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.

[Bust Nak]

Given that volition is one of the three known causal mechanisms in the universe, the burden of proof rests with those who would arbitrarily dismiss it from consideration.

Sure, if you ever meet a metaphysical naturalist, it would indeed be his burdern of proof to shoulder, to defend his dismissial of volition.

Non-theists typically attempt to deny that genuine volition exists in any form or degree within our universe, but such attempts ultimately amount to epistemological suicide.

But there is no need for the typical non-theists to deny anything until theist suggest that genuine volition exists.

Bottom line is this: if genuine volition exists in some form and in some degree within our universe, then theism is the "default position." On the other hand, if genuine volition does not exist at all within our universe, then non-theism becomes the "default position"

No, the default position does not shift depending on the truth. The default is always the most obvious position, regardless of the truth.

[EduChris]

...I really fail to see your point. Both of the above claims could very easily be held by a non-theist, nor is one a prerequisite to being a non-theist...

The non-theist would not logically be able accept the first claim unless and until she had first: a) demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that volition does not exist, and b) shown that there does exist some other causal mechanism beyond chance and volition.

...Nothing resembling volition has been observed outside a very small lengthscale and a very small timescale, and I'd go one step further in saying that, as best as we can tell, volition is merely an illusion...

We all have the direct, unmediated, ineradicable perception of our own volition. This is sufficient evidence for most reasonable people of good will.

...Attempting to confirm volition without using means independent of it is also flawed for obvious reasons.

Not really. We have no independent evidence that minds other than our own exist. And it is difficult to see how something so direct and unmediated as our inner mental conscious life could ever be confirmed by independent means, even in principle. Moreover, there is no obvious way that volition could ever be disproved--for such would require us to go against our own unmediated sense of who we are, on the evidence of the testimony of others who are also going against their own unmediated sense of who they are.

But at any rate, the question of whether volition exists in not as pertinent as the fact that if genuine volition exists at all, then theism is the only epistemologically justifed explanation. And contrarily, if genuine volition does not exist at all, then none of us are in any position to ever change a single thing that we will ever do or say or think.

[EduChris]

...there is no need for the typical non-theists to deny anything until theist suggest that genuine volition exists...

Do you have any independent evidence to suggest that chance and necessity exist? For all we know, everything which appears to happen by chance or necessity could, in reality, be entirely manipulated by the volitional element of our black box of non-contingent reality (not that I actually believe this, but it isn't obviously any less likely than the supposition that volition doesn't exist).

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I am impressed with the course this thread has taken. Rather than each side becoming defensive, there seems to have been an honest search for understanding on all sides.

I have to admit, it's not what I expected but it has become much more in depth than I originally thought.

To sum up some of what has been said, neither atheism nor theism are religons, but phylosophies. I agree with this, but I would extend that to say that even christianity is not a religion. It is my understanding that religion is the practice of one's phylosophical beliefs. This is more easily identified where such practices are codified and enforced. That is why phylosophies such as christianity are often mistaken for religions. It also makes it easier for atheists to denigh being religious since common atheistic tenets are not codified as atheist, but are merely stated as reasonable, factual or scientifically verifiable.

While I do agree that neither atheism nor theism should be considered religion because as they are their just philosophies but I would still say Christianity is since it shares the properties of a religion ie doctrine, rituals, uniform moral codes or laws. I'm just going by the definition but if Christianity isn't a religion then are Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. religions? I would also say that what you would call "atheistic tenets" aren't exclusive to just atheists. Even theists can follow them it just depends on the subject.

I do think that the presumption that refering to atheism as a religion is to be presumed to be an insult. If I recall, the one time I have made that statement on this sight, I was countering an assertion that theists were some how inferior because they have tenets and rituals. Rather then deal with the common but incorrect usage of the term religion when refering to theism at that time, I chose to apply the presumption to atheism. I was not using this as an insult, but as a comparative. As with atheism, the various views on how the universe works very from person to person. Both atheism and theism have their fatalistic factions (anarchist/deist), scientific factions (evolutionist/creationist), moralist factions (humanist/legalist), etc. In fact, I think one would be hard pressed to find a theistic religious faction that is not mirrored by an atheistic one. It appears to me that the view that atheism is not equivalent to theism with regard to religion is more of a tool of atheist that allows them to generalize about the peculiar practices of some theists while avoiding having to defend any querky behaviors that some atheists might have.

I would agree with that to an extent because I believe there are people out there that genuinely believe atheism to be a religion. It's also possible they believe theism is a religion as well too. I guess it really depends on the context. In terms of "fatalistic factions" I'd go with nihilist or nihilistic existentialism as opposed to anarchist since anarchy is more politically motivated but I definitely see what you're getting at.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

The problem of infinite regress is easily solved by means of a logical tool known as a black box, a logical wrapping that we place around the non-contingent reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves.

The black box of non-contingent reality might contain an infinite regress or an infinite loop or just about anything. The only salient fact is that the black box, whatever it contains, represents the non-contingent reality which accounts for the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. If this black box contains any element of volition, then theism would be true, and non-theism would be false.

With the black box in place in this scenario theism in itself would be correct but that would also eliminate the possibility of a "one true god" if it is an infinite regress which would ultimately dismiss monotheism altogether.

[EduChris]

...With the black box in place in this scenario theism in itself would be correct but that would also eliminate the possibility of a "one true god" if it is an infinite regress which would ultimately dismiss monotheism altogether.

Firstly, there is no obvious advantage for the hypothesis of infinite regress; the alternative hypothesis of an "uncaused cause" is preferable to many philosophers.

Secondly, infinite regress in no way undermines any sort of monotheism which envisions an infinite God who eternally wills existence into being.

[I Wear White Socks]

But at any rate, the question of whether volition exists in not as pertinent as the fact that if genuine volition exists at all, then theism is the only epistemologically justifed explanation.

What is your definition of volition? Is it willing to choose or choosing to will? Is it the ability to do as you will or to will yourself to will? I think you owe at least that much information to non-theists, since it would seem your theology necessitates putting a volitional rope around humanity's neck so you can stand back, watch creatures hang themselves with it, then offer jesus to save them from themselves.

[Jax Agnesson]

The problem of infinite regress is easily solved by means of a logical tool known as a black box, a logical wrapping that we place around the non-contingent reality which undergirds the contingent reality of our universe and our selves.

The black box of non-contingent reality might contain an infinite regress or an infinite loop or just about anything. The only salient fact is that the black box, whatever it contains, represents the non-contingent reality which accounts for the contingent reality of our universe and our selves. If this black box contains any element of volition, then theism would be true, and non-theism would be false.

First I have to say this is turning into a wonderfully interesting debate.
A question for EduChris; If we wrap up the non-contingent cause in this black box, wouldn't the only self-consistent position be agnosticism?

[EduChris]

...If we wrap up the non-contingent cause in this black box, wouldn't the only self-consistent position be agnosticism?

If you believe yourself to have some measure of volition and some measure of rationality, then logically it seems you should opt for theism (volitional non-contingent reality). On the other hand, if you believe yourself to lack volition, then you might opt for theism, or for non-theism, or agnosticism (but I hope you see the irony here).

Agnosticism is a starting point, not a final destination. For me, I don't see how anyone can credibly deny any measure of volition for themselves, since we all seem to have an inner mental conscious life that experiences volition every single day of our lives.

[EduChris]

...What is your definition of volition?...

Volition is a causal mechanism. It is not fully reducible to chance & necessity. It is evidenced by our inner mental thought life which we experience daily. Volition not only explains certain effects (our actions and decisions) but also grants us a certain degree of personal ownership and responsibility for the future which we (at least in part) create for ourselves.

...your theology necessitates putting a volitional rope around humanity's neck so you can stand back, watch creatures hang themselves with it, then offer jesus to save them from themselves.

Why does it "seem" this way to you? I have never argued for such a viewpoint.