Is atheism a religon?

Just thought i would bring this up because essentially if you are atheist you don't believe in Gods or in any type of religon. but technically for me atheism is a religon because you consider yourself an atheist. if someone aks whats your religon, people say hey i'm jewish, or i'm catholic. do you answer o hey i'm an atheist. Why can't people just say, no i don't believe in God. why put it in a category to make it seem like a religon. Atheists don't belive in Gods but they believe that there are no Gods. Either way they believe in something.

I think it's more a set of beleifs, unless there were organized atheist gatherings like in Catholicism.

its more lile a cult

dontshackzmii

Uh, what?

its more lile a cult

dontshackzmii

I agree..godless people are cult members :evil:

its more li(k)e a cult

dontshackzmii

Really? Atheism is more of a cult then every organized group of people choosing to follow the belief code of the entire group hinging on one or a few "gods?" Is that really what you think?

its more lile a cultdontshackzmii

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

its more li(k)e a cult

dontshackzmii

Really? Atheism is more of a cult then every organized group of people choosing to follow the belief code of the entire group hinging on one or a few "gods?" Is that really what you think?

yep its pretty sad people like you cant see it

I don't think you understand what the word "cult" means.

No. It is an ideological position regarding the existence of God, gods and the supernatural. For it to be a religion, it would require a set of beliefs other than its position on God, a unified community of like-minded individuals and an organized group of administrators that oversee the application of the beliefs in both ritual and community settings. Buddhism and Jainism are atheistic religions. Atheism is a belief regarding the non-existence of God (or more accurately, a lack of belief in the existence; depending on who you ask).foxhound_fox

Beautifully said.

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

its more li(k)e a cult

dontshackzmii

Really? Atheism is more of a cult then every organized group of people choosing to follow the belief code of the entire group hinging on one or a few "gods?" Is that really what you think?

yep its pretty sad people like you cant see it

:| Oh brother.. The only similiarity between one Atheist to the next is is the lack of belief in god.. That as much similarity as a Christian anda Muslim's belief in a god.. Are they apart of the same religion? Nope.

No. It is an ideological position regarding the existence of God, gods and the supernatural. For it to be a religion, it would require a set of beliefs other than its position on God, a unified community of like-minded individuals and an organized group of administrators that oversee the application of the beliefs in both ritual and community settings. Buddhism and Jainism are atheistic religions. Atheism is a belief regarding the non-existence of God (or more accurately, a lack of belief in the existence; depending on who you ask).foxhound_fox

If someone has to ask this question in the first place and somehow assert that atheism is a religion then there's no way they're going to be able to understand any explaination you give them.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="starfox15"]

Really? Atheism is more of a cult then every organized group of people choosing to follow the belief code of the entire group hinging on one or a few "gods?" Is that really what you think?

worlock77

yep its pretty sad people like you cant see it

I don't think you understand what the word "cult" means.

It's as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.

It's a lack of religion.

Philosophically no, but politically somewhat. There is no difference between an athiest that goes around professing that there is no god in the face of others than a religious person professing there is a god. If an athiest just doesn't believe and doesn't give a darn about what other people think, they aren't a religion. If they go around trying to tell others that there is no god, then they are a religion.

How can not believing in something be the same as believing in something?

Philosophically no, but politically somewhat. There is no difference between an athiest that goes around professing that there is no god in the face of others than a religious person professing there is a god. If an athiest just doesn't believe and doesn't give a darn about what other people think, they aren't a religion. If they go around trying to tell others that there is no god, then they are a religion.

Grodus5

Supreme Court ruled it is.....you can take that as you wish.LJS9502_basic

I take that to mean that the Supreme Court is full of fools who have no idea about philosophy.

The rejection of theistic claims isn't even a positive assertion, much less a religion.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

yep its pretty sad people like you cant see it

wis3boi

I don't think you understand what the word "cult" means.

but the monster needs to eat. Munch munch chomp chomp galp .

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Supreme Court ruled it is.....you can take that as you wish.Rhazakna

I take that to mean that the Supreme Court is full of fools who have no idea about philosophy.

The rejection of theistic claims isn't even a positive assertion, much less a religion.

I wouldn't call them fools, but I basically agree. I have no idea what bringing in the Supreme Court is supposed to demonstrate. The Supreme Court can say it's a religion all it wants, but that doesn't mean that athiesm actually meets the criteria for being a religion.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Supreme Court ruled it is.....you can take that as you wish.GreySeal9

I take that to mean that the Supreme Court is full of fools who have no idea about philosophy.

The rejection of theistic claims isn't even a positive assertion, much less a religion.

I wouldn't call them fools, but I agree with their spirit of your post. I have no idea what bringing in the Supreme Court is supposed to demonstrate. The Supreme Court can say it's a religion all it wants, but that doesn't mean that athiesm actually meets the criteria for being a religion.

They're not fools per se, but they certainly are a-philosophical, or perhaps even anti-philosophical. That's true of most anyone with political power. Philosophy gets in the way of politics.

A belief does not equal a religion

... do you answer o hey i'm an atheist. Why can't people just say, no i don't believe in God. why put it in a category to make it seem like a religon. Atheists don't belive in Gods but they believe that there are no Gods.

Gotham-Calls

we don't "believe" there are no deities, we are aware they don't exist.

so no, at it's belief i wouldn't call it a religion, but it just gets lumped in as one, which is fine with me i don't care enough about it to get in a huge fuss about anything religion related.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

I take that to mean that the Supreme Court is full of fools who have no idea about philosophy.

The rejection of theistic claims isn't even a positive assertion, much less a religion.

Rhazakna

I wouldn't call them fools, but I agree with their spirit of your post. I have no idea what bringing in the Supreme Court is supposed to demonstrate. The Supreme Court can say it's a religion all it wants, but that doesn't mean that athiesm actually meets the criteria for being a religion.

They're not fools per se, but they certainly are a-philosophical, or perhaps even anti-philosophical. That's true of most anyone with political power. Philosophy gets in the way of politics.

I do agree that philosophy and political power are pretty much incompatible since philosophy tries to seek truth for the most part and politics is very much dependant on lies and equivocation.

No it is not, although some atheists tend to preach as if it is heh

No, atheism is not a religion. If atheism is a religion, then every monotheistic religion is one big religion, because that's essentially what calling atheism a religion is. Atheism is an ontological position, just as monotheism is an ontological position. If ascribing to the ontological position of atheism makes atheists part of a religion, then ascribing to the ontological position of monotheism makes monotheists part of one big religion and groups like Christians and Muslims are simply sects.

What I would more classify atheism as is a belief system. There is a common position, but other than that no institutional structure or dogma of beliefs. I don't think that means that atheism should be totally different from religion, though. A lot of the rights and privileges that religions enjoy are due to them being deeply held beliefs; beliefs that people spend much time contemplating, defending,and debating; beliefs that have a deep impact on society and art. All of these apply to atheism as well, and though I don't think atheism is a religion, I believe our definition of religion as it applies to standing and laws in society should be expanded to belief systems.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]its more lile a cultfoxhound_fox

It's as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.CaveJohnson1

Supreme Court ruled it is.....you can take that as you wish.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]its more lile a cultShuLordLiuPei

rofl that's two words

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]its more lile a cultShuLordLiuPei

According to that logic Christianity is a cult because of Fred Phelps. In fact, I can name far more fringe Christian religious movements led by charismatic individuals than atheist ones, that equates to more evidence for Christianity being a cult by your logic.

One word: Richard Dawkins. ShuLordLiuPei

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] "Cult" is defined as a fringe religious movement lead by a single charismatic individual. Please, just to entertain this idea, who is the charismatic leader of atheism?theone86

According to that logic Christianity is a cult because of Fred Phelps. In fact, I can name far more fringe Christian religious movements led by charismatic individuals than atheist ones, that equates to more evidence for Christianity being a cult by your logic.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]It's as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.foxhound_fox

Supreme Court ruled it is.....you can take that as you wish.LJS9502_basic

More like they determined it was a religion as a matter of semantics. It's easier to just call atheism a religion than to change the legal protection to include all belief systems.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"] One word: Richard Dawkins. LJS9502_basic

According to that logic Christianity is a cult because of Fred Phelps. In fact, I can name far more fringe Christian religious movements led by charismatic individuals than atheist ones, that equates to more evidence for Christianity being a cult by your logic.

I think that's kinda my point.

Just thought i would bring this up because essentially if you are atheist you don't believe in Gods or in any type of religon. but technically for me atheism is a religon because you consider yourself an atheist. if someone aks whats your religon, people say hey i'm jewish, or i'm catholic. do you answer o hey i'm an atheist. Why can't people just say, no i don't believe in God. why put it in a category to make it seem like a religon. Atheists don't belive in Gods but they believe that there are no Gods. Either way they believe in something.

Gotham-Calls

noticed how you capitalized god? you are treating it as a name and title. to say we dont believe in god pretty much only includes the christian god. atheism is believe in no divine god or gods.

why do you say you are hungry? you could just say i require food for sustinance at this moment. why categorize something as a fruit when you could just say "those sweet plant products"

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]its more lile a cultShuLordLiuPei

There is something of a cult of personality surrounding Richard Dawkins, but that's because atheists tend to overly admire atheistic intellectuals. And it certainly isn't a"proper"cult, and many atheists (such as myself) think Richard Dawkins (as well as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and the rest of these so-called "new atheists") are philosophically bereft.

You might be ableto argue that secular humanism is a crypto-cult, though.

The problem with calling atheism a religion is that atheists don't collectively believe anything. They collectively disbelieve in something: a god. If you want to call atheism a religion, then you should be prepared to call collective disbelief in other things a religion too.

If the general lack of belief in a god is a religion, then the lack of belief in a single god must be a religion as well.For example, take Hindu gods.If people disbelieve in Hindu gods, then anti-Hinduism (for lack of a better name) must be a religion.