is atheism religion?

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Can't remember who said it but it sums it up nicely.

In my moderator's capacity, I feel it necessary to mention that I do not consider it appropriate for a discussion of the actions of moderators on another forum to be debated here. On the other hand, I would be prepared to tolerate a discussion of the general question of whether atheism is a religion, particularly if this is addressed from an Islamic perspective.

In a more personal capacity, it may help such a debate to refer to some definitions. These are taken from Chambers English Dictionary:

"Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a god."

"God: a superhuman being, an object of worship (with cap.), the Supreme Being of monotheistic religions, the Creator."

"Religion: belief in, recognition of, or an awakened sense of, a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship."

My own take on this, given the definitions above, is that (unless "a higher unseen controlling power or powers" is equated with "a superhuman being"), it is possible for an atheist to deny the existence of a god but at the same time to be religious (see Cavehill Red earlier in the thread). However, many (most?) atheists would deny the presence of a higher unseen controlling power or powers (presumably things like gravity wouldn't count here?), so, in general terms, it is incorrect to assert that "atheism is a religion".

Of course, if one is using the term "religion" metaphorically, and the sentence is actually asserting something like: "many atheists behave with a degree of intolerance that is often associated (particularly by atheists themselves) with adherents of monotheistic religions such as Islam", then that's a different claim.

hivizman wrote: »

In a more personal capacity, it may help such a debate to refer to some definitions. These are taken from Chambers English Dictionary:

"Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a god."

"God: a superhuman being, an object of worship (with cap.), the Supreme Being of monotheistic religions, the Creator."

"Religion: belief in, recognition of, or an awakened sense of, a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship."

My own take on this, given the definitions above, is that (unless "a higher unseen controlling power or powers" is equated with "a superhuman being"), it is possible for an atheist to deny the existence of a god but at the same time to be religious (see Cavehill Red earlier in the thread). However, many (most?) atheists would deny the presence of a higher unseen controlling power or powers (presumably things like gravity wouldn't count here?), so, in general terms, it is incorrect to assert that "atheism is a religion".

Of course, if one is using the term "religion" metaphorically, and the sentence is actually asserting something like: "many atheists behave with a degree of intolerance that is often associated (particularly by atheists themselves) with adherents of monotheistic religions such as Islam", then that's a different claim.

Its a case of separating the atheist from atheism.
Can atheists be religious? Sure, you already the example from Cavehill Red who is an atheist Buddhist, and you can of course get atheists who are as intolerant as the most intolerant of religious adherents, nutcases can appear everywhere.
But atheism? Well you can have a "does not play football" person who is still very sporty, but that doesn't mean that "not playing football" is itself a sport.

Just as an atheist doesn't get to tell a Muslim what Islam is or isn't, a Muslim shouldn't try to tell atheists what atheism is or isn't. There's a good site where you can ask atheists what they think about all kinds of things, called (amazingly) Ask The Atheists. Some of the answers can be quite surprising. On the question of "is atheism a religion", you're not going to get a "yes" from any atheist, so that should be that.

dead one wrote: »

Oceanclub, why are you eager to tell, "athiesm isn't religion"... Why you are taking it so religious? ... I mean majority of atheist when it comes to this debate become so religious. This proves atheism is religion as collecting stamp is hobby.

But it's already been pointed out in the thread that using "religious" in the above sense is going beyond the literal meaning of the term.

It may be correct to describe the way in which some people defend atheism as "fervent" - defined in my dictionary as "passionate, ardent, zealous". "Zeal" itself is defined as "intense (sometimes fanatical) enthusiasm; activity arising from warm support or enthusiasm; strong feeling", so it is not surprising that some people who feel strongly about the non-existence of a supreme being behave in similar ways to those who feel strongly about the existence of a supreme being. But that does not make their behaviour "religious", except in a metaphorical sense.

oceanclub wrote: »

None of what you say is incorrect, but neither does it mean that atheism is a religion.

I didn't actually say it was a religion. I said it was part of the religious discussion and that it can be a kind of pseudo-religion. All the fervour and conviction of religiosity, but without the structure.

Another example: I am not a sports fan. I have no interest in watching televised sports at all, but obviously in society this is a big interest, especially if you're male. This leaves one at a disadvantage on social occasions, work outside, etc. I've had many discussions about this. But it just makes it a topic I'm interested in. Lack of interest in sports is not in itself a hobby.

P.

I often see this 'not collecting stamps....' argument. Its a total misnomer. In practical terms, people who declare themselves atheists, are very rearely just simply 'without belief in God' etc. They are serious enough about the topic to stand against it. In reality, to call yourself atheist usually indicates quite an interest in the topic, and usually quite a vicerol objection to it. So you see, from a strictly difinitive, sematic side, atheism is just a word that means 'a belief that there is no God or gods'. In reality though, atheists are mostly made up of people who have an interest and conviction in what they are rejecting etc. Not playing chess is not a hobby, but if I label myself based on this not playing of chess, and in turn get involved in the conversation about chess, and have a conviction as to why I don't play it, then that can be a bit of a Pseudo hobby.

Zombrex wrote: »

People seem to want to change "religious" to simply mean "has strong views on a subject". That, to my mind, is a bit ridiculous. If that is the case I'm religious about a whole host of things, but it also makes the term a bit meaningless.

haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'? It is a word that does convey a certain kind of conviction. This use is not just a modern twist to p!ss off atheists tbf.

JimiTime wrote: »

haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'?

Have you ever heard the phrase "He religiously doesn't follow football"? I haven't

Apt place for OP's post is The Tunderdome, but some good replies, so might get an interesting debate going (yet again)

JimiTime wrote: »

I often see this 'not collecting stamps....' argument. Its a total misnomer. In practical terms, people who declare themselves atheists, are very rearely just simply 'without belief in God' etc. They are serious enough about the topic to stand against it. In reality, to call yourself atheist usually indicates quite an interest in the topic, and usually quite a vicerol objection to it. So you see, from a strictly difinitive, sematic side, atheism is just a word that means 'a belief that there is no God or gods'. In reality though, atheists are mostly made up of people who have an interest and conviction in what they are rejecting etc. Not playing chess is not a hobby, but if I label myself based on this not playing of chess, and in turn get involved in the conversation about chess, and have a conviction as to why I don't play it, then that can be a bit of a Pseudo hobby.

Good point, the problem of the 'stamp collecting' analogy is it's a hobbie/special interest, so puts a religious person on the defensive, like in their head 'did you just call my religion a hobbie'
Likewise I've never heard of non-stamp-collector-activists, the analogy fails to explain why people feel the need to speak out against religion. (note: not the same as being against religion).

The anti-chess-club analogy could work, if society deemed it necessary that everyone learns chess and plays online/school once everyday, chess being taught as a subject in school with exams, and even having to wear a dress-code with a chess symbol. Those that stand up for their right not to play chess, are not a club, more a common interest that's been cast upon them, they may form groups, have great writers, have renowned leaders, for their cause, the freedom not to play chess. Some people may have chess boards for show, but never play, even though they were taught the rules-comandments, they know all the names of famous players even IBM's deepblue. But when they say they want to leave the chess-club are refused on the grounds once a member always a member.... I could just keep going on.

The point is the nonstamp-collector analogy doesn't address any relavent parallel issues.

I don't know an analogy that works, maybe workers rights and unions, or even better; slavary and the anti-slavary movement, being a collection of all sorts to stand up for Human rights, the scale of involvement spaning from 'I don't agree with it' right up to activist who campaign against it. From an atheist-movement perspective the analogy does share many parallels. Of course comparing religion to slavary wouldn't go down well with religion-folk, and they have to have the right to practice their religion, therefore wouldn't win many arguments, but a close analogy, maybe even too close.

So if saying an analogy of religion = (believers who are slaves to their god the master) and atheist = (do not want to be slaves to a master) therefore atheism is not in the same boat.

I see lots of plays with words here, and don't see the point. Just because we have a word for the absence of (whatever), it doesn't make the word an example of (whatever). Silence is not a type of sound. Abstinence is not a sexual position. Atheism is not a religion. Nothing is not a weird kind of thing.

The word may only exist in relation to (whatever), but that's just a side-effect of how we use language. Besides - as I'm going to keep saying - theists do not get to tell atheists who we are or we think, any more than vice versa. You can try, but you will be ignored, because we get atheism - because we live it - and you don't. Getting confused about this because of how the words are defined is like confusing a map with the territory.

JimiTime wrote: »

QED.

Er ... what? I suspect you are reading something I did not write, so if you're going to take my words as a confirmation of your bias, you've missed my point entirely. Hard to tell, if you think a cryptic TLA adds anything to this discussion.

"Living as an atheist" is no more a religion than "living in sobriety" is a form of drinking. We may define the absence of something in terms of that something, in words, but it still doesn't make the absence a form of that something, even if the absence is a positive thing. Play on words all you like - it's just sophistry, and not reality.

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition.

In REAL life, atheism is simply an absence of belief.
Now, as you said, atheists do generally care more about theism, than non stamp collectors care about stamp collecting. But thats because for most atheists the reasons they have for their atheism, and the environments they live, in makes them that way. Stamp collector groups generally dont try and claim full moral authority, wedge themselves into political or educational institutions and they dont denounce the evils of non-stamp collectors with misinformation and scare mongering, as certain religious groups have been known to do.
Atheism doesn't need to care about that, as its just the lack of belief. Atheists do.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In REAL life, atheism is simply an absence of belief.

As I've repeated, I don't doubt its definition. The words definition is not in question

Atheism doesn't need to care about that, as its just the lack of belief. Atheists do.

I don't really mind how the words and semantics are jostled, as i said, in the real world, most atheists I've come across are not simply people who lack belief. Those who care enough to call themselves atheists, usually wear it as a religious person would wear their religion. I've met a lot of irreligious people. Those who simply don't contemplate the question. I can say though, 100% of the people I've met who have identified themselves as atheists are a lot more evangelical about it than most of the "Catholics" I know. Again,like I've repeated, its not a religion, but those who identify as atheist usually bare all the resemblances of religiosity.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't really mind how the words and semantics are jostled, as i said, in the real world, most atheists I've come across are not simply people who lack belief. Those who care enough to call themselves atheists, usually wear it as a religious person would wear their religion. I've met a lot of irreligious people. Those who simply don't contemplate the question. I can say though, 100% of the people I've met who have identified themselves as atheists are a lot more evangelical about it than most of the "Catholics" I know. Again,like I've repeated, its not a religion, but those who identify as atheist usually bare all the resemblances of religiosity.

There is no jostling on our side. As I said in my second post in this thread, its a case of seperating atheism from atheists. Both the irreligious and the evangelical atheists have the simple lack of belief, but that doesn't mean that their reasons are simple.
In real life, atheism is simply a lack of belief. However, atheists have complex reasons for lacking that belief, and that can result in them being assertive or evangelical etc.

cursai wrote: »

I don't think atheism is a religion categorically speaking but the way its feverishly defended, discussed and debated would make some of its subscribers religious in their approach of it. I haven't seen any other topic or belief that is basically 'not collecting stamps' so frequently discussed, emotionally charged and analysed.
Just saying like.

But why do you think that is though? Atheism is simply the lack of belief, but a lot of atheists are more assertive than that simple lack of belief. Thats because of the pervasive presence of religion in politics and education and other parts of life that they shouldn't be in (unless individuals choose so for themselves). As I said here, stamp collector groups dont generally try to gain control of schools or claim absolute moral authority, so non-stamp collectors aren't constantly fighting for equality, rationality and fairness.