Is Atheism a Religion?

Atheism isn't a religion, since we don't believe in "Gods" and other mythological/superstitious nonsense. You need a mythological being to worship (and all the ridiculous stories and fables) to be a religion. We have none.

 

It's a matter of semntics, but Buddhism is usually considered a religion, and it doesn't have gods (but it does have a belief in an afterlife, including, in some versions, hells). Also, Paul Tillich, who is considered by some to be one of the great Protestant theologians, doesn't believe that God is supernatural, or a being, or something that "exists". God is the Ground of Being, and beyond existence. Nonsense? I think so, but Tillich and a great many graduates of liberal Protestant theological seminaries beleive this and consider themselves to be devout Christians.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Unitarianism is overtly theistic. It's name is in opposition to Trinitarianism which makes claims about the Christian trinity godhead.

UU is not specifically theistic or not, but it's adherents can be theistic.

 

The reason that Atheism is not a religion is because it is simply a description. To be a religion, there must also be Prescription

 

Atheism is no more a religion than theism is a religion. In other words, neither is a religion. Theism is merely the belief in gods and you don't need to be a part of any religion to believe in gods, so is theism a religion? No, therefore, a-theism, being the lack of belief in gods is not a religion either.

Another way to put it is like this, if Atheism is a religion than bald is a hair color. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, nothing more.

The only reason I can see why some people want to think atheism is a religion is so they can say that our position is just as rational/irrational as theirs theistic position. This just isn't the case. Our position is typically due to a lack of evidence for any gods and thus no reason to believe until such evidence is provided. Theists have been indoctrinated by their religions into thinking that "Faith" (in the religious sense) is a virtue, but in reality, Faith is belief without logical proof or empirical evidence (per the dictionary), and that is irrational. How can lack of faith in a god be irrational?

 

so if
theism = not a religion
and
atheism = not theism


atheism = not (not a religion)
atheism = a religion ?

 

I agree with your definition, but not your conclusion. Faith is a necessary foundation for all "knowlege". How do we know that we can rely on our senses, which (per the dictionary) provide the basis for "evidence"? Kant and other philosophers provide convincing arguments that our sensory experience is unreliable. Euclidean geometry, once believed to be logically compelling, is now regarded as wrong in the real world of space curved by gravity. Godel's theorem indicates that mathematical statements can exist with no systematic proof of their truth or falsity. Relativity theory and quantum theory have made mincemeat of common sense. What to do? A leap (or at least a hop) of faith seems necessary. Call it a virtue or a necessity, it seems to be called for to get the job done.

By faith, I mean a decision to take a chance in betting my life (tentatively) on a proposition that seems, on the basis of my experience, intuition and judgment, to be more plausible than available alternatives. One of these propositions is naturalism. If a naturalistic explanation for a set of facts seems available and adequate, I tend to prefer it to a supernaturalistic explanation. There is no logical reason for doing so, based on "proof" or "evidence". I do it because of intuition, and the belief that otherwise we're buffeted around by a chaotic jumble of superstition, fear and wishful thinking. I also reject beliefs which seem to be inconsistent with logic and avaiable evidence, and require substantial evidence to support my beliefs. But I also believe such evidence as the fine tunedness of our universe and the phenomenon of human consciousness support a belief in "Something Big Out There" (aka, "God") as a reasonable working hypothesis. There are some who prefer to suspend judgment or assume that science will one day come up with a "naturalistic" explanation. I concede that those preferences aren't irrational, just as I concede that voters who have a different preference for president than mine the forthcoming election are not necessarily irrational, and could even be right.

 

atheism isn't a religion, simply because there's no "unifying agent" other than the fact that we don't believe in a god.

i am an athesit, but my morality and my beleifs are different than others who are atheist (and if they're the same, that's by coincidence only).

religion requires some uniform set of beliefs. atheism simply means "without a god"- no more than that.

hmmm, although thinking about it now, could the idea that "there is not god" be that unifying theory in a religious sense? thoughts?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

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

I've said it once and i'll say it again, Athiesm is NOT a religion. If you wanna dispute dictionary definitions go ahead but i won't take you seriously.

 

Wow! That's quite a breakthrough in logic!

theism = not a cupcake appreciation society
and
atheism = not theism

atheism = not (not a cupcake appreciation society)
atheism = a cupcake appreciation society ?

I love it! Now where did I put that cupcake?

 

well, if atheism was a religion, then I would not be an atheist(kinda/agnostic).
belief requires faith

duhh.