The Religion/Faith of Atheism

[kelltrill]

I agree with elliebean's point about dictionary definitions not being satisfactory or substantial enough, hence me picking apart Dagda's post. It wasn't to be vindictive, it's just unavoidable when we venture into a debate about definitions.
Communism has a deity in Marx and is a great principle totally destroyed by its followers. It even has commandments, thanks to George Orwell's Animal Farm, which satirises Communism. In those respects it could be classed as a religion complete with people who follow it religiously. However, to say that it is a religion because people follow it religiously is misguided. Insofar as all religions are ideological positions, Communism can be seen as analogous to religion. I still don't think it is though because its basic position is different. Furthermore, Communism doesn't offer the support or the institutions that separates religions from merely being faith.

[BadPoison]

I watch The Office religiously every Wednesday night.

Ooops, I meant to post this in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4411

Sorry - I should have put up a

[Whitney]

I watch The Office religiously every Wednesday night.

Ooops, I meant to post this in this thread:
http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4411

Sorry - I should have put up a

, oops sorry.

[AlP]

It seems that in the US, atheism is considered to be a religion for first amendment purposes. Link. I'm happy that the first amendment protects freedom of speech for atheists. I'm not sure if I like the way they've gone about it though. I think I would prefer it if it protected one's freedom to speak about religion. It seems to me that a person being religious or of a particular religion is irrelevant. They also have the right to talk about other people's religion. A Christian can talk about Islam. Their being Christian is irrelevant in this case. Why would an atheist have to be classified as religious to talk about Islam?

Perhaps this has more to do with the establishment clause than freedom of speech?

[Whitney]

It seems that in the US, atheism is considered to be a religion for first amendment purposes. Link. I'm happy that the first amendment protects freedom of speech for atheists. I'm not sure if I like the way they've gone about it though. I think I would prefer it if it protected one's freedom to speak about religion. It seems to me that a person being religious or of a particular religion is irrelevant. They also have the right to talk about other people's religion. A Christian can talk about Islam. Their being Christian is irrelevant in this case. Why would an atheist have to be classified as religious to talk about Islam?

Perhaps this has more to do with the establishment clause than freedom of speech?

I don't think that case establishes atheist as a religion in the us...it just points out a stupid problem with our prison system.

Between the establishment clause and the right to freedom of speech there is no reason to have to define atheist as a religion in order to protect personal freedom to speak about religion.  In this case it was a prisoner who chose to define his particular brand of atheism as a religion in order to have a study group that would not otherwise be allowed in the prison system.  What really should be happening is that the prison system makes no special accommodations based on religious preference.  With the way it is set up now, requiring approval, it is allowing the government to decide what is and is not a valid religious practice and that is unconstitutional imo.

[AlP]

I don't think that case establishes atheist as a religion in the us...it just points out a stupid problem with our prison system.

Between the establishment clause and the right to freedom of speech there is no reason to have to define atheist as a religion in order to protect personal freedom to speak about religion.  In this case it was a prisoner who chose to define his particular brand of atheism as a religion in order to have a study group that would not otherwise be allowed in the prison system.  What really should be happening is that the prison system makes no special accommodations based on religious preference.  With the way it is set up now, requiring approval, it is allowing the government to decide what is and is not a valid religious practice and that is unconstitutional imo.

I'm reading and rereading. It's so ambiguous. Take this excerpt.

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., 125 S.Ct. 2722
(2005). 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.” In
McCreary County, it described the touchstone of
Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the
First Amendment mandates government neutrality between
religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Emphasis is mine.

[Whitney]

Leave it to the US courts to define religion as including non-religion.  However, that is a proper interpretation of the intention of the idea of the establishment clause.  

somewhat related to the OP (though not about atheism)

The following is from NTCOF website. http://bit.ly/b1siak (I no longer wish to support NTCOF, hence the bit.ly link and abbreviation of their name)
Note that I think NTCOF's definition of religion is way too broad and doesn't capture the intended meaning of the word.  Theology would come a lot closer to describing freethought...it's a system used to examine religious views; not a religion.

Is Freethought a religion?

Yes, the functional definition of religion on which the NTCOF is predicated clearly includes Freethought. But it’s important to realize that this position incorporates the idea that "religion" is simply what people believe and think about questions that are generally understood to be "religious." These questions have to do with the ultimate nature of reality, the meaning and purpose of the human condition, good and evil, and other matters. It is not necessary for people to believe in the supernatural, to suppress their doubts and questions, or to "have faith" in doctrines and dogmas for their ideas to count as legitimate religious opinion or "religion."  Even the courts have admitted this.

On the other hand, if one defined religion as a fixed creed, Freethought would not qualify. But neither would Unitarian-Universalism (UUism), which also has no fixed creed. In fact, unlike Freethought, which supports a standard of critical thinking that excludes belief in god(s) on the basis of available facts and reason, UUism embraces both theism and atheism. In this respect UUism is less a religion than Freethought.

Sadly, when it comes to religious issues, many people choose their words to advance an agenda or an argument and not to communicate a thought or idea. When it suits believers’ needs to construe religion narrowly, such as when determining eligibility for tax exemptions, it may be said that "worship of a Supreme Being" is required. But when believers are upset about the absence of organized group prayers in public schools they may insist that this amounts to atheism and, atheism being a religion, the absence of prayer to god(s) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Likewise, those who oppose evolution often claim â€" falsely â€" that evolution is a religion.

Similar inconsistencies can arise among unbelievers. Many atheists, for example, know that European paganism, African animism, and American native religious beliefs were brutally attacked by Christians who supposed that they had the "true religion." Even those unbelievers who proudly refer to themselves as infidels know that both Christians and Moslems have regarded each other as "infidels." Most also know that Marxist-Leninists have had few qualms about crushing Christianity, Buddhism, and other religions. Yet it is often supposed that words can be narrowly defined and selectively applied in such a way that all the blame for wars and other inhumanities can be attached to religions and churches. Curiously, some unbelievers also insist that they are "not religious" even though they have very strong opinions on the subject of religion and may be more familiar with the intricacies of various theologies than those who say they believe in them.

[AlP]

That's a pretty radical shift Whitney!

I think the question of whether atheists are religious is mostly political. We have atheist organizations, like the one linked above, trying to be categorized as religious partly in order to get tax-exempt status. Then we have theists trying to categorize atheists as religious for reasons I don't really understand. I'm sure it isn't because they're trying to annoy us. Why are theists so motivated to categorize atheism as a religion? Could it be to make it seem that becoming atheist is more like switching to another religion than leaving religion? Or more generally, to make it seem like everyone has a religion?

[kelltrill]

Then we have theists trying to categorize atheists as religious for reasons I don't really understand. I'm sure it isn't because they're trying to annoy us. Why are theists so motivated to categorize atheism as a religion? Could it be to make it seem that becoming atheist is more like switching to another religion than leaving religion? Or more generally, to make it seem like everyone has a religion?

I think it's because if atheism is classified as a religion that means it stands for something, in a way. It could then easily be said that atheists have faith, which just puts a damper on all our efforts to explain the implications of being an atheist to people. I think hardcore theists, people who were "born theists," battle to wrap their minds around the concept that atheists exist without faith in a supernatural deity. We must seem so hollow and anti to them. By canvasing to make atheism a religion they probably think they're doing our immortal souls a divine favour.

[BadPoison]

Yet so many politicians are able to use an anti-atheist rhetoric to win votes among the huge religious majority. Much of this comes from atheism having a bad wrap - having been incorrectly associated with wickedness, satanism, ect.
Much of the electorate votes for whomever does the best job of demonizing people who are different (which is not necessarily their political opponents. They only need to make a case that they would do a better job of protecting the population from the evil atheists than the other guy.)

Here George H W Bush is being interviewed on the campaign trail:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Did Bush win or lose more votes for saying this. Were there no shouts of "Alright!" and "I agree with that!" in living rooms across America?

Yet as Kelltrill stated above, many anti-secularists make the opposite argument: Atheism is a religion.


It's hard for me to wrap my head around the absurdity of it all.

[Whitney]

Why are theists so motivated to categorize atheism as a religion? Could it be to make it seem that becoming atheist is more like switching to another religion than leaving religion? Or more generally, to make it seem like everyone has a religion?

I think it is because they know religion requires faith and want to imply it takes faith to be an atheist (when it doesn't, you just have to lack belief).

[elliebean]

I think it works something like this:

~ Theist discovers that atheists don't believe in god :hmm:
~ Theist makes assumptions on what atheists believe :idea:
~ Those things make a lot of sense :blink:
~ Some of those beliefs begin to appear hypocritical :pace:
~ Theist hates hypocrisy, especially when applied to himself; becomes angry :borg2:
~ Theist hates atheists too, wishes to lash out :/
~ Theists thinks to himself, what would be most hypocritical in an atheist? :bounce:

And ta-daa! Atheism is a religion.

[Kylyssa]

I think it works something like this:

~ Theist discovers that atheists don't believe in god :hmm:
~ Theist makes assumptions on what atheists believe :idea:
~ Those things make a lot of sense :blink:
~ Some of those beliefs begin to appear hypocritical :pace:
~ Theist hates hypocrisy, especially when applied to himself; becomes angry :borg2:
~ Theist hates atheists too, wishes to lash out :/
~ Theists thinks to himself, what would be most hypocritical in an atheist? :bounce:

And ta-daa! Atheism is a religion.

Well put!

[Dagda]

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but I have been rather busy. As I am about to head out, I will make this short. The point I was trying to make is this: religion is brought on by an evolutionary need for something. Once (or if) the traditional religions disappear, the human race will replace them with something else. We might not call it religion, but its psychological and physical effect will be so similar (such as in Bolshevism/Nazism) that this will be a merely superficial change in the use of language.

[Whitney]

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but I have been rather busy. As I am about to head out, I will make this short. The point I was trying to make is this: religion is brought on by an evolutionary need for something. Once (or if) the traditional religions disappear, the human race will replace them with something else. We might not call it religion, but its psychological and physical effect will be so similar (such as in Bolshevism/Nazism) that this will be a merely superficial change in the use of language.

and you failed to make that point.

Religion seems to be largely the product of three things, imo, 1)desire to have answers even if you have to make them up 2)desire for community with those of similar thinking (relates to indoctrination which is why it is not a numbered item) 3)desire for control of people (also related to indoctrination).

Once someone no longer has a need for religious thinking (item 1), then the type of communities they form will be largely like 2 or 2+3.  However, it is hard to get a situation involving 2 and 3 if the group happens to be of the freethinking mindset; members simply leave when 3 becomes apparent and definitely leave if 1 is even hinted at.