Is atheism a religion?

That is a beautiful poetic response, in my opinion. I had a long day, and having a lousy experience at the moment. Therefore, your post is quite refreshing. I was being cynical thinking it be a rude response but... to my surprise it is a beautiful one.

Thank you for that. Viners like you are what make me love this site.

Yup. Growing up, I loathed atheist because I unfortunately meet a few Madeline Murray's. However, my bests friends are atheist and have shown me the misconception I was living with.(+)

Both religion and atheism make claims about God and the nature of reality.

A claim that there is no God is still a claim about God. Only in the negative.

So categorically they emerge from the same location.

But does this make atheism a religion using the traditional definitions? I don't think so. Religion presupposes a supernatural view of reality which clearly atheism does not.

However, at the deepest of levels, both are making claims which cannot be proven definitively. Each uses a set of parameters for its claims which are satisfactory for itself but not for the other.

EDIT- I just went back through the thread and wanted to say to @netshyster that I see where you are coming from and agree with many of your points but I think that you have a terrible uphill battle trying to get the masses to understand, let alone agree with how you are defining "religion". You (like me) define religion as somewhat synonymous with "view of reality", "world-view" or cosmology. But the majority of folks are only able to see the organized and established entities and their various belief systems as being "religions".

2nd EDIT- I also don't think there is an agreement with the definition of "atheism". I can appreciate @sc statement that both "atheism" and "theism" are not religions in the sense that they are not systems. If I agree that this is how we are all using the term "atheism" then I don't think it is a religion at all. BUT I don't agree that "atheism" is always used this way. There is a system or are systems which can be understood as being "atheist" or "atheistic" and basically it is this I have in mind regarding much of my interaction with individuals and groups which refer to themselves as being atheist. It reflects a system for understanding reality which goes much farther than a simple definition and it impacts many other areas of the person's life.

Lots of you folks are making this a more complex issue than it should be.

Taking the definition from Merriam-Webster, here's "religion."

1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods

2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Well, we folks don't believe in a god or gods, so #1 is out.

Atheism is not an organized system of beliefs. Ceremonies and tradition are all culturally based, as our rules, and none of which are used to worship a god or gods.

That's the key word there: "worship." There isn't any.

Sure, there's also a third definition, but to me, it describes fanaticism more than religion.

an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Like the phrase "Hockey is a religion in Canada." They love it so much, that a commentator once jokingly said that.

The hardest thing for a lot of very religious people to understand is that my, and other atheists, non-belief in a diety is not important to me. I don't think about the non-existence of a Christian-Judea God unless I'm discussing religion, which only seems to happen on this website. Religion is not a factor in my, and more other atheists world, hence it can't have that "religious" title slapped on because we're not fanatical about it.

New atheists are a whole other department though.....

Someone put up a list earlier that really bugged me. They (I'm paraphrasing) said atheists have camps, groups, meetings, and whatnot. That's silly to me. Sure, you're all coming together to form a sense of community due to your hobbies, but that's the worst. Go join a kite flying club. Who in their right mind what's to spend all day talking to other people about the non-existence of a god? BOOORRRRRING! Also, I've never heard of anything like that, and normally, I'd call "B.S." on it, but new atheists tend to be extreme with that garbage.

bye bye

@inferiorego: When I look at your last point on the whole atheist club stuff it reminds me of when I first heard of anarchist parties. Lolz

The only benefit that could come from atheist meetings is political representation. Last time I checked atheists make up 16 percent of the voting population (sounds small but it's actually a pretty large voting minority; there are technically more atheist voters in the US than African American voters) and I think there was like only one atheist in congress. Still, the problem is if you organize atheists in one place the people who said yes on this thread have a basis to spread this false equivalency.

Well, most Atheist don't believe that a God exist, but they do not (or shouldn't) claim that one absolutely does not. Think of it this way, someone walks up to you and says "I have an invisible, intangible, and undetectable bicycle", you would probably disbelieve the claim and say that you do not believe what he is claiming. This is the core of an Atheist, we do not say there isn't a creator of the universe with absolute certainty, but that we disbelieve in the current untestable claims that there is.

Atheism comes from two Greek words: a (without) and theos (god). So….no…it is literally, and legitimately, nota religion.

I always forget about politics.... I wish separation of church and state were a real thing in the US, not just a rule people find loopholes in.

@kuonphobos: I can see how my second point came off as biased, but I honestly don't know how to win an argument without the use of "materialistic" or "natural" logic.

On my first point I wasn't implying that some humans don't want to learn anything, I was saying that...

Not all people possess an inherent need to "explain" their existence or the origins of mankind.

Of course nobody wants to live their life in complete ignorance, but their own existence and the origins of mankind are merely subsets in the grand scope of knowledge. An example of this would be how civilization has spent thousands of more years researching warfare, architecture, and medicine than the fields of anthropology and archaeology. You could argue that Astronomy and ancient religions precede any of the sciences I have mentioned but I would argue that science was originally used as tool for survival and later became a practice to explain origins outside of storytelling. Neither of us would have the evidence to support our claims because both theories would be prehistoric. Regardless, not every single human being craves to know why they exist.

I kind of wish everyone automatically voted through their census sheets, making it like an extreme proportional representation system. We each just answer like twenty political questions after basic info is inputted, then boom we've got our Congress.

I believe that with our current understanding and knowledge (or lack of) about the universe, any idea we come up with, about what was before the big bang, or what exists outside of space will most likely be false. We don't even know if it makes sense to ask those questions.

This is why I'm classified as an atheist, since I have no belief in any god, but this doesn't mean I have a strong belief that God do not exist, since I simply do not know anything about the subject, and reading "holy books" didn't help me get any credible information.

Theism and Atheism are not religions.

That being said, atheists can be religious, there are, for example, plenty of buddhists who are both religious and atheists.

On the other hand theists can also be non religious.

(in this context universe=everything that exists)

At least somebody is on the same page with me. I would continue debating on this thread but honestly I'm too lazy to.

Your points to dngn4774 are also very good. They're pretty much along the lines of what I was going to say, especially concerning education (University's, schools etc) and the supposed validity of their atheistic science.

The kids and adults don't realise they're just as brainwashed as any fundamentalist "religionist", the trick is that Atheism presents itself as a Science as opposed to what it really is -- a belief system.

@dngn4774 said: Regardless, not every single human being craves to know why they exist.

I sense this thread has lost it's momentum. That is fine but I just wanted to offer my counterpoint once again. I understand what you are saying but I disagree. I would be willing to say that not every human being is consciously craving knowledge concerning their purpose or function. The goal (IMO) of the many distractions we humans have created through the years (entertainment, drugs, etc) is specifically to enable us to put that constant craving out of our minds because for many of us such thoughts cause existential dissatisfaction if not crisis. This is why humanism and science and technology are so powerful because they offer some concept of hope for a better world in the face of the overwhelming perception of meaninglessness which the idea of a cold and impersonal universe offers for us. Categorically speaking it is a type of hope of salvation.

But these are just my thoughts.

@netshyster I think there are two predominant definitions of "atheism" at play here in this thread discussion and elsewhere. There is the basic dictionary definition which several posters have alluded to here and then there is the idea of an "atheistic" system which is a subject itself which is worthy of debate and discussion. Because of the nature of human beings the concept of "atheism" once it is adopted by a person or by a group moves from a simple dictionary definition and then takes on all the various "baggage" which come with it in the form of "belief systems", "views of reality" etc. In other words it (atheism) isn't a definition in a vacuum any more than theism is and it begins to take on the system of those who posit it as a concept in which they believe in.

It has always seemed to me to be disingenuous when people don't take this next logical step and actually discuss and consider the belief systems which arise with atheism as one of the fundamental presuppositions and they just keep repeating the mantra of the core definition over and over again as if hiding behind some semantic shield.

@kuonphobos: The problem with this secondary definition of atheism is that it assumes that all atheists are in agreement with each other over all of the "baggage" that comes with not believing in a God. Though many atheists agree with most of the idealistic offshoots of atheism, not all do. Aside from materialism, I doubt their is any universal agreement that all atheists can come to without some level of dissension.

Even if we were to agree that atheism does come with certain fundamental presuppositions, would that be enough to qualify it as a religion? Most humans wake up everyday presuming that they will not die in that same day, but we know for millions of people around the globe that will not be the case.

By definition atheism is not a religion.It is a way of thinking like Nihilism.

I agree that there would be quite a variety among those who might be considered as holding to the secondary definition of atheism we are postulating in this discussion. But as you have already pointed out many would also posit materialism as a fundamental tenet. To this I would add naturalism and empiricism because they seem to form something of a whole. Now one would need to take into account concepts such as humanism in order to account for the inevitable discussion on ethics and also a preferred political system which would determine the warp and woof of how society is to be managed and how laws are to be created, etc. So even taking into consideration the many varieties that would inevitably arise ( as they do when considering theistic groups) it can still be seen that it is quite natural to posit the existence an atheistic groups or cultures or communities that actually exist within reality and not merely some static definition in a vacuum.

Now would this secondary definition of atheism qualify as a religion? Well that would depend upon how one is defining religion wouldn't it? Since the traditional definitions of religions all contain some aspect of supernaturalism and atheism seems to posit materialism and naturalism then by that understanding this secondary definition of atheism would not be a religion.

But what I and netshyster are driving at is that all human beings function in this world through world-views (cosmologies, views of reality). These views of reality my be ill defined or even unconscious but we all operate with, through and within them. Since these views of reality are our fundamental beliefs about how reality works they are dearly held by those who have worked for them (and even dearly held by those who received them not independently but from trusted sources ie parents, preachers, university professors, etc) Using analogous language one might say that these fundamental views of reality are held "religiously".

So to draw my thoughts to a close with a syllogism of sorts to hopefully make my point a little clearer:

Religion = a fundamental view of reality

AND

secondary definition of atheism = a fundamental view of reality

Some folks equate the term religion with the concept of fundamental view of reality because it is that which is of ultimate concern for each and every one of us

With that in mind:

religion = secondary definition of atheism

because both are equal views of reality and both are of ultimate concern for the individual or group which posits their particular view.

I'm not going to take the time to individually respond to everyone who states that religion must involve supernatural or higher powers. Religion doesn't need either. As a student of religious studies, I suggest reading texts from various anthropologists, philosophers and other academics in the field that discuss the various and differing ways of defining religion on a whole.

As for Atheism being a religion. Many people would debate this subject based on how they interpret the definition of religion. From a functionalist or substantive perspective. A good number of people who study religions would state that atheism has similar core aspects to what a religion is from a functionalist approach. I happen to agree with this evaluation. Many people would not. Especially atheists as they fundamentally are against supernatural powers that they correlate to the word religion, as someone from a substantive perspective would.

I would also like to point out that many people would call certain practices magic, sorcery or witchcraft that the practitioners themselves would not consider to be magic, sorcery or witchcraft. I think that this just goes to show how subjective definitions can truly be. In fact, defining religion itself is controversial and it would take no more than a simple cursory review of academic journals on the subject matter to see different standpoints and philosophies on the subject.

Religion is defined in various ways. To quote Dr. Kevin Schilbrack of WCU, "... one cannot define the word “religion” simply by looking at that to which the word allegedly refers. Since the very existence of religion depends on historically emergent concepts and since the reality of religion is itself a social construction, what religion is depends upon social recognition. The concepts of those who observe religion whether practitioners or not are therefore entangled, Schro ̈dinger-style, in the nature of their object. As a consequence, what one decides is the “best” or the “right” definition of religion will depend on and be indexed to one’s purposes."

Terms can be subjective. To some, atheism would count as a religion. To others it does not.

If you want a further read on the subject of how to define religion, Schilbrack's article is quite enlightening and offers a third point of view on defining religion that incorporates both the functionalist and substantive approach.

What Isn’t Religion- Kevin Schilbrack [The Journal of Religion , Vol. 93, No. 3 (July 2013) , pp. 291-318]

Ugh there is alot I would like to address in this thread. I just don't think I can be bothered...

Interesting discussion though.