Can Atheism be considered a religion?

[MerryAtheist]

(06-30-2009 01:08 AM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Calling atheism a type of religion is like calling health a type of disease.

I prefer the following for personal reasons:

"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."

[Stereophonic]

(06-30-2009 10:24 AM)MerryAtheist Wrote:  ..."Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."

Believe it or not, I have seen bald men who have painted the top of their heads black, so as to appear to have hair (at least from a distance, or to nearsighted passers-by).

[MerryAtheist]

(06-30-2009 10:28 AM)Stereophonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2009 10:24 AM)MerryAtheist Wrote:  ..."Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."

Believe it or not, I have seen bald men who have painted the top of their heads black, so as to appear to have hair (at least from a distance, or to nearsighted passers-by).

Though I haven't seen them for myself, I've heard of such insecure men. The most common solution is the good ole' comb-over. I, however, am not one of those; I keep my remaining hair very short (1/4 inch) with puppy trimmers. I'd take it all off, but my wife thinks I have an ugly head.

[niapri]

Even if Atheism is an "active faith in the absence of" god, it can't be considered a religion unless Christianity can be considered polytheists for their "active faith in the absence of" any god(s) except their own.

[GTseng3]

Exactly. Atheists are just like Christians, we just disbelieve in one more god than them.

[Stereophonic]

(06-30-2009 10:24 AM)MerryAtheist Wrote:  ...Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color...

Or one could say that Atheism is a "religion substitute" just like a toupee or a painted head is a "hair substitute."

[GTseng3]

No, see, then the metaphor breaks down.

Actually, to be fair, there are two kinds of atheism. The first is the sort of atheism that I have, and that most intellectuals, scientists, and others who have truly thought about it have. This atheism is in no way a religion, it is simply a conclusion arrived at after study of the facts. A leads to B leads to C, and C is atheism. If our understanding of A and B change, then the conclusion will also change. This cannot be said to be a religion because it is not dogmatic, nor exclusive, it is simply a logical and empowering conclusion.

There is another kind of atheism, normally held by those who are angry at the church or god. This atheism is dogmatic, and unwavering. It is generally held in bitterness and is as unhealthy as religion. This sort of atheism is held by those who refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of the divine even before they look at the facts. That sort of atheism can be said to be a religion, since it is believed blindly without evidence, as theism is. Such atheism is a case of arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons and purpose, and regrettably in the search for truth reason and purpose are just as important as conclusion.

There don't seem to be many atheists of that sort here, but you'll see a very interesting occurrence if I'm ever in a debate with these sorts - I turn on them and start debating them very swiftly. Although most atheists, I believe, are of the good, logical, former sort, it's this minority, these (more properly) anti-theists that allow the inaccuracies that theists tell about atheists to continue.

[niapri]

Hear, hear. I tend to give type-2 atheists a wide berth. There's a whole group of them in my college who seem to be interests in nothing except sticking their fingers in the eyes of religion.

The problem with anti-theism is that, when you try to DISprove something, you can only gather evidence against the hypothesis (in chis case, religion). To say that your hypothesis is difinitively, absolutely true (this one is the null, atheism), is a logical fallacy - affirming the consequent. That's where anti-theists cross the line into "belief", and make themselves look every bit as foolishly dogmatic and pedantic as religious people.

I'm a psychology major, big on the research side, so I just look at it in the way we look at research. There's not enough evidence in support of the religion hypothesis, therefore I fall back to the default position is that it is untrue. The alternative is atheism, so it becomes my default position. It's not my repsonsibility to prove it true, since I'm not suggesting an unsupported hypothesis.

[GTseng3]

Precisely. The burden of proof is on the theists, speaking for a scientific and philosophical standpoint. The only reason this is not true in our society is because theism has been the default belief for thousands of years. It is an entrenched tradition that tends to hunker down and say, "Prove we're wrong." When really, since they are believing in something instead of nothing, the question should be "prove you're right."

Or to be charitable (because I try to be,) show evidence that you're right. Conclusive proof on either side is not currently within our ability to produce.

[Stereophonic]

(07-05-2009 11:30 AM)niapri Wrote:  ...I'm not suggesting an unsupported hypothesis.

Without some sufficient Source and Ground of reason, the validity of reason itself is an unsupportable hypothesis. Therefore the atheist cannot rely on reason as a valid means of affirming or denying anything at all (or at least it cannot do so without thereby falling into self-referential incoherence).