Is Atheism a religion?

[IronDuke]

The topic says it all. Are Atheism or Agnosticism religions?

The question is as old as atheist beliefs themselves, I think. I had to ask myself that a while back when I was filling out a survey. One of the questions was about religion, and I had to write in what I was.

I was about to write Agnostic or Atheist (I wobble between the two, depending on my mood on a given day), but then I thought about whether it was intellectually honest to say anything other than "Not Applicable."

The definitions I use for the two terms are:
Atheism - a tacit belief that the is/are no God/gods, and there is nothing in the universe which is supernatural (though there are things which might be so advanced or complicated human beings cannot understand them)

Agnosticism - The belief that there may or may not be a God/gods, but there is no way to ever know, given the limitations of human consciousness. (Basically - God simply cannot be understood, and if you can understand it then it isn't God.)
These aren't perfect explanations, of course, but they work for me.

As for the question I asked:
The lack of does not, I think, constitute something else in itself. For instance, under "occupation" in the survey, I did not put "non-lawyer, non=doctor, non-bricklayer, non-trucker." I simply put down what I am - student. When I am nothing in the given category, why should I list the thing that I am not?

Yes, Atheism or Agnosticism might often have the trappings of other religious groups. They have "temples" (there actually are Atheist Churches on some USA university campuses, not to mention the Centers for Inquiry in many major cities around the world). There are "clergy-preachers" (ie Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and especially Richard Dawkins.) And people can be just a shrill about being Atheists as they can about being Christians.

So, is the lack of belief a belief in itself? Is "Atheist" an honest answer to a survey question asking for your religious belief?

 

[Shrike]

Weee, semantics

I'm assuming you read this article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... intro.html?

I was browsing through it, but to be honest, it was too long for my current attention span. What I read I did agree with though.

I used to call myself a believing atheist (when I was something like 15 ), and I guess if one could claim to actually "worship" science in some way, then it could be defined as a religion. That is, if atheism by definition leads to a "belief in science", which I'm not sure is something we've really established. But if your definition of atheism/agnosticism is merely the denial of the existence of a supreme being, then no it's not a religion.

If, then, else, how I love thee

 

[Onhell]

That's a stupid question Duke, the obvious answer is "No". Atheism is the LACK of belief in a God, not the belief that there is no god. And Agnostics are those sissy who don't have the balls to choose a side do to the lack of knowledge (gnosis) to confrim either side (religious or athiest). To be a religion you must have dogma, ritual most importantly MYSTERY. That is what separates a religion from a philosophy. Like in Christianity the mystery of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, etc. In Judaism the Torah itself and in Islam Mohamed's enlightment in the desert. Both Atheism and Agnosticism lack all of these elements, not to mention the all important Higher Power. In atheism all together and in agnosticism a specific one.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

The definitions I use for the two terms are: ...
Agnosticism ... (Basically - God simply cannot be understood, and if you can understand it then it isn't God.)
These aren't perfect explanations, of course, but they work for me.

Granting that you said it isn't a perfect explanation, but many thinkers[sup]1[/sup] of "normal" religions have concluded that "God"[sup]2[/sup] can't be understood, so this isn't a solely agnostic belief.

Having said that, I have seen some definitions of "religion" as "your belief system about the world". While such a definition is broader (and consequently more useless) than the normal definition, it does work for atheists. After all, there are some atheists who are as zealous about their atheism as believers are about their religion. So: yes, atheism can be called a religion, but it does not fit the common definition most people use.

[sup]1[/sup] Read Karen Armstrong's fine book A History Of God for more on this. I've got too much stuff to do right now, not gonna look up examples.

[sup]2[/sup] "God" is in quotes because I'm an atheist, and I don't want to give the impression that I think "God" actually exists.

---

...Agnostics are those sissy who don't have the balls to choose a side...

WRONG. True agnosticism is a considered choice; a firm belief that the question cannot be answered. It's not about "choosing a side"; it's the acknowledgement that either side may be right, but the conviction that neither side has offered convincing evidence.

To quote Rush: If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

 

[Shrike]

Anyone else reminded by the H2G2 exchange about the Babelfish as the ultimate proof of the non-existance of God?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA

In addition, I disagree with Onhell about agnosticism. I don't believe there is a God, but I've yet to see someone prove that God doesn't exist, I've heard many atheists try, but I've yet to be convinced by their arguments. I think that it's impossible to prove it, so therefore I won't discount the possibility that a God exists. I actually consider such a position quite arrogant. And I don't think that makes me a sissy. I'd rather admit that I don't hold the answer to life's mysteries than live in utter conviction of something that may or may not be true.

 

[Anonymous]

And Agnostics are those sissy who don't have the balls to choose a side do to the lack of knowledge (gnosis) to confrim either side (religious or athiest).

Bullshit. For many years, I considered myself an Atheist, but I have started developing doubts on the firm belief that God -or some sort of supernatural force- does not exist. I have actually developed a slight hope. There are reasons for that, but it would take too long to explain. However, I'm not wasting too much of my time thinking about it, because I will find out anyway, sooner or later (i.e. when I die).

 

[Albie]

And Agnostics are those sissy who don't have the balls to choose a side do to the lack of knowledge (gnosis) to confrim either side (religious or athiest).

Hmmm. Others have said what I would have said, but it's is not all about knowledge or the guts to choose. There is no amount of knowledge that could categorically prove it either way, so some of us are left with no choice but to opt out.

And I for one am not prepared to make that sacrifice to prove it one way or the other.

 

[Onhell]

There is no amount of knowledge that could categorically prove it either way, so some of us are left with no choice but to opt out.

Ok, so I have a bad habit of inserting sarcastic comments with proper argumentation. to me it was obviously a joke the gutless sissy part. BUT also inserted in my post is the exact information quoted above by albie, only worded differently. I said:

And Agnostics are those {that} do to the lack of knowledge (gnosis) to confrim either side (religious or athiest) {abstain from either camp}.

...decide not to choose a side, not choosing is still a choice, whatever way you choose to worded... same shit different smell.

 

[Albie]

Ok, so I have a bad habit of inserting sarcastic comments with proper argumentation.

Onhell, Sarcastic? I would never hear such a thing.

Seriously, I see your point here:

And Agnostics are those {that} do to the lack of knowledge (gnosis) to confrim either side (religious or athiest) {abstain from either camp}.

...decide not to choose a side, not choosing is still a choice, whatever way you choose to worded... same shit different smell.