I say it is, which of course begs the question, "What the h311 is up
with a religion that is against religions?"

I'm just saying, it seems counter-intuitive.

I'd say that atheism is not a religion, as there is very little, if
anything, that unifies the 'beliefs' of atheists. There are outspoken
athesist who may be 'against' religion, but not all atheists are against
religion.

Why does it need a label?

To help separate us?

Why does any of it need labels?

so you can see the ingredients and nutritional value..

And the calorie count?

exactly!!

Hehe, mmmm tasty labels.

Well, labels are just ways we define things. Sure we don't NEED to call
someone blonde, but it sure helps if you want to describe somebody.

Religion is defined as a belief, especially in regards to existence and
creation of the universe. Atheism is a belief that there is no
God/Supreme being. So in that sense, they are a religion, but not in the
way I initially posted. Apologies. I guess my real question/issue has to
deal with the folks who say, "I have no religion. I'm an Atheist." To
me, that's like saying, "I'm not stupid, I'm just not smart."

>> Atheism is a belief that there is no God/Supreme being.

Labels, labels, and more labels! Thats "strong atheism". "Weak
atheism" is simply the absence of belief in a God.

Are you saying that people, especially atheists, often underestimate the
role that faith and 'beliefs' play in their worldview?

I would agree. And I agree with the excellent point you made in another
thread, about how simply believing in one's own existences requires a
certain amount of 'faith'.

But I think its fine for an atheist to claim they have no religion,
given my view of what a religion is (which is much more than simply
having a belief).

I'm with you Jess on the seperation thing. I believe in God, but I don't
believe in religion.
Religion is man made.
Think about it.
Why would God want to seperate us from each other?
There is only one truth.
As far as atheism being a religion, sure, why not?
Like I said, the other religions are man made anyway, why not have
another?

That was exactly my point trade

However, there is one extra caveat to that, they underestimate faith,
and denounce religions when religions are nothing more than a system of
beliefs. Really, everyone has religion, its whether its
institutionalized or not that seems to be the real issue.

In my business, language is important, and I often find that
disagreements can arise because people are too lazy to pick up a
dictionary and use a word correctly. When people denounce "religions" as
a group, they are not only "attacking themselves", but they are
offending and insulting people accidentally.

Wow, lots of breathing room in here this morning!

I totally agree with what you are saying about how some atheists,
perhaps accidentally, are insulting all the people who belong to a
specific formalized religion in the course of their attack on that
formalized religion.

I've become so accustomed to using 'religion' as synonymous with
'formalized, organized religion' that I really resist the other semantic
point you seem to be making... I mean, when enough people are using a
certain word a certain way (religion=organized religion) it can be said
to be a valid use of the word.

But in any case I'm not going to defend an atheist who attacks
'religions' categorically, because each organized religion is slightly
different. Consider the unitarian universalists...

Religion is just a way to describe the beliefs of a person or group of
people.
Me Attacking religion is not to mean to be insulting to people in that
way, my point is that it seperates us from each other, and the truth.
Sorry if I didn't make this clear.

Net, I in -no way- interpreted your post as an attack on religion!!! I
don't think Tomokun, nor anyone else, did either.

Thanks Mass.
I am just glad to be a part of this growing process.
Where we all learn from each other.

Tomokun wrote:
“Really, everyone has religion, its whether its institutionalized or not
that seems to be the real issue”

You statement here presumes a semantic definition of the word ‘religion’
that I personally don’t embrace. I give my semantic understanding of
the word below. Semantics is simply not carved in stone. There are a
myriad of acceptable definitions for the word ‘religion’. To force your
semantic definition onto others would be self-defeating. It’s much
better to try to understand where other people are coming from. I offer
my views in the post below. These are simply my views and nothing more.

~~~

Atheism is a word used to cover such a wide berth of philosophies that
it would be utterly hilarious to hear anyone suggest that all atheists
should be lumped together.

Many people have simply surrendered the use of the word ‘God’ to
religions like Christianity. When they claim not to believe in a God,
they simply mean that they don’t believe in an external ruler in the sky
of any kind.

I believe that many people who call themselves atheists may very well
know god very intimately and just not associate a label with that
experience. They fully understand that there is no need for religion,
so when they claim to be an atheist all they really mean is that they
don’t believe in religion. Well, if they don’t believe in religion then
how can their brand of atheism be considered a religion?

I claim to believe in god, yet in my very next breath I will tell you
that I do not associate with any religion. Therefore I believe in god
yet denounce religion. I see absolutely no need for any religion.

How can I do that? Well, from my perspective the word religion means
“Practices, rituals and possibly doctrines that are required for a
belief in a divine power”.

Christianity is a perfect example of a religion. It is firmly based on
doctrine and would have absolutely no meaning if that doctrine were
dismissed as being completely irrelevant. That would mean that the
religion would need to survive without any knowledge of any of the
stories in the bible including any mention of the story of Jesus.
Clearly Christianity would cease to exist without its doctrine.
Christianity is all about believing in its doctrine. And that doctrine
requires certain practices and rituals. The simple requirement that a
Christian must accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is the most
obvious ritual associated with this religion, but there are many other
commandments that are required of the followers of this faith too.

There is no need for any specific practices, rituals or doctrine to know
the god I know. It is true that there are things that a person can do to
learn about the god I know, and there are many books that have been
written that will help a person come to know the god I know. But they
are not ‘required’. My god has no need for religion. You can know my
god via direct experience. You don’t even need to be literate. You
could be a completely illiterate caveman and know my god. In fact, a
caveman would be much more likely to know my god naturally through
everyday experiences than a modern ‘civilized’ man would.

Therefore I claim to believe in god yet I also claim to not be religious
in the slightest.

Religion and god have nothing to do with each other. Unless of course,
your religion requires that you worship doctrine. Then the doctrine
becomes your God and you can’t even imagine separating religion from God
because your religion has become your God. I personally see religions
as teaching a false picture of god. To me they represent idol worship
where the religious doctrine has become the idol.

Is my view of religion an ‘attack’ on religion. Perhaps it is. It’s
still my view and I have a right to express it. I might add that I
express my view from a humanitarian position and not from a ‘religious’
stance. It’s totally unimportant to god what a person believes. But
what is taught about god may very well be important to the future of
humanity.

Atheist are about 10% of the population.

If atheism were a religion, would there not be set up atheist run
schools and such? Or atheism being taught in schools? Wonder how that
would turn out?

I may be wrong but, isn't atheism a belief that there can be no higher
power or God? Someone more powerful than ones self?

There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is
no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the
second is a lack of that belief


If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in
other Gods is an equal faith. Would Christians say they do not believe
in other Gods as a matter of faith?

If atheism with respect to deity is a religion, then your atheism with
respect to other deities is also a religion.

Wouldn't a true atheist say, he doesn't care if you try and prove the
existance of a God, because there absolutly is no such animal?
Then there are "atheist" that look for those very facts?
Wouldn't that be the difference in atheism being a religion or simply
faith?

Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them.
Declaring it to be otherwise, will not make it so.

Kat

Atheism IS NOT a belief. Much less a religion, if one goes with a known
definition of the word.

Atheism is a word used to describe one person at a time whom negates the
belief of the existence of god. Believers tend to forget that 'God'
doesn't exist other than through one's belief in his existence. I happen
to believe (no religion, no dogma, no guru), but I don't forget the
distinction between my belief of existence, and the inexistence of
physical proof 'God'. My faith is not 'attacked' by someone whom
legitimately says what I already agree with. Other than through one's
belief, God doesn't exist. If they DON'T BELIEVE, they're right: God
doesn't exist to them. And I don't see any problem with that.

My faith doesn't live outside of me. It doesn' require me to seek out
approval or belonging with those whom agree with me (I belong to it
all), or chase and convert, or attack those whom don't agree with me.

Given that, I don't need any other label than brother and sister for my
fellow human beings. Each one of us has his own journey to carve out of
this existence on earth. One might not share my passion and love for
Bruckner's 8th symphony, or my views on the metaphysical world, who
cares. The sum of differences is exactly what makes us the same.
Having a genuine interest in discovering and sharing each other's
journey is our only mission on earth.

As for Atheism being a religion, someone would have to transform the
etymology, as well as the cultural and accepted functional definition
of the word religion.

For a religion to exist, there first must be an official body of dogma
and practices wich establish the rapports of practitioners to their form
of divine. It must also comprise a dimension of ritualistic vows or
commitmemts, to respect and obey the dogma and rules of an officiating
body: usually the church. This church then has power over the proper or
improper conduct of its practitioners.

Unless you can report in fact, the 'ex-communication' of an Atheist from
a 'church' of Atheism, for not respecting the official and written dogma
and pratices of Atheism, you don't get to call Atheism a religion in my
book.

He or she do not 'believe in' anything. Each in their own way, they
negate the belief of the existence of god.

you are really amazing....... i just laughed and had to continue to
scroll onward.....


pearls to swine ....comes to mind

My nativ tongue is french. I'm from Montréal, Québec. I still miss out
on quite a few of your colourfoul expressions.

bl8ant, would you indulge me and say more about:

"... pearls to swine".
(found 'pearl from swine' on google, but no definition)


Thanks.

voileazur,

She (bl8ant) is referring to a lesson that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:6.

Matthew 7:6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before
swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you
to pieces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------