Atheistic religions

[Der/die AtheistIn]

There are religions that reject or don't require belief in a God. What do you think about these religions?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Calling atheism a 'religion' is like calling bald a hair colour.

Boru

[LastPoet]

There are religions that reject or don't require belief in a God. What do you think about these religions?

Atheism pertains to non belief in gods. Atheism is a subset of my skepticism. Religion and bullshit should be synonyms.

[FatAndFaithless]

There are a handful of religions that don't have a belief in a god (some forms of Buddhism for example), but that doesn't any of their other claims about reality any more believable. If they want to make assertions about how the world works and what exists in reality, they need to provide evidence...which they haven't been able to do.

[Der/die AtheistIn]

Calling atheism a 'religion' is like calling bald a hair colour.

Boru

I didn't say that atheism itself is a religion. Theism is the idea that one or more Gods or Godesses exist, while atheism is the denial of this belief. Religion is a system of ideas and practices. Neither theism nor atheism are religions themselves, though they may be ideas of a religion .
There are some religions that don't require belief in a God.
Buddist authorities and canonical texts don't affirm, and sometimes even deny the existence of a God.  Gautama Buddha himself denied that he was a god or divine.
Some forms of Confucianism and Taoism don't affirm the faith in a higher being.
LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic. Church of Satan High Priest Peter H. Gilmore once declared in an interwiev: "Satanism begins with atheism".

[Brian37]

There are religions that reject or don't require belief in a God. What do you think about these religions?

While the word "atheist" only refers to God/gods/god belief, there really is no religion in the world that is superstition free. Even Buddhism is rooted in superstitious mythology incorporating motifs of the divine and spirit world. It is a romantic view of the west only, in reality in Buddhist dominated countries the vast majority of their populations do believe in good and bad spirits and the spirits of their ancestors. Knowing  that history I do get upset with those who want to call it a philosophy. NO, it may contain philosophical views yes, but it is still ultimately a religion. It has the same elements of prayer, holy writings, temples and social structures with priests and monks and nuns.

[Der/die AtheistIn]

There are a handful of religions that don't have a belief in a god (some forms of Buddhism for example), but that doesn't any of their other claims about reality any more believable.  If they want to make assertions about how the world works and what exists in reality, they need to provide evidence...which they haven't been able to do.

Do all atheistic religions have ridiculous claims?

[Brian37]

Calling atheism a 'religion' is like calling bald a hair colour.

Boru

I didn't say that atheism itself is a religion. Theism is the idea that one or more Gods or Godesses exist, while atheism is the denial of this belief. Religion is a system of ideas and practices. Neither theism nor atheism are religions themselves, though they may be ideas of a religion .
There are some religions that don't require belief in a God.
Buddist authorities and canonical texts don't affirm, and sometimes even deny the existence of a God.  Gautama Buddha himself denied that he was a god or divine.
Some forms of Confucianism and Taoism don't affirm the faith in a higher being.
LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic. Church of Satan High Priest Peter H. Gilmore once declared in an interwiev: "Satanism begins with atheism".

No sorry, saying "Buddha said he wasn't" is the same to me as saying "Jesus said", it depends on what sect of Buddhism and what part of the world, and the individual interpreting it. In some sects Buddha IS most certainly viewed as divine. And his early mythology paints him as being born of Queen Maya who was told by the divine world that she would give a gift to the world. Even the first Buddha mythology has him avoiding the birth canal. This trend to view Buddhism without the superstition is new and mainly viewed that way in the west. Asia and China and Japan are very superstitious.

And "Satanism" is to me just another attempt to co opt old names of old religions to market a a new club. I don't need the word "Satan" or to belong to a club called "Satanism" regardless if  someone wants to call it god free or moral. 

Our species behaviors are not in a club, they are in the individual, in our evolution. We don't need to write up new moral lists and call them clubs. The problem with continually try to re invent the wheel, is that power shifts over long periods of time, and what can seem harmless politically can in the future become dogmatic and rigid.

We already have secular common law that protects everyone, or to say, it can and will if more participate. I see no need for humans to create new clubs to try to compete with old woo. A label will not automatically make the individual only do good. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in the individual and in our genes, not a club label.

[ignoramus]

You mean some type of woo ... I'd say yes. Religion is an industry, not a hobby. moola, churches and rules!

Die, I know this could be a translation thing but "while atheism is the denial of this belief" (in God) implies we are suppressing our belief which is the opposite to what we really think.
Atheists are not suppressing or denying any beliefs in God, we simply don't have these affirmative beliefs.

[Der/die AtheistIn]

I didn't say that atheism itself is a religion. Theism is the idea that one or more Gods or Godesses exist, while atheism is the denial of this belief. Religion is a system of ideas and practices. Neither theism nor atheism are religions themselves, though they may be ideas of a religion .
There are some religions that don't require belief in a God.
Buddist authorities and canonical texts don't affirm, and sometimes even deny the existence of a God.  Gautama Buddha himself denied that he was a god or divine.
Some forms of Confucianism and Taoism don't affirm the faith in a higher being.
LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic. Church of Satan High Priest Peter H. Gilmore once declared in an interwiev: "Satanism begins with atheism".

No sorry, saying "Buddha said he wasn't" is the same to me as saying "Jesus said", it depends on what sect of Buddhism and what part of the world, and the individual interpreting it. In some sects Buddha IS most certainly viewed as divine. And his early mythology paints him as being born of Queen Maya who was told by the divine world that she would give a gift to the world. Even the first Buddha mythology has him avoiding the birth canal. This trend to view Buddhism without the superstition is new and mainly viewed that way in the west. Asia and China and Japan are very superstitious.

And "Satanism" is to me just another attempt to co opt old names of old religions to market a a new club. I don't need the word "Satan" or to belong to a club called "Satanism" regardless if  someone wants to call it god free or moral. 

Our species behaviors are not in a club, they are in the individual, in our evolution. We don't need to write up new moral lists and call them clubs. The problem with continually try to re invent the wheel, is that power shifts over long periods of time, and what can seem harmless politically can in the future become dogmatic and rigid.

We already have secular common law that protects everyone, or to say, it can and will if more participate. I see no need for humans to create new clubs to try to compete with old woo. A label will not automatically make the individual only do good. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in the individual and in our genes, not a club label.

Thanks for your explanation. To be clear, I didn't assume that atheistic religions are good, that's why I've asked.