Why Do Atheists Insist That Atheism Is Not A Religion?

[dblack]

Because it's not you jackalope it's the absence of religion. It is stuff like this that made me take a hiatus from this site.

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

"An active belief"?? That's heelarious.

lol, if atheism is a religion then the constitutional separation of church and state would dictate that both prayer and not saying a prayer would have to be banned from schools.

Works for me. No one should be allowed to pray, or to not pray, in public schools.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“What you don't understand is that the Supreme Court ultimately is the highest legal authority and has never made any such determination.”


Correct.


In fact, the High Court has held that being free from faith is not a 'religion,' where such a personal, private decision is entitled to Constitutional protections:


"The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate. The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. Pp. 48-55."


FindLaw Cases and Codes

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most devout Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's gods.

It's funny how so many Christians want to demonize atheists as non-believers, when Christians share about 99% of the atheists' disbelief.

 

[dblack]

I wouldn't agree a repeal of the First Amendment is in any future of the USA. But some kind of adjustment isn't out of the realm of possibility. Just as limitations are placed on the 2nd, something similar for the 1st is possible as it's already been done. Freedom of religious expression isn't so absolute you can practice any bizarre ritual you want.

The problem is with the twisted interpretation of the religious freedom provision of the first amendment. Whereas the first is intended to shield religions from persecution, its been turned inside out and used to establish religion as a 'protected class'. Rather than protecting people from having their rights violated on the basis of their religion, it now gives those with religious faith special rights that the rest of us don't get - which runs direction counter to equal rights and equal protection.

 

[asaratis]

Because it's not you jackalope it's the absence of religion. It is stuff like this that made me take a hiatus from this site.

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

First of all, "an active belief that there is no deity" isn't what makes one an atheist. Not being a theist is what makes one an atheist. And agnosticism isn't "not caring" or even "not sure" - it's the observation that the existence of gods isn't a provable proposition; that it's inherent in the nature of the concept that it's unprovable either way. You can be an agnostic and a true believer at the same time, as well as an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

As far as what is gained or lost in accepting these labels: not much. It's usually only an issue in the context of particular political agendas. The "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, seeks to have atheism classified as a religion in their efforts to "level the playing field" with theistic origin accounts. It's sort of a tortured logic, but my understanding of their strategy is to claim that non-theistic origins accounts (e.g. evolution) are just as "religious" as ID is, and should be taught side by side with religious myths in our schools. We all stand to lose a great deal when faced with such idiocy.

The various labels of religious beliefs and discussions of them do not interest me here. We're talking about reasons to claim that Atheism is not a religion.

The teaching of intelligent design or creationism is precluded only from curriculum in government schools. It is already being taught in many private schools and in home schooling. Atheists are also free to establish schools

Evolution is has been proved by scientific study and is not related to religion. It is not a religious belief. I am Christian and I believe evolution is the vehicle by which we got here. That does not mean that God had no hand in it.

 

[asaratis]

...<snip>...

Please try to understand that your ranting has been addressed inn this thread and others where you repeat the same nonsense and have been soundly refuted.

Why does your religious belief cause you to promote your hate and intolerance?

Have you stopped beating your husband?

No. I haven't.

The real question is "why is it that virtually without exception, the only people claiming atheism is a religion are fundie Christians".

That is a good question for you to ask in another thread. Your are hard headed. That is a fact.

 

[asaratis]

...<snip>...

Please try to understand that your ranting has been addressed inn this thread and others where you repeat the same nonsense and have been soundly refuted.

Why does your religious belief cause you to promote your hate and intolerance?

Have you stopped beating your husband?

Regarding your Sig,

"He that does not thank the guards is destined to die in his sleep at the hands of the enemy!"

I'd amend it to,

He that does not support raising the minimum wage is destined to eat his fast food filled with saliva and mucous.

Rather:

He that eats fast food is a fool.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because it's not you jackalope it's the absence of religion. It is stuff like this that made me take a hiatus from this site.

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

First of all, "an active belief that there is no deity" isn't what makes one an atheist. Not being a theist is what makes one an atheist. And agnosticism isn't "not caring" or even "not sure" - it's the observation that the existence of gods isn't a provable proposition; that it's inherent in the nature of the concept that it's unprovable either way. You can be an agnostic and a true believer at the same time, as well as an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

As far as what is gained or lost in accepting these labels: not much. It's usually only an issue in the context of particular political agendas. The "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, seeks to have atheism classified as a religion in their efforts to "level the playing field" with theistic origin accounts. It's sort of a tortured logic, but my understanding of their strategy is to claim that non-theistic origins accounts (e.g. evolution) are just as "religious" as ID is, and should be taught side by side with religious myths in our schools. We all stand to lose a great deal when faced with such idiocy.

The various labels of religious beliefs and discussions of them do not interest me here. We're talking about reasons to claim that Atheism is not a religion.

The teaching of intelligent design or creationism is precluded only from curriculum in government schools. It is already being taught in many private schools and in home schooling. Atheists are also free to establish schools

Evolution is has been proved by scientific study and is not related to religion. It is not a religious belief. I am Christian and I believe evolution is the vehicle by which we got here. That does not mean that God had no hand in it.

You are trying to define religion as one's choice to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Under the umbrella of that preposterous notion, everything for which there is no evidence of its existence becomes a religion of those who don't believe in it.

 

[asaratis]

Most devout Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's gods.

It's funny how so many Christians want to demonize atheists as non-believers, when Christians share about 99% of the atheists' disbelief.

Apparently you don't understand the terms. Belief in any one or more deities precludes one from being an Atheist. Belief that deities do not exist makes one an Atheist.

Christians and Jews certainly have the same God. They just attach different details to Him. Christians think the messiah is His son, Jesus and that God is a trinity. Jews have the same God but think the messiah is yet to come. Muslims have the same God also. They call him Allah and think that He had no son and that pedophile, Muhammed was their prophet.

All three believe God created everything.

You've been listening to your Atheist mentors haven't you?

I see neither you nor Hollie has sense enough to stick to the topic of this thread.

 

[asaratis]

Because it's not you jackalope it's the absence of religion. It is stuff like this that made me take a hiatus from this site.

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

First of all, "an active belief that there is no deity" isn't what makes one an atheist. Not being a theist is what makes one an atheist. And agnosticism isn't "not caring" or even "not sure" - it's the observation that the existence of gods isn't a provable proposition; that it's inherent in the nature of the concept that it's unprovable either way. You can be an agnostic and a true believer at the same time, as well as an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

As far as what is gained or lost in accepting these labels: not much. It's usually only an issue in the context of particular political agendas. The "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, seeks to have atheism classified as a religion in their efforts to "level the playing field" with theistic origin accounts. It's sort of a tortured logic, but my understanding of their strategy is to claim that non-theistic origins accounts (e.g. evolution) are just as "religious" as ID is, and should be taught side by side with religious myths in our schools. We all stand to lose a great deal when faced with such idiocy.

The various labels of religious beliefs and discussions of them do not interest me here. We're talking about reasons to claim that Atheism is not a religion.

The teaching of intelligent design or creationism is precluded only from curriculum in government schools. It is already being taught in many private schools and in home schooling. Atheists are also free to establish schools

Evolution is has been proved by scientific study and is not related to religion. It is not a religious belief. I am Christian and I believe evolution is the vehicle by which we got here. That does not mean that God had no hand in it.

You are trying to define religion as one's choice to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Under the umbrella of that preposterous notion, everything for which there is no evidence of its existence becomes a religion of those who don't believe in it.

Again, you're in the wrong thread for that issue. Read the OP very slowly. Then read it again.

To answer your misplaced post. Religions have to do with beliefs concerning DEITIES.
God is a supernatural being. Not all supernatural things are deities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because it's not you jackalope it's the absence of religion. It is stuff like this that made me take a hiatus from this site.

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

First of all, "an active belief that there is no deity" isn't what makes one an atheist. Not being a theist is what makes one an atheist. And agnosticism isn't "not caring" or even "not sure" - it's the observation that the existence of gods isn't a provable proposition; that it's inherent in the nature of the concept that it's unprovable either way. You can be an agnostic and a true believer at the same time, as well as an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

As far as what is gained or lost in accepting these labels: not much. It's usually only an issue in the context of particular political agendas. The "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, seeks to have atheism classified as a religion in their efforts to "level the playing field" with theistic origin accounts. It's sort of a tortured logic, but my understanding of their strategy is to claim that non-theistic origins accounts (e.g. evolution) are just as "religious" as ID is, and should be taught side by side with religious myths in our schools. We all stand to lose a great deal when faced with such idiocy.

The various labels of religious beliefs and discussions of them do not interest me here. We're talking about reasons to claim that Atheism is not a religion.

The teaching of intelligent design or creationism is precluded only from curriculum in government schools. It is already being taught in many private schools and in home schooling. Atheists are also free to establish schools

Evolution is has been proved by scientific study and is not related to religion. It is not a religious belief. I am Christian and I believe evolution is the vehicle by which we got here. That does not mean that God had no hand in it.

You are trying to define religion as one's choice to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Under the umbrella of that preposterous notion, everything for which there is no evidence of its existence becomes a religion of those who don't believe in it.

Again, you're in the wrong thread for that issue. Read the OP very slowly. Then read it again.

To answer your misplaced post. Religions have to do with beliefs concerning DEITIES.

I'm only in the 'wrong' thread to the extent that you wrongly tried to segregate issues which cannot be segregated in order to have a rational discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most devout Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's gods.

It's funny how so many Christians want to demonize atheists as non-believers, when Christians share about 99% of the atheists' disbelief.

Apparently you don't understand the terms. Belief in any one or more deities precludes one from being an Atheist. Belief that deities do not exist makes one an Atheist.

Christians and Jews certainly have the same God. They just attach different details to Him. Christians think the messiah is His son, Jesus and that God is a trinity. Jews have the same God but think the messiah is yet to come. Muslims have the same God also. They call him Allah and think that He had no son and that pedophile, Muhammed was their prophet.

All three believe God created everything.

You've been listening to your Atheist mentors haven't you?

I see neither you nor Hollie has sense enough to stick to the topic of this thread.

You elevate the possible existence of a God well beyond the possible existence of all other imaginations that anyone might have.

I don't consider it a religion that I do not believe that my mom is an alien being from an unnamed planet in another galaxy.

Should I?

 

[asaratis]

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

First of all, "an active belief that there is no deity" isn't what makes one an atheist. Not being a theist is what makes one an atheist. And agnosticism isn't "not caring" or even "not sure" - it's the observation that the existence of gods isn't a provable proposition; that it's inherent in the nature of the concept that it's unprovable either way. You can be an agnostic and a true believer at the same time, as well as an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

As far as what is gained or lost in accepting these labels: not much. It's usually only an issue in the context of particular political agendas. The "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, seeks to have atheism classified as a religion in their efforts to "level the playing field" with theistic origin accounts. It's sort of a tortured logic, but my understanding of their strategy is to claim that non-theistic origins accounts (e.g. evolution) are just as "religious" as ID is, and should be taught side by side with religious myths in our schools. We all stand to lose a great deal when faced with such idiocy.

The various labels of religious beliefs and discussions of them do not interest me here. We're talking about reasons to claim that Atheism is not a religion.

The teaching of intelligent design or creationism is precluded only from curriculum in government schools. It is already being taught in many private schools and in home schooling. Atheists are also free to establish schools

Evolution is has been proved by scientific study and is not related to religion. It is not a religious belief. I am Christian and I believe evolution is the vehicle by which we got here. That does not mean that God had no hand in it.

You are trying to define religion as one's choice to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Under the umbrella of that preposterous notion, everything for which there is no evidence of its existence becomes a religion of those who don't believe in it.

Again, you're in the wrong thread for that issue. Read the OP very slowly. Then read it again.

To answer your misplaced post. Religions have to do with beliefs concerning DEITIES.

I'm only in the 'wrong' thread to the extent that you wrongly tried to segregate issues which cannot be segregated in order to have a rational discussion.

You are full of shit and merely hijacking the thread. **** off!

 

[sealybobo]

Putting aside the question of whether it is or is not a religion, what benefits do Atheists expect to gain by having it declared not to be a religion?

Additionally, what harm comes to Atheists in having it declared to be a religion?

Please do not argue here whether or not Atheism is a religion.

I just thought of something. Even guys like boss admit that most atheists position on this debate about religion is that they are too busy with other things to even care.

I happen to be a rare atheist. I'm what theists call "militant" about my disbelief. For one reason, I just recently realized there is no god so like a new born again, I feel the need to spread the word. It's liberating. So I guess it is true I have changed my belief system, but that doesn't make my new belief a religion. I'm not going to go around being bad or good because there is no god. I'm not going to pray to no god. I'm not going to give 10% to no church. I'm not going to say in no god we trust.

So this windbag idiot is focusing on if atheism is a belief. He or she can't seem to get it that it is not believing, which is different. Perhaps he's not smart enough to see the difference? Maybe he doesn't get semantics.

 

[asaratis]

Most devout Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's gods.

It's funny how so many Christians want to demonize atheists as non-believers, when Christians share about 99% of the atheists' disbelief.

Apparently you don't understand the terms. Belief in any one or more deities precludes one from being an Atheist. Belief that deities do not exist makes one an Atheist.

Christians and Jews certainly have the same God. They just attach different details to Him. Christians think the messiah is His son, Jesus and that God is a trinity. Jews have the same God but think the messiah is yet to come. Muslims have the same God also. They call him Allah and think that He had no son and that pedophile, Muhammed was their prophet.

All three believe God created everything.

You've been listening to your Atheist mentors haven't you?

I see neither you nor Hollie has sense enough to stick to the topic of this thread.

You elevate the possible existence of a God well beyond the possible existence of all other imaginations that anyone might have.

I don't consider it a religion that I do not believe that my mom is an alien being from an unnamed planet in another galaxy.

Should I?

Unless you consider her a deity, no. If you do, you're more demented than I first assumed.

Now, go play in traffic.

 

[MrDVS1]

Putting aside the question of whether it is or is not a religion, what benefits do Atheists expect to gain by having it declared not to be a religion?

Additionally, what harm comes to Atheists in having it declared to be a religion?

Please do not argue here whether or not Atheism is a religion.

Because religions all have a god, Atheism is the opposite no god, therefore it is simply a philosophy, which is all religions are anyway given that there isn't, nor ever was, a god in the first place.

 

[Hollie]

Most devout Christians are atheists when it comes to everyone else's gods.

It's funny how so many Christians want to demonize atheists as non-believers, when Christians share about 99% of the atheists' disbelief.

Apparently you don't understand the terms. Belief in any one or more deities precludes one from being an Atheist. Belief that deities do not exist makes one an Atheist.

Christians and Jews certainly have the same God. They just attach different details to Him. Christians think the messiah is His son, Jesus and that God is a trinity. Jews have the same God but think the messiah is yet to come. Muslims have the same God also. They call him Allah and think that He had no son and that pedophile, Muhammed was their prophet.

All three believe God created everything.

You've been listening to your Atheist mentors haven't you?

I see neither you nor Hollie has sense enough to stick to the topic of this thread.

Well, let's be honest. This thread is another with which to promote your hate and intolerance.

It's been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously that atheism is not a religion. Yet, you continue to screech it is, while unwilling to acknowledge that rational and reasoned conclusions that your polytheistic gods as well as gods of others are inventions of man's imagination.

You really appear quite desperate.

 

[asaratis]

Putting aside the question of whether it is or is not a religion, what benefits do Atheists expect to gain by having it declared not to be a religion?

Additionally, what harm comes to Atheists in having it declared to be a religion?

Please do not argue here whether or not Atheism is a religion.

I just thought of something. Even guys like boss admit that most atheists position on this debate about religion is that they are too busy with other things to even care.

I happen to be a rare atheist. I'm what theists call "militant" about my disbelief. For one reason, I just recently realized there is no god so like a new born again, I feel the need to spread the word. It's liberating. So I guess it is true I have changed my belief system, but that doesn't make my new belief a religion. I'm not going to go around being bad or good because there is no god. I'm not going to pray to no god. I'm not going to give 10% to no church. I'm not going to say in no god we trust.

So this windbag idiot is focusing on if atheism is a belief. He or she can't seem to get it that it is not believing, which is different. Perhaps he's not smart enough to see the difference? Maybe he doesn't get semantics.

Thanks for paying attention (not) to the OP. This thread is not to address whether Atheism is a religion or not. That is Carla's thread.

That you just recently came to realize there is no god is an admission that you believe none exist. All that does is tag you as an Atheist. Now give me a reason or reasons why Atheism would benefit from not being considered a religion. So far, there's been nothing but vitriol coming from Atheists concerning the issue of whether it is or is not a religion.

I am only interested in learning THE BENEFITS OF ATHEISM NOT BEING CALLED A RELIGION.

 

[sealybobo]

Would think that if it's considered legally a religion, then the very religions atheists are trying to get out of law will remain there along with themselves. Whereas if they insist it's not a religion, then religions protected by law will be less likely protected in the future.

Thanks for an honest answer. It seems a bit after the fact though. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already said Atheism is legally a religion. I follow you in that if it is a religion, it is entitled to the same protections as other religions. I do not follow the thinking that if it is not a religion that religions currently protected will lose their protection in the future.

Is it part of the dogma of Atheism to remove constitutional protections from religion?

I'm sure there are multiple end-games from atheist groups. But you gotta assume if an atheist is legally activistic about it, they long to have religions removed from protected status eventually. Otherwise why not just be content in your disbelief and let other be content in their beliefs?

I'm areligious. I'm against all religions, but not deities. I'll believe in a deity when I shake it's hand. But religions are from people, not deities. As such, and devoid of scientific support for their assertions I'm against them. But I'm content to remain low-stress and not meddle in other people's delusions. That's a fulltime job and not one I'm likely to get paid for.

You ask why so I'll try to answer best I can. For one reason, I truly don't think this lie is good for people. I know religions do a lot of good but they also do a lot of bad, and you may agree or disagree with that, but it is my opinion and why I care. I think religion is unnecessary and holds people back mentally/scientifically. I watch those religious shows, see how religion is used to control people, see how slave owners and Pharoahs and Kings used it to control the masses, I talk to hypocrite theists who confirm religion doesn't necessary work, notice that there are 999 other religions all claiming they are the truth and the other ones are not, etc. So these are reasons why I speak up.

2. A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes people feel.

3. I don't like being told I'm going to hell.

4. Did you see the poll that the least electable person was the atheist? A pot smoking phylanderer has a better chance. I'm here to change perception. I remember being a theist. I thought atheist were the devil. Now I know better and I think others should too.

5. It is unnecessary and not even all that effective. Lots of religious assholes and look how religion makes gays feel guilty about themselves.

Anyways, that's my feelings, and I don't necessarily care if they get the protected status. They should have to prove their charitable works though. Do churches have to give so much to charity? They should. Otherwise it leaves the door open to all the con artists.

I watch that guy on tv ask people to send in $70 x 10 months and a miracle will happen. I wonder how much of that goes to charity and they don't pay taxes?

And if there is a god and he actually cares about you he would reward your intelligence.

I hear you on USMB all the time stating your opinion. Why do you do it? Aren't you meddling in other people's delusions just by posting the things you write? I agree with the things you write, I'm just saying. Don't act like you don't get some satisfaction explaining to people why you think they are wrong. Why do you do it?

 

[dblack]

Because it's not you jackalope it's the absence of religion. It is stuff like this that made me take a hiatus from this site.

An active belief that there is no deity is a religious belief. Agnosticism, not caring if there is a deity or not is closer to not being a religion than atheism.

First of all, "an active belief that there is no deity" isn't what makes one an atheist. Not being a theist is what makes one an atheist. And agnosticism isn't "not caring" or even "not sure" - it's the observation that the existence of gods isn't a provable proposition; that it's inherent in the nature of the concept that it's unprovable either way. You can be an agnostic and a true believer at the same time, as well as an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

As far as what is gained or lost in accepting these labels: not much. It's usually only an issue in the context of particular political agendas. The "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, seeks to have atheism classified as a religion in their efforts to "level the playing field" with theistic origin accounts. It's sort of a tortured logic, but my understanding of their strategy is to claim that non-theistic origins accounts (e.g. evolution) are just as "religious" as ID is, and should be taught side by side with religious myths in our schools. We all stand to lose a great deal when faced with such idiocy.

The various labels of religious beliefs and discussions of them do not interest me here. We're talking about reasons to claim that Atheism is not a religion.

Yeah. I was responding to MartyBegan's post. I addressed the OP in the second paragraph. We start threads here, we don't own them.

The teaching of intelligent design or creationism is precluded only from curriculum in government schools. It is already being taught in many private schools and in home schooling. Atheists are also free to establish schools

Evolution is has been proved by scientific study and is not related to religion. It is not a religious belief. I am Christian and I believe evolution is the vehicle by which we got here. That does not mean that God had no hand in it.

Your views on evolution also have nothing to do with the topic. We're talking about reasons to claim atheism is not a religion, and there are many. I was pointing out that it mostly matters in the political arena where, unfortunately, classifying people in different ways means they have different rights. Ironically, atheists would have more rights, more legal protections, if they copped to the religion framing. If they did that, they could enjoy all the perks afforded to religions by the Court's weird read on the first amendment. They could skip out on taxes, demand exemptions to laws they don't like, etc...

There are also many personal reasons why atheists balk at being classified as religious. They might think of religion as unenlightened and backward. I've also found those who are raised religious, and then lose their faith, to be the most virulent in their rejection of religion, to the point of taking it up as a cause (in the same way they used to practice religion). I think their over'zealous' behavior is what's most often cited when accusing atheists of having a religious-like convictions.