Xamonas Chegwé wrote:I actually kind of agree with a lot of that, Seth.
I would counter that, while a negative belief is still a belief, a lack of belief is not. I think that was implicit in your statement but I think it deserves to be explicitly stated.
Yes, but...we must then examine closely the claim of a "lack" of belief to see if it's genuinely a lack of belief or if it's a negative belief hiding behind a false claim.
There are certainly those that affix more than the dictionary definition of not believing in gods to what THEY feel atheism is. They conflate it with rationalism, humanism, trust in the scientific method, the need for evidence for all claims (even to the point of pedantry), utter rejection of anything supernatural, etc... While I would agree with most of that list to some degree, they are not really a part of atheism. Atheism (the initial capital is due to its position in the sentence alone in this case!) has no parts. It is one thing - simply not believing in any gods.
Yes, that's what it purports to be, but it actually quite rare that that is what it actually is, particularly nowadays.
I've pointed out in the past the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" atheism, and there's a wiki entry on it for reference, so I won't belabor it here except to say that I've never met an implicit atheist who self-identified as an "atheist." I think that it would be an oxymoron to do so, because self-identifying as an atheist necessarily implies that the person has been exposed to, and has rejected, theistic concepts.
This in and of itself places the atheist perilously close to religion, and it takes but a little more on the part of the atheist to drop them firmly into religious belief and practice. Rare is the explicit atheist who hold no opinion about either atheism or theism that would make the belief a matter of conscience or ethics and therefore would qualify as a religious belief. Certainly any atheist who is, or argues secular activism falls into the religious atheist category because secularism implies a political agenda of excluding religion from government, which pretty clearly must be a matter of conscience or ethics, and activism meets the "follows devotedly" component of the broadest legitimate and accepted definition of religion.
I would also use the term "philosophy" rather than "religion" as a far more appropriate adjective for what you refer to as Atheists, for the simple reason that there are aspects of religion (such as worship, faith and, most prominently, a deity) which are not mirrored in what you term Atheism.
While there is substantial congruency between philosophy and religion, one very often being an examination of the other, and vice versa, you improperly impose conditions on the definition of religion that do not in fact exist. Religion, as defined by those whose job it is to examine the customary usages of words and record them in reference books, does not necessarily include either worship or a deity. That's theism, and theism is clearly a category of religion, but not vice versa. We know, for example, that Secular Humanism is a religion. Its creators at first defined the belief/practice set as a religion, only turning their backs on that label for ideological and political reasons associated with intolerance of religion and a desire to not be associated with religion, but the fact remains that it meets all the basic requirements of a religion. Indeed, Secular Humanism is probably one of the examples used in broadening the definition of religion in the contemporary age to include non-theistic belief/practice sets. (See: definitions 4 and 6 below)
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (accessed: February 09, 2012).
One may philosophize about religion, or atheism, or anything else, but when one's philosophy becomes a matter of faith, and faith is often (though not always) a component of religion, the lines are blurred beyond recognition and the philosophy (such as Secular Humanism) becomes a religion.
As to faith, while it is one of the often-seen components of religion, it is often narrowly defined by atheists so as to exclude their version of faith. Properly, it is defined as:
faith
noun \ˈfāth\
plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Definition of FAITH
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
Removing, for the purposes of argument, the references to theism, we find applicable to this discussion: "Belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion; firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust; something that is believed especially with strong conviction."
Let us examine how Atheists (the religious kind) "believe in the traditional doctrines of atheism." Being explicit atheists, religious atheists have faith in the traditional atheist doctrine that theistic claims are false and that God does not exist. This belief is far more than a mere lack of belief in gods, it is a positive rejection of theistic god-claims that is a central component in virtually all argumentation seen from atheists with the sole exception of when they are accused of being "religious" in their atheism, at which point they reverse course and try to claim that they have nothing more than a "lack of belief in god(s)." This, of course, is nonsense, as anyone can see merely from examining their rhetoric and arguments, and it's just a convenient pettifogging evasion and nothing more.
Now we move on to how Atheists hold a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." The traditional Atheist claim that the claims of theists are false are usually based in the statement "there is no evidence showing that the claim is true, therefore it may be discounted." This is purported to be a "scientific" analysis of theistic claims, but it's not, it's a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Most often the "no evidence" claim is based not in a true lack of evidence, but merely in a refusal to critically examine the evidence that is put forward by theists. It amounts to a mere dismissal of the claims of theists based on the belief that the claims, being "supernatural" in nature, are therefore axiomatically false based on the "scientific" presumption that nothing supernatural can exist. This is an iteration of the logical fallacy I've labeled "The Atheist's Fallacy."
Dismissal of a claim is not, however, in and of itself a disproving of the claim by the use of countervailing facts and evidence, it's just dismissal. Therefore such dismissals constitute a firm belief in something (the falsity of theistic claims) for which there is no actual proof. No Atheist has ever proven that God does not exist, which is the proof required to make a dismissal of a theistic claim that God does exist a valid conclusion rather than faith in the religious belief that God does not exist.
On to "complete trust." Most Atheists place complete trust in their belief that God does not exist. I think that's pretty obvious. The zealousness with which they make their arguments is proof enough of that.
And clearly Atheists are faithful to their system of beliefs "with strong conviction."
So Atheists have a set of beliefs in which they have faith, which beliefs are based in a complete lack of evidence or proof of the truth of their beliefs (that God does not exist), which constitutes faith, a component of religion (though not a necessary component I must add). How they practice those beliefs is what constitutes religious practice, and any atheist who is an activist for secularism, or atheism, or uses atheism as a label or justification for their political or social actions or activism, including self-identification, congregation (think Ratz meets or going to a Hitchens talk) debate, support for atheist causes and media or otherwise actuates that belief set is, in fact, practicing religion in every essential and historical respect save deistic worship, which we have seen is not a required component of the definition of religion.
So yes, Atheism is very, very often a religion. Not inexorably or always, but certainly always in this forum, and very, very often elsewhere, and particularly when it comes to Bill Maher, who is a fundamentalist religious Atheist zealot every bit as much as Jim Jones was.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
. And then when they come back, they can 
