Druidry to be classed as religion by Charity Commission

[Byronazriel]

I'm not stating that atheism should be a religion, just that the two are not mutually exclusive based entirely on their definitions.

If you can be non-religous without being an atheist, than it's not much of a stretch that religous people can be atheists.

[PoopShoot]

religous people can be atheists.

Unitarian Universalists accept atheists.  Buddhists are most often atheists.  Satanists are required to be atheists.  Yes, you can be a religious person and an atheist.

[Byronazriel]

Not ALL Satanists... There are at least two or three sorts of Satanism. I forget what they're called, but one of my old college buddies was a theistic Satanist.

[PoopShoot]

Not ALL Satanists... There are at least two or three sorts of Satanism. I forget what they're called, but one of my old college buddies was a theistic Satanist.

LaVeyan Satanism is the only sort recognized as a religion.  They require atheism.

[Byronazriel]

Really? that's weird.

[Recusant]

Druidry seems to have dropped off the radar for this thread at the moment.  Ah well,,,

You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Not necessarily.  If one is using the legal definition of religion in order to allow non-belief to garner the same legal rights as superstitions, there need not be any redefinition of either term.

Please give a citation for "the legal definition of religion."

For now, I'm going to guess that you're referring to James J. Kaufman v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al.

First, I would like to point out that Kaufman was definitely pursuing an agenda when he brought his lawsuit, though he himself stipulated "it [atheism] is the antithesis of religion."  

The 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which ruled on this case, does seem to define atheism as a religion, for the purposes of the case:

From the above linked case summary:

5. Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.").

However, this is a very specialized and specific definition, having to do with exercize of rights.  In fact, the Supreme Court of the US is more precise.

From the same source:

6. The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005).

Note that the wording is "equivalent to a 'religion,'" not  "is a 'religion.'"  So there is a distinction, according to the Supreme Court.

The sentence following the above quote:

The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion."

Thus, the Court itself speaks of atheism as "nonreligion."  Which is it?  I think that it's pretty clear that the "nonreligion" of atheism is only equivalent to religion for the purposes of defining 1st Amendment rights.  

Perhaps you can bring more definitive citations to the discussion, Poopshoot.  I remain unconvinced that there is a clear and unambiguous legal definition of atheism as a religion from my reading of the linked case summary. But even if I'm wrong about that, I see no reason to change my statement that trying to define atheism as a religion is without exception done in pursuit of an agenda, rather than from objective analysis. In the case of the courts, the agenda is protecting rights of citizens.

[PoopShoot]

First, I would like to point out that Kaufman was definitely pursuing an agenda when he brought his lawsuit, though he himself stipulated "it [atheism] is the antithesis of religion."  

So what?  I never said otherwise.  In fact, my post clearly stated that one would HAVE TO HAVE AN AGENDA.  Indeed, one must have an agenda in order to bother invoking laws/legal precedents.

The 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which ruled on this case, does seem to define atheism as a religion, for the purposes of the case:

Then at what point would either "atheism" or "religion" need to be redefined?

However, this is a very specialized and specific definition, having to do with exercize of rights.  In fact, the Supreme Court of the US is more precise.

Which was the stated agenda in my post.

From the same source:

The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion."

Therefore lack of religion counts.

I remain unconvinced that there is a clear and unambiguous legal definition of atheism as a religion from my reading of the linked case summary. But even if I'm wrong about that, I see no reason to change my statement that trying to define atheism as a religion is without exception done in pursuit of an agenda, rather than from objective analysis. In the case of the courts, the agenda is protecting rights of citizens.

[/quote]
I never claimed otherwise.  In fact, everything here mirrors what I stated.  I was addressing your claim that the terms must be redefined.

[tymygy]

Yes, you can be a religious person and an atheist.

All religious people in a way, all athiests. If religious person believes in the christian god, he does not believe in zues, or neptune, or any other god.

[Byronazriel]

By that logic a pitcher for the mariners is not an athelete because he's not also a linebacker for the seahawks, or a... [Position from baskeball] for the [Basketball team.]

And it's Zeus and Neptune, those are proper names, like Ted Turner or Bruce Banner.

[Recusant]

I was addressing your claim that the terms must be redefined.

"Religion = Nonreligion (atheism)"

Yes, I think that the above qualifies as not only a redefinition, but a rather radical redefinition.  Do you disagree?

I still look forward to your authoritative citation of "the legal definition of religion."

[Byronazriel]

Theism does not equal religion. Atheism means without theism, the word for without religion is non-religious.

It's like the difference between dessicated, dehydrated, and dried. there's not a whole lot of difference between them, they're close enough that they're synonyms, but there is a difference. However slight that may be.

[Whitney]

Religion can be defined as a set of beliefs about the nature of reality.

right...and there are no beliefs associated with being an atheist; so atheism isnt' a religion; it's not really even an ism other than using ism works better in some sentences.

someone who is asexual lacks sexuality...the erason why someone like that has to tick asexual when asked their sexual orientation is because it would be confusing on the form to have it set up any other way...that doesn't mean that lacking sexuality is some form of active sexuality.  Same goes for why sometimes you see atheist under religion on questionnaires.

[Byronazriel]

There's a set of beliefs associated with Objectivism, and Secular Humanism... That would make them religions under that definition. Which would by extension mean that certain atheists who follow such teachings are religious going by that definition, which means that atheists can be religous.

And again, asexuality is a sexual orientation. I never questioned that, only that it by definition can't be a sexuality because it means without sexuality! It's the same reason why an atheist can't be a theist.

To simplify my point: A can also be B, but A cannot also be Not A. Which means that A can be Not B, so long as doing so doesn't make it Not A by extension.

[PoopShoot]

Do you disagree?

Yes.  Legal definitions of terms are often different than their everyday-usage counterparts.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Theism does not equal religion.

I think a lot of people are overlooking this salient point.  Religion is an organization; faith is an internal impulsion.

Religion speaks to conformity, whereas faith speaks to belief.  I know many people who are faithful, yet irreligious; I know many who observe religion, and yet are faithless.