Journal Journal: Second Topic: Is atheism a religion? 34
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?