Could atheism be considered a religion?

In my life I notice that it's only insecure theists who think atheism is a religion because they can't comprehend people living in a way that so totally contradicts their worldview.

>inb4 triggered theist calls me a fedora

Religious ferver is a common thing whether it's for god, sports, celebrities, or whatever. But in terms of actully being a religion, atheism doesn't apply. Now you can be an atheist but have religious passion for a certain philosophy, like nature worship, or romanticizing the cosmos, but that isn't mutually exclusive. There are far more atheists with total apathy toward the concept of being part of "something bigger than themselves" than not, and usually the atheists who are all autistic about forming an organized atheist "religion" are jealous of religious people and wish they too had "something" to "believe in". Deep down they still wish they believed in god, but they can't unsee the truth that there isn't one unless they deliberately ignore logic so they can retreat back to ignorance (this happens sometimes though).

Atheists don't worship Dawkins. A good number if us think he is an idiot. There you go again projecting.

>atheism is an ideology
Atheism is just the lack of belief in "higher powers". That's literally all it is. It is not necessarily connected with scientism or anything similar to it. There are plenty of atheists who hate memesters like Dawkins and the whole "New Atheism" business. And yes, "New Atheism" is an ideology. But it can not be equated with atheism itself, which is just the lack of belief in "higher powers".

>Atheism is just the lack of belief in "higher powers". That's literally all it is.
Sure, fair enough.
But I do associate atheism with a kind of scientism. I came across those people who might not necessarily like Dawkins but do think that science can bring about absolute truth, solve everything, think in terms of religion/science dichotomy, and think of themselves as rational and logical. Think they can become more rational. They are people who like LessWrong and utilitarianism.

I am a non-believer myself, but do not at all want to be associated with this kind of atheism. Just like the word troll has moved from trickery for laughs towards bigotry, so has in my mind atheism moved from the simple disbelief in the supernatural towards a group of people who share beliefs, ideas and symbols.

Lack of belief is a religion like not painting is a hobby.

i don't really understand why'd you want atheism to be considered a religion, if... you're not religious by definition?
>there's religions without the presence of God
true
religion is a belief in a "being" that is above humans, but it's more often a specific God. it's easier to relate to a single being than some collective cosmos ideas of other religions.
you don't believe in that
atheism is not a religion.

>really, honestly whinging about ''new atheism''
The only difference between new atheism and old atheism is new atheists can't be forced to shut up. Have a cry, fucktard.

>Could atheism be considered a religion?

No. This entire thread is stupid.

basically

> disbelief ( ... ) towards a group of people who share beliefs, ideas and symbols.

let's think for a second over this.
Are you anarchic?

>religion is a belief in a "being" that is above humans
Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

jewpedia says that... no need for supernatural to define a religion.

>Wikipedia defines religion as: rites, dogmas, beliefs, practices, world view.
And atheism has none of it.

Comunism or being a fan of some football team is more of an religion.

People take their football much more seriously, too.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god.

You can have a morning rite and share it with many people even if you're atheist.

But the rite isn't what makes you an atheist, silly.

>let's think for a second over this.
>Are you anarchic?
No. What I was saying is that I now associate atheism with a group which share certain stuff, a group I dislike.

It is just tribalism.

Atheism has become more as just non-belief.

>Atheism has become more as just non-belief.
Before I get misunderstood:
The very people who call themselves atheist are the same people who tend to be into scientism and so on.

tl;dr

Atheism is based on beliefs and can get as worst as religion about them.

No. Atheism is a-theism, without theism.
Of course you can argue that lots of Atheists believe in the same thing or whatever have you, but that doesn't make that thing a tenet of Atheism. Atheists aren't one coherent group that share the same ideals. You can believe in new-age medicine and spirits, be a hardcore materialist, or even reject science altogether and still be an atheist.
Materialism is about as important to atheism is as Bible literalism is to Christianity.

> not even anecdotal support for arbitrary grouping and changes to the meaning of established words
You have to go back.

>You have to go back.
Back to the board I went away from because it was full of the people I described?
It was my experience there that created this monster.

i think if as with dawkins you start writing books and it becomes fundamental part of your life and your view of the world (e.g. to not be religious) then it does become an ideology but i think for alot of atheists that dont give a shit about anything it clearly isn't anything close.

infact i would argue that there might be people that believe in god that aren't religious too in a weird kind of way.

There are many non practicing believers.

>but i think for alot of atheists that dont give a shit about anything it clearly isn't anything close.
Which I am not denying exists. Even within Christianity there's also a lot of variety. Some have little problem with evolution, some a bit, others very. In my country those opposed to vaccination also tends to be a particular brand of Christianity.

The same with atheism. Veeky Forums is most likely full of atheists, but they still dislike scientism and so on. Funny thing is, I've been accused by Veeky Forums for being a STEMlord and logical positivist because of some statements I've made.

But my point is:
1) People make stereotypes of groups
2) Based on experiences with atheists I've made such a stereotype
3) Thus I associate atheism with this stereotype

It is a sociological fact that people make stereotypes of (out)groups. And for me it is very (psychological) true that in general atheism isn't just the lack of disbelief it comes with other ideas as well.

It is just plain old tribalism. I (selectively) see patterns. I suppose I could distinquish between scientism vs plain atheism.

Yes.

Atheists believe in the theory of evolution, which is really a religion/metaphysical narrative that drives and defines their existance.

Atheists have alot of faith in the unknown.

I would say that atheist have beliefs.
Believing in the theory of evolution is a byproduct of rational thinking.
This isn't completely wrong.

>In my country those opposed to vaccination also tends to be a particular brand of Christianity.

just seems to be some personality trait that makes you a young earth creationist, conspiracy theorist trump supporter at the same time.

atheists don't invest in the theory of evolution and its outcomes like christians do though.

Yes. But you must understand that it's not about religions. It's about the concept of "belief".

Existence in itself implies a continuous exercise of belief. Blind conviction upon which thoughts, actions and attitudes rely on.

Reality does not offer sufficient grounds for an absolute standard of "truth". Descartes is talking exactly about this in his "Cognito" argument after defining the "Evil Genius" hypothesis.

So in other words, the fact that you do what you do is depended one way or another on an unverifiable belief: that the world is good/bad, that life is a gift/curse, that science/religion is right, etc.

Atheism is a belief system in which the faith in human existence resides upon the method and self-containing feedback of scientific rationalism. It is a dominant current of though that has rooted itself in mainstream society though the way the world "evolves" - technologically, economically and socially.

But that makes it just one of out many currents. If I believe that technology is evil and society should go "back to the roots" - the majority may consider me a nutjob - but there is nothing that can actually deny my belief. The belief is there because of various reasons and while I can be put in a cell for it - nothing can actually contradict my worldview. It can only persuade me to change it. Each and every one of us chooses our own reality.

Atheism exchanged an obsolete worldview with a more progressive one, being tired of old superstitions and relying solely on the idea that man can only elevate himself though means of conquering what he perceives as being real aka the material world.

It negates the imaginary planes and considers them as inferior to the "real" perceived world. It is a symptom of western society being weary of board cosmogonical implications and it represents the act of retreating in the "safe" reductionist fortress of sensually generated knowledge.

And the lack of choice is still a choice in itself.

So actually - no. Atheism cannot be a considered a religion in itself. It would be overly dramatic to put it so.

But both Atheism and Theist movements reside on the same cornerstone. They only have different recipients in which individuals choose to place their faith.

you are just a guy who likes picking teams if you think atheists negate the imaginary. you're just trying to make your team look good and atheism bad. i also think you are wrong in saying all beliefs are unverifiable. you also exaggerate the extent to which science is supposed to be some kind of self contained logical machine.

>you are just a guy who likes picking teams
I tend to say you are right on this. But aren't we all continuously doing this one way or another?
Even if you refrain yourself from picking sides or upholding an argument; you still by your lack of action "pick a team" - the nonparticipants

>atheists negate the imaginary
I'm not saying that atheism is considering humans as robots. I'm sharing my current outlook that atheism (generally speaking; as it cannot be centralised in one form - none can christianity for example due to variations) is just a form of retreat in what it believes as being "safe space", concrete reality.

...

contd

While I am writing this, I realise that I may have a hard stance towards "hard atheism", but degrees exist.

To understand my angle, here is my gripe:

I think that atheism is wrong is negating theist concepts and narratives. I believe it does so because it does not go sufficiently far in understanding them. Concepts such as God/ Gods, Genesis, Salvation, etc have very complex philosophical and cosmogonical implications and taking them literally is just a form of ignorance and entitlement - basically what I feel is an incorrect mindset.

The same as many theist reject scientific advances because their flavour of holy book contradicts some minor concept or whatever.

> you're just trying to make your team look good and atheism bad.

I'm trying to express (poorly probably) that more is better than less. While humanity needs some rigours on which to structure it's evolution and developments, the fact that this usually leads to men negating millennia of wisdom contained in myth and theology is a very bad symptom.

And the only aspect in which I find atheism "bad" is that it somewhat generates a fertile ground for humans being more and more artificial in their understanding of existence as a whole and it promotes a mechanising of human nature.

Life is such as complex system but it's clear that human nature tends to go the lowest common denominator. And if that become crypto-nihilism; then it's pretty hard to escape that as a society.

>taking them literally is just a form of ignorance and entitlement

you are in your own bubble since your viewpoint is differently from almost every other theist.

i think spirituality is healthy but i dont think old cultures necessarily had wisdom or better ways than now. i think old spiritualities kind of necessarily have to be balanced with secular morality and its not a bad thing. its a norm for most christians infact in the west. i do think though that the idea of the extraordinary or miraculous is almost necessary in spirituality in some kind of way.

It depends on how you define religion, but honestly it's more likely to be a philosophy like naturalism is.

For fucks sake.

Atheism lacks all the necessary components of a religion. There is no atheist equivalent for any of the critical components that provide the foundation for actual religions. There is a distinct lack of any authority that tells atheists how to think or what to do, which is why there is no sense of atheist unity or identity.

Atheist 'movements' are a fucking joke and they deserve all the ridicule and criticism.

this gets a ((you))

this gets a minus ((you))

bump

bump

>But I do associate atheism with a kind of scientism.

That's because the only atheists you know are Westerners. Most Buddhists are atheists, you wouldn't call THEM "scientism".

bump.

but buddhists are also religious lolol

bump

bump.

Atheism is to a religion what sobriety is to a drink.