Is Atheism a religion?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Atheism a religion? It seems highly unlikely that the polar position to theism would be considered a religion but it seems the comparison is made quite a bit. When you look at what can be considered intrinsic properties of a religion it really doesn't stick to well. Unlike a religion, atheism has no systematic beliefs, rituals or doctrine so as to how it could be considered a religion in that rite is a mystery. If any of you honestly believe that atheism is a religion I would much appreciate it if you explained why you believe that and how you believe this is true.

[bernee51]

Why is this even something that commonly gets debated?
An atheist is someone who does not believe in any higher power or any god. 
This isn't a religion, as we don't have a belief in anything.
I personally only 'believe' something if it's been proven, therefore generally don't have 'faith' in anything that can't be proved. 
Atheism is not a religion. We don't all worship science or anything like that, we generally don't worship anything.
So no, not a religion.

There is another aspect of religion to which the atheist is subject. Religion just doesn't stop at worship. It is also a way of life, a pardigm, a world-view, a discipline, a set of rules that one follows even when one does not fully understand why. And this aspect of religion the atheist wears like a glove.

Simply put, theism is the belief in god (any god), whereas atheism is a lack if belief in god (any god). Atheism is no more a religion than theism.

I think that theists who hold a particular god as being the 'one true god' and this god provides for them a guide to a way if life, a worldview, a set of rules etc. a case of transference occurs. They seem to say 'if my belief god does this for me, then the lack of belief must do it for atheists'.

No such thing occurs. While I do not believe that any god exists as anything more than a concept, many other aspects, including aspects of Christianity, contribute to my view of the nature of existence.

Lack of belief in god is almost peripheral.

Atheism, nor theism, are religions.

[Haven]

Aside from a lack of belief in gods, I have little in common with other atheists (and, in many respects, far more in common with many theists. Atheists can certainly hold worldviews and paradigms based upon their atheism, but atheism is not in and of itself a religion or a paradigm of any kind.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Here are two propositions:

1) Chance and necessity alone constitute the best available explanation for our universe and our selves.

2) It is doubtful that chance and necessity alone provide the best available explanation for our universe and our selves.

Which of these statements is positive, and which is negative?

The first is the one making the positive claim in this case but I don't think atheists are in uniform agreement that it's "chance and necessity" whereas most theists are since they believe it's "god" or "gods" that are the source. Again, atheism is merely the polar response to theism. Without theism atheism wouldn't exist.

Which of the above options, #1 or #2, seems most grandiose to you? Why?

Both, because I agree with neither. I don't think it can just be boiled down to simply "chance and necessity".

On the face of it, option #2, above, seems more motivated by doubt than option #1.

True, but I'm sure that's because you've worded that way. If you had instead said "reasoned logic based on empirical evidence and scientific theory" vs. "chance and necessity" naturally option 2 looks a little different. Also if you make option 2 reflect what the person believes rather than what they don't it also looks a lot different.

That is not the view of the majority of educated theists.

I'm just going by the definition. If you have an alternate definition please let me know.

What evidence do you have that our universe and our selves can be best explained by nothing more than chance and necessity?

Again, I don't support your assertion that we believe it's just "chance and necessity". At this point the universe is still mystery and either one of us wrong in terms of how it came into being. I'll stick with the Big Bang because there's evidence to support that. As to what happened prior, time will tell. As for us, evolution, natural selection and speciation tells us how we got here but as to the why, it's anyone's guess. There might not even be a reason why we're here and honestly I don't think it's that important.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Atheism is not a religion...but then, neither is theism. One can be a theist and not be religious*--and one can be an atheist and be as religious about his non-belief as the most rabid of fundamentalists. That Girl nailed that part.

I completely agree there. I believe theism in general should be considered a philosophy as well. The term tends to get blanketed since theism deals directly with "gods" and people commonly associate "gods" with religion.

Those who accuse atheists of having a religion are those who come up against the atheist who does everything theists do--only in support of his lack of belief. That may include, but is not limited to: proselyting, protesting, campaigning, having meetings, slogans, attitudes of "I'm better than you are because I'm smarter/more logical/whatever and you are just stupid"

Either that or they have with a disdain for them because they feel the lack of belief directly threatens their beliefs. I've met quite a few like that that seem to think the very presence of atheism is somehow a threat to their religion or personal beliefs. The same could be said for the flipside as well. It really depends on the person.

I doubt that anybody has called atheism a 'religion' because of the good qualities religions have, like, oh...charitable works, love, tolerance and so forth.

I'd agree it's generally used as a dig at us. As much as you could argue that atheism does have the good qualities you mentioned I'd say it's still just a dig.

In fact, I find it both annoying and unnerving--and atheists who are being called 'religious' should think about the irony here; those who accuse you of 'having a religion' only do so because they don't like you. They think that you have adopted all the things about religion that you most dislike.

When you put it that way saying atheism is a religion can be viewed as a dig against religion itself. Interesting...

Which, on one hand, should make you think "I WIN!" if it means that you are making your point about religions not being great things. If it is used as an insult, it means that the person offering it has no better opinion of those aspects of religion than you do.

Eh, I wouldn't feel right about that because I'd know I'd just be saying "I win" for all the wrong reasons. I'd say it's true though. This discussion could be an interesting thread on its own though. What are the positive effect of being religious versus being non-religious or something to that effect?

On the other hand, they wouldn't be offering that particular insult if you weren't acting as if you deserved it. After all, a religious fundamentalist knows fundamentalism when he sees it.

Maybe. Who knows? I guess it's all a matter of perspective at that point.

* It's a great deal more difficult for a theist to not be religious than it is for an atheist NOT to be, but hey....

There's always deism.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Why is this even something that commonly gets debated?
An atheist is someone who does not believe in any higher power or any god.
This isn't a religion, as we don't have a belief in anything.
I personally only 'believe' something if it's been proven, therefore generally don't have 'faith' in anything that can't be proved.
Atheism is not a religion. We don't all worship science or anything like that, we generally don't worship anything.
So no, not a religion.

Personally, I just brought it up because people, whether they're just using it as an insult or genuinely believe it, keep lumping the two together. If anything, I'm hoping this forum can at least clear some of the air of misconceptions when it comes down to atheism.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

There is another aspect of religion to which the atheist is subject. Religion just doesn't stop at worship. It is also a way of life, a pardigm, a world-view, a discipline, a set of rules that one follows even when one does not fully understand why. And this aspect of religion the atheist wears like a glove.

If you believe that all this fits us like a glove so well then you could explain how it fits, right? We can see if atheism is as uniform as you believe it is.

[Paulomycin]

Atheism is not a religion, but such a statement is continually harder to defend whenever they have a "rally" or convocation.

It is detrimental to their own PR and makes them look even more homogeneous.

Add to the fact that "Ecclesia" means congregation or assembly, and "voila," you have the appearance of religion when you never intended one.

Ironic, no?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Atheism is not a religion, but such a statement is continually harder to defend whenever they have a "rally" or convocation.

It is detrimental to their own PR and makes them look even more homogeneous.

Add to the fact that "Ecclesia" means congregation or assembly, and "voila," you have the appearance of religion when you never intended one.

Ironic, no?

I don't know if having rallies or conventions are "detrimental" per say to atheism not being considered a religion but it is something that can be used as a counterpoint. It just wouldn't be a particularly strong one since conventions and rallies aren't exclusive to just religion and they can be centered around virtually anything.

It is a tad ironic though.

[Bust Nak]

Nak -- I am at a loss to understand how an atheist can not be dogmatically a metaphysical naturalist. If you could shed some light on this for me I would be much obliged.

If someone believes in ghosts but don't believe in gods. What is he if not both a supernaturalist and an atheist?

Granted most atheists don't believe in ghosts or anything like that, but I think it's clear supernatural and deities are not two ideas that automatically go hand in hand, in that while deities imply the supernatural but not necessarily the other way round.

Then there is the strong vs weak atheism side of things, weak atheism does not explicitly reject gods, just a lack of belief in them. The same kind of deal applies to naturalism, you can believe naturalistic laws of nature is enough to explain our universe (re: scientific) without explicitly rejecting the supernatural (re: metaphysical.)

[LiamOS]

...It's not our burden to support a negative claim but rather the theist's to support their initial positive claim...

Here are two propositions:

1) Chance and necessity alone constitute the best available explanation for our universe and our selves.

2) It is doubtful that chance and necessity alone provide the best available explanation for our universe and our selves.

Which of these statements is positive, and which is negative?

If I could add a third proposition, more representative of my stance(And probably many others), it'd be:
3) It is doubtful that anything other than chance and/or necessity is the best available explanation for the existence of the universe.

I'd also be of the opinion that, sooner or later, the existence of 'self' will be explainable given the existence of the universe.