Atheism is a religion.

[Dystopia]

Yep, while we as atheists may some of us have certain core beliefs in common, they are never such as to constitute a religion. Some of us may have common attitudes toward evidence or the supernatural or cosmology or origins or evolution or any of another of other topics which often become bones of contention with theists. But what we think about any of these things will vary. No position on any other subject is guaranteed just by knowing someone is an atheist. We just don't have a belief in gods, and only some of us will claim to know gods do not exist.

The same should be true among theists, but since most religions as practiced seem to prescribe dogmatic shared beliefs, that isn't what we most often find. Of course theists who do not take the low road in this regard do exist. They're just rare.

Not even the attitude towards evidence and science, I know atheists who believe in zodiac signs and lack basic scientific knowledge, I know atheists who hate gays and gay marriage, it's really not that common, just more likely, but not a requirement, the only thing in common is lacking belief in gods or believing gods do not exist. I could even believe in spirits as an atheist, it would be legit

[Whateverist]

I could even believe in spirits as an atheist, it would be legit

Basically I agree completely.


Just couldn't help adding this though: Legit-atheist, sure. Legit-coherence, less sure.

[Dystopia]

I could even believe in spirits as an atheist, it would be legit

Basically I agree completely.


Just couldn't help adding this though: Legit-atheist, sure. Legit-coherence, less sure.

I was going to edit my post to mention it's legit but incoherent, you just read my mind. Sure atheists can believe in spirits, look at Buddhists, but most of us won't believe in anything supernatural.

[ManMachine]

Okay first of all I want to know that right know I am a little angry, but don’t let that stop from speaking your mind okay, nor I want you to think I'm attacking someone in here.
Now the stuff is this. I was talking with a creationist that suffers from atheophobia. Even when she is an atheophobic she doesn't encourage anyone to hurt atheist however she constantly do what most atheophobics do, you know: diminish, ridicules, ignore, mock, denigrate and insult atheism. And while we were talking she drops out the classical “Atheism is a religion.” Witch of course I claim it wasn’t truth. And imagine my surprise when she gave me a list of names and locations and examples of atheist churches. I am from a third world country and in here there aren't such churches much less heard of anything like that. And so I decided to look and prove that there aren’t such things, which I can’t because there are in fact atheist churches.
So I was wondering if anyone could be so kind of explaining to me WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH THOSE CHURCHES!!

Because I always thought that CREATING A CHURCH IS THE LAST DAMN THING WE ATHEIST WILL DO!
Why would we create them in the first place. What would atheists go there? What the hell do they do there? And most important: WHY THE HELL DO THOSE ATHEISTS THINK THAT ASSIST TO A CHURCH ISN’T RELIGIOUS?

As with any human social construct, there is a lot of philosophical pushing and shoving and eventually a consensus of ideology will emerge, some people will adhere to this consensus, others will reject it.

Atheism itself does not preclude meeting places or 'churches', but one would want to question why these places exist. It is almost certainly that some of the social functions performed by the religious church are being fulfilled by these atheist churches. Which only goes to show that these social constructs forming around atheism are no different to the social constructs that formed the early churches, they all meet the same fundamental human needs and humans are subconsciously smart, why reject a social strategy that works for so many people?

I've been an advocate of human social invariance for years, for me it is very easy to spot the repeating patterns in society and human endeavour. Atheism might not have a deity, but there is certainly a coalescence of thinking around some of the general themes that seem to be associated with atheism, the raising of the prophets Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris is alarming. Don't get me wrong, I like their works in the respective fields of science and journalism but the way authority that has been ascribed to their ideologies is too similar to way authority was ascribed to Moses, John the Baptist and Jeebus for my taste.

I often wonder how much of a coincidence it is that the three modern prophets of atheism get spoken and written about together so much, why three? A trinity - perhaps. I find it fascinating. Try countering their ideologies in the forum and see how many will step forward with proverbial stones in hand...

MM

[Jenny A]

I often wonder how much of a coincidence it is that the three modern prophets of atheism get spoken and written about together so much, why three? A trinity - perhaps. I find it fascinating. Try countering their ideologies in the forum and see how many will step forward with proverbial stones in hand...

MM

Perhaps because there are three of them?

Dawkins doesn't offer much philosophy, he's a scientist. Harris is more thoughtful about morality and advocates meditation or mindfulness. The man boarders on mystic. Hitchens is political and his views have changed over time. Can't imagine how anyone could follow this "trinity" anywhere coherent beyond lack of belief.

[Mudhammam]

Stumbled upon this while reading Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan today; thought it was relevant to the conversation:
"Church (when not taken for a house) signifieth the same that ecclesia signified in the Grecian commonwealths; that is to say, a congregation, or an assembly of citizens, called forth, to hear the magistrate speak unto them; and which in the commonwealth of Rome was called concio, as he that spoke was called ecclesiastes, and concionator.

[psychoslice]

I don't think atheism is a religion, but I do feel it will one day become likened to a religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which only goes to show that these social constructs forming around atheism are no different to the social constructs that formed the early churches, they all meet the same fundamental human needs and humans are subconsciously smart, why reject a social strategy that works for so many people?

You know.....I'm trying to recall the name of a paper I read that touched on this. That if we considered religion and faith (or the accoutrements thereof) to be a moral mechanism, a survival tool - then it's unsurprising to find so many of them. There is value in applying more than one strategy to a problem - speaking from the point of view of adaptive or evolutionarily behaviors. All of these things we see people engaging in that we collectively call religion may just be our own human nature throwing darts at the wall. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it makes us smart, so much as it makes us good at what we do.

Something to be said there, ignoring that what might be considered natural or generally advantageous cannot always be considered right or specifically prudent.

[Polaris]

I don't think atheism is a religion, but I do feel it will one day become likened to a religion.

The way some atheists are going, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those few atheists (a small fraction of a very small fraction) they started imitating the worst fundemenatlsist in terms of their barbarism. Not to promote atheism, but out of a misguided approach to counter what they see as the evil of religion (or as the 20th century proved, to consolidate power). It's always about power, no matter the side (first thing that is taught in political science).

[Jenny A]

The way some atheists are going, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those few atheists (a small fraction of a very small fraction) they started imitating the worst fundemenatlsist in terms of their barbarism. Not to promote atheism, but out of a misguided approach to counter what they see as the evil of religion (or as the 20th century proved, to consolidate power). It's always about power, no matter the side (first thing that is taught in political science).

What kind of counters to religion do you see as dangerous? Currently, I'm not seeing more than a concerted effort to keep church and state separate and religion out of the science class room.