Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

One of the characteristics of theistic description of other people's beliefs is the tendency to see (inferior, of course) deities everywhere - note the careful division of Taoists into "religious" and "non-religious", the large and obvious population of Taoists who do not worship such inferior deities are thereby not "religious" at all, but philosophical or something.

Religion, with all its benefits, is theistic only, you see. Kudos capture.

If you turn that around, and (for example) point to the polytheistic Islamic beliefs in angels and djinns and so forth, less agreement is found. That kind of description is one way only.

This characteristic of the early colonial descriptions of "native" beliefs is a common source of complaint from these "natives", as they gain access to the world of public discourse. Theistic anthropoligists' descriptions of various rituals, racist and bigoted evaluations of spiritual beliefs, and the like, are often seen as offensive - one reason "the heathen rage".

Against this kind of bigoted, narrowminded, and historically colonialist imposition, for example:

The question was not one of practice, in SAM's little agenda driven "poll" there: it was how various kinds of atheistic people would answer the question of whether they believed in a "universal spirit". And the subsequent sweeping of all affirmative replies into the category of belief in a God. That is a pretty obvious deception, from the casually observing outsider's pov, and the only remaining question would be the source of it - is it self deception, or predatory?

Meaning is derived from context - deities are not the only possible context providers for human morality. They don't seem to be providers at all, actually - theists seem to get their actual morality from the confluence of stories and social custom with evolved human nature and physical circumstance, just like everyone else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are several things wrong with this sentence... Why it first grabbed my attention is that it states that ALL atheists would behave in exactly the same way to such an earth shattering event and calmly "dutifully examine the evidence", I would say that there are a great many people who do not beleive in God from all sections of life and society, many of whom being completley unnconnected with science and many of whom who would not, or never have dutifully examined anything. This is generalisation to an extreme.

Or, if the above stament is true, then there does indeed seem to be a distinctive dogma in atheism that would guide all its subscribers to behave in the same way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here Here to that statement. Religions can be theistic or atheistic. Not the other way round.


When people define themselves as an atheist as the primary way of defining their world view then it is more than just a lack of belief, and when people form groups and societies based on nothing more than atheism, then again it is more then a lack of belief. People do not define themselves and form social groups on what they do not beleive in but on what they do believe in. Otherwise (to paraphrase someone else,) there would exist non stamp collector societies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People do form groups based on what they do not believe in, when that lack of belief is a basis for other people labeling and threatening them.

In self defense.

 

Can we not just describe atheism as a point on a general distribution of belief? It's clear there are numerous degrees of theistic credulence.

 

I doubt it.

It's the region outside a volume of belief, on that analogy. It won't shrink to a point without ripping - forming a discontinuity.

 

No, I'm not saying that it's somehow 'small' - but that it represents a point on a distribution. If you see that as offensive, you could do the same for every other faith and tiny differences within them. I don't intend the description of atheism in any way belittled for such a description; I do appreciate the desire to remove atheism from the entire spectrum of religion, but I think my index is an accurate portrayal. Atheists do exist who have doubts, as do theists of all stripes.

 

Could you please give some examples then, other than atheism?

Oh Please.... atheist societies are not self defense groups. And if they didnt label themselves noone else would label them.

I have nothing against atheist societies, in fact they are great, adding to the wonderfull diversity of the planet. But just admit that atheism has become more than just a lack of belief in modern society (especially in the US) and it is to some extent becoming dogmatised.

 

I don't think atheism is an example.

They think they are self-defense groups. And the aggressive labeling of non-believers by various Abrahamic theists has been pretty obvious over the centuries - right on this forum we have seen many examples.

I have no idea what dogma you are ascribing to all of the various atheistic people in even just the US. Do you?

It's no "point" I share with even the various atheistic folks on this forum.

It's not a point on a scale. It's a volume - it's larger, not smaller, than the philosophical space occupied by the theistic. It surrounds the more limited range of theistic belief.

 

Then please give an example then?


I am saying that people do not form societies based on non belief in something. There are atheist societies. Therefore atheism is more than a lack of belief in something, it is becoming akin to a belief system.

Or show me where there are other examples of societies of lack of belief.

 

from wiki: Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods

How can an atheist be religious ?

Atheist can form groups, anti-religious groups etc and although they may be pushing an agenda or idea. It is not a religion because there is a lack of belief in god.

Generally groups that are formed are fighting for the separation of church and state. So the only agenda they are pushing is against the agenda that is trying to take down that wall.

There may be some kind of militant anti-religious group out there, you could call it a lot of things but it isn't a religion.

 

How so? Could you describe the axes along which this occurs?

 

Abolitionist societies - those that found slavery to be an evil, regardless of what they preferred for government and economic organization (everything from monarchy to anarchy, Adam Smith capitalism to Shaker communism), provide an example.

But the existence of atheist societies does not argue for any common dogma or feature in their approach, even, let alone a coalescing of "atheism" into some common dogma of all atheistic people society membered or not.

Name a scale: how about materialism? One the one hand, atheists whose world view is so reduced as to admit not even a partial free will undetermined centuries past by mechanical, atomic level cause and effect; on the other atheistic folks who regard the entire material world as an illusion, reality a confluence of immaterially mystical vibrations and aspects of an immaterial consciousness. In between, the range of the theistic - the machine with its ghost, the animated clay, the angelic ape imbued with the breath of the Lord, etc.

So entire branches of Taoism, Animism, Buddhism, and so forth, are no longer to be referred to as religions?

 

LT,

This is not quite correct.

Societies didn't form or are forming around atheism. Just because a society isn't revolving around religious dogma doesn't mean that it was formed as an atheist society. Within these societies there are the religious, the atheist and agnostic and all sorts of everything in between.

Many of them have moved more in the direction of not being driven by religious dogma but that is not the same thing as you're suggesting.

IOW the society isn't driven by "we don't believe in gods".

I don't see a "I don't believe in god campaign" slogan for any politician in the US and we are not supposed to have a religious litmus test, but not only do we for the belief in a god but you better believe in the right one for national elections.

Societies that you could refer to such as China developed over centuries and the driving issue are things outside of religion. IOW consider all else it takes for a society to run. They are not worried about god, they are worried about feeding people and avoiding a revolt.

Here:

"Traditionally, China's Confucian elite disparaged religion and religious practitioners, and the state suppressed or controlled organized religious groups. The social status of Buddhist monks and Taoist priests was low, and ordinary people did not generally look up to them as models. In the past, religion was diffused throughout the society, a matter as much of practice as of belief, and had a weak institutional structure. Essentially the same pattern continues in contemporary society, except that the ruling elite is even less religious and there are even fewer religious practitioners

The attitude of the party has been that religion is a relic of the past, evidence of prescientific thinking, and something that will fade away as people become educated and acquire a scientific view of the world. On the whole, religion has not been a major issue. "

 

I think you're characterizing theisic materialism a little narrowly. I expect you would find theists with similar expressions of free will and a mystical, immaterial world. Conservatives and Cathars come quickly to mind.

 

I haven't met any "conservatives" who didn't hold some version of the ghost in the machine.

And Cathars, according to Wiki, were firm advocates of that basic view.

 

Iceaura,

Well with this:

"“ Belief in Deity
The supreme being/ultimate truth is beyond words or any conceptual understanding. When asked to name it, it is referred to as Tao or the Way. The Power of the Way is referred to as Te. Although Tao and Te are similar to other practices' ideas of God, Taoists seldom refer to God. "

from this link

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Taoists-Believe.aspx

Seems to me they believe in a supreme being, so yes it is a religion.

Do you have a better definition of religion ?

 

Jpappl,

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to that type of society, I meant society as in a club, see below;

www.atheistfoundation.org.au/
www.warwickatheists.co.uk
www.atheists.org/
www.leeds.atheistsoc.org/


Please re-read my earlier post in that context..

 

Then, what exactly is the belief system you refer?

 

Atheist is apparently simply a lack of belief In god. My point is this alone is not enough to form an organisation from. Millions of people do not believe in god many would never think to join an organisation on that basis. Those that do must have something more than a lack of belief. There must be a positive that binds them not just a negative.

After all, there is no ‘I don’t like chocolate club’ or a ‘wine not appreciated society’

What those common beliefs are, you tell me?