Atheism, the discussion

[Observe]

Here's the thing. Humans are story tellers. Our whole civilization and our diverse cultures are all designed around stories. Our education systems work at teaching people how to live on-script. Religion, economics, national identity and much of our behavior and thought, are derived from stories we tell each other and that we "believe".

This is what distinguishes us from other animals. It is what give us our collective power. This characteristic of story-telling and story believing is both our boon, and also may be the cause of our demise. Many of our stories are designed to keep us comfortably numb, in the face of an indifferent universe.

[Bishop149]

So I filled in a survey today which asked me about any faith I might hold.
I was amused and a little surprised to see that "Atheist" and "No religion" were separate boxes.

So, question. . . Is Atheism a religion?
I had a look at a few definitions and I think I'd lean towards "yes".

Here is what Google will define it as
1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2) A particular system of faith and worship.
3) A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

1) and 2) certainly don't apply to Atheism but I've absolutely seen 3) apply in specific individual cases.
But these dictionary definitions are a little simplistic, here are a couple of more philosophical ones:

- "A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them"
- "A comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted"
- "A cultural system of designated behaviours and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organisations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements"

I think that much of that could apply to Atheism. . . . even if your position is: "nothing is sacred" or "there are no supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements" you've still taken a position "relative" to those things that "relates" to them. . . . Atheists could also definitely be defined as a "single moral community".

[RegisterMe]

Preacher in the DRC goes to some rural villages to do a bit of the old "laying on of hands healing". Preacher catches ebola. Preacher returns to Goma, with a population of 1 million.

Good job religion, good job superstition, good job not believing in a science based approach.

[mrbadger]

So I filled in a survey today which asked me about any faith I might hold.
I was amused and a little surprised to see that "Atheist" and "No religion" were separate boxes.

So, question. . . Is Atheism a religion?
I had a look at a few definitions and I think I'd lean towards "yes".

Here is what Google will define it as
1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2) A particular system of faith and worship.
3) A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

1) and 2) certainly don't apply to Atheism but I've absolutely seen 3) apply in specific individual cases.
But these dictionary definitions are a little simplistic, here are a couple of more philosophical ones:

- "A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them"
- "A comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted"
- "A cultural system of designated behaviours and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organisations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements"

I think that much of that could apply to Atheism. . . . even if your position is: "nothing is sacred" or "there are no supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements" you've still taken a position "relative" to those things that "relates" to them. . . . Atheists could also definitely be defined as a "single moral community".

Atheism isn't a religion as the term is applied in most cases, as in where there is a belief in some supreme being (for example, the Abrahamics, Zoroastrianism (Ahura Mazda).

But then not all religions think there is one, some just think there's a perfect state of being to achieve, or something like that. It's far too complex to discuss here.

Atheism has a spectrum. There are people who just don't believe in god, so call themselves atheists and leave it at that. This is of course entirely valid.

Then there are people who embrace the concept, and won't just take the 'there is no god' argument at face value.

Why is there no god?

Where did this idea of god come from?

How can more be learned?

How do the worlds religions, ancient and modern compare?

It's a rabbit hole with no escape, and it's fascinating.

Honestly, when you get into this level of thought, and quite a few atheists do, is it really not a religion of sorts? I wouldn't be willing to give up my studies of the history of ancient religion, not easily.

After all, Jedi is trying hard to be considered a real religion, and I honestly can't see any reason that shouldn't be valid.

[Ketraar]

I think the bare minimum for anything to be called a "religion" it has to have some sort of dogma, just a belief in something does not apply imho. There are people that do believe in (a) god(s) and/or other supernatural entities without being part of any religion. I'm not aware of a movement of atheism that involves a dogma and as such I would think it does not quilify as a religion. If atheism could be considered a religion, would being vegan not also qualify as religion considering that has more of a dogma attached to it?

MFG

Ketraar

[RegisterMe]

That worked out well for you then.

[mrbadger]

They certainly go on enough that they sound like it to me.

And do the Jedi people have a solid dogma yet? From what I've learned, though I might be mistaken I admit, dogmas developed over time, few religions had them established from the start.

[Ketraar]

Again I would argue that the start of any religion is when they defined a dogma.

MFG

Ketraar

[Bishop149]

I think the bare minimum for anything to be called a "religion" it has to have some sort of dogma, just a belief in something does not apply imho. There are people that do believe in (a) god(s) and/or other supernatural entities without being part of any religion. I'm not aware of a movement of atheism that involves a dogma and as such I would think it does not quilify as a religion. If atheism could be considered a religion, would being vegan not also qualify as religion considering that has more of a dogma attached to it?

MFG

Ketraar

Dogma
- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Atheism has a might have one of those.
The principle they hold as incontrovertibly true is "God does not exist".
Whilst they may lack a formal centralised authority (AFAIK), they are certainly people who would claim authority on this subject.

[Ketraar]

Then veganism is a religion too, and those are much more organised the atheists.

Anyone can hold an opinion about any subject, "there is no god" is just a statement. There is no god and as such we need to formalize a set of practices and ways of living around it, is what I would call religion. As such and as an atheist, not being part of a religion is the main point of being atheist. Often groups of atheist form as a response to pressure and cultural stigma. I claim that if culture and society would be tolerant of other people stances, there would not be any need for such (support) groups. Also more often then not, atheist have to make long winded explanations as to why they have that stance, as its often incomprehensible to religious people that you can do that without being in some sort of pain or being forced by some nefarious entity. Speaking from experience here, and also related to many other non mainstream stances one can have in life, most people cant relate to not being part of the "norm", whatever that may be (which none kows either, but I digress...).

MFG

Ketraar

[fiksal]

You missed my point. It's not who I picked that matters, it's that the story predates all Abrahamic religions. It's ancient, they all took it.

I quite like the idea that all these worldwide flood myths we see are distorted memories of the time at the end of the last Ice Age where sea levels rose sharply. There was an entire landmass in the middle of the North Sea that got drowned back then, and ten thousand years ago is well within the existence of modern man.

There are some ideas floating around that the flooding myths might be due to some past extreme flooding events in different areas, that were probably a big deal to locals.

If it goes back to Ice Age? I suppose if humans could keep that story alive through story telling, but even then, would it have been drammatic? Or would a breaking of a natural dam somewhere would be more scary?

So I filled in a survey today which asked me about any faith I might hold.
I was amused and a little surprised to see that "Atheist" and "No religion" were separate boxes.

So, question. . . Is Atheism a religion?
I had a look at a few definitions and I think I'd lean towards "yes".

Here is what Google will define it as
1) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2) A particular system of faith and worship.
3) A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

That is indeed amusing. I think the person who made the survey doesnt understand the question.


What did you Google, what is "religion"?


There are indeed many definitions of atheism, so here are some to consider:

https://www.atheists.org

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

atheism noun
Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Though Webster does add the word "religious".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

Atheism As Rejection Of Religious Beliefs

1) and 2) certainly don't apply to Atheism but I've absolutely seen 3) apply in specific individual cases.
But these dictionary definitions are a little simplistic, here are a couple of more philosophical ones:

- "A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them"
- "A comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted"
- "A cultural system of designated behaviours and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organisations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements"

I think that much of that could apply to Atheism. . . . even if your position is: "nothing is sacred" or "there are no supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements" you've still taken a position "relative" to those things that "relates" to them. . . . Atheists could also definitely be defined as a "single moral community".

Can, but it shouldn't.

If Atheism ever becomes a religion then it should be stopped being called Atheism.

or in other words, if Atheism is a religion then it's not Atheism.

Dogma
- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Atheism has a might have one of those.
The principle they hold as incontrovertibly true is "God does not exist".
Whilst they may lack a formal centralised authority (AFAIK), they are certainly people who would claim authority on this subject.

But absence of a thing doesnt make it a thing.

[Bishop149]

I think the point about dogma is a good one, but I think the key part of the definition is "as incontrovertibly true."

And the very core of atheism is that "God does not exist" is "incontrovertibly true".
That anyone who disagrees with that statement is Wrong. . . with a capital W, and if you do not believe that statement to be true then you are not an atheist.

In regard to vegans, nah I don't think they have an equivalent principle.
It could be argued that this principle might be "Killing animals for the benefit of humans is wrong", and many Vegans would probably adhere to that. But I know at least one individual who doesn't and yet still adheres to the diet for other reasons.
If we are to hold Veganism as a religion with that statement as its central dogma then that individual is NOT a Vegan. . . . . although personally I think he is because it'd define the term in terms of dietary choice rather than by the underlying ideology behind it. So, perhaps a religion in some cases. . . . but not all, so I don't think the generalised classification is valid.

But absence of a thing doesn't make it a thing.

Ha! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But this not quite the correct logic to apply here. The assertion "God does not exist" can either be true, not true or unknown, only one of those positions makes you an Atheist and it excludes the other two by definition.
This train of thought does, however, raise another interesting question. If we accept that "We are NOT a religion" as another tenet of Atheism's dogma, another thing they hold to be "incontrovertibly true", is this sufficient to prevent them being classified as a religion? . . . even if by all other metrics (such as they are) they would appear to qualify?

[Ketraar]

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Being atheist is a reaction to an existing statement. If there was no religion for example and no one was making claims of there being "a god" (or whatever variations of it), there would not be the need to assert the opposite. Hence it cant be a dogma, its a stance to hold in response to a question, whereas religion not only asserts a belief in a deity, but also adheres to a collections of "rituals" and behaviors that go with said belief, making it a religion. Here we often use the phrase "I do this thing religiously", meaning its done following a set of given steps that are required and not deviated from.

Everyone is agnostic, not knowing is the default, what atheists add is that, beyond not knowing they dont think there is a god. I dont think most atheist claim to know THE truth. There are bound to some that claim to knowing it all, that is not really related to being atheist or is in any way representative of it.

As for the vegan example, I was just using it as an extreme example to showcase that if the definition of having a strong stance makes it a religion then any movement would qualify, which they dont, both veganism and atheism.

MFG

Ketraar

[Alan Phipps]

From a purely practical stance, I cannot imagine that many confirmed atheists would reply 'Yes' to the question 'Do you consider yourself religious?'.

[exogenesis]

Does seem this discussion seems somewhat PC & bogged down in 'sideways' intellectual arguments
(I'm not knocking anyone's point of view particularly).

I am feeling a need state the obvious, so, absolutely clearly :


Atheist = common sense, 'believe what you see & is real', not 'make up some daft supernatural story to explain e.g. coincidences or feelings or anything else' : No strong anti-belief needed. Absolutely it is not a relgion in itself.

Agnostic = dont give a ... monkeys, either way, probably the easiest way to ignore it all.

Religion = true self/cultural delusion, i.e. any 'real' religion (belief in an all seeing & powerfull deity),
maybe others like buddism are more just a 'way of life'.

Cult = some people taking advantage of some other peoples' delusional need for religious beliefs,
or 'failing at life' & abrogating their responsibilities to those that want to control them & steal their resources.


But, in most cases religion = cult, pretty much, but due to the long history some religions have become accepted as a norm,
the peer-pressure to conform to majority beliefs has a lot to answer for...


There is no doubt a massive majority of humans still have religion beliefs,
looks like there are still only half as many 'Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist' people in the world as there are people who say they are christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations
but it's obvious that it has it's own momentum & inertia, & is being perpetuated by it's very own existence
(mostly passed down in the local culture / family I presume).

Probably too many beers, but there, I feel better now

PS not meant to be a conversation dampener, carry on regardless (Oooh matron),
doubt if this'll get many contrary replies, in this forum anyway

[pjknibbs]

If it goes back to Ice Age? I suppose if humans could keep that story alive through story telling, but even then, would it have been drammatic? Or would a breaking of a natural dam somewhere would be more scary?

The flooding after the Ice Age wasn't rapid, so I suppose it isn't "dramatic" in the way you're talking about--but imagine it this way: your grandparents can tell you stories of when they lived on the great land bridge connecting the UK to Europe, but the waters rose inexorably and they were forced to flee to what became an island. Many people they knew fled in the other direction, and there came a time when entire communities that had been living on Doggerland were split with a sea in between them. That sort of thing has a lot of human drama where it might not have the physical drama of a sudden tsunami.

[Chips]

Why are people trying to fit a biblical story with possible events? It could have just been a monsoon or hurricane (it rained 40 days 40 nights, flood, death, destruction - kinda how we have with monsoons and hurricanes - especially when several roll in one after the other).
Next we'll equate the burning bush to lightning strikes and... okay, have to admit, short of bread/fish and a monkey that got it's hand trapped in the jar of nuts*, I'm out of biblical story references.

*that one may just be the vicar trying to impart some wisdom. Or maybe it was a dirty story wrapped up in a euphemism. Probably the latter.

[berth]

I guess the supposition is that many myths have some foundation in folk memory. The repetition of the flood myth is one such example. There's a theory that rising sea levels in the Med eventually topped a land bridge in the Bosporus leading to a cataclysmic rapid flood into the Black Sea, which had up until then been a lake. This would be the kind of thing people, especially displaced people, would tell stories about through the generations.

[Mightysword]

Atheist = common sense, 'believe what you see & is real', not 'make up some daft supernatural story to explain e.g. coincidences or feelings or anything else' : No strong anti-belief needed. Absolutely it is not a relgion in itself.

The first part is correct as long as it stops there. But like I said, take that too far and it becomes a belief itself. I mean, you can turn science itself into a religion if you want to, the church of science anyone?
The key part here is an "open mind". Because believe something absolutely exist (religion) or something absolutely not exist (extreme atheist) is just two different side of the same coin.

Religion = true self/cultural delusion, i.e. any 'real' religion (belief in an all seeing & powerfull deity),
maybe others like buddism are more just a 'way of life'.

There is no god in Buddism, a misconception that even practitioners of Buddism sometime forget (or not even aware of). One of the core teaching of Buddism is to respect every being, as much as one would respect Buddha himself. Because it goes like this:
- There were many had reached enlightenment even before Buddha.
- Buddha is simply someone who becomes Buddha.
- Everyone else, one day, will also be able to become Buddha.

It's more like a tittle given to anyone who reached enlightenment, and not a being in itself.

Also one have to make a distinction between Spiritual, the original of religion, and "organized religions". The last one in modern days are often warped and perverted, and have more common element to "politic" then actual spiritual. This is why you can come across someone (i.e me) who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious".

[pjknibbs]

Why are people trying to fit a biblical story with possible events?

The point is, the flood thing is not just a Biblical story--there are stories of a great flood in many religions and legends. It's also worth noting that the Bible does have some use as a historical document, if you ignore all the faith and god stuff--some parts of it are more than 2000 years old. Discounting every word in it because it's a religious document is just as much a knee-jerk reaction as assuming every word in it is true and basing your life on that.