I've just been through the thread, and I'll go against the grain here; Statler makes some good points and some good observations. When looking at the 'core atheists', the people who speak in public, the ones who enter the debates, those who post on forums, you'll often see the same lines arise, the same arguments spoken out, the same people quoted. I have visited several atheist and secular forums, and as much as Christians re-use the same arguments, many quotes are re-used by atheists. Of course this has a logical cause - if religious people keep rehashing the same arguments, the answers will always be the same. However, this does give a sense of uniformity that is also encountered within religious groups.
And atheism in it's current form (new atheism?) is rather new. Some people have published works that have been a wakeup call for many to see things in a different light. Because of this effect, these people fall into a sort of 'leader role'. Because it is new and against the grain of the old, people are still debating it, and being very engaged about it. This kind of looks like spreading the word like religions do. However, I do want to add that not all people support the notions proposed by these 'figureheads'.
So in short; in it's behavior and appearance, the core group does resemble the behaviours of religious groups.
Btw, I must add that I find atheists who try to make 'rituals' and festive days of their own outright silly. I mean, sure, Dawkins is a nice guy, but I see no reason to celebrate his birthday.
Anyways, having some appearances in common with religion, does that make atheism a religion? I think not.
First of all, atheism has no central dogma. I know you refered to how life came to be stories, but it is not a central thesis on which atheism relies. All religions I know of have central stories and rules that are part of being of that religion. Christians, regardless of denomination, find the bible to be important. Buddhists have the rules as made by Buddah, and so on. Atheism has no such thing.
On to the origins of the universe and life; the reason that most atheists have this in common is because this issue is a breakingpoint between religion and science. This is the point where people stumble upon science, look at religion, and find that there is no bridge between the two. The theory of how gravity works, math, and other sciences are generally accepted by everyone - but I think you wouldn't say that these things are somehow part of either a religion or atheism because all members believe these facts to be true.
Also, if we look into the 'does behavior make it a religion' idea - if you are a republican, are you a...republicanist? I am not from the US, but how people seem to engage in political discussions there, and how they seem to experience political issues has a lot in common with religion too. Kids, while not allowed to vote yet, are clearly marked either republican or democrat by their parents. When political leaders speak, the whole experience and enthousiasm of the crowd resembles that of people listening to a preacher. The way that those people villify each other resembles how different religions can attack each other.
Anyways, for me it is a grey area. Atheism has no central tennets - if one was brought up without coming in touch with religion and has no idea of the concept of a deity, that person is an atheist too; atheist being a person who is simply not religious. However, many vocal atheists' behavior does resemble it much, and sadly, the vocal hostility sometimes as well (though at least they dont oppress and kill people, so thats a huge leap forward). And because many of the debate topics and regular talks center around religion topics and it is activly trying to carve its own niche in...yes, well what? and as what?
I get how you came to your conclusions.
And atheism in it's current form (new atheism?) is rather new. Some people have published works that have been a wakeup call for many to see things in a different light. Because of this effect, these people fall into a sort of 'leader role'. Because it is new and against the grain of the old, people are still debating it, and being very engaged about it. This kind of looks like spreading the word like religions do. However, I do want to add that not all people support the notions proposed by these 'figureheads'.
So in short; in it's behavior and appearance, the core group does resemble the behaviours of religious groups.
Btw, I must add that I find atheists who try to make 'rituals' and festive days of their own outright silly. I mean, sure, Dawkins is a nice guy, but I see no reason to celebrate his birthday.
Anyways, having some appearances in common with religion, does that make atheism a religion? I think not.
First of all, atheism has no central dogma. I know you refered to how life came to be stories, but it is not a central thesis on which atheism relies. All religions I know of have central stories and rules that are part of being of that religion. Christians, regardless of denomination, find the bible to be important. Buddhists have the rules as made by Buddah, and so on. Atheism has no such thing.
On to the origins of the universe and life; the reason that most atheists have this in common is because this issue is a breakingpoint between religion and science. This is the point where people stumble upon science, look at religion, and find that there is no bridge between the two. The theory of how gravity works, math, and other sciences are generally accepted by everyone - but I think you wouldn't say that these things are somehow part of either a religion or atheism because all members believe these facts to be true.
Also, if we look into the 'does behavior make it a religion' idea - if you are a republican, are you a...republicanist? I am not from the US, but how people seem to engage in political discussions there, and how they seem to experience political issues has a lot in common with religion too. Kids, while not allowed to vote yet, are clearly marked either republican or democrat by their parents. When political leaders speak, the whole experience and enthousiasm of the crowd resembles that of people listening to a preacher. The way that those people villify each other resembles how different religions can attack each other.
Anyways, for me it is a grey area. Atheism has no central tennets - if one was brought up without coming in touch with religion and has no idea of the concept of a deity, that person is an atheist too; atheist being a person who is simply not religious. However, many vocal atheists' behavior does resemble it much, and sadly, the vocal hostility sometimes as well (though at least they dont oppress and kill people, so thats a huge leap forward). And because many of the debate topics and regular talks center around religion topics and it is activly trying to carve its own niche in...yes, well what? and as what?
I get how you came to your conclusions.
