Is Atheism is a Religion?

[Lexicus]

And atheism is a religion that doesn't require commitment or effort. Seeing any parallels here?

The context of this discussion was when I said claiming atheism is a religion is similar to saying "no toppings" is a pizza topping. Mouthwash said that it is a topping, to which I replied that I don't get charged for it like it's a topping. That provoked this (surprisingly witty, I will admit) response from Mouthwash. There are a few problems with it. For one, atheism doesn't require commitment or effort for me, but that's because I'm fortunate enough to live in a time and place where that's the case. I'm also lucky enough to come from a family whose living members are nearly all atheists.
Historically, atheists haven't been so lucky. Many have faced varying degrees of persecution for their views. In the US today atheists remain among the most publicly reviled groups in the country, and atheism (as we were discussing in that thread) would certainly act as an impediment for a person seeking public office.
The second problem is that it's a rather more convoluted explanation than just saying 'atheism isn't a religion' and leaving it at that.

So, is atheism a religion? My answer is no, atheism is not a religion. But I also think the framing implicit in the question is a bit misleading. In my view 'religion' is far broader than belief in supernatural forces like deities. Broadly speaking, a religion is a belief system that relates humans to the cosmos. This is why I say atheism isn't a religion, because atheism is not a belief that entails any set of beliefs about this human-cosmos relationship. There are atheists all over the place as far as that's concerned - from atheists who believe nature is just waiting there for us to exploit, to atheists who believe humans are basically playthings of the cosmos and our lot is to be buffeted by tremendous forces we haven't a hope of understanding.

You will also notice that under the definition of religion I'm using, it's essentially impossible for humans not to be religious. We all have implicit or explicit beliefs about the relationship of humans to the cosmos.

 

[Synobun]

Religions and cults require organized doctrine and a hierarchy of authority. Atheism does not have either of these.

 

[Lexicus]

Religions and cults require organized doctrine and a hierarchy of authority.

No, I disagree completely. Religion can be entirely a matter of personal conscience.

 

[Synobun]

No, I disagree completely. Religion can be entirely a matter of personal conscience.

That's spirituality, not religion.

 

[Lexicus]

What disqualifies Atheism as a religion that it doesn't have any rituals and is just one belief rather than a set of beliefs that are supposed to explain the universe.

This is closer to my argument.

That's spirituality, not religion.

I don't think that distinction has any utility at all.

 

[Zkribbler]

So if someone is filing out a form and to the question: "Religion: ___________," he writes in "atheist," do you call him a liar?

 

[Synobun]

I don't think that distinction has any utility at all.

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

 

[metalhead]

I took an introduction to religion course in college, where the teacher defined religion as "ultimate concern." It's an interesting definition, because it means that terrestrial concerns can constitute a "religion" under that definition, atheism as it is usually understood doesn't qualify, though I would say for someone like Richard Dawkins you could argue otherwise. Also, there are atheist sects in many of the major religions, including Christianity and Hinduism. I would argue that one could very easily make the tenets of Christianity their ultimate concern without necessitating belief in God.

I would say that atheists can be religious. I would also say, given the utter disregard so many Christians show for anything their supposed God tells them to do, many Christians are not religious at all. There's not really a hard and fast rule either way.

 

[Lexicus]

So if someone is filing out a form and to the question: "Religion: ___________," he writes in "atheist," do you call him a liar?

No, I call that bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with the ontology of the matter.

 

[Perfection]

If theism isn't a religion why should atheism be one?

 

[Zkribbler]

The context of this discussion was when I said claiming atheism is a religion is similar to saying "no toppings" is a pizza topping.

If the police are investigating a crime at a pizzeria, and they ask a witness what toppings he had on his pizza, and he answers "none," do they admonish him that "mono" is not a topping and arrest him for obstruction of justice?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Since I'm not really comfortable using the same definition of religion as you I don't see a good way to answer the question. It seems that your definition is constructed to specifically produce the answer "no."

While in a broad sense a religion could be said to include this "relationship between man and the cosmos" part, I don't consider that significant. That relationship is a constant underpinning of everything from the moment *I* discover that there is *not I*. When you bring it up as a specific test there is an implication that this defined religion must therefore be doing something more about it than acknowledging that it is always there...but without specifying exactly what this something more might entail the test is just an exercise in subjectivity.

So, let's approach this from some different angles.

You say atheists are persecuted. I agree. I don't agree that they are "among the most reviled groups," and I suspect the political office disqualifier aspect could be applied just as easily to a multitude of non-atheists...for example I bet that in most places it would be easier to run as an atheist than a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Satanist. But the relevant point is that this discussion is where atheism fits; ie among religions. It is a belief system which can be professed, the profession of which can have consequences based on its compatibility or lack thereof with other professed belief systems. That seems to indicate that it is a similar object.

Now let's examine the behaviors associated with people who profess this belief system, as compared to people who profess other belief systems.

Do they proselytize? Yes, they do.
Do they persecute unbelievers to varying degrees? Yes, they do.
Are they convinced without proof that their belief is "right"? Yes, they are.

I could go on, but I'm sure the point is made. While you can parse out definitions that include or exclude from the "religion pool" all day long, for example one could say that Buddhism isn't a religion if you include deities in the definition, that's pointless. But upon practical examination atheism and atheists are functionally interchangeable with other professed faiths and those who profess them.

 

[civvver]

I think the be a religion it doesn't have to have hierarchy but it does have to have some sort of structure and stated belief system. Atheism doesn't have that. Ok by definition atheists all believe the same thing, no existence of god, but there's no structure to it, there are no atheist churches, there's no atheist religious texts saying in the beginning god didn't exist. It's a belief system, not a religion. Also I think religion has to be something you can practice, ie has rituals. Atheism has no stated rituals.

When people say it's a religion they are incorrectly equating the exuberance of religious zealotry with some scientists' passion for atheism. It's akin to saying about a football coach, oh football is his religion, or a politician, oh his religion is politics. It's just used to describe a passionate devotion to an activity or belief system.

It is a belief system which can be professed, the profession of which can have consequences based on its compatibility or lack thereof with other professed belief systems. That seems to indicate that it is a similar object.

Now let's examine the behaviors associated with people who profess this belief system, as compared to people who profess other belief systems.

Do they proselytize? Yes, they do.
Do they persecute unbelievers to varying degrees? Yes, they do.
Are they convinced without proof that their belief is "right"? Yes, they are.

I could go on, but I'm sure the point is made. While you can parse out definitions that include or exclude from the "religion pool" all day long, for example one could say that Buddhism isn't a religion if you include deities in the definition, that's pointless. But upon practical examination atheism and atheists are functionally interchangeable with other professed faiths and those who profess them.

A belief system isn't a religion though, religion has structure and ritual. Just believing something doesn't. I mean by that definition any academic study which you teach or "proselytize" could be called religious. Like I teach music with the intent of making other people appreciate music and perhaps become musicians. Does that mean music is a religion? No and we'd all say that's silly, but it's essentially the same thing.


And a religion does not have to be about god or creation myths or the cosmos. It's just about the structure and ritual that goes with a belief system. Someone certainly could found the church of atheism and write a doctrine and have dogma and come up with some rituals. Then it would be a specific religion.

Like Scientology. It's not about god, it's kind of about the cosmos, mostly it's about psychology I think. It's a religious cult though because they have doctrine and structure and ritual.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the be a religion it doesn't have to have hierarchy but it does have to have some sort of structure and stated belief system.

As I said, we can parse out definitions of "religion" that include or exclude whatever we want. We could say that 'religion requires a god so pantheistic belief systems aren't really religions' and then watch the Jews argue with the Christians about whether the trinity makes Christianity pantheistic or not. We could place the line on either side of Buddhism really easily, as I already said. But this all just supports my contention that an alternative test other than yes or no does it meet my particular definition has to be applied.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

A few years ago I would have passionately argued that Atheism is a religion. I'm on the fence about it now.

 

[civvver]

Well the dictionary definition is pretty loose, but I think you have to look at the ritual and practice of it. No one practices atheism. They might give speeches on it and talk about it, but they don't go to atheism churches or have rituals. I think people calling it a religion do it in a derogatory way anyway, trying to paint atheists as akin to religious fanatics. I mean I've heard people even say global warming is a religion in the same sense.

 

[Perfection]

A few years ago I would have passionately argued that Atheism is a religion. I'm on the fence about it now.

It's quite simple. Atheism is a stance the existence of god/gods. It's not a complex belief structure therefore it's not a religion. Calling atheism a religion is like calling theism a religion.

 

[sophie]

So if someone is filing out a form and to the question: "Religion: ___________," he writes in "atheist," do you call him a liar?

I don't put down "atheist", I put down "none". Because I don't have a religion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well the dictionary definition is pretty loose, but I think you have to look at the ritual and practice of it. No one practices atheism. They might give speeches on it and talk about it, but they don't go to atheism churches or have rituals. I think people calling it a religion do it in a derogatory way anyway, trying to paint atheists as akin to religious fanatics. I mean I've heard people even say global warming is a religion in the same sense.

Atheism definitely has its fanatics. That would be another qualifier for calling it a religion based on observation.

As to the "ritual and practice" of it, I suspect that a lot of hedonistic behaviors are at root predicated on "since there is no god or gods," so those behaviors could be construed as "practices." Now, not all atheists participate in those practices and not all who participate in them are acknowledging that predicate, but that could be said of most practices in most religions. For instance plenty of people participate in Christian practices wholly unaware that the practice is a Christian practice, while plenty of Christians do not participate in varios Christian practices.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So, is atheism a religion?

No.

Religions and cults require organized doctrine and a hierarchy of authority. Atheism does not have either of these.

Have you ever seen the Richard Dawkins/Laurence Krauss video where an Australian woman accuses Dawkins of setting up a "cult of Richard Dawkinism"? This was at a university, and the woman in question claimed she was Catholic, and a physics major.

It's mind-boggling how many religious people claim that there's some sort of "atheist hierarchy" and doctrine.

I'm not even sure religions require a hierarchy. I don't think Islam has one.
What disqualifies Atheism as a religion that it doesn't have any rituals and is just one belief rather than a set of beliefs that are supposed to explain the universe.

If Islam doesn't have a hierarchy, who are the people issuing fatwas and such - or can just anyone call himself an imam and start issuing orders and decrees?

So if someone is filing out a form and to the question: "Religion: ___________," he writes in "atheist," do you call him a liar?

You call him a hypocrite - at least if he doesn't make it clear that such an option doesn't belong under "Religion." If there is no way to make this clear, you call him screwed, because the form (I hope this is a census form you're referring to because I can't think of any other legitimate reason to ask someone their religion) is biased and offers no way to put down a truthful answer.

The Canadian census forms (at least the long form) have a section to write in comments and suggestions about what to include in future census forms, or to clarify something. I wrote in that they should stop including "atheist" in the list of religions because atheism is not a religion. Yes, it's necessary for the government to know how many atheists there are in Canada, but they need to ask a different way.

You say atheists are persecuted. I agree. I don't agree that they are "among the most reviled groups," and I suspect the political office disqualifier aspect could be applied just as easily to a multitude of non-atheists...for example I bet that in most places it would be easier to run as an atheist than a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Satanist. But the relevant point is that this discussion is where atheism fits; ie among religions. It is a belief system which can be professed, the profession of which can have consequences based on its compatibility or lack thereof with other professed belief systems. That seems to indicate that it is a similar object.

There's a survey out there that says atheists are less trusted than rapists. I'd call that being among the most reviled.

As for "belief system"... I strongly believe that cats should not be declawed and any vet who engages in this practice should lose his license. So I guess by your definition, I believe in the Church of Anti-Declawing for Cats.

Oops, nope, that fails the test for a religion. There is medical evidence as to why declawing is a harmful practice that can lead to the victim's death.

Now let's examine the behaviors associated with people who profess this belief system, as compared to people who profess other belief systems.

Do they proselytize? Yes, they do.

No, they don't. There are no atheist doorknockers, or people who leave atheist pamphlets in mailboxes, try to sell atheist literature on the street, or tell people they're going to suffer in eternity if they don't become atheists.

Do they persecute unbelievers to varying degrees? Yes, they do.

Where and when did that happen? And don't trot out the usual communist dictators. They were power-mad and would have used any means to make people believe in them.

Are they convinced without proof that their belief is "right"? Yes, they are.

It's called evidence. Show me evidence that supernatural entities exist, and that the one called "God" created the universe. Since I go with the current scientific knowledge, I'll change my mind until the next bit of evidence comes up.