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.

[Quath]

I think we should go ahead and get the common quote on this out of the way. "If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby." You can go further and say that if it were true, then Christians have two religions: a belief in God and a disbelief in all the other gods. So I think logically, atheism is not a religion.

However, sometimes people use religion to mean "perspective on the supernatural." In this case, a lack of belief in the supernatural is one perspective. I think this view/definition applies mostly in legal cases where "freedom of religion" may apply.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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.

Atheism is not a religion except by a great stretch of definition. But I have encountered some atheists for whom atheism might as well be a religion. For them, anything about religion (usually Christianity in particular) is inherently wrong and stupid and is to be put down in the most demeaning terms. And this attitude is independent of any evidence or argumentation presented to them. It is in effect an article of faith. Happily this is a lot more prevalent on some other sites than here. But it definitely exists.

It is that type of atheist that is often in mind when atheists are accused of practicing a religion.

[Haven]

Atheism is not a religion, but the absence of religion. In fact, I wouldn't even go as far to say that it's an ideology or an "-ism." It has no tenets, no beliefs, no dogmas, and no goals. It is simply a term that denotes the lack of belief in gods. That's all.

That's not to say an atheist can't be religious (there are plenty of atheist Christians, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, and Buddhists), but atheism is not in and of itself a religion.

[EduChris]

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.

Atheism is the unevidenced, faith-based assumption that the sum total of all reality can be fully explained by chance & necessity alone, apart from any volitional element.

[Bust Nak]

Atheism is the unevidenced, faith-based assumption that the sum total of all reality can be fully explained by chance & necessity alone, apart from any volitional element.

That's not atheism. That's metaphysical naturalism.

Now of course metaphysical naturalism is atheistic, as it denies the existence of the supernatural; But not all atheists subscribe to metaphysical naturalism, even thought they may subscribe to scientific naturalism.

[Haven]

Atheism is the unevidenced, faith-based assumption that the sum total of all reality can be fully explained by chance & necessity alone, apart from any volitional element.

That's not what atheism is. Atheism, in its most basic sense, is simply the lack of belief in gods or theistic beings of any kind. It is not the assertion that the sum of all reality can be explained through chance and necessity, which, as Bust mentioned, is metaphysical naturalism. Some atheists are metaphysical naturalists, some (myself included) are not.

Also, I wouldn't say naturalism is based on faith, but rather empirical evidence for the lack of supernatural interference in our universe.

[EduChris]

...Atheism, in its most basic sense, is simply the lack of belief in gods or theistic beings of any kind...

You are describing atheism as a psychological condition, or subjective state of mind, which is not based on any reason or argumentation. As such, this particular sort of atheism is irrelevant to this site, where reasoning and argumentation are required.

...the assertion that the sum of all reality can be explained through chance and necessity...is metaphysical naturalism. Some atheists are metaphysical naturalists, some (myself included) are not...

Apparently atheism (as a particular viewpoint which can be debated, as opposed to a subjective psychological condition, which cannot be debated) need not entail metaphysical naturalism. Please explain this position, which you claim to hold.

...naturalism is based on...empirical evidence for the lack of supernatural interference in our universe.

There cannot be, even in principle, empirical evidence for or against metaphysical viewpoints. Or perhaps better, our universe and our selves comprise the evidence for any and all metaphysical viewpoints, and we adopt our particular metaphysical viewpoint based on our particular interpretation of this commonly available empirical evidence.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Atheism is the unevidenced, faith-based assumption that the sum total of all reality can be fully explained by chance & necessity alone, apart from any volitional element.

Can it be called a religion though? That what I was asking. As for your descriptors concerning atheism:

1) Unevidenced- Saying we have no evidence for the non-existence of "god" or "gods" seems a tad redundant. It's not our burden to support a negative claim but rather the theist's to support their initial positive claim. I would say most atheists don't believe in "god" or "gods" because there's no solid evidence to support their existence as of yet. You don't need evidence to doubt a grandiose claim that's supposed to be taken on faith rather than evidence.

2) Faith-based- I'd say logic and a reasonable doubt is more of a motivating factor rather than faith. Faith is simply strong belief even in the presence of contrary evidence. Whether or not we believe strongly will not change the outcome. If "god" or "gods" do exist and there's mountains of evidence to support that then no matter how much we believe they don't is irrelevant because it can't change that. I'm pretty sure most atheists would agree with me here. There's no need for faith when there is evidence.

Also, I don't think we're saying that everything can be explained through our philosophy. We simply come from a position of doubt.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

...Atheism, in its most basic sense, is simply the lack of belief in gods or theistic beings of any kind...

You are describing atheism as a psychological condition, or subjective state of mind, which is not based on any reason or argumentation. As such, this particular sort of atheism is irrelevant to this site, where reasoning and argumentation are required.

Actually, that's the definition of atheism just as the definition of theism is the polar opposite. You wouldn't describe theism as a "psychological condition" or a "subjective state of mind" otherwise your position would be irrelevant as well.