Is Atheism a Religion?

[JessP]

Atheists believe the universe created itself from nothing by faith.

Atheists believe life created itself from dead matter by faith.

Atheists believe the massive information contained in DNA is the result of random chemical reactions by faith.

Atheists believe random mutations result in an increase in genetic information, and thus macro-evolution, by faith.

Atheists believe the eye with it's cornea, iris, lens, retina, and millions of light sensitive cells and cones - the heart, blood, blood vessels, liver - the brain, with it's 100 billion neurons, spinal cord, and electrical nervous system, with 45 miles of nerves - the stomach, stomach acid, intestines, and digestive system, ETC., ALL evolved RANDOMLY by CHANCE without any guidance or foresight, by faith.

It is definitely a religion. And they all worship at the alter of Darwinian evolution.

Hey Budman,

I can honestly say that Atheists may not believe any of those. I don't know for sure how the universe started but as an Atheist I don't think it was God, but I also don't believe it was nothing. Also I don't believe that dead matter created life.

You don't have to believe in Evolution to be an Atheist. I know some Atheists who don't believe in evolution.

Not all Atheists believe in Darwinian evolution.

I don't worship Darwin, I'm not even sure how I could worship him If I wanted to?

Also as an Atheist I am open to change my opinion if something I believed was later proven to be false I would change my opinion I would not use Faith to maintain that believe despite evidence to the opposite.

This might make you laugh but I know of an Atheist that believe life was put here by an Alien race! - I definitely only share the lack of belief in God with that guy!

I think perhaps you have some preconceptions that all Atheists share the same beliefs on the above matters, but honestly we don't. Even if everyone had their own opinions on the above no matter how crazy or wrong, the only criteria to being an Atheist is that they believe there is no God/Gods.

For example The answer to all of the above could be 'I don't know',or 'I have no opinion on those things'
they would only have to state 'I don't think there is a God'.

 

[JessP]

Welcome to CC!

An atheist needs to look at the ramifications of their lack of belief in God. It is one thing to say, I do not believe what other atheists believe regarding evolution, for instance, but at some point you will come up against the question of origin, primal cause, etc., if you are seeking any kind of depth in your understanding of life, and/or life's purpose. Some atheists claim they are content to believe there is no ultimate purpose to life, and yet seeking purpose in life is fairly universally fundamental to the human experience.

View attachment 139156

Hi Magenta - thanks for the warm Welcome!

I do agree with you and I think this just shows further how Atheism is not a religion. As we could all come up with our own meanings to life or indeed assume there is no meaning. Talking about the consequences of our lack of belief in God is interesting.
The fact that there is no clear pathway or meaning surely highlights the fact that Atheism is not a religion?

 

[posthuman]

believing "evidence" is an act of faith. every repeatable experiment is a Schrödinger's box until it's been repeated infinite times. we only say the universe obeys physical laws because the last n times we performed experiments, the results agreed with those laws. n may be very large, but it's not infinite. in the same way, we assume that the same circumstances are present in the rest of the universe. but we don't know that - we haven't been there. the entire basis of scientific thought is a faith that the universe is both orderly and relatively homogeneous. if it were not so, how could we even have the notion of a "repeatable experiment" or be able to make any inference at all beyond each persons own immediate experience?

even further, we don't perform every experiment and experience every result ourselves - we rely (on the basis of belief, which has varying degrees of rational basis) on what we read or hear from others. we have faith in textbooks, ted talks, journals, etc. even further than this, we live day-to-day under the assumption that our experience is shared with other people. we operate under the belief that other people exist - in point of fact, an unverifiable assumption. much like Einstein in his accelerating elevator or railway car, we cannot discern the difference between a universe populated by other living creatures like ourselves that we communicate with and share experiential reality with, and a solitary existence in a state of extraordinarily convincing madness. there is simply no way for Lao Tzu to reconcile whether he is a butterfly or a man dreaming -- in order to function, we make a choice, consciously or not, to operate in one of the two paradigms, and the basis of that is faith, needfully so, because no evidence can be given that is more than a high probability.

you can look at rationalism. you can consider logic and point at it as being a reason to "believe" in shared existence with others instead of a solitary, lunatic existentialism. but unless that logic is built upon a source outside of your own meta-experience, you're assuming the result in order to prove the conclusion. even more damning, if you accept a universe and a living existence built on the basis of fundamentally chaotic happenstance, refined by aeons into best-case survivability a-la evolutionary mechanisms, then essentially your own brain is the product of random selection, and if thoughts are merely physical synapses and electrical impulses in this randomly assembled grey matter, itself optimized by random happenstance, then logic and very thought itself is randomness without merit beyond survival of the fittest - and doesn't it stand to this chaotically born thing called "reason" that survivability doesn't necessitate philosophical and metaphysical truth? why should a purely random process produce consistent internal logical systems? how would a brain and intellect that is the product of purely random processes even discern holes in its own logical structure?
so it takes faith to believe your own thoughts, be it faith that random circumstance and chemical process produces ultimate truth in your internal dialogue, or faith that something more than purely random process created your mind and did so in a consistent, orderly, purposeful way.

i do "think" -- and i "think" that denying the Creator is a position that is ultimately self-defeating.

 

[posthuman]

The fact that there is no clear pathway or meaning surely highlights the fact that Atheism is not a religion?

only if you wouldn't consider things like b'nai b'rith or unitarian universalism, or indeed even hinduism a "religion" - none of which have a clear, consistent pathway or meaning.

but atheism does have a clear pathway & meaning - nihilism and utter meaninglessness. perhaps with pretty sparkles on the way, whatever "pretty" means, in that complete non-context.

 

[posthuman]

sorry... that was probably pretty heavy. i hope it didn't land on anyone's foot!

welcome, JessP

 

[Magenta]

believing "evidence" is an act of faith. every repeatable experiment is a Schrödinger's box until it's been repeated infinite times. we only say the universe obeys physical laws because the last n times we performed experiments, the results agreed with those laws. n may be very large, but it's not infinite. in the same way, we assume that the same circumstances are present in the rest of the universe. but we don't know that - we haven't been there. the entire basis of scientific thought is a faith that the universe is both orderly and relatively homogeneous. if it were not so, how could we even have the notion of a "repeatable experiment" or be able to make any inference at all beyond each persons own immediate experience?

even further, we don't perform every experiment and experience every result ourselves - we rely (on the basis of belief, which has varying degrees of rational basis) on what we read or hear from others. we have faith in textbooks, ted talks, journals, etc. even further than this, we live day-to-day under the assumption that our experience is shared with other people. we operate under the belief that other people exist - in point of fact, an unverifiable assumption. much like Einstein in his accelerating elevator or railway car, we cannot discern the difference between a universe populated by other living creatures like ourselves that we communicate with and share experiential reality with, and a solitary existence in a state of extraordinarily convincing madness. there is simply no way for Lao Tzu to reconcile whether he is a butterfly or a man dreaming -- in order to function, we make a choice, consciously or not, to operate in one of the two paradigms, and the basis of that is faith, needfully so, because no evidence can be given that is more than a high probability.

you can look at rationalism. you can consider logic and point at it as being a reason to "believe" in shared existence with others instead of a solitary, lunatic existentialism. but unless that logic is built upon a source outside of your own meta-experience, you're assuming the result in order to prove the conclusion. even more damning, if you accept a universe and a living existence built on the basis of fundamentally chaotic happenstance, refined by aeons into best-case survivability a-la evolutionary mechanisms, then essentially your own brain is the product of random selection, and if thoughts are merely physical synapses and electrical impulses in this randomly assembled grey matter, itself optimized by random happenstance, then logic and very thought itself is randomness without merit beyond survival of the fittest - and doesn't it stand to this chaotically born thing called "reason" that survivability doesn't necessitate philosophical and metaphysical truth? why should a purely random process produce consistent internal logical systems? how would a brain and intellect that is the product of purely random processes even discern holes in its own logical structure?
so it takes faith to believe your own thoughts, be it faith that random circumstance and chemical process produces ultimate truth in your internal dialogue, or faith that something more than purely random process created your mind and did so in a consistent, orderly, purposeful way.

i do "think" -- and i "think" that denying the Creator is a position that is ultimately self-defeating.

Many atheists largely deny this. They have to, I suppose. It is a gaping hole in their claim to superior rationality, logic, intelligence, individualism, and lack of brainwashing.

 

[posthuman]

we could all come up with our own meanings to life or indeed assume there is no meaning.

this notion has at least two consequences:

(1) if we could all come up with our own "meaning of life" then either there is no real meaning because every meaning is essentially arbitrary, or the great lot of us are wholly deceived and vain to be coming up with our own "meaning."

(2) regardless of the ultimate truth of the first point, that there is a "best" meaning or no true meaning at all, under the assumption that "meaning" is some kind of personal choice, mankind has prerogative to form this meaning for himself. this is nothing more than humanism - which, like some people pointed out when this thread began, is the underlying system of belief in atheism: that man can choose for himself gods or no gods, meaning or non-meaning, which is, that man himself is the ultimate authority & source, sufficient unto himself. this makes mankind's "god" his own stomach, his own vanity, and it is religion of the self, and i would maintain that anyone who would rather call it "philosophy" because of some connotation of the word "religion" simply doesn't know what it means to "worship," whether by lack of familiarity or willful ignorance of the act.

it's vanity, vanity, nothing but vanity. that's the consequence of godlessness - staring into a mirror, looking for all the answers, faced with Gödel's incompleteness.

 

[posthuman]

Many atheists largely deny this. They have to, I suppose. It is a gaping hole in their claim to superior rationality, logic, intelligence, individualism, and lack of brainwashing.

i suspect that the evolutionary force would act in the direction of willful ignorance -- a sort of survival mechanism to keep one from going mad. same reason that a mind that's the product of utter evolutionary "noise" would be pressured to consider itself rational - otherwise it couldn't function.
for us, how could we survive after having known the Lord if we denied Him? we'd have to keep rationalizing and rationalizing, or simply crumple in dread!
how good that He accepts us when we are broken, and how great that He has such mercy and kindness!

 

[kaylagrl]

Apparently I asked too many questions...

 

[Magenta]

Hi Magenta - thanks for the warm Welcome!

I do agree with you and I think this just shows further how Atheism is not a religion. As we could all come up with our own meanings to life or indeed assume there is no meaning. Talking about the consequences of our lack of belief in God is interesting.
The fact that there is no clear pathway or meaning surely highlights the fact that Atheism is not a religion?

You are welcome I agree that atheism is not a religion, for religion in my view requires a supreme Being, what we call God, to be central. However, there are philosophical views that some consider religion, such as non-theistic Buddhism, and even Christians believe that atheists have their gods (idols). (Although Buddha said he taught the way things are in answer to the question of what he was teaching, and that people should not accept what he said on faith.) From the perspective of atheists having idols, I can understand why people might call it a religion. Even though language is flexible, sometimes it is manipulated too much

 

[Magenta]

i suspect that the evolutionary force would act in the direction of willful ignorance -- a sort of survival mechanism to keep one from going mad. same reason that a mind that's the product of utter evolutionary "noise" would be pressured to consider itself rational - otherwise it couldn't function.
for us, how could we survive after having known the Lord if we denied Him? we'd have to keep rationalizing and rationalizing, or simply crumple in dread!
how good that He accepts us when we are broken, and how great that He has such mercy and kindness!

Amen! ...

 

[Magenta]

Apparently I asked too many questions...

I'm sorry, I did not see them...

 

[kaylagrl]

I'm sorry, I did not see them...

No,the friendly atheist. Umm Jess,had to look back to find the name.I asked a few questions that weren't answered. Not you

 

[P1LGR1M]

In that case is everything a religion?

Not really. That is the reason why it is acknowledged that there is a range in all religious groups of nominal to fanatical. We could throw in those who are simply disinterested, but, we do not see them showing up on forums discussing their beliefs.



How many atheists go to bigfoot forums to try to convince them that their truth about bigfoot is correct? lol

What would the opposite of religious be?

Neutral.

Which we would find in babies and dolphins but not so much in adults who have made a determination about God or gods or things supernatural.

Are agnostics Religious ?

Some of them very much so.

Though I have run across very few agnostics in my time on forums, they are far and few between. But the ones I have spoken with can be viewed as religious in the sense that they have beliefs and they go to the effort to make those beliefs known to others.

I suppose Atheists in some sense are opposed to religion ( not in an anti-theistic way necessarily)

Some atheists are more than opposed to religion, they have campaigns mounted in an effort to rid the world of religion.

And again, the irony is that they are themselves religious.

And you echo this sentiment in your next statement:

but what makes us Atheist is our desire not to be recognised as religious.

Now tell me...was that your position before entering this thread?

I am not trying to sit on the fence but the questions help my to clarify peoples thinking on this subject as someone with an opposing view before I can explain why I disagree I need to understand what it is I am exactly disagrring with or if infact I want to change my view.

I agree, you are not sitting on the fence, that would imply the possibility that you could change your view.

Is that possible?

And it seems you have a motive of clarifying to others your position and to impact their position in regards to your own beliefs.

And as I have said, the easiest thing to do is to read through the thread.

The title is enough for you to engage in the discussion, and that seems to be to disagree.

Have you looked at the definitions of religion given?

Of course I don't mind talking about why I am an Atheist.

Outstanding.

However I don't want to hijack this thread,

No worries there, lol, this thread is particularly for you. You are the central focus of this discussion, and I am very glad you have joined it.

so If you are interested I would be more than happy to privet message you if you would like to talk about it.

Aha, an undercover evangelist, eh?

Better to keep it out in the open. I mean, there is nothing you are afraid to say you believe out in public, is there?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I definitely think that there could be religious reasons behind actions but then is it the action that makes it a religion or the reason behind it ?

So consider my example of the Vegan. Religious? Or no?

Again, the depth of their religious conviction would be in the scenario where it is "Eat or die," lol. A nominal vegan would say "Sure, pass that BLT over here," whereas the one deeply convicted that surviving off of the life of another living being is not an option.

For Jews and Islamists, we would again define the depth of their religion in the course of action they took.

For example two different religions have the same action not to eat pork.

The result is the same, however the would Identify as different religions.

Still Religion, though, that is the point.

I don't identify myself as religious and I don't claim to have anything more in common with any other Atheist apart from my lack of belief.

You have in common, which is so far concluded from what you have said, that you share with other atheists in the rejection of God or gods (which you call a lack of belief, though a lack of belief would demand also a lack of knowledge, through which it could be concluded you are neutral) as something credible, a desire not to be viewed as religious (which often is associated with why an atheist is an atheist in the first place, i.e., a bad experience with religion or religious people), a denial of organization or shared beliefs, and the desire to present and defend your beliefs.

Many Atheist disagree about the extent to which someone can be an Atheist.

How do you know this?

How might my being an Atheist influence my actions? Are there any other commonalities between me and another Atheist?

It will certainly impact your interaction with other people.

From another perspective we might say it can have an impact on how you view life. While you have not yet stated where you stand in regards to abortion, there are atheists (and even believers) who view men as a part of the animal kingdom.

Do you?

We acknowledge there are atheists who have a deep seated conviction of the sanctity of life, and do not view men as an animal, but, the problem they will have in regards to their doctrine is why men would be different from animals if they embrace Evolution. They can't say God made them different as the Theistic Evolutionist might, and any view that allows for a supernatural reason would throw them into a category of agnostic, rather than atheist.

We will have to wait until you explain exactly what you believe before we can compare common beliefs you hold with other atheists. but, I am going to guess you embrace evolution, for one. If you do not, I would be glad to hear what other option there is for the atheist.

Another would be in regards to the universe. There is Intelligent Design and Chance. Where do you stand on that?

But it is interesting that you point out...

I don't identify myself as religious and I don't claim to have anything more in common with any other Atheist apart from my lack of belief.

This I can tell you is the most common response I get from atheists in this thread (I run it on other forums, usually every forum I go to). So you share a common attitude towards religion, and I would ask if you would mind stating why you have chosen to be an atheist. And forgive me if you have already answered this.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Hope you don't mind me fielding this response.

Hey Budman,

I can honestly say that Atheists may not believe any of those. I don't know for sure how the universe started but as an Atheist I don't think it was God, but I also don't believe it was nothing. Also I don't believe that dead matter created life.

So what other options do you really have?

If it was not God, then it has to be random chance.

You could say the universe was eternal, but again...where did it come from?

And just because you do not embrace the above views, doesn't mean this is typical for atheists. Most will affirm Evolution and something along the lines of the big Bang Theory.

You don't have to believe in Evolution to be an Atheist.

Again, what else is there?

I know some Atheists who don't believe in evolution.

You mean those who believe the earth was seeded by aliens? So where did they come from?

Not all Atheists believe in Darwinian evolution.

Actually, more than ought to, seeing that Darwinian Theory has changed dramatically over the years. And by the way, for those who do not know, Darwin did not originate Evolution, it was something believed long before he did.

His teacher was his grandfather.

SO again, perhaps you could present some alternate beliefs.

I don't worship Darwin, I'm not even sure how I could worship him If I wanted to?

Worshipping Darwin is not really an issue. There are many willing to give reverence to Christ as an historical figure, and include Him in their religions (Mormons, Muslims, and a slew of various cults and "isms").

Darwin would be more on a par with a preacher, rather than a figure of worship.

Also as an Atheist I am open to change my opinion if something I believed was later proven to be false I would change my opinion I would not use Faith to maintain that believe despite evidence to the opposite.

Why would you exclude faith from your beliefs?

Are you willing to admit that you are unsure whether there is a God or not?

This might make you laugh but I know of an Atheist that believe life was put here by an Alien race! -

That's a little bit harsh, isn't it? Ridiculing your friend's beliefs?

Fox Mulder would not be pleased...

I definitely only share the lack of belief in God with that guy!

You both have beliefs, don't you? Your beliefs not including God do not make your atheism a neutral position.

And isn't that a little like believers who ridicule the beliefs of others similar to their beliefs? We might say, "I have a friend that believes Christ was an Angel."

Now, I have to ask...what do you base your beliefs on?

Your friend likely bases his beliefs on the X-Files, lol. We in large part base our beliefs on the Bible.

But what are your beliefs based on? What is it that has led you to conclude that there is no God?

I think perhaps you have some preconceptions that all Atheists share the same beliefs on the above matters, but honestly we don't.

You are exampling some very common characteristics I have seen in other atheists you have never met.

Do you really reject Evolution?

On what basis, if you don't mind me asking?

Even if everyone had their own opinions on the above no matter how crazy or wrong, the only criteria to being an Atheist is that they believe there is no God/Gods.

And that is the myth: atheism is only defined by a lack of belief in God or gods.

Would a superior alien life not be similar to our own Angelology?

For example The answer to all of the above could be 'I don't know',or 'I have no opinion on those things'
they would only have to state 'I don't think there is a God'.

Then you would not be an atheist, my friend, because atheists on a regular basis do claim to know there is no God.

You have shown you have an opinion on God, as well as aliens seeding the earth. Now, I would like to know what you do believe, and what the basis for those beliefs might be.

And I am not picking on you, just trying to have a discussion. Keep in mind that it wouldn't matter if you were an atheist or believer, all we have to do is disagree about beliefs and there is potential for hostility and hurt feelings. But in view is just a genuine and sincere desire to look at your atheism and whether you might be labeled as a religious atheist, or just someone who doesn't really give much thought to the subject. I will say that you will have to prove a neutral position in order to deny any kind of religious affiliation, in my view.

I might ask what kind of forums you usually go to, as well.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Hi Magenta - thanks for the warm Welcome!

I do agree with you and I think this just shows further how Atheism is not a religion.

How so?

Atheism does not drop one out of life, it just presents the last chapter as rather dreary, lol.

As we could all come up with our own meanings to life

Not really. The one who comes up with the notion that the meaning of life is to live it up using drugs and alcohol can have some run-ins with people who have come to view the meaning of life as loving their neighbor.

Which would take us into subjective/objective discussions.

I think most of would agree that the one who came up with a meaning of life being one of violence towards others would have problems making a good case for that meaning, wouldn't you?

So in this we see some insight into the meaning of life in regards to your own beliefs: it suggests that you feel what is good for you may not be good for another, and vice versa.

This too is a common belief among atheists.

For one, the murder of the inborn is not murder, it is simply removal of tissue. And if someone else looks down on their own beliefs in this then they are...wrong.

or indeed assume there is no meaning.

Or both, lol.

"My life is important and to be protected but this does not apply universally to mankind. There are some who should not be allowed to live."

This is why we have genocidal attempts, racism, and bigotry.

Talking about the consequences of our lack of belief in God is interesting.

Agreed.

But can an atheist truly think there are consequences for having a lack of belief in God?

Again, many atheists see religion, which they usually define as "A belief in God or gods," as being very harmful to mankind. They blame many of the world's problems on religion, and point to history as validation, a basis for their belief.

Are they correct?

Do you see it that way?

The fact that there is no clear pathway or meaning surely highlights the fact that Atheism is not a religion?

This is something else you have in common with other atheists: you define the boundaries of what a religion is, and within the boundaries you have set...declare Atheism is not a Religion.

How about the Atheist that has as a meaning in life a desire to undermine the faith of those who they feel are the religious, who need to be saved from bronze-age mentalities and be led to an enlightened state where the superstitions of religion cannot harm them?

What about those that have started Atheist Organizations ? Can you speak for them and say their lives have no "clear pathway?"

Did you take a look at the links concerning Atheist Churches? Or googled them?

There are many issues that have to be addressed before we hastily conclude Atheism is not a religion, and if you don't mind me saying, in your case, Jess, it might be a good idea to give this consideration before concluding I would be wrong to view you as religious.

I'm not saying you are, I would just ask that you put a little more thought into it before taking the position I would be in error to see you as engaging in what I view to be religious activity.


God bless.

 

[MarcR]

Some are going to think this a stupid question, at first glance, but, I would invite all to give this a second look.

Let's start with a definition of religion:

From Wikipedia:
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[SUP][note 1][/SUP] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle.

Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[SUP][1][/SUP]


Those who would deny that Atheism is a Religion are welcome to point out the distinctions between the two groups, but, I would ask they also comment on the similarities.

For example, can we say that most Atheists are collective in their beliefs about the origin of life and the universe?

Can we associate any lifestyles with Atheism?

Here is what I have found on both Christian and Atheist forums, Atheists have Preachers, Teachers, Evangelists, and Missionaries...even as most religions do.

Atheism has become more organized in recent years, and while they are still a minority as far as being professing Atheists, they have had powerful sway in this Country, effecting Policy Change as well as infiltrating what is best described as Modern Christendom (that is, what is perceived as "Christian").

While driving home from another state the other day, I happened to tune into a show where a "Reverend" of some sort made statements promoting homosexuality and abortion. He said "The Bible is silent on abortion," and then made reference to what is clearly God's will concerning Miscarriage:



Exodus 21:22-23

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]22 [/SUP]If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.


[SUP]23 [/SUP]And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,


I will give the NIV (seems to be fairly popular here) as well:


Exodus 21:22-23

New International Version (NIV)

[SUP]22 [/SUP]“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[SUP][a][/SUP] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

[SUP]23 [/SUP]But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,


So what can we conclude concerning this "reverend's" statement?

It's a lie.

Yet many will here the vague references he speaks of and take what he is saying as having a Biblical Authority which does not exist. And while I would not go so far as to be dogmatic this fellow is not saved (one can be saved and be in error), what I will be dogmatic about is that he is without question a false teacher and a minister of Satan.

He is what is called the Practical Atheist.

So again, the question may seem stupid, but, I am confident that we can view Atheism as a Religion, having adherents that parallel the adherents of any Religion, ranging from nominal to fanatical, best gauged by the efforts of the individual Atheist. Some atheists are sincere in their beliefs, one complaint being that "Religion is harmful," and I hate to say it...but this is true. That is why Christianity is distinguished from Religion, and while we might find what James calls "pure religion and undefiled" exhibited in the Christian Life, we are not going to be able to label Christianity as a Religion, because it is a Relationship. It is a relationship with God which impacts our relationship with our fellow man.

So I would just ask if anyone has ever really given this any thought.

It is a mistake of the highest order to overlook the fact that Atheism has specific Doctrine which is agreed to by all atheists. The true Atheist is "without God," to be sure, but to conclude that they are "without gods" is a mistake. Their gods may be defined differently, but, they are gods all the same.

And just to give an example of the progressively organized state of this Religion, consider Atheist Churches:


Atheist mega-churches and agnostic groups growing in America


Here is something from the First Church of Atheism:



Get legally ordained for free

As a legally ordained minister, you're able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy. You can also start a local FCA Chapter in your city!
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.


Can we doubt Atheism is organized?

Google Atheist Organizations. It might surprise you just how many there are.


So again, I ask the question: is Atheism a Religion?


God bless.

Whether or not atheism is recognized as a religion in its own right, Atheism is a manifestation of Secular Humanism, which is a self-proclaimed 'atheistic religion'.

 

[PeterJens]

i suspect that the evolutionary force would act in the direction of willful ignorance

What I find interesting is the atheists bias in science.

In physics they discovered a constant that is so exact to 20+ figures that is essential for existence, you would have to say this is a created existence. But no, this is completely un-acceptable to suggest things are actually created so we must invent another option, an infinite series of alternative universes.

SETI - We have had no response therefore either we are the only intelligent life in the universe ie unique or our theory is wrong. Guess which one they are going with.

The probability of 500,000 base pairs forming life at random is impossible in an infinite universe let alone 15 billion years.
But no life must have evolved.

The basis for the division of metaphysics and science was to deal with the probable verses the unproveable, not to make everyone atheists without reference points in their lives.

What I find stunning is outside my window, 35 miles up no human can live and as far as we know into the infinite void.
5 miles down below my feet, no human can live. Within this thin skin of atmosphere within a few miles, on dry land we can survive in a complex interplay of life with many other things. So we are a speck of life in this vast universe, completely unique, so unique almost every star, planet etc is different than our own, yet people rather than wondering at this unique creation say, it is just ordinary, nothing grand or unusual. How blind can you get? It takes real faith to be this indoctrinated.

 

[JessP]

No,the friendly atheist. Umm Jess,had to look back to find the name.I asked a few questions that weren't answered. Not you

Hey sorry you are right totally missed that. Getting used to being on a forum, I am a complete novice and it shows. I need to get replying to all the questions I have been asked!