atheism a is religion?

Atheists are not religious and atheism is not a religion. We reject religion.

 

By and large, I agree that atheism per se isn't usually a religion, although forms of it can be--depending on your definition of religion. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo Black wrote in a footnote that:

"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, secular humanism, and others.”

The Humanist Society website states, in its provisions for ordination:

"Recognizing the important role life occasions play in individual and community life, the Humanist Society's unique ministry prepares Humanist Celebrants to lead ceremonial observances across the nation and worldwide. Celebrants provide millions of Americans an alternative to traditional religious weddings, memorial services, and other life cycle events. Celebration of life is central to a meaningful Humanist philosophy, and Humanist Celebrants officiate significant celebrations vital to Humanist life".

Just because a person or group consciously rejects the label "religion" doesn't necessarily mean they don't have one. Now if belief in God is considered to be a defining characteristic of religion, atheism, by definition, isn't a religion.

 

I define religion as a belief in something that requires faith.

Atheism does not require faith hence it is not a religion.

 

There are lots of followers of the Religious Theory of Darwin who have nothing but Faith in Evolution by Random Chance and Natural Selection yet they call themselves Atheists. Isn't it ironic.
To them Darwin is like Jesus to Christians, but unlike Christians they will never openly admit it.

 

It depends on the brand of atheism and your definition of faith. Some atheists I know simply have no belief in God. I don't see how just having no belief can be regarded as faith. Others, however, believe that all unexplained phenomena have a naturalistic basis and that science will eventually give us the answers. If these beliefs are held simply as postulates, in full awareness that that's all they are, I don't consider that faith either. But if they're actually taken seriously and regarded as real or the truth, they're faith-based. This naturalism and scientism requires faith--i.e., a firm belief in something not fully supported by available data. I'm not just making this up. I know such people.

Of course, it's also possible for atheists to have faith in things urelated to non-belief in God. Objectivists,for example, are atheists who believe that captalism and democracy, freed from government interference, will resolve many human problems, while Marxists are atheists who believe that capitalism is responsible for most human problems, and will inevitably be overthrown.

 

That's a good argument and I tend to agree with the idea that believing science will come up with the explanations in the future is faith just like that of believing in god(s). For me though, it's a bit different. Myself and the rest of the atheists I know accept and understand that we do not know everything in this universe. There are still mysteries about the origin of life and of each step in our evolutionary timeline. What is different for me though, is science yields answers over time while religion has done nothing. They have offered no evidence about how life began and they seem to have this odd idea that humans have alwas been humans. Science invites us to explore this beautiful and mysterious universe when religion invites us to shut up, tithe, and be good church-goers.

EDIT: This goes back to my chance argument. Science, will eventually discover the answers. Religion guesses wildly, hopes one of their guesses is correct, and then chalks up any correct answers to the power of their god. For me, trusting science to find the answers is more practical. If god stopped by my house every weekend to reveal a universal truth, I might re-consider my set of beliefs; unfortunately, we all know how likely that is to happen.

 

I think science is the best we can do in coming up with reliable knowledge, but it has definite limitations that make it unlikely to provide answers to questions of ultimate meaning, because: (1) science tends to avoid subjects that don't lend themselves readily to rigorous testing; and (2) science embodies assumptions that rule out a priori certain explanations which might in fact be true, e.g., supernatural agents. These are reasonable postulates, but atheists sometimes forget that they are just assumptions. That being the case, we have two choices: we can simply suspend judgment and rely only on scientifically proven hypotheses; or we can rely on less rigorous methods that seem intuitively plausible but are possibly erroneous. Adopting the former course would make us agnostics not only about God but about most things that are important to us: politics, foreign policy, domestic policy, etc. Even if we accept the "scientific" status of political science, for example, the peer reviewed, empirically tested knowledge that it generates by rigorous methodology strike most people as trivial and far removed from a politician's understanding of politics. I don't think you take such a course, because I think you really believe in your heart of hearts there is no God, and the truth that's out there is naturalistic. I'm willing to form tentative opinions on the basis of what seem to be reasonable inferences from personal observations, reflection, intuition, philosophy, history, literature, etc., in full realization that much of what I believe may be false. This is "guessing", but not wildly. It's an educated bet consistent with reason and available evidence.

 

See, the difference between me and an agnostic is:

Agnostics respect the possibility that god is real.

vs.

I respect the belief to believe in god but understand we will never discover god.

Of course science has limitations. The beautiful thing about science though is that is a process. We discover something, which leads to a change in how we perceive something, which in turn leads to more advanced discoveries. We just have to be patient with that process.

In my eyes, religion in its current state isn't something bad. When religious people start expecting others to live according to their rules, then I have a problem with them. The whole creationism vs evolution idea for example. Some might say that me wanting creationism to be removed from schools is the same thing as them wanting creationism to be taught. As a rational person though, I follow the evidence and unfortunately I cannot say the same for them.

P.S: My heart of hearts once believed in god and still wishes I could. I just hate lying to myself

 

Some of the so called "atheists" are funny bunch , really.
They have nothing but Faith in Religious Theory of Darwin and still want us to believe they are Atheists? Hehe

Christians and other Religious people openly admit to have Faith in Religion, why can't Darwinists do the same?

 

I think of the quest for God as a process too, and science is part of it. God is process. In fact there's a whole school of Christian theology called "process theology" that embodies this perspective toward spirituality. Unfortunately, fundamentalist belief systems offer a closed system of canned spirituality, in which free inquiry is discouraged. But that narrow religion shouldn't be confused with living Christianity. I agree that God is elusive, and that we will never "discover" God out there as some sort of quarry to be bagged. When we realize that process is more important than destination, we come closer to enlightenment.

 

It's pretty clear that the only people who say yes, don't understand the definition of religion.

:cheers2:

 

Any discovery of god(s) will be on a personal level because on a cosmic level there is no god. When I began to question my faith I realized this and it made my transition from theist to atheist much easier. Unfortunately for you, I believe spirituality is often confused with religion. Real shame

Isn't it funny that we see mythical beasts and figures of legend as fake but god as real?

:troll:

 

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

Darwin Correspondence Project - Belief: historical essay". http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/. Retrieved 2008-11-25.

He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

Darwin 1887, p. 304–307


If Darwin was alive today and knew what we know about the basic structure of matter he would probably be the first to refute his own theory.
Same can not be said of his followers.

 

OK troll-boy, why don't you just tell us what exactly it is that we know now about the basic structure of matter, that would cause Darwin to refute his theory?


ZW

 

I agree with that, but possibly not in the way you mean it.

You've now made clear that your version of atheism is the dogmatic kind. Instead of saying "I don't believe in God', which would be hard to challenge, you assert "on a cosmic level there is no god", which is obviously a matter of faith, since you could never prove that, any more than I could prove God exists.

 

Srs? I think his wording was to show that he doesn't believe in a literal God but that God can exist inside peoples hearts (or whatever).

Anyway, that was a bit harsh and you may want to evaluate your standards of proof.

 

If you call me troll-boy you must be legion of trolls.

I have had dozens of pages on the subject of Darwin's Thoery posted, among those many directly pointing out obvious fallacies in his theory, you can go ahead and read if curious.

Now if you still think Darwin's theory is a scientifically valid one then go ahead and prove it.

 

Dozens of pages? I'll pass. I've seen your style.

I've nothing to defend...

...Sooo Why are you so fervent? Are you on a mission? From god?

ZW eace:

 

No mission from God, Darwin or anyone.

Just find it amusing.

Some of the so called "atheists" are funny bunch , really.
They have nothing but Faith in Religious Theory of Darwin and still want us to believe they are Atheists? Hehe

Christians and other Religious people openly admit to have Faith in Religion, why can't Darwinists do the same?

 

Don't bite, man. He's just trying to bait people into bringing up Darwin so he can quote the rest of Spetner's book verbatim. It's a good thing he agrees with Spetner. That way the guy might not sue him for copyright infringement.