christians who hold beliefs different from your own) believe.

You are trying to establish the association fallacy as a valid argument. I am not following you there.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So what rituals personal or otherwise do you percieve Christians have or are told by the bible to apply that would make us religious

Going to church, praying, communion, christenings/baptisms, observing certain holidays, confirmation...

Those are just general rituals. Certain denominations have more specific rituals. You could also count marriage and funerals as Christian rituals too, although obviously you can also have a non-Christian marriages/funerals.

 

[Subordinationist]

Talk to me about those necessary logical conclusions. I´m not aware of any.

Dear quatona,

That morality is relative, since for atheists morality does not find its origin in an absolute God, since for them He cannot exist. Indeed, how can an atheist show that homicide is absolutely wrong?

Is this an example of the association fallacy? "There are no tomatoes", therefore, "Marinara sauce must be made from something other than tomatoes". Or this? "There are no flowers", therefore, "Those who say flowers can make you happy are either ignorant, stupid, delusional or liars". Is it illogical to postulate that those you say "There are no flowers" may also have a tendency to speak against those who say "There are flowers, and they can make you happy"?

 

[tanzanos]

For example, the simple belief, "There are no deities", must lead to the belief "Jesus Christ is not the Son of God";

The first Christians did not believe that Jesus was God. It was only after the Nicene creed invented the notion of the trinity was Jesus accepted as God. Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man. How can a god be the offspring of a mortal?

 

[tanzanos]

Dear quatona,

That morality is relative, since for atheists morality does not find its origin in an absolute God, since for them He cannot exist. Indeed, how can an atheist show that homicide is absolutely wrong?

Is this an example of the association fallacy? "There are no tomatoes", therefore, "Marinara sauce must be made from something other than tomatoes". Or this? "There are no flowers", therefore, "Those who say flowers can make you happy are either ignorant, stupid, delusional or liars". Is it illogical to postulate that those you say "There are no flowers" may also have a tendency to speak against those who say "There are flowers, and they can make you happy"?

Pray tell me how moral is the commandment that demands the stoning to death of disobedient children?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That morality is relative, since for atheists morality does not find its origin in an absolute God, since for them He cannot exist. Indeed, how can an atheist show that homicide is absolutely wrong?

How can you show that homicide is absolutely wrong? By assuming a God who decrees that homicide is absolutely wrong. Are you justified in that assumption? Perhaps, yes. Perhaps you are no more justified than a person who assumes a God who decrees that homicide is virtuous.

 

[quatona]

Dear quatona,

That morality is relative, since for atheists morality does not find its origin in an absolute God, since for them He cannot exist.

Well, there are people who are moral objectivists and atheists. They find the absolute origin of morals in some other source than a god.

Indeed, how can an atheist show that homicide is absolutely wrong?

They can appeal to whatever (real or imagined) absolute authority of their choice just as a theist can.

Is this an example of the association fallacy? "There are no tomatoes", therefore, "Marinara sauce must be made from something other than tomatoes".

No, it isn´t. But "something other" is not a statement about what it is made of.

Or this? "There are no flowers", therefore, "Those who say flowers can make you happy are either ignorant, stupid, delusional or liars".

I, for example, have never felt nor said that theists are either ignorant, stupid, delusional or liars. According to your reasoning I can´t be an atheist.

Is it illogical to postulate that those you say "There are no flowers" may also have a tendency to speak against those who say "There are flowers, and they can make you happy"?

Yes, some "may have a tendency" and some may even downright say it - which is something completely different from a necessarily and logically following common conclusion of theirs.

 

[kharisym]

Dear quatona,

That morality is relative, since for atheists morality does not find its origin in an absolute God, since for them He cannot exist. Indeed, how can an atheist show that homicide is absolutely wrong?

From your perspective, you claim to have an absolute morality, but that is based upon the assumption of god's existence- an assumption in contest. Unless you can prove god's existence, your claim of having an absolute morality is in contest as well.

From my perspective as a humanist, your morality is completely man-made, then post-hocked into the mouth of a mythical figure: god.

Since your claim of having an absolute morality rests upon unproven ground, you can make no claim of superior validity for your morality over mine. The fact is, my morality at least has a basis in fact rather than trying to steal validity from a myth.

Now, as per showing that homicide is wrong: We are all part of our society, we are as much dependent upon that society as we are upon ourselves. By murdering an individual, we harm society, and by harming society not only reduce the society's fitness but also our own.

 

[Monarchist]

Just a stab in the dark here but, church, prayer, baptising,

Church? I am guessing you assume going to a big building on a Sunday morning. Its not necessary nor biblical. Can be done in a home with only a few friends. Plenty of home churches that meet on any day of the week.
Generally its just people gathering giving instructions and talking
Its just easy to go Sundays

Baptism? As a ritual yeah maybe but not really. Just a matter of agreeing to be immersed in water as a public statement of faith, a one of thing as compared to a ritual

Praying, well technically its not a " ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community. ..." its more a chat with God

True some Christian sects have many rituals others have none unless you can point them out

 

[Cabal]

Church? I am guessing you assume going to a big building on a Sunday morning. Its not necessary nor biblical. Can be done in a home with only a few friends. Plenty of home churches that meet on any day of the week.
Generally its just people gathering giving instructions and talking
Its just easy to go Sundays

Baptism? As a ritual yeah maybe but not really. Just a matter of agreeing to be immersed in water as a public statement of faith, a one of thing as compared to a ritual

Praying, well technically its not a " ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community. ..." its more a chat with God

True some Christian sects have many rituals others have none unless you can point them out

This seems like the same kind of weak semantics that spawned the "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship" spiel.

Churches will involve ritual regardless of where they meet.

Baptism is ritualistic, because no matter how much you try and simplify it, it involves immersion in water as a symbolistic facet of the sacrament.

Praying does not always involve ritual elements but it can - many denominations have their own set prayers that are often used, and all denominations use the Lord's prayer.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Church? I am guessing you assume going to a big building on a Sunday morning. Its not necessary nor biblical. Can be done in a home with only a few friends. Plenty of home churches that meet on any day of the week.
Generally its just people gathering giving instructions and talking
Its just easy to go Sundays

Baptism? As a ritual yeah maybe but not really. Just a matter of agreeing to be immersed in water as a public statement of faith, a one of thing as compared to a ritual

Praying, well technically its not a " ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community. ..." its more a chat with God

True some Christian sects have many rituals others have none unless you can point them out

Well its not my fault that so many people are not true christians now is it?

 

[MyRightEye]

Yup, Athiesm is a religion like all the others, complete with a set of arguments for why their religion is right and other religions are wrong. They have their creation myth, they have their afterlife beliefs . . .. yup, religion.

 

[Samantha0]

Yup, Athiesm is a religion like all the others, complete with a set of arguments for why their religion is right and other religions are wrong. They have their creation myth, they have their afterlife beliefs . . .. yup, religion.

I'll repeat: Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
The whole point of atheism is lack of religious belief.

 

[Mystman]

I'll repeat: Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
The whole point of atheism is lack of religious belief.

Theism and religion are not the same thing. I'd personally say that an atheist can still have religious beliefs. Case in point: Buddhists. Of course, that depends on your exact definition of "atheists" and "religious belief", but I personally feel that atheism only makes a statement about the non-existence of gods, and afaik Buddhism doesn't conflict with that.

 

[MyRightEye]

I'll repeat: Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
The whole point of atheism is lack of religious belief.

Nope, sorry. The whole point of A-Theism is a disbelief in God. Non-religious would be a better way to describe someone who lacks religious belief. Atheism has a belief about God(s) namely that He/She/They aren't. That is how ever a belief & given the subject matter, it is a religious belief.

Calling atheism not a religion is like saying a flat earther has no oppinion on geography. May or may not be completely wrong, but as soon as they start talking about the shape of the earth, they have crossed over into geography. As soon as an atheist posits an oppinion on God(s) they have crossed over into the realm of religious belief.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Nope, sorry. The whole point of A-Theism is a disbelief in God. Non-religious would be a better way to describe someone who lacks religious belief. Atheism has a belief about God(s) namely that He/She/They aren't. That is how ever a belief & given the subject matter, it is a religious belief.

Calling atheism not a religion is like saying a flat earther has no oppinion on geography. May or may not be completely wrong, but as soon as they start talking about the shape of the earth, they have crossed over into geography. As soon as an atheist posits an oppinion on God(s) they have crossed over into the realm of religious belief.

Two points:

1) Belief =/= Religion. You can possibly get away with claiming that some atheists have a belief but it's not a religion.

2) Atheism means 'without theism', not 'no God'. That's what the prefix 'a-' means: without.

Why is it that Christians can correct atheists on atheism but atheists are not supposed to be able to understand Christianity? This is a generalised statement, it's not aimed at you.