Is everything a religion?

[Parrothead]

And what's wrong with that? They are stating their beliefs as their beliefs. Others can agree or disagree. What, exactly, is wrong with that? I'm mystified.

 

I see absolutely nothing in this thread that should offend anyone. Everyone is just giving their beliefs/thoughts on the subject at hand and it's actually very interesting seeing why people believe what they believe! Do we all REALLY have to hold the same beliefs??? I hope not - on any subject! But I want EVERYONE to feel free to share their beliefs even if it's not the same as someone else. I don't want censorship due to the possibility of offending someone because we might believe something differently.

There is nothing wrong people believing different things. You are putting words into my mouth.

 

Did you read what Cyndi posted?

So, basically, atheists have to fit into a box called "religious" because a bunch of other people have decided 'it is so' and we have to be told that "we have a lot of faith ;) " because others have decided that 'it is so'.

 

I'm so tired of being told what I am/what I believe/what I do not believe. If I TOLD a christian what THEY believe or what THEY should be called all heck would break loose, but atheists? Eh, they are just dumb, hell-bound heathens so who cares what they say? :glare:

 

I see this attitude of "atheists have to have soooo much faith to not believe what we KNOW is the TRUTH". It's rather arrogant.

 

Ridicule of atheists is quickly becoming the last acceptable prejudice.

Then, the way I read it, Daisy did exactly what Cyndi was complaining about.

[Spy Car]

So, basically, atheists have to fit into a box called "religious" because a bunch of other people have decided 'it is so' and we have to be told that "we have a lot of faith ;) " because others have decided that 'it is so'.

 

I'm so tired of being told what I am/what I believe/what I do not believe. If I TOLD a christian what THEY believe or what THEY should be called all heck would break loose, but atheists? Eh, they are just dumb, hell-bound heathens so who cares what they say? :glare:

 

I see this attitude of "atheists have to have soooo much faith to not believe what we KNOW is the TRUTH". It's rather arrogant.

 

Ridicule of atheists is quickly becoming the last acceptable prejudice.

 

I'm starting to wonder if the best tactic for atheists would be for them to wrap themselves in the cloak of religiosity?

 

To claim they are not only "religious" but they are the MOST RELIGIOUS, because they believe in the One True-Lack-Of-Faith. And to cast doubt on the religiosity of those whose lack of un-belief has caused them to go astray? :D

 

That ought to put an end to the non-sense of being called "religious" pretty quickly ;) :tongue_smilie:

 

But it would be wrong :bigear:

 

Bill

[freethinkermama]

I'm starting to wonder if the best tactic for atheists would be for them to wrap themselves in the cloak of religiosity?

 

To claim they are not only "religious" but they are the MOST RELIGIOUS, because they believe in the One True-Lack-Of-Faith. And to cast doubt on the religiosity of those whose lack of un-belief has caused them to go astray? :D

 

That ought to put an end to the non-sense of being called "religious" pretty quickly ;) :tongue_smilie:

 

But it would be wrong :bigear:

 

Bill

 

*snerk*

 

Yes, your faith is just the same as my true-lack-of-faith. It's both lack-of-faith, but mine is moreso. It's the same thing.

 

Saying it takes the same kind of thinking to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and to not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is absurd. The same with a deity.

[freethinkermama]

I would say no they aren't the same as Tribbles (as per Star Trek) had nothing to do with a deity or beliefs about a deity. "Religious" thoughts or beliefs as pertaining to "religion" has to have some sort of relationship to deity (belief in or belief in not existing). Tribbles, pots in dishwashers, monsters under the bed, stamp collecting, hobbies... none of these have anything to do with deity the way most people think about them.

 

I don't think the "deeply held convictions" applies to what we've been talking about. In our language we can say someone is religious about grammar, but we don't mean it in a deity sort of way. The two meanings are getting confused here.

 

Yes, the metaphor wasn't brilliant. I was trying to tie it into religious belief by drawing in sin, however. The point still stands. Toss out the word "religious" from my metaphor and tell me if those "beliefs" are equal--believing in Christ and not believing in sin-making tribbles.

 

The overarching point is, separate from the word "religion" or "philosophy" or whatever is that there is, that there remains a little sticking point called the "burden of proof."

 

Whether it is about a god or about a tribble or about a red gorilla, claiming that one exists IS different than "believing" it doesn't. They are not equivalent.

 

Saying they're equivalent by definition, or by whatever method, is what drives me bananas.

[Parrothead]

Isn't that what we all do? I'm not going to be offended by the Buddhist who comes and tells me that they think Christianity is "blah, blah, blah." I'm going to listen and perhaps gain understanding into why we are different. I suppose tone is everything. There is a big difference in being told, "My understanding is this..." and being told, "You are wrong and going to hell and here's why..."

No, I don't think we all do that. Otherwise I would not have stepped into this tread. And I agree tone is lacking and I have freely admitted several times I may not have understood what you where saying.

 

I guess I'm seeing it from a totally different POV/perspective.

That's all I was trying to do. Explain why Christians would say atheism is a religion. I obviously didn't do that great of a job at it. I can completely understand why an atheist wouldn't want to be classified as a religion and I think it makes sense from their point of view.But ultimately, I'd have to disregard my own belief system if I was going to embrace the way you've chosen to classify yourself. That doesn't mean I don't respect you. As a matter of fact, because I do respect you, I would attempt to remember NOT to refer to atheism as a religion. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

I think that is all anyone can to for a atheist. Don't over analyze it. Don't try to figure it out for them. It is only in a very small abstract way that I get what Cyndi was saying. But the fact that I do get the bit I get is where I saw the irony.

 

No matter how much you or I want to put the atheist peg into the religious hole we have to remember we can't because the peg is square and the hole is round. If the atheists say atheism is not a religion then that has to be accepted at face value instead of being analyzed to death to make it fit into what you or I want it to.

 

Oh, and for the record I'm not atheist. I'm a fairly devout Catholic.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Parrothead

[MamaSheep]

I haven't read the responses yet, but since it's such an interesting question I thought I'd take the few minutes I have left to toss out some thoughts. I'm sorry if this has been brought up already.

 

I kind of think you have to sort out what "religion" is before you can evaluate whether or not "everything" qualifies. If we understand religion sort of along the lines of a belief system or way of understanding reality that incorporates a belief in an ultimate authority or point of reference, and which informs the way a person or group of people develop things like behavioral standards of "right" and "wrong", and prioritization of opportunities and activities in life, then I would have to say yes, pretty much anything can be a religion, to somebody.

 

For example, if a person views "the environment" as the point of ultimate reference, and determines whether a behavior is "right" or "wrong" based on it's environmental impact, and judges people as being "good" or "bad" based on their level of consciousness of, and behavior toward the environment, and arranges their lives according to how each activity relates to the environment (the kind of car they drive, what kind of food they eat, the power source (if any) on which their home runs), then according to the previous definition, environmentalism could be legitimately viewed as their religion. That's not to say that anyone who is envioronmentally conscious is a religious environmentalist, just that for anyone who makes it the central orbital point of their existence, I would feel comfortable calling it their religion, since it is, in a sense, worship.

 

I think the same thing can go for other things, like body image, human intellect, sexual orientation, and even entertainment. A person who uses body image as their central, all-important reference point, or ultimate authority, might evaluate everything in their life based on how it will affect their body. If their diet, their use of "free time", the books they read, their choice of friends, the way they judge "good" (protein shake) and "evil" (twinkie), their areas of education, and so forth have a strong tendency to revolve intensely around the idea of body image, I'd say they were "worshipping" body image, or their own body, and that makes it a religion.

 

If a person's ultimate authority is human intellect, and all their decisions and longings and focus revolve around whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" based on their own intellectual capacity, or that of someone they respect, I think that could rise to the level of a religion.

 

So I would say that yes, atheism could be viewed as a religion. If a person's life revolved around the denial of the existence of God, all decisions were made and priorities were set based on the non-existence of God as the most important factor, and the person felt compelled to "evangelize" other people to this point of view as the only and ultimate truth, then I think it could probably be seen as a religion. Most atheists I know have "gods" other than atheism itself--intellectualism being a popular one, but also body building, classic cars, diet, political power, you know, whatever is the ultimate, guiding "light" in their lives around which their view of life is organized, and which most strongly influences all their decisions. They don't believe in God, but they do "believe" in something. Generally it isn't their non-belief in God that defines them, it's their belief in whatever else it is, that they "worship", or focus their lives around.

 

So that's my 2 cents. So by that definition pretty much anything can be somebody's "god", or "idol", and the practice of organizing one's life around that thing, whatever it is, could be legitimately construed as "religion".

[Gooblink]

I don't believe everything is a religion, but I do believe everything boils down to faith.

[creekland]

Stating beliefs and opinions is different than providing accurate information.

 

If I said, "Christians are cannibals. They eat the flesh and blood of a dead rabbi." That might be my opinion, but it would obviously be wrong. People can say all kinds of crazy things. Go ahead. I will too. But you can't seriously expect people not to get angry if you spread erroneous information about them. :)

 

Yes, I suppose expecting people to not get angry over other people's beliefs is absurd. Too bad. I wish I were more "normal" in that aspect.

 

What you posted wouldn't make me angry in the least. Instead, I'd probably hop on and post that I'm a Christian and I don't personally know of any cannibals that are in today's society in my country and then explain why some people often made that assumption in the older days. If "you" then changed your belief, fine. If not, fine. You'd still have the right to post your beliefs on a forum such as this and I'd see no need to get angry. Actually, I'd make a mental note to be aware of how some of the "rest of the world" perceives us [Christians].

 

If we were writing curriculum and having to come to a joint conclusion, then that would be a different issue, but we're not. We're sharing each others views, beliefs, and/or practices. There WILL be times we all believe differently about things - even things close to our hearts. I accept that and have no problems at all with it. I wish others could do the same, but I accept that they don't. ;) I won't stop posting though - nor sticking up for others who post their thoughts when I see them (which usually isn't as often as this, but it's HOT outside).

[creekland]

Yes, the metaphor wasn't brilliant. I was trying to tie it into religious belief by drawing in sin, however. The point still stands. Toss out the word "religious" from my metaphor and tell me if those "beliefs" are equal--believing in Christ and not believing in sin-making tribbles.

 

The overarching point is, separate from the word "religion" or "philosophy" or whatever is that there is, that there remains a little sticking point called the "burden of proof."

 

Whether it is about a god or about a tribble or about a red gorilla, claiming that one exists IS different than "believing" it doesn't. They are not equivalent.

 

Saying they're equivalent by definition, or by whatever method, is what drives me bananas.

 

I guess I'll just sum up my thoughts.

 

Atheism (as per me) is not a religion as it doesn't have many of the usual religious traditions, etc, that go with an organized religion.

 

Atheistic beliefs are religious beliefs because they pertain to a deity and the way the world/universe/etc, is. Atheistic beliefs are simply the belief there is no deity. These folks know what a deity is, thought it over (or not), and came to the conclusion none exist - hence - atheism.

 

Using the "other" definition of religious (meaning really supporting or caring about something) atheists can be religious or not based on their actions, but so can people who identify with other religious beliefs such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

 

When we need box-checking of beliefs, atheism belongs under religion as it's best suited there due to religion dealing with world-view thoughts - OR - one could rename the category philosophy of some sort.

 

OTHERS ARE FREE TO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY, but that's how I see it. ;)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

 

And a believe does not a religion make. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. That does not mean that I am a follower of Ra and the ancient Egyptian sun cult.

 

Atheism became a religion through bureaucratic paperwork.

 

 

Thank you. And the bolded, I believe is part of the bigger picture here. I think that religious people decided to start calling atheists "religious" so that they can call it "religion" when a kid on the playground says, "our family doesn't believe in any gods". In this way all atheists can be "spreading their religion" when they are simply stating something they are NOT involved in.

 

A deeply held belief=religion? :lol:

 

I believe in breastfeeding, homebirth, UC, waterbirth, extended breastfeeding, delayed intro of solids, homeschooling, gay rights, equal rights, but to call any of those things my "religion" would be absolutely ridiculous. I don't have any codified set of beliefs in common with other people who believe those things, no traditions, just what works for me and mine.

 

Indeed......everything really IS a religion now, according to the newer definitions. :glare:

[Leav97]

 

Atheism is not a religion, and my personal belief, which will probably offend someone here, is that people who say it is are trying to backhandedly legitimize their beliefs by equating "faith" that there is no god to "faith" that there is a god.

 

Tara

 

I have no need to legitimize my beliefs.

[RegGuheert]

A good source of information on this topic is the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance website.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

 

 

 

I think it is pretty safe to say that most people who are not religious find it highly annoying to be told by others that they are religious. The whole purpose of such endeavors seem like an attempt to deliberately provoke people by showing a lack of respect. Not aimed at you.

 

 

 

But the lack of belief in deities or super-natural beings is not indicative of a particular personal philosophy.

 

 

 

Simply sharing a like of belief in supernatural beings does not mean people share a common philosophy. Just a not sharing beliefs on matters of the spiritual or divine doesn't mean people can't share a common moral sense.

 

Bill

 

 

Thank you. As stated previously, it has been a newer phenomenon (the past decade or so?) that Christian authors, televangelists, etc. have tried to convince their followers that "atheism must be a religion" and the whole "it takes more faith to be an atheist and I just don't have THAT MUCH faith" nonsense. It is rude, insulting and arrogant. "I have the answers FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! And everyone must BELIEVE THE SAME WAY I DO or else". hogwash.

 

I don't think that anybody needs to believe just like I do-not my dh, not my kids, not anyone.

 

If you need/want religion: fine. That is okay with me. I don't need to argue with you and tell you why you shouldn't have those deeply held beliefs. I don't need to tell you how wrong you are. I don't need to tell you that "you are REALLY an atheist, you just don't know it".

 

I had a Catholic friend tell me, "you are more Christian than most Christians I know"........uh.....thanks? :confused: I don' think that she realized that, to me, that isn't really a compliment. I don't equate Christian with "must be inherently good". There are good and bad ones, just like other humans.

[creekland]

Thank you. As stated previously, it has been a newer phenomenon (the past decade or so?) that Christian authors, televangelists, etc. have tried to convince their followers that "atheism must be a religion" and the whole "it takes more faith to be an atheist and I just don't have THAT MUCH faith" nonsense. It is rude, insulting and arrogant. "I have the answers FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! And everyone must BELIEVE THE SAME WAY I DO or else". hogwash.

 

 

 

Well, quite honestly there are rabid "fundamentalist" atheists with their books and on TV too. That "type" of person is all over.

 

 

I don't think that anybody needs to believe just like I do-not my dh, not my kids, not anyone.

 

 

 

:iagree: And I refuse to be offended by people who hold different beliefs dear to their heart and shout them out even if I disagree with them.

 

If you need/want religion: fine. That is okay with me. I don't need to argue with you and tell you why you shouldn't have those deeply held beliefs. I don't need to tell you how wrong you are. I don't need to tell you that "you are REALLY an atheist, you just don't know it".

 

 

Switch the words atheist/atheism with religion/religious where they are used (for me) and I agree 100%. I wish everyone could live and let live - worldwide! But I'm also ok letting the rabid type (either side of the issue) say their piece too. It's really no bother to me. I ignore it or get amused by it - not angry. Life's too short to get angry IMO.

[Laurie4b]

The Supreme Court has ruled that no belief in a diety is neccesary for a set of beliefs to qualify as a religion . Torcaso vs. Watkins http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17484916405561277413&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

and U.S. v. Seeger. http://supreme.justia.com/us/380/163/case.html

 

US v Seeger

1. The test of religious belief within the meaning of the exemption in § 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption

 

Though in one part of the case it is stated that the case "doesn't deal with atheistic beliefs", this is the statement from the case about the beliefs of the person in the suit:

he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open, "rather than answer yes' or `no'"; that his "skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God" did "not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever"; that his was a "belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed." R. 69-70, 73. He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity "without belief in God, except in the remotest sense." R. 73. His belief was found to be sincere, honest,

 

Torcaso v. Watkins footnote 11 " Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others"

 

 

I think the court states well why most people think of atheism as a religion in the phrase "occupies in the life of the person a place parallel to that filled by [a belief in] God" . Most people view atheism as occupying that parallel place. It is clearly a belief, though since faith often involves more than simple belief in a set of propostions, I can understand why atheists bristle at it being called a faith.

[Guest janainaz]

Love is not a religion. God is not a religion. God is love.

 

Humans have complicated something that was ever meant to divide. Love was not supposed to divide. Love was supposed to unite. It was supposed to remind us that we are one. Loving one another was supposed to fulfill the law, but what religion has become is not love at all.

 

Almost every single war has been fought over religion - that is not of God on either side.

 

So, yeah, I think you can refuse be labeled and when someone asks you what you are, you can tell them you were made to be love, and made to be loved. Jesus just said, "I am". That can be interpreted many ways, I interpret it that he had no label - the Bible just said, "God is love".

[PiCO]

I'm an atheist. I have no religion.

 

I do have ethical values, they are based on philosophical works and much thought on my part. My values are very similar to my Christian and pagan/heathen/etc. friends who have put a lot of thought into their values.

 

 

(ETA- maybe I should have read all the posts before I used the same quote as a bunch other people in my title. Oops.)

Edited September 23, 2010 by PiCO

[Audrey]

. Perhaps calling it a philosophy would be the better way to go.

 

 

IMO that would be perfectly fair. Calling atheism a worldview would be debateable (again IMO) because the word "worldview" is one of those Christian buzzwords that carries some heavy connotations with it that no atheist I've ever known would appreciate. But, it isn't a religion, which carries with it not only a specific formal definition, but also very specific connotations which many atheists would probably prefer to eschew.

 

FWIW, I don't get my panties in a wad when people say atheism is a religion, even though I am, technically an atheist. I also don't get them in a wad when people confuse Witch (I am a non-deist Witch) with Wiccan. I don't expect people to know all the ins and out and various and sundry forms of what I believe, but I would like to be extended the same consideration when I say that I don't know all the ins and outs of their beliefs.

 

I do laugh when people say it takes "faith" to be an atheist. No. LACK of faith is not faith.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Audrey

[RegGuheert]

But the lack of belief in deities or super-natural beings is not indicative of a particular personal philosophy.

I agree with your point here. However, I find it somewhat disingenuous when atheists claim that they have a "lack of belief." In fact, atheists BELIEVE that there is NO GOD. As you have said, around this belief many different worldviews can be and have been formulated.

 

If anyone can claim to have a "lack of belief" then I would say that agnostics come closest when they claim that you cannot know whether or not there is a God. In many ways I agree with that sentiment, though I choose to be a Christian anyway.

[HRAAB]

Whenever I read all this about believing, not believing, it always gets me to thinking about what 'belief' means. I always thought belief meant accepting as true and trusting what another person says. At least, when using belief in religious conversations such as I believe the Bible is God's word, or I believe in the doctrines of the church, or I believe what my pastor/priest teaches which says to me that the person is accepting another's word as truth. I can't say I believe in God or not believe in God. What I can say is that based on my experience, and to the best of my knowledge, it is highly unlikely and unreasonable that there is a being such as a theistic god. That is based on my experience and understanding, not on what someone told me was true.

 

Anyway, that word 'believe' always gets me scratching my head. I would rather hear someone say, I know there is a god based on my experience and life instead of I believe - which is what I think most Christians mean when they say believe. I probably have a problem with it because all my life I've heard the only way to get to heaven is to believe (forget what your experience tells you), just accept what you're told, even if every fiber in your body tells you it's not literally true, then you'll be okay.

 

I could see maybe in someway atheism being a religion for some, if certain atheists followed a leader and that leader's teachings, and accepted those teachings as truth (like the Bible). Atheists like that probably exist, but I don't know any. I just can't see atheism being a religion. First off, it's not organized with prescribed tenets to which one must adhere.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I agree with your point here. However, I find it somewhat disingenuous when atheists claim that they have a "lack of belief." In fact, atheists BELIEVE that there is NO GOD. As you have said, around this belief many different worldviews can be and have been formulated.

 

If anyone can claim to have a "lack of belief" then I would say that agnostics come closest when they claim that you cannot know whether or not there is a God. In many ways I agree with that sentiment, though I choose to be a Christian anyway.

 

 

Agnostic is as close to what I believe/not believe as I can get. No one can ever know, is the way I look at it.

 

Saying that atheists BELIEVE that there is NO GOD is similar to saying that YOU BELIEVE THAT BUDDISM IS NOT TRUE, so you are a member of the Buddhism is NOT TRUE religion. Doesn't make sense, does it?

 

I think that the whole semantic leap to "atheists have A BELIEF IN THE LACK OF DIETY" is silly. We could all describe things that we don't believe in, that doesn't make it a worldview or religion.

 

The thing that makes this whole "not a religion" thing real to me is that I don't live my life according to atheism in the way that Christians talk about living THEIR lives according to THEIR beliefs, kwim? Saying that people like me follow a religion seems to cheapen what other people DO HAVE......religious belief.

 

I don't go about my day thinking about how 'not believing in any gods' affects my children, my life, my future, etc. I don't do devotionals on it, etc.

 

I BELIEVE that people should be treated in a kind, humane manner. That has NOTHING to do with religions. I've met religious people who think that way/live that way and non-religious people who think that way/live that way.

 

For me and MY family,....I tend to stick to non-religious people or certain religions. It's when people pull out a very old book and try to tell me why certain people are unworthy of their time/love/respect that they lose MY respect. I'm sorry, I can't hear your "my god is a god of love" over your hate! (not anyone here, IRL people......mostly family of origin.)

Edited September 23, 2010 by ThatCyndiGirl

[PiCO]

I agree with your point here. However, I find it somewhat disingenuous when atheists claim that they have a "lack of belief." In fact, atheists BELIEVE that there is NO GOD. As you have said, around this belief many different worldviews can be and have been formulated.

 

If anyone can claim to have a "lack of belief" then I would say that agnostics come closest when they claim that you cannot know whether or not there is a God. In many ways I agree with that sentiment, though I choose to be a Christian anyway.

 

You make some good points. Technically, I am an agnostic- because there really is no way to know for sure. I call myself an atheist, because the title Agnostic seems so wishy-washy to me. It also seems to invite more conversion attempts from Christians (probably because it implies one has not made up one's mind.)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

You make some good points. Technically, I am an agnostic- because there really is no way to know for sure. I call myself an atheist, because the title Agnostic seems so wishy-washy to me. It also seems to invite more conversion attempts from Christians (probably because it implies one has not made up one's mind.)

 

 

Maybe you are religious and you just don't know it yet. :lol:

 

 

I agree. I have used both terms. Agnostic is closer to my thought process, but sometimes I use "the other A word" for the very reason you stated. Sometimes I say, "non-religious" because it seems like so many religious people have set beliefs/expectations of what Atheist means.

 

For us it does NOT mean that we belittle, condemn or hate religious folks, just that we don't have any gods. No biggie. Pray on, friends, just don't knock on my door unless you are sellin' Girl Scout Cookies!

[PiCO]

For us it does NOT mean that we belittle, condemn or hate religious folks, just that we don't have any gods. No biggie. Pray on, friends, just don't knock on my door unless you are sellin' Girl Scout Cookies!

 

:iagree:

[MrsBasil]

I don't know if I am going to say this right, so please forgive me if I misspeak!

 

I don't think atheism/agnosticism could be a religion. I was an agnostic for many, many years. I never cared one way or the other. I never even thought about having faith, much less more faith that I was right. Faith wasn't relevant because I saw nothing to have faith in.

 

I'm a Christian now and it's a religion(relationship) that shapes my life. I worship, I pray, and there are certain things I do because I'm a Christian. I have faith.

 

When I was agnostic there wasn't certain things I did because I was agnostic. I just didn't do them because it had no part in my life. I wasn't looking to raise agnostic children or live an agnostic life. There was no part of being agnostic that really shaped my life or had any impact.

 

I don't know if I'm making any sense.

[IsabelC]

Sorry, but I don't think that not believing there are gods is exactly the same as believing there are no gods. There is a difference.

[akmommy]

"I have the answers FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD!!! And everyone must BELIEVE THE SAME WAY I DO or else". hogwash.

:iagree: I have run into this attitude from both atheists and religious people. When I hear or read it from an athiest I will often think that athiesm is that person's religion. Not because I think of athieism in general as a religion, but because some I have run into (mostly online) have been as in your face about it as some fanatical religious people are.

 

I'm agnostic and have heard both sides of the argument more often then I would like and it drives me crazy that some on both sides think that if I hear their side just one more time I will believe or not believe. I don't consider agnosticism as being wishy washy, but rather just accepting that I don't know and that the truth is more likely than not unknowable.

[mommaduck]

*feels like we are caught in the "are -fill in the blank- Christians" mode*

[RegGuheert]

Sorry, but I don't think that not believing there are gods is exactly the same as believing there are no gods. There is a difference.

:iagree:

The problem is that both are perfectly fine definitions of the word "atheism." Disbelief in the existence of God is the literal definition and the more general term. In other words, it is a superset definition which includes, among other things, the belief that there is no God.

 

On the other hand, the definition used in common parlance in the USA is that atheism is the belief that there is no God. Why is this? Because we also have the word "agnosticism" to cover those that do not believe in God but also do not claim that there is no God, but there is no other word (that I know of) to cover the belief that there is no God.

 

By way of evidence that this is common parlance, I submit the following posts from two self-proclaimed agnostics who prefer to tell Christians that they are atheists (which is certainly true by the one definition) because of how that word will likely be interpreted compared to agnostic:

Technically, I am an agnostic- because there really is no way to know for sure. I call myself an atheist, because the title Agnostic seems so wishy-washy to me. It also seems to invite more conversion attempts from Christians (probably because it implies one has not made up one's mind.)

I agree. I have used both terms. Agnostic is closer to my thought process, but sometimes I use "the other A word" for the very reason you stated.

[Spy Car]

I agree with your point here. However, I find it somewhat disingenuous when atheists claim that they have a "lack of belief." In fact, atheists BELIEVE that there is NO GOD.

 

I don't believe atheist claim absence of all beliefs, they just have a lack of belief in god(s) and supernatural beings. On other points atheists might vary incredibly about what they do or do not "believe."

 

As you have said, around this belief many different worldviews can be and have been formulated.

 

Right.

 

If anyone can claim to have a "lack of belief" then I would say that agnostics come closest when they claim that you cannot know whether or not there is a God. In many ways I agree with that sentiment, though I choose to be a Christian anyway.

 

But in that sense, I believe most atheists are "agnostic", in that while they certainly do lack a belief in supernatural beings, they can't "prove" the non-existence of those super-natural beings. But it isn't much different to them than your not believing in the Easter bunny or Zeus.

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

Interesting thread. I only managed half the pages :p

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that no belief in a diety is neccesary for a set of beliefs to qualify as a religion . Torcaso vs. Watkins http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17484916405561277413&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

and U.S. v. Seeger. http://supreme.justia.com/us/380/163/case.html

 

US v Seeger

1. The test of religious belief within the meaning of the exemption in § 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption

 

Though in one part of the case it is stated that the case "doesn't deal with atheistic beliefs", this is the statement from the case about the beliefs of the person in the suit:

he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open, "rather than answer yes' or `no'"; that his "skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God" did "not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever"; that his was a "belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed." R. 69-70, 73. He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity "without belief in God, except in the remotest sense." R. 73. His belief was found to be sincere, honest,

 

Torcaso v. Watkins footnote 11 " Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others"

 

 

I think the court states well why most people think of atheism as a religion in the phrase "occupies in the life of the person a place parallel to that filled by [a belief in] God" . Most people view atheism as occupying that parallel place. It is clearly a belief, though since faith often involves more than simple belief in a set of propostions, I can understand why atheists bristle at it being called a faith.

:glare:

I'm a Christian and I wish the government would not trouble their pretty little heads with defining religion.

 

It's amazing that something that is supposed to be protected from the government has become some a big deal within the government. Seriously? What happened to letting we the people decide through rational discussion?

[IsabelC]

But in that sense, I believe most atheists are "agnostic", in that while they certainly do lack a belief in supernatural beings, they can't "prove" the non-existence of those super-natural beings. But it isn't much different to them than your not believing in the Easter bunny or Zeus.

Bill

Yep. Exactly.

 

And yes, I would probably tend to fall into the group of people who would feel more comfortable admitting to atheism than to agnosticism, due to the common perception of agnostics as searchers who are unsure of what they believe and therefore likely to welcome conversion.

 

I like this little piece for a bit of perspective. Of course, the actual figures were probably pulled out of the author's armpit, but I like the idea that "atheists and monotheists only differ by 0.000036% in their beliefs". It encourages me to believe that I can get along with theists in a positive way. (Also if you are in the mood for something silly, there is a link to

man who purports to be doing a Pascal with every single religion. Yeah, OK, I know I should be doing something useful instead of surfing the interwebs!)

 

I think, though, that it is inherently difficult to get agreement on the best definition of atheism. I guess that it's natural for a theist to suppose that atheists would have something "occupying the parallel place" to that filled by theism. But that is a theist centric view. And of course, it is notoriously difficult for some atheists/agnostics to communicate about their (non) relationship with religion without the risk of offending the theist majority.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Hotdrink

[RegGuheert]

I like this little piece for a bit of perspective. Of course, the actual figures were probably pulled out of the author's armpit, but I like the idea that "atheists and monotheists only differ by 0.000036% in their beliefs". It encourages me to believe that I can get along with theists.

:001_smile: Cute!

 

Methinks Hotdrink may be a bridge builder! :cheers2:

[Rosie_0801]

But you can't seriously expect people not to get angry if you spread erroneous information about them. :)

 

No, but it's pretty difficult when a whole lot of people with different beliefs/thoughts/philosophies about religion/lack of religion are using the same word.

 

1. If someone was to ask me if I believed in God, I'd say no. If they asked why, I'd I hadn't met one I liked, but I did have a deity-equivalent, being a Western Taoist and all, but it ain't a god.

 

2. I've met people who'd say they don't believe in a god because they haven't any proof there is one. Matter of fact. The end.

 

3. I've met people where if you even mention the word god, they will assume you said God and turn red in the face while they rant and rave and spew hatred of religion, religious people and whatever they think the God they say they don't believe in has done to them, and what religion (Christianity, specifically) has done to them, and round it off with "so I'm going to hell, GOOOOOD, see if I (expletive) CARE!"

 

So, I wouldn't mind being called a religious atheist, because I am.

 

Number 2 type people would get annoyed by being called religious, I suppose because that would be putting a huge value on the topic, which they don't have. They don't believe in a god with as much of the core of their being as they believe they don't have metre long earthworms in their garden. If they found one, they'd say "How about that! There is such thing as metre long earthworms!" If a god showed up in their garden, they'd say "How about that! There is a god and it's here in my garden! Oh well, next time anyone asks I guess I'll have to say I do believe in a god because it is dumb not to believe in a god that you have seen in your garden. Or maybe I'm hallucinating but since I'm not sick and haven't been drinking or smoking anything, I'm probably not hallucinating. Weird. Whatever. Anyway, it seemed like a nice/not nice sort of god."

 

Number 3 type people don't like being called religious for pretty obvious reasons, but their use of language doesn't match up properly. They sound like religious atheists to me, but I wouldn't say so to their faces. I'd probably say "I think you need to relax a bit, mate."

 

Wrong. The most popular kind of Satanism is LaVayan Satanism, which is the polar opposite of Christianity. Is is anti-cultural, full of self-worship and hate for other religions, and believes in no God or theistic being in any shape or form.

 

Which makes them pretty hard to take seriously since they have named themselves for a deity.

 

For example, if a person views "the environment" as the point of ultimate reference, and determines whether a behavior is "right" or "wrong" based on it's environmental impact, and judges people as being "good" or "bad" based on their level of consciousness of, and behavior toward the environment, and arranges their lives according to how each activity relates to the environment (the kind of car they drive, what kind of food they eat, the power source (if any) on which their home runs), then according to the previous definition, environmentalism could be legitimately viewed as their religion. That's not to say that anyone who is envioronmentally conscious is a religious environmentalist, just that for anyone who makes it the central orbital point of their existence, I would feel comfortable calling it their religion, since it is, in a sense, worship.

 

I think the same thing can go for other things, like body image, human intellect, sexual orientation, and even entertainment. A person who uses body image as their central, all-important reference point, or ultimate authority, might evaluate everything in their life based on how it will affect their body. If their diet, their use of "free time", the books they read, their choice of friends, the way they judge "good" (protein shake) and "evil" (twinkie), their areas of education, and so forth have a strong tendency to revolve intensely around the idea of body image, I'd say they were "worshipping" body image, or their own body, and that makes it a religion.

 

I do understand what you were saying, but for the sake of peace and harmony, don't say that to someone's face, ok. I don't think studying grammar is worship in any way, shape or form. :svengo:

 

IMO that would be perfectly fair. Calling atheism a worldview would be debateable (again IMO) because the word "worldview" is one of those Christian buzzwords that carries some heavy connotations with it that no atheist I've ever known would appreciate.

 

People here keep saying that. I guess "worldview" doesn't carry that sort of baggage over here. Maybe? :confused:

 

Rosie

[MamaSheep]

I do understand what you were saying, but for the sake of peace and harmony, don't say that to someone's face, ok. I don't think studying grammar is worship in any way, shape or form. :svengo:

 

 

 

 

No, of COURSE I wouldn't say that to someone's face. I was speaking in generalities for the sake of discussion. Also, in general I don't think studying anything is, in and of itself, worship. Nor do I think that being environmentally conscious, within reason, or keeping fit and healthy constitutes a "religion". However, if you went around telling people they were evil and going to suffer eternal torment based on the arrangement of their participial phrases, refused to shop at stores that had signs that read "Potatoes $0.99 cents per pound", or "Its Super Savings Day's" on moral grounds, handed out grammar pamphlets at the airport, spent every Thursday and Saturday evening at grammar class arguing the finer points of usage with other grammarians, and refused to let your children associate with children belonging to families in which incorrect grammar was used because doing so might corrupt your grammatically correct children, I might think, quietly, to myself, that perhaps you'd made grammar into a bit of a religion. :)

[Spy Car]

However, if you went around telling people they were evil and going to suffer eternal torment based on the arrangement of their participial phrases, refused to shop at stores that had signs that read "Potatoes $0.99 cents per pound", or "Its Super Savings Day's" on moral grounds, handed out grammar pamphlets at the airport, spent every Thursday and Saturday evening at grammar class arguing the finer points of usage with other grammarians, and refused to let your children associate with children belonging to families in which incorrect grammar was used because doing so might corrupt your grammatically correct children, I might think, quietly, to myself, that perhaps you'd made grammar into a bit of a religion. :)

 

Kinda makes being a part of a "religion" sound less than appealing ;) :D

 

Bill

[IsabelC]

Some people do take the study of grammar extremely seriously.

[MamaSheep]

Kinda makes being a part of a "religion" sound less than appealing ;) :D

 

Bill

 

Oh, not if you find the "right" one, of course. ;)

 

(Actually, I quite like mine.:001_smile:)

[Rosie_0801]

Kinda makes being a part of a "religion" sound less than appealing ;) :D

 

Bill

 

Yeah? I thought it made it sound more appealing :D

 

:)

Rosie- in a religion of one, and I assure you, my grammar study isn't part of it, heheh

[dripdripsplat]

I think Rush said it best...

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

:lol:

 

While atheism may not hold any religious beliefs, it is the belief that there is no God.

 

And in terms of religion, by definition, it is:

1) belief in and worship of God or gods

2) a specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics

 

So I guess atheism would fall under #2, seeing how atheism is defined as the belief that there is no God.

[EthiopianFood]

I think people state atheism is a religion only if they are defining religion as a worldview. Defining religion as our worldview is especially common among Christians. Worldview is defined pretty much as the lens through which you interact with your world. Thus they are more likely to say atheism is your worldview or your religion.

 

No insult is intended.

 

And I do realize that some atheists will claim they have no lens whatsoever and that they view the world logically and with only facts....

 

But honestly, that is what the above people are thinking when they state that atheism is a religion. Like it or not, they are assuming that you have a particular worldview. They assume that you have reached the conclusion that God does not exist and you now filter all the information you receive around you through that filter (belief system, non-belief system, worldview, religion).

 

I don't feel like I said this as well as I could have, but I don't have time to elaborate.

 

This clarifies a lot for me. Thanks. :)