Is Atheism a religion?

[makula]

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?

 

[Commander Eagle]

When we remove the need to believe in a supreme being, are we in danger of surplanting that belief?

No.

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.

Pull the other one, it has got bells on.

Seriously, no, I don't think so. Atheism is and will never be a religion. The only way that you could make it into one is by stretching the definition so ridiculously that it loses all real meaning.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Atheism isn't a belief.

There could be an atheist religion, one which is dogmatic and ritualistic but does not hold up any god. Some say this is what Scientology is, but they do have their own pantheon of Xenu and his troglodytes or whatever those spirit things are.

However, that would not itself make atheism a religion.

Let me reiterate that atheism is not a belief. Not belief in nothing other than the universe, not belief that there is no god, simply no belief in god.

That's an important distinction.

Belief can exist which is atheist, and atheism doesn't preclude blind faith in other things. It is simply the lack of a belief in god.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Not belief in nothing other than the universe,

We believes in nussinks, Lebowski.
Sorry, reflex.

It's important to remember that atheists are not necessarily any more uniform than theists. Just as it's possible to believe in god but not in Jesus, it's also possible to not believe in god but still believe in the Earth's life-force, or reincarnation, or some other religious notion. That doesn't make all atheism religious any more than all theists are Christian.

(A)theism is a question: do you believe in god(s)? If you say no, you're an atheist; that doesn't mean you do have a religion, nor does it mean you can't have one anyway. In fact, depending on how broad your definition of religion is, I see no reason you can't be a nonreligious theist: Deists, Maltheists, and some Apatheists would certainly fall here.

 

[Prolescum]

Pull the other one, it has got bells on.

Classic.

On topic:

No, not a religion. Some anti-theistic atheists I've had the displeasure of discussion with (even on these boards) have exhibited cult-like behaviour (in the modern sense), but for every bog-standard generality there's a fringe of people who take it far too seriously, so it's not unexpected. They, like the terminally religious, eventually just give up arguing rational people because, well, they're rational and they'll never understand how important *insert cult figure here* really is...

 

[RichardMNixon]

Oh man, I always thought the soldier in Holy Grail was saying "Whose the other one?" in reference to Patsy. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Prolescum]

Oh man, I always thought the soldier in Holy Grail was saying "Whose the other one?" in reference to Patsy. Learn something new everyday.

:lol:

 

[Clint]

Point's pretty well summarised in the above posts.

To make it even more simple. An atheist is simply a person who rejects the claim that 'God exists'. Nothing more, nothing less! ...A person can arrive at being an atheist for good or bad reasons, but the reason isn't a part of the definition.

 

[inkracer]

There could be an atheist religion, one which is dogmatic and ritualistic but does not hold up any god. Some say this is what Scientology is, but they do have their own pantheon of Xenu and his troglodytes or whatever those spirit things are.

There are religions out there that are atheistic. But Atheism in general (and especially the stereotypical Atheism) is not, cannot and will never be a religion. It's very much like what Creationist do to try and make Creationism a science, you stretch the definition so much, that many other things that aren't religion would then have to be accepted as religions (Political Parties, Scouts, etc.), and the definition itself loses all meaning.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No.

Any other questions? I'll be here all day.

 

[Mycernius]

Short answer: No

Long answer: No, is bald a hair colour?

 

[briscoe123]

I would say no, and that it's quite unfortunate that people who hold no religious belief still have to come under a certain category. I'am an Atheist but to be honest I would rather just have no label, the word Atheism to me is merely an adjective for describing non belief.

 

[Case]

No.






Duh.

 

[lrkun]

When we remove the need to believe in a supreme being, are we in danger of surplanting that belief?

No, we don't usurp such belief, because in effect, the fact that we promote the truth or reality is for the benefit of everyone.

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.

High priests or disciples are not essential. It is a fact that knowledge is gained from others and our tested observations of reality, but that is different from claiming to have a single person or followers. The fact that one can be a theist or atheist by testing such knowledge does not require one's belief, just one's observation.

The ability to think freely should be the goal of a true Atheist and maybe this is our Nirvana?

No, to claim that this is the end goal of atheism is false. You can say that an atheist should reasonably ascertain his or her thoughts, in consequence, act on it in a proper manner.

To call it Nirvana is missleading, because it is in effect a consequence of searching out the truth.

 

[Don-Sama]

Perhaps it's easier to turn it around, is it a religion to be a ''theist''? I Hope that question makes it a lot easier to understand..

 

[Anachronous Rex]

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?

It would be possible for a religion to form that calls itself "Atheism," and - concede - it is even possible that some atheists are dogmatic to the point of being pseudo-religious; in fact, I suspect I've seen this.

However, so long as the definition of atheism stands as non-belief, these anomalies infer no larger principal. An atheist will never be religious simply by virtue of being an atheist.

Your argument is an attempt to square all rectangles; it is infantile and anti-intellectual, and you are the poorer for making it.

 

[monitoradiation]

When we remove the need to believe in a supreme being, are we in danger of surplanting that belief?

Yes, and that's why atheism does not guarantee sanity.

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.

No, the general principles of, for example, the problem of evil, is universal as applied to all gods that are defined by omnipotence and omnibenevolence. The ideas of the problem of evil have their own merit regardless of who first thought of it, and that's a major distinction.

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?

The ability to think freely should be the goal of everyone. Anyone who does not think that they should think freely is a mindslave.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

Once again, Hitchens stands atop the shattered body of this argument:


(I apologize for subs.)

 

[makula]

I apologise if my question appeared naive or simplistic, in essence, my intention was basically to question our need to question. I believe that every thinking person has deep within him a belief that his/hers interpretation of reality is the only viable one and even though this belief maybe diluted by knowledge and experience, the core remains the same. Put simply, if it where possible to fully explain the colour orange to a blind person; what would be the point? This knowledge would not improve his life, and similary if we could determine 'why are we here' would this knowledge improve ours, especially as I doubt if we could change the outcome?

 

[monitoradiation]

I apologise if my question appeared naive or simplistic, in essence, my intention was basically to question our need to question.

I question your questioning of our need to question.

Sarcasm aside, what's the alternative? Not questioning? Just accept whatever claim is posed?

I believe that every thinking person has deep within him a belief that his/hers interpretation of reality is the only viable one and even though this belief maybe diluted by knowledge and experience, the core remains the same.

What I think is what I think? Can you get more tautological than that?

Put simply, if it where possible to fully explain the colour orange to a blind person; what would be the point? This knowledge would not improve his life, and similary if we could determine 'why are we here' would this knowledge improve ours, especially as I doubt if we could change the outcome?

If you can fully explain the colour orange to a blind person, than this blind person has an improved perception of reality, or at least, an enhanced understanding of what colour is and how it is useful and demonstrable to other people, even if he can't see it himself.

Lets hypothesize that the solar system is currently being hurled towards a supermassive black hole and there's nothing anyone can do about it, but the event in which this occurs is after the sun engulfs the earth in its dying sequence and occurs in 5 billion years. Nobody currently alive would still be alive when the solar system falls into the event horizon.

Now. Are you arguing that NOT knowing this about the fate of the solar system is better, since it does not improve our lives, and may even worsen it because some would worry about it?