*Sorry to take so long to broach this subject Adrian - I have been swatting up on the topic*

Ok Here's how it goes peeps....

In a thread it was stipulated that according to the Wikipedia...Buddhism was a religion. Hmmmm (I disagree) but that sent me searching for what it was that I was actually talking about. Having burnt mine eyes on a hot screen I am now of the opinion that Atheism can also be included as a religion (and often is) and I am at odds as to why this has not been declared by now. (Just think of the political and financial benefits!)

After all, Atheism does resemble Theravada Buddhism (which according to the majority of texts is a religion...(altho the actual practioners may disagree) more closely than say Scientology. It does have a doctrine (albeit based on Scientific Principles) and a set of tenets (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenets ). It (Atheism) also has it's own selection of "Prophets" eg: Dawkins, Darwin, Freud, Jung, etc. It has a view of the cosmos (based again on scientific enquiry) and further...
Atheists will and do stand in awe of the reality they find around them, including their fellow homonids belief systems. (fullfiling the "numinous" requirements of a religion)

So in "reality" (what ever that is) is it all just one great big mind fuck? Atheists are not beyond the need to feel "special" or unique from the masses, though to their credit they are not inspired to go evangelising their position, nor go and physically harm someone who does not hold their point of view. (That's what intelectual, logial arguments are for) Again, to the credit of Atheists, people of this "belief system" are motivated by education of a high order (High in this case is based on the ability to complete Tertiary Education)

It is also a hypothesis that with in ALL religions of the planet you will find those who are of a higher education level than their peers and so would be holding the position that their belief system is a mind fuck but "What the heck? I get to participate with this particular group of my community and so have a sense of belonging. So I'll play along"

There is much more that can be discussed here on this topic but for now I will sumarise by re-itterating the Thread subject:
Is Atheism a religion like say Theravada Buddhism; Adrian?

Given all that we know (scientifically) regarding humans and human behaviour. Are there any Sociologists, Human Behaviourists, Psycologists that would like to wade in about now??

I respectfully disagree completely. Atheism, as a general concept, is the disbelief in Gods. Anyone or thing that doesn't believe in gods is an atheist. The word literally comes from the Greek "without gods".

So tell me, do babies not fall under this category? Do people who have never heard of the concept of God not fall under this category?

What is the doctrine of atheism exactly? You say "scientific principles" and I call bullshit on this. There are many atheists who do not accept science, many who still follow horoscopes and other pseudoscientific crap, many who are "new age" people yet still profess no belief in a higher being.

There are no tenets of atheism. One does not have to actively believe that there are no gods (positive atheism) to be an atheist. To be an atheist, you don't have to follow any specific rules, you just have to fall under a certain category, and that category is "not having a belief in a god".

Dawkins is no more a prophet of atheism than Pat Robertson is a prophet of Christianity. Religions revolve around their prophets, yet there is nothing in the definition of atheism that even makes mention of Dawkins, there are even atheists (such as myself) who disagree with most of what he says. Popularisers of X do not equate prophets of X, and to say so is completely ridiculous.

What view of the Cosmos does atheism have? None! Atheists themselves might have some view of the cosmos, but it isn't prescribed by atheism. Look at Scientologists...they *are* atheists by definition, yet they believe the universe is 15 trillion years old and Zenu is the supreme commander responsible for human suffering.

As I've argued before, atheism and theism are not religions, they are individual beliefs. They may form the core of several religions, but to say they are religions themselves is simply irrational and ill-informed.

The only leverage you'll get out of me on this point is regarding the "New Atheists" who certainly act like a religion, but I don't believe can be truthfully classified as one.

Adrian Wrote:The only leverage you'll get out of me on this point is regarding the "New Atheists" who certainly act like a religion, but I don't believe can be truthfully classified as one.

Since when did a religion need gods to be a religion? While it is true that the more 'popular' religions contain gods, i honestly can't see how they would be so different within a religion if the gods were substituted with "some kind of spiritual force" or other supernatural things. Perhaps a religion would be better defined as a belief in a supernatural controlling power?

But does something even need to be a belief in the supernatural to be a religion? Wouldn't superhuman suffice for all of the same beliefs? I can't see how a religion formed around a god is any different from a religion formed around a hero... but then we see that it is a religion, apart from what it is formed around. A perhaps still better definition for a religion would be quite simply "A system of faith", or rather organized faith (iow: a particular ideal that is shared among a society in an organized fashion?).

Why would a religion in particular have to worship gods? Could not human goodness be worshiped in ways no different than the worship of a god or two or ten? Why would worshiping a hero be any different from worshiping an almighty creator, except in the attributes of the thing being worshiped? Couldn't a religion contain numerous 'rites' for the things most trivial... as easily as a religion can be utterly without rites?

I think it is much more appropriate to define religion simply as "organized faith"... atheism still wouldn't be a religion... unless it was asserted by a group that gods absolutely do not exist (or other position of organized faith).

I really don't understand this. Why not single out those who don't believe in Santa Claus?

Why is non-belief of an extraordinary claim considered a religious exercise?

We have forums and gatherings for the very reason of support, as coming out in a heavily religious society can lead to psychological and physical harm. A person always enjoys the company of those of a similar mindset, and it's icing on the cake that we debate with those who don't agree, and hopefully get a different viewpoint on an ever-expanding worldview.

(February 17, 2010 at 6:02 am)Saerules Wrote:

Adrian Wrote:The only leverage you'll get out of me on this point is regarding the "New Atheists" who certainly act like a religion, but I don't believe can be truthfully classified as one.

Since when did a religion need gods to be a religion? While it is true that the more 'popular' religions contain gods, i honestly can't see how they would be so different within a religion if the gods were substituted with "some kind of spiritual force" or other supernatural things. Perhaps a religion would be better defined as a belief in a supernatural controlling power?

Erm...where in that quote did I say religions needed God to be a religion? I didn't. In fact I said earlier in my post that atheism and theism are "core beliefs" of several religions, but not religions themselves. Religions are defined as a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, usually containing some form of ritualistic worship, and often having some sort of moral code.

Atheists, as people who do not believe in God, do not have any group beliefs in the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. I'm sure most atheists do believe in science, but the difference between them and other "believers" is that a belief in science is not dogmatic in atheism. In other words, you do not have to believe in science to be an atheist.

Defining core beliefs of a religion is easy. Take belief X. If people have to believe in X in order to be a member of religion Y, then X is a core belief of religion Y. Repeat for all beliefs you can think up.

For instance:

Belief: Jesus is the Son of God.
Do you have to believe this to be a Christian? Yes. Ergo, believing that Jesus is the Son of God is a core belief of Christianity.

Belief: The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Do you have to believe this to be an atheist? No. Ergo, believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old is not a core belief of atheism.

Christianity, as a religion, has many different core beliefs. Atheism, has one (the disbelief in gods). This is why I believe atheism fails the first criterion for being a religion...it doesn't have a set of beliefs attached to it, far less a set of beliefs pertaining to the nature, cause, and purpose of the universe.

Christianity on the other hand, holds that God created the universe. It has devotional ritual worship (prayer, church, etc), and it has a set of moral codes. Not all Christians have to do the worship, or follow the moral codes, but it is a religion because of these factors. The minimal way of being a Christian (which I think our fr0d0 is a prime example of) is to believe in God, believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and believe that the Bible is the word of God.

To state that atheism is a religion is ridiculous in every way I can think possible. As Adrian stated to be an atheist by definition is to be without a belief in god or gods. Any other definition is simply clouding the issue. I have no clue where you got the idea that somehow Dawkins, Darwin, Freud, and Jung equate the Christian concept of prophets. All of those men you have mentioned are men of science, philosophy,etc. They don't get their ideas from some deity or spiritual being they get thier ideas from observation and confirmation of those findings through experimentation.

Atheists do not worship anyone on earth or in heaven and we all hold our own personal beliefs and convictions that are completely irrelevant to those of our other fellow non-believers. It is my humble opinion that atheism in no way qualifies as a religion. The reasons are obvious and numerous and actually not even worth the trouble of going over them one at a time over and over again.

(February 17, 2010 at 1:36 pm)chatpilot Wrote: To state that atheism is a religion is ridiculous in every way I can think possible. As Adrian stated to be an atheist by definition is to be without a belief in god or gods. Any other definition is simply clouding the issue. I have no clue where you got the idea that somehow Dawkins, Darwin, Freud, and Jung equate the Christian concept of prophets. All of those men you have mentioned are men of science, philosophy,etc. They don't get their ideas from some deity or spiritual being they get thier ideas from observation and confirmation of those findings through experimentation.

Atheists do not worship anyone on earth or in heaven and we all hold our own personal beliefs and convictions that are completely irrelevant to those of our other fellow non-believers. It is my humble opinion that atheism in no way qualifies as a religion. The reasons are obvious and numerous and actually not even worth the trouble of going over them one at a time over and over again.

Although I agree 100%, maybe we could find a wrinkle that gets us tax free status?

Why do religions not pay tax anyway?

(February 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why do religions not pay tax anyway?

Religious organizations file their activities as charities, or there is some grandfather clause that gives religions tax exemptions.

Or the country in question is a theocracy, in which case the taxes go to them directly anyway.

It is ironic that religions can claim that they are charities or "non-profit" organizations when they are actually one of the most prosperous organizations in the entire world. I was researching this once for a book I was planning on writing and I got the info for non-profit status from the U.S. IRS website. I was shocked to find out that religious organizations don't even have to report their groups finances it is entirely on a voluntary basis.

CP,

That is shocking, they should have to report all cashflows to validate that they are, in fact, not turning a profit.

Rhizo