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

[2timothy316]

Is there a point in this post? Perhaps I get your ruling on the following definition?


Oxford Dictionary: Religion
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’

Agree or disagree?

Am I debating with you or have the authors of the OED decided to join us? I have absolutely no quibble with any dictionary definition.

Am not asking you to quibble about dictionary definitions. I'm trying start from a place of agreement. I'm asking you if your agree with the above definition of one word, and I still have no definite answer as to agreement or not. The answer is not for you, it's for me, so I'll know if I'm using a definition you agree with. I will not go any further until we have an agreement on what the definition of the word religion even is. Not by guessing what a definition is as we go.

[rikuoamero]

For the uninitiated, dictionaries are not the be all and end all of languages. Languages existed, with full lexicons, grammars and meanings of words long before the first dictionary was published.
What a dictionary is not ,is prescriptive. It is not the case that any given word must mean what is written in a dictionary. It is not the case that dictionary writers invent words, and then they become used by the wider populace. It is rather the reverse.

A dictionary is written by someone or some group of people who observe language in use. They notice the words being used and write down the meanings given to those words by the people using those words.
The word gay at one point in time was used principally to mean someone of joyful spirit. Now it is used to describe someone who is homosexual. It is not the case that the authors of the Oxford dictionary just declared one day that gay is now a synonym for homosexual.
It could very well be that a new edition of a dictionary ten years from now will say of atheism simply that it is indeed the lack of a belief in a god or gods, if that is indeed the widest used meaning of the word by the populace.
When someone points to a dictionary and insists on using it, they are saying to me that the person who wrote that dictionary is the master of the language, that the definitions for the words under discussion are inviolate.
The dictionary is a very helpful tool, yes, as it does record the given meanings for words, but it is not an all knowing god.

I have been told that I don't believe there are gods. I wonder why the person saying that cannot appreciate the difference between lacking a belief in X, and not believing X exists at all.
I lack a belief in aliens (extra-terrestrials). Doesn't mean though that that equals to me believing there are no aliens.
I lack a belief in the positive existence of X =/= (does not equal) that I positively believe in the non-existence of X.
I have not scoured the entire universe. For all I know, there are ETs. I therefore do not believe there are no aliens. My beliefs are informed by what I know, just as my unbelief is informed by what I do not know.
I do not know how tall 2timothy is. I lack a belief that he is 6 foot 2. Doesn't mean thought that I believe he isn't 6 foot 2.

When 2timothy has studied up on the basics of philosophy, then perhaps I will revisit this discussion with him again.

[marco]

Oxford Dictionary: Religion
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’

Agree or disagree?

Am I debating with you or have the authors of the OED decided to join us? I have absolutely no quibble with any dictionary definition.

Am not asking you to quibble about dictionary definitions. I'm trying start from a place of agreement. I'm asking you if your agree with the above definition of one word, and I still have no definite answer as to agreement or not.

I wonder where the difficulty is in understanding the statement: I have absolutely no quibble with any dictionary definition.

I agree that "religion" has acquired figurative meanings, but when we are discussing : " Is atheism a religion?" - we should not be looking at figurative meanings, especially in the context of theology-related discussions. But in the spirit of debating, I'll take your general definition.


I have no belief in fairies; they don't concern me and my life is lived completely without reference to them. That rejection is not a religion: it fails the definition since there is no zeal involved.

I have no belief in Yahweh or in Allah. My life is lived perfectly well treating them as I might treat fairies. I have no dogmas, no plans of action for my non-belief; there may well be beings in another dimension, but I am completely ignorant of them, as I am of Allah and Yahweh, and so I lack any devotion in not worshipping them or in renouncing them. My involvement in the nullity is nil.


Religion, as defined, has to involve some zeal. There should be a positive charge, not just a complete absence of interest in fairies or ancient deities. For all I know there may be some three-headed god somewhere, or the biblical god might be a corruption of the pantheist's principles; it is all a matter of indifference to me. I get interested when religious folk want to kill me in the name of their deity, otherwise I am absolutely zeal-free in my isolation from divinities. My life is unaffected by my ignorance of them. I cannot see how my non-belief is a belief. I don't claim knowledge.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 83 by amortalman]

Whatever you need to tell yourself. Yet you still do not accept the definition that names atheism as a religion.

You haven't provided a definition that names atheism as a religion. If you're talking about Merriam-Webster's definition of religion it does not name atheism as a religion. The definition is concerned with defining religion, not in making a claim that atheism is a religion.

And you believe that something doesn't exist yet that's still faith. I have faith there is no such thing as ghosts. I have faith ghosts don't exist. Replace ghost with God and that is your exact same argument.

No, you are wrong. What I have is a lack of belief in the God of the Bible. There is a difference between belief and faith. If I had faith God doesn't exist I would have a strong confident assurance that he does not exist. I don't have that strong confident assurance, that faith. But I lack a belief in God because there is zero empirical evidence for his existence along with the fact the Bible is confusing, preposterous, and full of errors. There is a chance he or some other god do exist, but I feel the chance is so small that it's not worth dedicating my life to it.

If you insist that I believe there is no God I will concede that on a strictly technical basis. But that is an odd way of wording it. "I believe" is a positive statement. "There is no God" is a negative statement. When you put them together you're fitting the statement into an uncomfortable mold. Much better to say "You don't believe in God." The same with your statement "I have faith ghosts don't exist."Does it not make more sense to say "I have no faith in ghosts"?

But this is about more than English grammar. And there's more to your wording than its oddness. You are arguing that atheism is a religion




But to make the claim that one's lack of belief is a belief



It becomes even odder when you say "You (or atheists in general) have faith there is no God." Because faith is the next level of belief. The difference between belief and faith is this: If I look


If you are not willing to see that clear truth you are being what is called intellectually dishonest with yourself and me. You can't get it past yourself that these words, faith, dogma and religion can only be applied to god-based things. You're wrong. They are used in non-god sentences all the time.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 83 by amortalman]

Whatever you need to tell yourself. Yet you still do not accept the definition that names atheism as a religion.

You haven't provided a definition that names atheism as a religion. If you think Merriam-Webster does you are wrong. I think we've covered that ground before, but for convenience, I'll post the definition again.


religion noun
re·li·gion | \ri-ˈli-jən \
Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

You cannot ignore the definitions that clearly put God and religious faith at the center of what religion is all about. You can't just hang your argument on the last one, #4, as you are on some very shaky ground with that one. Let's look at it closer.

When it comes to different definitions of a word there's the important element of usage. How is the word religion commonly used? How do most people perceive the meaning of the word? When one mentions the word religion what comes to mind? If someone says she has religion what is the person likely referring to? I venture to say that the vast majority of people think of things and ideas such as God, worship, cathedrals, churches, preachers, and such. And probably faith as well. So according to common usage religion is associated with God, as per common usage and because the definition supports it.

[marco]

You cannot ignore the definitions that clearly put God and religious faith at the center of what religion is all about.

Well if the object is to find meaning in "atheism is a religion" then a figurative meaning suffices. Chess is a religion too as is eating and drinking and almost any human activity that involves enthusiastic participation or interest. Extending the meaning of the statement to cover these possibilities is like saying : "Atheism is something." It is a statement with almost zero information when at first sight it seemed to be provocative. By removing the god side, the statement is reduced to dull harmlessness.

When it comes to different definitions of a word there's the important element of usage. How is the word religion commonly used?

Yes this is true. The Catholic statement in the OP is somewhat dishonest, extending the meaaning of atheism to any nefarious activity including murder. It is amusing, given that definitions are being trifled with, that we have to respond to charges about misunderstanding definitions. The fault dear Brutus....

Anyway, the contentious statement: atheism is a religion is made to provoke, not to issue any truthful information.

[2timothy316]

You cannot ignore the definitions that clearly put God and religious faith at the center of what religion is all about.

Well if the object is to find meaning in "atheism is a religion" then a figurative meaning suffices. Chess is a religion too as is eating and drinking and almost any human activity that involves enthusiastic participation or interest. Extending the meaning of the statement to cover these possibilities is like saying : "Atheism is something." It is a statement with almost zero information when at first sight it seemed to be provocative. By removing the god side, the statement is reduced to dull harmlessness.

When it comes to different definitions of a word there's the important element of usage. How is the word religion commonly used?

Yes this is true. The Catholic statement in the OP is somewhat dishonest, extending the meaaning of atheism to any nefarious activity including murder. It is amusing, given that definitions are being trifled with, that we have to respond to charges about misunderstanding definitions. The fault dear Brutus....

Anyway, the contentious statement: atheism is a religion is made to provoke, not to issue any truthful information.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ax-exempt/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... s/2678367/

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'.

[marco]

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'.

I am not in the slightest upset about the misnomer. My spelling varies from that across the Atlantic, - I don't care. And I have no problem with secular authorities making simple rules for ease of procedure. Presumably the IRS don't involve themselves in religious explanations; they are simply using a convenient terminology to fit things into boxes available to them.

We are on a forum where people seem to be intimately acquainted with religious nuances, even to the extent of quoting chapter and verse. In these circumstances, religious meanings DO have importance and it is proper to examine details of religious terminology. However, if you wish to use the IRS as your authority on the Bible that is a strange decision. But your digression, I'm afraid, earns no points. Now had Jesus been on your side... ah!

[polonius]

You might want to try the National Catholic Reporter instead of the National Catholic Register

[2timothy316]

[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.