Is Atheism a religion?

[pdka2004]

.......Continous quotes from ancient and modern philosphers supporting our argument against the existence of a God could easily develop into a structured text complete with 'high priests' and disciples.

Possibly but, like religion, it would take people with all their prejudices, pettiness and self delusion to do this. And then we would spend the next 2000 years arguing about that too

Religion also needs something to aspire to, a grand prize at the end of a lifetime of suffering. It might be heaven, 72 virgins, resurrection as a superior being or being whisked away to alien worlds but every true religion has one of these prizes and offers a path to get there.

However, we who do not share these beliefs are bound by our life here, on this earth, at this time.

With that removed the only thing left would be parades and silly hats

 

[Andiferous]

When we remove the need to believe in a supreme being, are we in danger of surplanting that belief? Continous quotes from ancient and modern philosphers supporting our argument against the existence of a God could easily develop into a structured text complete with 'high priests' and disciples. Surely, true Atheism is the belief in nothing other than ourselves; just as surely is that your own opinion carries as much credence as the opinion of any other human being, philospher or not. The ability to think freely should be the goal of a true Atheist and maybe this is our Nirvana?

I say it can be, yes.

For example, I think there is some evidence for this in the way (The Former Atheist Thread) Kirk Cameron says "I used to be an Atheist...".

Now and then people just tend to change flags. It makes me a bit wary at times.

I think this tends to offend people because of a misappropriation of terms.

To borrow Improbable Joe:

Kirk Cameron's nonsense makes me wonder sometimes... do evangelicals simply define "atheist" as "someone who never thought about religion before"? It would explain why they say that they are former atheists, why they are so easily swayed by bad arguments, and why they seem to believe those bad arguments should work on us.

I think this case can also be made in Squawk's blog post "Atheist Fundamentalism."

The devotion is not directed to the points those users raise, not to particular subjects or to particular videos, but rather to the users themselves. And the one thing that seems to unite these commenters is atheism. Atheism might be a lack of a position, but these people are united by that atheism. When/if fundamentalist behaviour emerges from that group I feel it is correct to call it atheist fundamentalism. The atheists making threats against the likes of Coughlan are guilty of the same crimes that they laud Thunderf00t and Pat Condell for fighting against.

This context is evidence enough for me to recognise that this does happen. So, yeah. What makes a "True Atheist," and does it matter?

 

[Story]

The issue of atheism only seems to have any significance because there are people that believe there is a god. If no one believed there was a god, atheism wouldn't be an issue. The word "atheism" needn't exist if there were no theists as there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe a god exists other than the fact that people believe he does.

Atheism being a religion is about as relevant as people disbelieving in a flying teapot being a religion. There's an infinity of concepts/gods/things you don't believe in, are those religions?

 

[Andiferous]

The issue of atheism only seems to have any significance because there are people that believe there is a god. If no one believed there was a god, atheism wouldn't be an issue. The word "atheism" needn't exist if there were no theists as there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe a god exists other than the fact that people believe he does.

Atheism being a religion is about as relevant as people disbelieving in a flying teapot being a religion. There's an infinity of concepts/gods/things you don't believe in, are those religions?

I think the point, though, is not in the individual interpretations of what Atheism actually is, but that many of us have been trained to think a certain way. Just because a person claims the term for themselves, does not mean they've let go of prejudices and perceptions.

For instance, what is the difference between judging someone as a "true Atheist" or a "true Christian" ? It is somewhat offensive to be painted by the same brush as others who don't share your opinions, but by holding up a banner either way, you risk falling into the "group" mentality that often powers religious identity.

I think that's something to consider, anyway.

 

[Story]

I think the point, though, is not in the individual interpretations of what Atheism actually is, but that many of us have been trained to think a certain way. Just because a person claims the term for themselves, does not mean they've let go of prejudices and perceptions.

For instance, what is the difference between judging someone as a "true Atheist" or a "true Christian" ? It is somewhat offensive to be painted by the same brush as others who don't share your opinions, but by holding up a banner either way, you risk falling into the "group" mentality that often powers religious identity.

I think that's something to consider, anyway.

I suppose you have a point there, there is a human tendency to group together when we identify similarities in each other. Especially when those coincide in ways which you consider to be a niche. In much the same way "True" Christians would group together away from non-true Christians, which brings up a new point. Generally we fail at maintaining any group identity, especially when the "True" identities come into play, followed by differences in defining what "True" is and subsequently leading to separate groups of "True" claimants and discrepancies and differences within those groups. Hence we have Christianity in various flavours Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglican, etc etc... and then various flavours of those. Or not just in Christianity, but Islam has Sunni, Shi'ite, Ahmadi and others. We could even pick on Hinduism with Savism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism. There's a plethora of different subsets of ideas within groups and their ideas of how things work can vary greatly from the very rudiments.

So in essence, a group is only a group because of it's label, but despite popular belief it essentially it has very little information to offer about the person.

 

[lrkun]

No, it's not me, it's the voices........somebody make them stop!

Only you can stop the voices in your head or you can seek professional help.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

And so what does one of my wiseass in-laws send me?

Stamps... kinda pretty too. Might have to start a collection.