Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact. One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.

Perhaps you should show your definition of artifact. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.

In this context, I simply mean something that is made. I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent. I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human. For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?

I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang. And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night. Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created. Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids. Maybe he will get old and die too one day. Everything does. Maybe our creator died a long time ago.

You certainly have an imagination. I think we have enough objective evidence on hand to show that comets are not made of semen. See? You can prove a negative. But was there a creator? I don't know. What was the nature of the creator? I don't know. Is the creator alive or dead? I don't know.

 

[emilynghiem]

I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.

I read Marianne's statement as conditional IF:
IF you are going to count atheists as "not believing in something"
then apply the same to theists: that if what they believe is unreal anyway,
that's not believing in anything either!

Not a perfect argument, but I get the idea:
Be consistent.

Otherwise I kind of see what the implication is:
the only difference it would make to
treat theist's beliefs DIFFERENTLY from atheists
is if you ARE saying that that theists believe in something real or having effect
while the atheists do not.

If what the theists believe in doesn't even exist,
what difference do their beliefs make?
The only way this could matter is if there is some substance or significance
to what they believe in.

So if you are saying there isn't anything there anyway,
then what theists believe should not be treated any differently
as when you say atheists don't believe in anything like that to begin with.

What difference should it make if it isn't real?

 

[emilynghiem]

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

1. No, you cannot prove creationism true or false because none of thus was there.
Proving it is faith-based is enough to preclude it being taught in schools without public consent.
However, if the public comes to an agreement on how to teach these things, there need not be any imposition
of religion by govt on people. People can choose to incorporate religious things but just can't force it on others by govt;
if people consent that is not forcing it.

2. Another alternative to creationism that is still consistent with religions is the idea that
the universe/God has no beginning and no end, but always existed.

This cannot be proven or disproven either, because none of us was there to witness this.

All the same laws of the universe can be taught consistently
even if we never agree if there was a finite beginning to the world,
or if all things were always in existence (or this is all subjective perception,
none of it may be real, or it may change).

We can still agree what laws apply universally, and agree to resolve conflicts as these arise
so we maintain a consensus, similar to what science attempts to do.

 

[sealybobo]

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact. One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.

Perhaps you should show your definition of artifact. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.

In this context, I simply mean something that is made. I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent. I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human. For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?

I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang. And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night. Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created. Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids. Maybe he will get old and die too one day. Everything does. Maybe our creator died a long time ago.

You certainly have an imagination. I think we have enough objective evidence on hand to show that comets are not made of semen. See? You can prove a negative. But was there a creator? I don't know. What was the nature of the creator? I don't know. Is the creator alive or dead? I don't know.

• Frequently, atheism is equated to religion by using non-differentiating definitions, meaning, aspects of a concept that do not distinguish the concept from others, are used for comparison. For example:
  • Religion is a group of people.
  • Atheists are a group of people.
  • Therefore, atheism is a religion.

Now that religion is based on groups of people, everything from baseball teams to people sitting in a waiting room, are now religions.

• Getting together in groups / socializing
• Having a set of beliefs
• Having tax-exempt status
• Having a belief about gods
• Voicing our concerns/opinions ("proselytizing" or "evangelizing")

• "If I'm not buying what you're selling, it doesn't mean I'm selling something else."

• According to dictionary.com, the primary definition of religion is:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

• There's a lot of wiggle room in those "especially"s and "usually"s. Does atheism (strong or not) consider the universe as a creation of superhuman agency? Of course not; just the opposite (in that atheists do not believe in such a superhuman agent in the first place). Must atheism in all cases involve devotional and ritual observance? No. Must atheism in all cases prescribe a moral code? No.

• More to the point, is atheism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? No. Atheism is a lack of one specific belief, not a set of beliefs. Even strong atheism is simply a position on one particular issue: there is no god. Thus, even assuming strong belief in this point, that doesn't say anything at all about the actual cause, nature or purpose of the universe, except in the negative ("it's not God").

 

[emilynghiem]

I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang. And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night. Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created. Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids. Maybe he will get old and die too one day. Everything does. Maybe our creator died a long time ago.

Oh boy. And I can't wait to see what new world is created when Jesus comes!

 

[sealybobo]

I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang. And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night. Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created. Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids. Maybe he will get old and die too one day. Everything does. Maybe our creator died a long time ago.

Oh boy. And I can't wait to see what new world is created when Jesus comes!

• If atheism is a religion, then...
  • ...not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  • ...not playing golf is a sport.
  • ...not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition.
  • ...bald is a hair color.
  • ...nudity is an outfit.
  • ...off is a TV station.
  • ...being healthy is a disease.
  • ...abstinence is a sex position.

 

[sealybobo]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

• Tu quoque! This argument exists to defend religion by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for the religion. Beyond shifting the burden of proof, the argument serves as a non-sequitur.

 

[emilynghiem]

• If atheism is a religion, then...
  • ...not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  • ...not playing golf is a sport.
  • ...not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition.
  • ...bald is a hair color.
  • ...nudity is an outfit.
  • ...off is a TV station.
  • ...being healthy is a disease.
  • ...abstinence is a sex position.

To compare theism and atheism as both religious systems built on beliefs
is like saying
* "believing in collecting stamps as having spiritual significance" can be part of someone's belief or religion
* "believing one should not collect stamps as having significance" can be part of someone's beliefs or religion
but "not believing either way" is not having a belief or religion.

As long as one is proactively asserting a belief in either the positive or negative, that belief can be part of a religion.
If someone has no belief, of course, that is not part of a religion.

NOBODY is saying that collecting stamps, or believing in collecting stamps is a religion.
So of course, nobody is saying that NOT collecting stamps is a religion.

 

[sealybobo]

• If atheism is a religion, then...
  • ...not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  • ...not playing golf is a sport.
  • ...not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition.
  • ...bald is a hair color.
  • ...nudity is an outfit.
  • ...off is a TV station.
  • ...being healthy is a disease.
  • ...abstinence is a sex position.

To compare theism and atheism as both religious systems built on beliefs
is like saying
* "believing in collecting stamps as having spiritual significance" can be part of someone's belief or religion
* "believing one should not collect stamps as having significance" can be part of someone's beliefs or religion
but "not believing either way" is not having a belief or religion.

As long as one is proactively asserting a belief in either the positive or negative, that belief can be part of a religion.
If someone has no belief, of course, that is not part of a religion.

NOBODY is saying that collecting stamps, or believing in collecting stamps is a religion.
So of course, nobody is saying that NOT collecting stamps is a religion.

No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it? Is that your hobby? Not collecting stamps?

If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?

 

[sealybobo]

If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science. Is science my religion? Not to be confused with scientology of course.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

• Tu quoque! This argument exists to defend religion by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for the religion. Beyond shifting the burden of proof, the argument serves as a non-sequitur.

Dear Carla and Sealybobo:
There are already people who have set up atheist churches and are gaining popularity and requests for more access.

I think it is very simple:

SOME people can get religious about their atheist beliefs
SOME people can connect with a larger identity and consider that their religion
SOME people don't hold a belief at all, and are merely nontheistic in their thinking and language
SOME people may hold a belief, but don't get religious, and aren't connected to any larger identity by such affiliation

SO WHAT????

What I don't understand is why people here have to make
one way the ONLY WAY and the others "nonexistent" or "not a choice" "not possible."

Ironically, it seems people ARE GETTING RELIGIOUS about defending their views.

And that illustrates the point again: from one person's perspective that is just STATING what is,
and is NOT their "belief" and certainly not a "religion."

From other people's view, that is a separate belief and it is being pushed religiously.

So this tells me, even more, that all these cases are going on at the same time.

 

[emilynghiem]

If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science. Is science my religion? Not to be confused with scientology of course.

Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.

There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.

I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.

 

[sealybobo]

If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science. Is science my religion? Not to be confused with scientology of course.

Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.

There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.

I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest
I am 1 and 3.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it? Is that your hobby? Not collecting stamps?

If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?

No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.

Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.

So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.

What is the equivalent in hobbies of
collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
What do these have in common that manifests differently?
In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)

The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
between religions and hobbies is this:
* just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
* But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
a community around it that has a social identity

* just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
does NOT make it a religion
* But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
yes, they can create a religious community around it

So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
It is POSSIBLE to create a shared hobby out of something,
but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.

Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.

 

[sealybobo]

No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it? Is that your hobby? Not collecting stamps?

If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?

No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.

Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.

So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.

What is the equivalent in hobbies of
collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
What do these have in common that manifests differently?
In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)

The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
between religions and hobbies is this:
* just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
* But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
a community around it that has a social identity

* just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
does NOT make it a religion
* But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
yes, they can create a religious community around it

So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
It is POSSIBLE to create a shared hobby out of something,
but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.

Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.

All good points but don't forget:

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is simply the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism when someone tells us about god. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim that comes without scientific proof, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science. Is science my religion? Not to be confused with scientology of course.

Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.

There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.

I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest
I am 1 and 3.

Thanks Sealybobo this is very helpful. My boyfriend believes in some God but does not believe there is this active interaction or relationship; he believes people operate by free will and does not understand what I mean by spiritual healing invoking anything more than natural energy. Christians will see this as an active relationship with God to ask for and receive forgiveness and healing as a divine destined process. My bf believes it is solely up to humans to determine their actions.

I think #3 does involve a BELIEF that if such an intelligence exists it is neutral and not personally connected to humans.

If you were truly neutral, you would leave it open either way.

To take one side and believe in that thing, is an active belief.
Not necessarily a religion, unless you build your whole worldview or life philosophy around that assumption
the way Christians build around the concept of having a spiritual relationship with God through Conscience or Christ.

I believe there is a connection spiritually.
So my faith in Restorative Justice is no different from how Christians believe in Christ Jesus and the process of Salvation.

The difference is that I express this in nontheistic terms, I am inherently more suited
to understand things in secular terms of justice, conflict resolution and spiritual healing that can be proven medically.

I have learned to use the same terms in Christianity to explain this process of "salvation" or establishing
"universal justice and peace worldwide for all humanity".

So that is where I am used to making a distinction between the belief or faith someone has internally
and the external language or practices used to express this faith.

I don't necessarily do all the social practices that Christians do that tend to define that as a religion.

I tend to focus on Constitutional outreach to resolve conflicts and help rebuild relations and community
so people can work together on solutions.

So my expression of my beliefs in Restorative Justice are also going to be different from traditional Christians
whose outreach is through their churches. I focus outreach on Constitutional education to empower
people to govern themselves by whatever principles or solutions they believe in.

The belief is one level, the language is another, and the way this affects actions is another level.

I think people here are focusing on different levels, some on the belief level alone,
others on the action or outward/sociological practices, and I am focused on the language
so the other levels can still work themselves out, even where we differ or conflict.

Thanks for your help, Sealybobo!
I may never be able to figure out a label for what I am
but at least you gave me terms that describe my boyfriend.

He is technically theist, but does not make a religion out of it.
So if theists can believe or not believe in things and not make a religion out of it,
so can atheists believe or not believe and not make a religion out of it.

By the First Amendment, our beliefs should be equally protected for ourselves,
regardless if they are or are not religious in any way. Beliefs or creeds should all be treated with equal respect.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it? Is that your hobby? Not collecting stamps?

If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?

No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.

Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.

So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.

What is the equivalent in hobbies of
collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
What do these have in common that manifests differently?
In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)

The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
between religions and hobbies is this:
* just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
* But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
a community around it that has a social identity

* just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
does NOT make it a religion
* But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
yes, they can create a religious community around it

So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
It is POSSIBLE to create a shared hobby out of something,
but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.

Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.

All good points but don't forget:

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is simply the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism when someone tells us about god. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim that comes without scientific proof, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

Hi Sealybobo: Maybe for you who is nontheistic and more agnostic and neutral.

For those atheists who do get religious about it, and I have met some who do form an alliance
and have a goals and purpose of debunking theists,
there are those who ACTIVELY believe there is not a god, and it is not being neutral and
just an absence of belief, but a SOLID PROACTIVE belief there is not and that any assertion there
is should be actively proselytized to in order to correct that fault and establish the truth there is no such god.

So these people do follow a religious belief there is not a god, and that this truth should be actively
defended and taught to others.

That is NOT the same as an absence of belief.

I agree that many nontheists on here are more like you and DT and are not so religiously pushing
that this serves as their religion.

The closest I have seen is when Hollie gets pushy about being anti-theist,
that comes across equally as when theists push their beliefs and won't hear anything else.

Hollie kept defining God to be a SPECIFIC description or thing.
so if that is her BELIEF of what God means, and she will not accept any other possibility,
she is making a religion out of believing God is something false.

I call that anti-theist. it is certainly not neutral atheism
because I have tried to correct what this definition of God is
and she religiously clings to it and preaches it, equally as the people she claims are teaching this God this way!

So that becomes like a religion to her.

You can argue technically it is not a religion, just a strongly asserted statement if you don't think it counts as a belief.

Trying to change what we mean by atheism is like
trying to tell people a cucumber is actually a fruit.

For all practical reasons, it is treated as a vegetable, sold and served as one.
But technically, yes, it has seeds and is literally a fruit.

Technically atheism is not a religion as other traditional ones,
but the way some people push their atheist or anti-theist views
they act just like people pushing their theist views so it serves as a religion.

 

[sealybobo]

No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it? Is that your hobby? Not collecting stamps?

If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?

No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.

Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.

So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.

What is the equivalent in hobbies of
collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
What do these have in common that manifests differently?
In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)

The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
between religions and hobbies is this:
* just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
* But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
a community around it that has a social identity

* just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
does NOT make it a religion
* But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
yes, they can create a religious community around it

So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
It is POSSIBLE to create a shared hobby out of something,
but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.

Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.

Apologists frequently assert that atheism is a religion. Whether this is true or not depends greatly on what definitions of atheism and religion are being used. The argument is most effectively made against strong atheism, in which positive assertions are made that no gods exist, but even in that case there are real problems with applying the label of religion to something that is explicitly denying a central belief of almost all religions.

A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim to know that there is no god, but instead simply lacks belief in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "agnostic atheism"

Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the only rational position, as both theism and strong atheism make positivist claims. Weak atheism is also called non-positivist atheism.

Many people are confused about the meaning and usage of the terms atheist vs. agnostic. A frequent claim made by theists is that being an atheist implies certainty about the non-existence of God. At the other extreme, many people apply the term agnostic as if it simply means waffling on the issue of whether or not God exists. The following explanation is presented as an attempt to clarify these terms.

Theism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god. Only theists do this. They actually claim to have talked to him. Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god. Only theists do this. They actually claim to have talked to him. Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.

YIKES! So what DO you call such people who become so fundamentalist and absolutely
BELIEVE there isn't a god?

Because it can never be proven or disproven either way, that person can believe that absolutely
and never be proven wrong because it is impossible.

The most I can do is offer:
* to prove spiritual healing works effectively, naturally and consistent with science and medicine as a natural process
* to prove people can AGREE to form a consensus on what God means even if we can never prove or disprove either way

But I do know at least one atheist who is absolutely deadset in that belief there is no God period,
and knows it cannot be proven otherwise, so uses that point to harp on it knowing it is uncontestable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc... I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.

The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.

I never said that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, I just like to rub the fact that it is a religion to some people in the face of the people that are annoyed by the concept.

That said, even if atheism was a religion that insisted that evolution is a fundamental tenet of their faith, that would not make it illegal to teach it, anymore than it is illegal to teach the Bible in public schools. The key part would be if the teachers tried to use either of those as a springboard to talking about their beliefs. That upsets people on both sides of the issue, but that is the way the law works.

Personally, as long as parents can opt out of religious education, I would have no problem with schools actually teaching about religion. I think it is better for kids if they are presented with as much information as possible, and they can then make their own decisions, but I recognize the right of parents to want to raise their children by their values. The problem with schools now is that, in attempting to not violate the very confusing legal morass about separation of church and state, they essentially create a culture where religious expression is not tolerated. That, in my opinion, is the worst possible way to approach the issue.

It also explains why some Christians, and even Muslims, are trying to force the schools to treat atheism, and secular humanism, with the same standards they use for religion. Doesn't make them right, but they see a major problem, and are trying to fix it in the only way the legal system will allow.