Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal atheists's Journal: Second Topic: Is atheism a religion? 34

Journal by atheists

This week I would like to debate if atheism should be classified as a religion. On one hand we have the reasoning that atheism is a decision regarding a god. On the other we have the concept that atheism is the direct opposite of what makes a religion. Yet, the inverse of a color on the color wheel is still a color. On the other hand, black is the absence of color/light while white contains all colors so if white is religion and includes all practiced religions then perhaps atheism is the inky black of the absence of all religion. Yet, Crayola makes black crayons.

Some may say that to classify atheism as a religion would require us to classify not collecting stamps as a hobby. Clearly, the fun of collecting stamps is a hobby that is enjoyed by many, but I hope we agree that if one does not collect stamps (while they may have no objections to people who do) they are not practicing a hobby.

However, we have a problem with another often used and IMHO often misused analogy: hair color. Everyone is born with the potential to have or to get hair (except in some rare cases) but people get different hair colors. Some people change to gray as they get older, some shave it off, some lose theirs naturally, some hide their true color with a dye job, and others practice the art of a bad comb-over to hold onto the concept they aren't hairless. All of these interesting analogies carry over well to the choices people make about their hair and how they are often born into a hair color/type from their parents (mother's father, anyone?), but again, in my opinion, this analogy has a problem. A separate debate of its own is required to use this analogy: are humans born with a religion?

If left alone does a child develop into having a concept of a god? Do they explain things with the use of a higher being? Do they worship?

This is a topic for another debate, but highly related to this topic for if someone presumes children are born with a religion then they may effectively use this analogy.

Another debate I have read/heard is that if you look at certain dictionary definitions for a religion with an open mind you see that to classify atheism as a religion then a whole host of other things must come along for the ride.

For example the dictionary.com definition has several things requiring a deity or spiritual things. The only listed definition that comes close is "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Well, there are lots of things in life that are pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Money for one comes to mind. If you are to use this meaning of a religion to include atheism don't you have to include money itself as a religion?

But, on the other hand, we (well, most of the readers) live in a political society that pursues a separation of religion and legislation. If our system of government declares there is no god then clearly this is favoring atheism over other beliefs and would in spirit promote atheism to be acting as a religion. However, removing all promotions of a god clearly differs from explicatly declaring the non-existence of a god. Thus, the goal of our government is to sort of step aside of the god thing while appreciating that taking any side in the existence of a god deals with religion.

How do you classify things and why?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Second Topic: Is atheism a religion? More

Second Topic: Is atheism a religion?

Comments Filter:
  • I find it slightly annoying to classify atheism as a religion. I feel I have no religion and to insist that atheism is one for me seems contradictory and therefore annoying.

    To me one has to have a beleif in a god, a judger, or something similar to have a religion. The money idea you put forth just goes along with this argument of mine. Since I don't beleive in a god I can't have a religion. Since I don't bleieve in a god I am atheist. Therefore atheism cannot be a religion. QED. (Based on the assumpt
    • Since I don't beleive in a god I can't have a religion.

      What about Tao or Buddhism? Neither have gods, yet both are clearly religions.

      (Though I have to ask, what difference does it make? So someone claims atheism's a belief -- extrapolated to "religion". So what?)

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

      • What about Tao or Buddhism? Neither have gods, yet both are clearly religions.

        I really like the writings of LPetrazickis in this matter and I would like to refer to this JE [slashdot.org] of his for his idea put forth is excellent. I can do no better. To quote him after he gets going:

        "So, by a very liberal definition of religion, atheism is one and, but a conservative definition, Buddhism isn't."

        As for carring about a label. I think I agree with the atheists account post here [slashdot.org] that the label doesn't matter all that
  • Well, I've seen one person argue (I don't know who it is.. maybe you) that if someone's hobby is to collect stamps, then if I don't collect stamps, it means my hobby is to NOT collect stamps. I find that observation a very nice one.

    If religion is about worshipping a god and attributing good things to that god, then what is worshipped by atheists? One could argue that atheists *generally* prefer logic, reason and (scientific) proof and tend to believe that the good things humans do comes from themselves. In
    • Which religious symbols do they hang around their necks or put on their cars?

      How about the darwin fish [meangene.com]?

      You mention the holy books and you mention the near worship of science. Couldn't one argue then that published scientific works (for example the diaries of da Vinci or the books by Knuth) could constitute the holy books of those who hold science/math so dear?

      Furthermore, what part of having a beleif means one must recite a prayer or even go to church. A beleif is simply a person feeling and the way o
      • The answer can be found in diversity and falsifiability. If you look at christianity, there is one unifying symbol: the cross. Atheists do not have such a symbol. Perhaps some use a darwin fish for the heck of it, but it's not the same. There is no "Darwin Temple" or a "Darwin Priest" who dictates such symbols or dogma. Furthermore, there is a MAJOR difference with having a collection of thousands of "holy books" that one can study (AND question, reject, etc) and having a single one that may not be question
        • There is no "Darwin Temple" or a "Darwin Priest" who dictates such symbols or dogma.

          Actually, many scientists can act surprisingly dogmatically (one example that comes to mind is "the speed of sound will never be broken"). Or for that matter whenever a scientist tries to present a controversial paper at a lecture or conference, quite often he/she is shouted down (figuratively if not literally).

          Of course, science is supposed by definition to be open-minded (while maintaining a skeptical distance) -- but

          • I am a scientist and I have a Ph.D in micro-optics. I've worked for years with other people who are also scientists. Speaking from my experience, the scientists that I have worked with and had many conversations with in real life were generally very open-minded. Some of them were religious on some level, many were not. Which conferences have you gone to? I have gone to quite a few conferences as a speaker and I've not once seen or experienced the rudeness you describe, unless you mean probing and critical q
            • Perhaps people tend to more critical in some scientific fields...

              Admittedly I have not personally been to a conference, but literally grew up in academia (university libraries make an interesting place to raise a kid ;-) ) and have heard of such goings-on -- usually in the fields of history, anthropology, archaeology, economics, medicine and so on. Other areas of science such as physics, astronomy, optics, etc. are possibly less susceptible to this, as they deal much more with hard data and less with the

              • Well, it seems like the angle you are trying here is that by getting me to agree to the fact that scientists can be dogmatic and rigid in their thinking *too* that what "they" say has the same level of validity as what churches, mosques, synagogues and temples say. This is a fallacy with which you can try to equate anything to anything.

                I think you're being too kind on science: in my opinion, it IS directly to be blamed for its flaws. That is the beauty of it. That is why scientists in most fields have to d
                • Well, it seems like the angle you are trying here is that by getting me to agree to the fact that scientists can be dogmatic and rigid in their thinking *too* that what "they" say has the same level of validity as what churches, mosques, synagogues and temples say. This is a fallacy with which you can try to equate anything to anything.

                  Um, no, that is not what I said at all. I said (repeating myself here) "one can't blame religion for its flaws any more than one can blame science" and "Human beings, being

                  • Actually, I would never blame a specific teaching for the rogue actions of mentally unstable people. To be fair, we should apply this equally to muslim extremists.

                    I looked back into this thread and saw that you entered the discussion to reply to my statement of "There is no 'Darwin Temple' or a 'Darwin Priest' who dictates such symbols or dogma." -- you replied by going that "many scientists" are surprisingly dogmatic and rude towards new (controversial ideas).

                    If it was not your original intention to refu
                    • Actually, I would never blame a specific teaching for the rogue actions of mentally unstable people. To be fair, we should apply this equally to muslim extremists.

                      Of course -- you'd have no argument from me there. [slashdot.org]

                      you replied by going that "many scientists" are surprisingly dogmatic and rude towards new (controversial ideas).

                      Fair cop, strike "many" and replace with "some". My intention was to illustrate human failure, not a "failure" of science (which being merely a method or tool isn't really capable

                    • So what is your point exactly? :-) Your opinions don't really conflict that much with mine that we can have a firm debate about it. If your religious endeavours have given you positive insights and strength, then good for you. The only thing I'd really ask is that you accept that other people (like me) draw such things from other sources and find some meaning in life even though that meaning isn't labeled "god". My "tools" to find meaning are different, but they work for me like yours work for you.

                      I consi
                    • So what is your point exactly? :-) Your opinions don't really conflict that much with mine that we can have a firm debate about it.

                      But dammit, I want to argue about something. ;-)

                      Sort of like the classic line at the end of a marital spat:

                      "What were we arguing about again?"
                      "I don't know, but you started it."

                      *grin*

                      The only thing I'd really ask is that you accept that other people (like me) draw such things from other sources and find some meaning in life even though that meaning isn't labeled "god

                  • Obviously I wouldn't call a priest (or plumber) [after an accident], because a priest (or plumber) doesn't heal physical injuries.

                    Thank you!

                    As someone who has both woken up in the ER to a priest next to me and told after coming out of a coma that a priest administered the last rights on me I'd really prefer people not provide services outside of those needed/requested. I went to the hopital because I had a severe head injury (both cases listed here). If I wanted those services provided I should have ei
                    • As someone who has both woken up in the ER to a priest next to me and told after coming out of a coma that a priest administered the last rights on me I'd really prefer people not provide services outside of those needed/requested.

                      Not to be too obtuse here, but if you're really an atheist, why should it matter to you if a priest conducts last rites on you? ;->

                      (Nitpick: it's "rites", not "rights", in this case.)

                      Though I actually do agree that some kind of identification of religious (or non-religiou

                    • First off, sorry about the "rites" versus "rights." My bad.

                      Now, as for "why should it matter to you if a priest conducts last rites on you?" Well, I think of this sort of like being incorrectly labeled.

                      What I'm saying is that I don't have a problem having been blessed and such as I don't care. You can go off and pray for me, I don't find your actions of doing that offensive. I find it annoying if you don't keep it to yourself. I find it offensive if you would assume I want that.

                      It is sort of like tha
                    • First off, sorry about the "rites" versus "rights." My bad.

                      I here you. Their similar-sounding words, so its know surprise that yew wood micks them up. ;-)

                      (Ain't homonyms fun?)

                      As I understand things the last rites aren't some minor little prayer for the sick or something, it is more like a baptismal than a simple prayer. Something that in my opinion shouldn't be done to someone, but for someone. If the someone didn't ask for it then you aren't doing it for them.

                      I'm not up on my Catholic rites (we An

                    • It seems quite intuitive to argue that it's not a good idea to share your last moments with someone who most likely teaches people that non-believers (including me) will go to a hell. It is certainly written in the bible that the only way to enter a heaven is through jesus. If we try to find an extreme example, one could say that for a black man it would not be a great idea to be "blessed" by a white racist.

                      One of the things I find most insulting about christians (in general) is that they often automatical
                    • As for ID cards, let us consider a hypothetical "checklist" (filled in for my case):

                      FWIW the German categorization is freeform -- you can have whatever you want there -- though some bureaucrats don't like that, think it's messy and untidy, and will put "None" if you don't choose one of the "usual" options.

                      This is annoying for me, because the "usual" options (for Christians) are merely "Catholic" (katholisch) or "Protestant" (evangelisch). As an Anglican, technically I am neither (sort of in between the

                    • [parent]One of the things I find most insulting about christians (in general) is that they often automatically assume that their relatity is also YOUR reality.

                      In defense of my fellow Christians, that is not always the case...

                      Perhaps it isn't that christians are insulting in general, just that the insulting ones are the ones who are going to be vocal. Christian or not perhaps they would still be insensitive.

                      I've had instances where I'll be chastised in a room full of christians, but only one or two are
                    • But then it would be more fair to put it like this:

                      [X] None of the above
                      [ ] None at all

                      Or, more accurately:
                      [X] a non-listed christian faith
                      [ ] a non-listed muslim faith

                      I do find it a little odd that your specific branch of religion should be in your ID card. Here in The Netherlands, we don't have that at all. It might be useful for statistical purposes though...

                      The problem with what you say is that the label "christians" covers people who a) follow the bible and b) accept jesus as their savior. However
  • I don't know if I agree with the stamp collecting illustration. I think that if my hobby is stamp collecting & you don't like collecting stamps, then you still have a belief about stamps, but collecting no stamps is not your hobby. You just have a different hobby [ie: riding trains, riding motor bikes, collecting comics, reading, whatever, etc.], unless you are an unusally abnormal person. I wouldn't put much thought into this because illustrations are just that.

    I think that the major problem is that p
    • Perhaps it would make sense to distinguish between the term "beliefs" and "religion". One can have certain beliefs that pertain to pretty much anything, like how one believes people should treat eachother, what the goal of one's life should be, what the most tasty flavour ice cream is, etc. On the other hand, religion (as also defined in Webster's), focuses on the strong belief in a *supernatural being*. In that sense, by definition, atheism is not a religion, although one can argue that beliefs or even ass

      • On the other hand, religion (as also defined in Webster's), focuses on the strong belief in a *supernatural being*. In that sense, by definition, atheism is not a religion, although one can argue that beliefs or even assumptions are involved.

        I think that that is the point that I'm trying to argue against. I think that Webster's has it wrong. If my religion said that vanilla is best, then is my religion a religion according to Webster's & yours? Webster's doesn't account for the fact that certain topics

        • In order to have a good discussion, it is important to agree on the meaning of the different key words in that discussion. In the case of confusion, I find a dictionary to offer quite a good reference, since we can independently consult it. If you wish to convey another meaning, it might be better to use another word for it. If the core of your religion revolves around something that is not supernatural (e.g. vanilla), then according to that definition it is not a religion, unless it was meant satirically.

          • If the core of your religion revolves around something that is not supernatural (e.g. vanilla), then according to that definition it is not a religion, unless it was meant satirically.

            I don't think that I meant it satirically. I meant it as an extreme example of what I'm willing to let people include in their religious doctrine. For a more practical example, we'd have to discuss whether or not Christians are allowed to consume alcohol. What about pork? Seafood? What about other religions? Are they allowed t

  • Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any gods. Nothing else is required to be an atheist. Consequently, atheism in and of itself is not a religion as it has no specific beliefs, practices, strictures or organizations.

    This is not to say that individual atheists don't have beliefs, practices, strictures or organizations [atheists.org], just that such things are not a component of atheism.

    For example the dictionary.com definition has several things requiring a deity or spiritual things. The only listed definitio
    • Twins may not be sufficient. We need a control to bring up in the "normal" modern society. We need one to be taught things of science, but not religion. We need a few more also to have this done to so that we may periodically bring them over (yearly perhaps?) by individually introducing the concept of religion and monitoring their reactions. Obvoiusly once this concept is introduced they must be segreated from the rest, who would then continue on in their non-religious education/development.

      Perhaps we
  • I see religion as organized dogma.

    That's part of the reason why I don't like it.

    It appears once people get religion they stop thinking and uncritically accepts whatever dogmatic nonsense their preferred religious authority claims to be the truth. God created the universe in seven days! Evolution is Wrong! Homosexuality is a Sin! Abortion is Ungodly! The Pope is Infallible! Never question Anything!

    In some Swedish survey undertaken years and years ago, a majority of people said that they believed in God,
    • As I've observed elsewhere in this journal entry, it could be argued that atheism is more religious than agnosticism, since it still makes specific assumptions about a deity, namely that there isn't one.
      • Obviously, the fundamental problem is how to define religion.

        The most general of its definitions in my Oxford Dict. & Thes. is: 3 a particular system of faith and worship.

        I think the faith aspect is clear. We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of deities. Whatever we choose to believe, we believe, we do not know. In this sense, agnosticism is the only 'position' not involving belief. Regarding your analogy with stamp-collecting, I think that far too often atheism is more than the mere non-c

  • Mixed metaphor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Some Woman ( 250267 ) * on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:56PM (#9066943) Journal
    On the other hand, black is the absence of color/light while white contains all colors so if white is religion and includes all practiced religions then perhaps atheism is the inky black of the absence of all religion. Yet, Crayola makes black crayons.

    I see what you're going for, but this metaphor is painful. Pick either light colors or pigment colors. They are opposite sets. The primary colors of one are very nearly the secondary colors of the other. In one, black is lack of color; in the other, black is the presence of all colors. Same with white. But, yes I get the point: Crayola does indeed make white crayons.

    In my opinion the word "religion" is far too limiting for the concept of atheism. I think that atheism is a larger world view. Just as "believing in God" isn't a religion in itself. The religion is Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, etc... So, Theism and Atheism are worldviews from which all else follows.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close