Is atheism a religion

[infamous]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

3 - the 'religious' atheist. This is a person who is very similar to the logical atheist, with one important difference. They not only lack a belief in god, but have an active disbelief, in fact a belief that there cannot be a god. This is a position which cannot be backed up logically, and is very similar to religious beliefs. While they seem similar to the logical, they refuse to acknowledge the potential for any sort of spirituality

Excellent observations pgmdave.........While many atheists fit this discription, they will usually fight desperately, denying vehemently that they belong in this category. Those who fight the hardest define their position by the intensity of their struggle. I think you discribed it most eloquently dave......, "their active disbelief".......Infy

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Atheism can be either a religious-type belief, based on the belief that there is no god, or not, based on the lack of belief in a god....
3 - the 'religious' atheist. This is a person who is very similar to the logical atheist, with one important difference. They not only lack a belief in god, but have an active disbelief, in fact a belief that there cannot be a god....

Dear pgrmDave,
I really like you and I truly respect you. Indeedy I do. Just remember that tomorrow morning.

But this is very silly "logic" based on a totally butt-bogus definition of "religious".

Religious does not mean "ardent", "positive", "aggressive", "adamant", "sincere", or "active". Come on, dude, give us all a break!!!

A religion is NOT a set of beliefs. It is specifically a canonized set of spiritual and moral beliefs concerning a god (or gods), and a canonized set of rules or procedures for worshiping, praising, beseeching and/or asking for forgiveness or guidance from the god(s). The canonization is supplied by an organized body of spiritual authorities and/or scriptures.

Caveats: in some religions, "god" is replaced by a set of cosmic principals or ideals that share many of the attributes of a "god" but they are not anthropomorphized. In other words, the god is not a "person".

If you "deconstruct" the definition of religion to the point that any set of beliefs or any meeting of people or any emotional reaction is a "religion", then you devolve the conversation to meaningless babble.

[hallenrm]

To each one his/her own perception of what a religion is. Wikipedia attempts to give the following broad overview:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Atheism is not a "belief system". Atheism is a lack of belief. If someone says the sky is is purple and I say, "I don't believe you, prove it", then I am stating a lack of belief. The same is true when someone claims there is a God, I don't believe you, prove it.

Religion is, as you say, a belief system, a set of beliefs, values, and practices. IMO, atheism is not a religion.

I sort of disagree. I believe I have an atheistic belief set that is strong enough to be called a religion. One day it might even serve the same function as a religion in society.

Rather than just saying I don't believe in god, I would say that belief in things like god is a side effect of the human sense of power, need for security etc and since we have no evidence of god one way or the other but do have evidence that people would create a concept of god in the absence of any real one, then we can reason that the fact that people believe in it is not evidence for the existence of god.

Now my religion isn't contained in that, but it does show that I rely on reason to answer difficult questions. When asked if I fear death, I would reason that fear of death is not something you would have when you are dead so there is no reason to fear it when alive any more than that fear would help you avoid it.

My belief set would answer many questions about ethics and morality etc. It could address any issue that any religion could. I strictly adhere to it in my every day behavior. It's just contained to the world which we have any experience or evidence regarding.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I sort of disagree. I believe I have an atheistic belief set that is strong enough to be called a religion. One day it might even serve the same function as a religion in society...

Here again, you define religion merely in terms of "strength" of belief or "intensity".
I believe the sky is blue (on clear days) and I believe that with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?
I believe in atoms and photons and magnetic fields with absolute certainty. Is that a religion?
I got intensely angry the other day when I stubbed my toe. Is that a religion?
I really enjoy playing with my cat Harley. Is that a religion?

Your 2nd and 3rd sentences above reveal your problem. First you say that strength of belief defines a religion, even though countless strong beliefs are obviously NOT religion. Then you say it may one day FUNCTION as a religion. You miss the point---a religion IS a religion when, if, and only if it FUNCTIONS as a religion in society. If it doesn't have that function and purpose, then it isn't a religion.

John Dweeble believes that his invisible friend tells him what to do. We keep John locked up for his own protection.

Oral Roberts believes that his invisible friend tells him what to do. But we DON'T lock him up, because he has followers; and his beliefs FUNCTION as a religion in society.

John Dweeble's beliefs are not a religion, no matter how much they comfort him or how "strongly" he believes. He has beliefs. Period.

If you persist in applying the label "religion" to arbitrary anything, then I shall have to make fun of you and pass gas in your general direction.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Religious does not mean "ardent", "positive", "aggressive", "adamant", "sincere", or "active". Come on, dude, give us all a break!!!

A religion is NOT a set of beliefs.

I have to agree with some of the points you've brought up Pyro.., nevertheless, I see the problem with definitions causing unnecessary frustration. Without trying to split too many hairs, let's examine the definition that Webster's gives for religion. Among a belief in God or gods, Webster's also defines religion as 'a philosophy of life'. Maybe what some are trying to point out in this discussion is that Atheism can be just as intense 'a philosophy of life' as religion is for the Theist. This philosophy of life sometimes takes on an active disbelief, otherwise the Atheist wouldn't spend needless time arguing the point with the Theist. So...., in the same context that religion can be interpretated as, 'a philosophy of life', so can Atheism also be interpretated as, 'a philosophy of life', even though Atheism is not, in the strictest sense, a religion..........Infy

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that all religions seen to have in common is an irrational insistence of the validity of their claim even though direct proof is lacking and only circumstantial evidence is available. Aethists have that in common with formal religion. Organized religion believes in the power of higher beings called Gods, whereas the aethists gives that same power to the ego and aliens, even though aliens have never been proven with more than circumstantial evidience and some self forfilling logic line. If I was an alien-aethist that would be considered blasphemous against the aetheist religion that believes in aliens.

[Edella]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Organized religion believes in the power of higher beings called Gods, whereas the aethists gives that same power to the ego and aliens, even though aliens have never been proven with more than circumstantial evidience and some self forfilling logic line.

That's quite a claim HydrogenBond.I for one know of no athiest who gives god-like powers to the ego or aliens.Nor do know of any who claim without a doubt aliens exist.Can you give me an example of an atheist who claims such things?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by infamous

Webster's also defines religion as 'a philosophy of life'. Maybe what some are trying to point out in this discussion is that Atheism can be just as intense 'a philosophy of life' as religion is for the Theist.

There lies a difference though. I have a philosophy of life but I don't attribute any of it to atheism. For example, a Christian theist helps people because of their Christiam beliefs, I do so just because I believe in treating others as I would have them treat me. This belief is part of my philosophy of life but it's not a result of my atheism. My atheism is not the foundation of my everyday decisions and mannerisms in the way that theist belief is. I live my life as I think I should regardless of any god(s). My theists live their life based on a belief of accountability to some higher power. I never even consider it. For me, atheism is not a part or foundation of any of my beliefs, principles, values or practices and thus, does not fit any of the definitions of religion.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by C1ay

There lies a difference though. I have a philosophy of life but I don't attribute any of it to atheism.

Doesn't Athesim view life in the context; 'God and or gods are of no consideration'? I'll assume that you will agree with that statement and doing so makes it a part of your philosophy. Where am I going wrong with this logic?.....................Infy