Atheism as a religion

[amortalman]

The following excerpt is from the National Catholic Register, www.ncregister.com :

But the truth is, atheism is the farthest thing in the world from simple absence of belief. Indeed, atheism is a whole system of beliefs—a system that has its own philosophy (materialism), morality (relativism), politics (social Darwinism), and culture (secularism). It even has its own sacraments (abortion and euthanasia). And this system of beliefs has been responsible for more death, carnage, persecution and misery than any system of beliefs the world has ever known.

Topic of debate: Do you agree or disagree with the statement above and why.

Edit Note: The web address for the National Catholic Register is incomplete. The article I referenced can be read at http://www.ncregister.com/blog/guest-bl ... is-atheism

[marco]

[Replying to post 97 by marco]

Well, when they are done reinventing the wheel of what they want to be called, all they will need to do is get the IRS and dictionaries to accept it. I don't think message boards are the source for government or reference work definitions. So have fun with that.

In my own case the IRS have nothing to do with me. The point you've missed is that outside of a religious context we can call atheists anything we want. They would just as well fit into the category: NONE. I think we've explored the proposition adequately and it would seem that atheism is not a religion in any sense that has meaning here.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 99 by 2timothy316]

Once Christians start accepting the IRS' definition of a church for any reason other than to avoid paying taxes for their money making enterprises, I'll consider evaluating whether or not their legal definition of religion applies to atheism.

Given that atheism isn't a belief, they are as clueless as the theists who attempt to define atheism for atheists.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 96 by 2timothy316]

From the USAToday article: "The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a "minister" be seen as a spiritual leader and provide services for a religious organization. Belief in a deity is not required."

The IRS calls list atheism as a religion. They even get tax breaks like a religion. The IRS doesn't seem to care if it provokes the atheist or not. They have no dog in this hunt to care. So, the final answer is, atheism is a religion, being upset about it doesn't even change the IRS's mind. The IRS apparently is saying, 'it is what it is'.

It's perhaps uncharitable of you to leave out from the very article you cite and quote from that the woman whom the IRS is seeking to give a tax break to...is fighting AGAINST it.

The federal government wants to give Annie Laurie Gaylor a tax break for leading an atheist group.

Gaylor, head of the Madison, Wisc.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, wants to stop them — and she's asking a federal judge for help.

government lawyers say that atheist leaders can be ministers, too, since atheism can function as a religion. So leaders of an atheist organization may qualify for the exemption.

No thanks, Gaylor said.

"We are not ministers," she said. "We are having to tell the government the obvious: We are not a church."

Please tell us why you left that out of your post here.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 102 by rikuoamero]

You've missed the point. The fight is not the important thing. It's the classification of the IRS and that for tax exception that the atheist want, it fits in the religion category. They can complain but the IRS doesn't have another category that fits them. I think the real issue is that atheist are becoming what they hated to begin with and it isn't sitting well with them.

Speaking of fighting the IRS, here's a story where an atheist group is crying foul because the are not being treated like other churches.

https://religionnews.com/2018/10/11/fre ... exemption/

From the article: "An atheist relief organization has sued the Internal Revenue Service, claiming its tax-exempt status was unfairly revoked. IRS officials say the group failed to file required annual information to the agency for three years. But the group’s leaders say churches do the same thing all the time and are never penalized."

So do atheist want the same tax exceptions afforded churches or not? Apparently some groups do.

[marco]

So do atheist want the same tax exceptions afforded churches or not? Apparently some groups do.

The discussion is about atheism being a religion, not how much tax atheists should pay. If religion means interest, hobby, something that takes up one's attention, then the charge: "Atheism is a religion" is harmless, and means "atheism is of great interest to some people. It surely is.

If by religion we mean worshipping God and observing rituals such as praying and believing in things like angels and heaven after death, it is abundantly clear that atheists do not believe in any of this. So in the sense of religion that we employ here, atheism isn't a religion.


If in some quarters atheism is seen, for administrative purposes, as in the category of religion, amen. Chess, likewise, is a religion, as is bird watching. All we're doing is returning to the figurative definition: religion is an avid interest.

[2timothy316]

If by religion we mean worshipping God and observing rituals such as praying and believing in things like angels and heaven after death, it is abundantly clear that atheists do not believe in any of this. So in the sense of religion that we employ here, atheism isn't a religion.

Well, there are atheist that disagree with you. It seems some are more inclusive in the term than you think.

From:
http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/what.html

"Strictly speaking, a person could still believe in the existence of such things as immortal souls, life after death, ghosts, supernatural powers, etc, and still remain an atheist on the ground that they disbelieve in the existence of God or gods, but in practice most atheists also reject any supernatural or transcendent reality, usually citing a lack of empirical evidence."

[marco]

If by religion we mean worshipping God and observing rituals such as praying and believing in things like angels and heaven after death, it is abundantly clear that atheists do not believe in any of this. So in the sense of religion that we employ here, atheism isn't a religion.

Well, there are atheist that disagree with you. It seems some are more inclusive in the term than you think.

From:
http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/what.html

"Strictly speaking, a person could still believe in the existence of such things as immortal souls, life after death, ghosts, supernatural powers, etc, and still remain an atheist on the ground that they disbelieve in the existence of God or gods, but in practice most atheists also reject any supernatural or transcendent reality, usually citing a lack of empirical evidence."

I have not discounted the supernatural as such; I discounted religious entities such as angels, and religious locations such as heaven. I can accept there are dimensions beyond my own, and ghosts intrigue me. They may be associated with some energy form, but I don't see them as God's plenipotentiaries.


But be that as it may, I don't belong to some group whose laws define me. My position is principally that I am vigorously and enthusiastically opposed to belief in Yahweh. Other gods don't interest me too much since they are generally discarded as fiction anyway. Allah I regard as the fictional alter-ego of Yahweh.


If I am faced here with some articulate proposals for Yahweh's authenticity, I might actually surrender my disbelief. I think this is unlikely, though.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 103 by 2timothy316]

The fight is not the important thing. It's the classification of the IRS and that for tax exception that the atheist want, it fits in the religion category.

So far in this thread, you've argued dictionary, and now you're arguing the IRS. Have you taken a look at the left hand side, seen which country I am a son of? I'll tell you: I am in Ireland, and as such, the IRS has no claim on me.
Besides which, the tactic you are using is to use a legal definition, which does not always have to jell with reality. I could hypothetically murder someone wilfully, but if in my trial I get away with manslaughter, or even am acquitted, the courts would say I am not a murderer. Such happened with OJ Simpson. Is he not a murderer because the law of the land says he is not?

They can complain but the IRS doesn't have another category that fits them.

Such would be a problem for the IRS and their lawyers. Not for me.

I think the real issue is that atheist are becoming what they hated to begin with and it isn't sitting well with them.

Some atheists may be, yes, I have indeed heard of churches of atheism...but this isn't to say that an atheist, by default, has a religion, has a dogma. I am an atheist, and yet I am not a member of any organised group of atheists. The closest is here on this site and even then, there's no group doctrine to hold to.

Speaking of fighting the IRS, here's a story where an atheist group is crying foul because the are not being treated like other churches.

Sounds like a legal fight.

"An atheist relief organization has sued the Internal Revenue Service, claiming its tax-exempt status was unfairly revoked. IRS officials say the group failed to file required annual information to the agency for three years. But the group’s leaders say churches do the same thing all the time and are never penalized."

So do atheist want the same tax exceptions afforded churches or not?

Does it mean these atheists want to be recognised as a church, as having a doctrine, a dogma? The reason this group is doing this is to showcase the unfair advantage actual churches have. The group does not want to be recognised as a church in and of themselves: they want the IRS to demand of churches what the IRS demands of them, which is to file their paperwork every year. You're still talking about the same woman who, in the earlier link you cited, said "We are not ministers...we are not a church".

How often are you going to fail at citing any actual evidence that I am an atheist with a dogma? It's been several weeks so far. Kudos for hanging on this far, but still...not one shred of evidence from you that a person who lacks a belief in a god has a dogma just like people from religions do.

[2timothy316]

Some atheists may be, yes, I have indeed heard of churches of atheism...but this isn't to say that an atheist, by default, has a religion, has a dogma. I am an atheist, and yet I am not a member of any organised group of atheists. The closest is here on this site and even then, there's no group doctrine to hold to.

Seems to me by default no one has a religion or dogma. Yet over time people make their own belief systems. There is a large growing group called 'nones'. These are people that believe in there is a God or gods but are not part of anything organized.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... on-behind/

This name 'nones' is the closest category we have to fit atheist who are unaffiliated with a group into. But also we can fit those that believe in a God or gods into this group of 'nones' too. However, atheist or not all 'nones' have beliefs and dogma that they think is true.

A doctrine is a a stated principle and a doctrine doesn't have to be related to God or religion. Like the Monroe Doctrine or Truman Doctrine. The doctrine or stated principle of atheism is there is no God or gods. So while a person might say " there's no group doctrine to hold to", in fact there is a basic principle that all those that wish to be called 'atheist' must hold to. It takes conscious thought to believe something doesn't exist. That is what makes it a doctrine, dogma or belief. I don't personally don't believe ghost exist, I have an absence of belief in ghost, but I will gladly admit this choice not place any belief in ghost in of itself is a belief. Because a belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 108 by 2timothy316]

The doctrine or stated principle of atheism is there is no God or gods.

How often are you going to conflate lack of belief in a god or gods with there are no gods?
The two are very different.

There is a large growing group called 'nones'. These are people that believe in there is a God or gods but are not part of anything organized.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... t-religion...

This name 'nones' is the closest category we have to fit atheist who are unaffiliated with a group into.

You want to fit atheists, those people who lack a belief in a god...into a group whose members are described as having a belief in a god or gods?
Next thing I know, you'll be saying that I'm the current Pope.

It takes conscious thought to believe something doesn't exist.

No it doesn't. Name any thing you don't believe in, and guess what? You don't take conscious thought to do so.
And again, there's a difference between lacking a belief that X exists (in this case God or gods) and believing that X doesn't exist (in this case God or gods).
You are constantly mixing the two up, no matter how many times I correct you.

I don't personally don't believe ghost exist, I have an absence of belief in ghost,

You'll want to rewrite this part, since I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to say. The first part has two negatives, so parsing it is a little difficult. Either you're saying you don't believe ghosts exist AND that you lack a belief in ghosts (two things that are in direct conflict with one another), or you don't not believe ghosts exists, and have a lack of belief.
Basically...rewrite it.

but I will gladly admit this choice not place any belief in ghost in of itself is a belief.

Why are you talking about choices? You just said you have an absence of belief, so how is it a belief?
Again, to go back to earlier posts, this is like you saying that a person who has no sports, plays no sports, is still a sportsman...somehow.