Is #$#^$#^ a religion?

[TimG]

Try looking at the link I gave you.

The link you gave only applies to a sect of Buddhism which added a bunch of crap that was not taught by the original Buddha. Think Mormons. I asked what god does a Zen Buddhist have? Can you answer?

Here is some material for your review:

Both the words "Zen" (Japanese) and "Ch'an" (Chinese) derive from the Sanskrit word Dhyana, meaning "meditation." Zen Buddhism focuses on attaining enlightenment (bodhi) through meditation as Siddharta Gautama did. It teaches that all human beings have the Buddha-nature, or the potential to attain enlightenment, within them, but the Buddha-nature been clouded by ignorance. To overcome this ignorance, Zen rejects the study of scriptures, religious rites, devotional practices, and good works in favor of meditation leading to a sudden breakthrough of insight and awareness of ultimate reality. Training in the Zen path is usually undertaken by a disciple under the guidance of a master.

http://www.religionf...m/sects/zen.htm

While we are at it lets look at Unitarian Universalism

http://www.religionf...niversalism.htm

Unitarian Universalism has no set beliefs, and that is its defining characteristic. According to a UUA pamphlet:

With its historical roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions, Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion -- that is, a religion that keeps an open mind to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and places.

We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the final authorities in religion, and that in the end religious authority lies not in a book or person or institution, but in ourselves. We are a "non-creedal" religion: we do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed.

Unitarian Universalists may therefore identify with Christianity, Buddhism, humanism, atheism, or any tradition that is meaningful to them. Unitarian Universalists commonly draw their beliefs from more than one religious or philosophical tradition.

....

In 2001, a regional survey of UU members in the Midwest was conducted by Ohio University. This survey allowed respondents to choose more than one label for themselves. The researcher noted that "the typical respondent felt the need to circle three or four terms to describe his or her theological views." The results of this survey were:

• humanist (54%)
  
• agnostic (33%)
  
• earth-centered (31%)
  
• atheist (18%)
  
• Buddhist (16.5%)
  
• pagan (13.1%)
  
• Christian (13.1%)
  

Wow! 18% of Unitarians consider themselves atheist! I bet that makes your head spin. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What you guys are arguing is totally irrelevant. It does not prove that atheism is a religion.

Religion does not require gods, but that does not mean atheism is a religion. It's absurd to claim that something is what it's not by definition.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

Theism is not a religion, it is a belief in the existence of deities. Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of belief in deities.

[TimG]

Religion does not require gods, but that does not mean atheism is a religion. It's absurd to claim that something is what it's not by definition.

Religion has several definitions. Few things we call religions meet all of them. Atheism becomes a religion when it is pursued with zeal - i.e. when atheists become evangelicals that try to convert people to their beliefs (see Richard Dawkins or the atheist bus ad campaign).

This also ignores the commonly understood meaning of religion: a short hand for one's beliefs regarding the origin of the universe. Atheists have beliefs about this like everyone else. There is no evidence that the universe spontaneously appeared from random energy perturbations in a vacuum yet many atheists believe this to be true (probably because it is a theory of origin that does not require a "first mover").

Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Theists do not necessarily share any beliefs other than the existence of a deity. Thus, theism is not a religion. Catholicism has a set of beliefs and rules, Judaism has a different set hence they are religions. The same goes for atheism. Atheists do not necessarily share an acceptance of any prevailing scientific theories or beliefs of any kind. They only share a lack of belief in deities, hence, atheism is not a religion.

There are some groups and movements like the American Atheists or secular humanism that do have some more uniform rules and beliefs and thus may resemble a religion. However, that would be like calling political parties religions or climate change denial a religion.

[TimG]

There are some groups and movements like the American Atheists or secular humanism that do have some more uniform rules and beliefs and thus may resemble a religion. However, that would be like calling political parties religions or climate change denial a religion.

I thought I was clear that atheism is not necessarily a religion and only becomes a religion when atheists prosthelytize. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

I still disagree. Trying to persuade somebody that their beliefs are invalid does not make one religious.

Example: A group of people may believe the twin towers of the World Trade Center were actually taken down by C4 explosives installed by a branch of the US government.

I do not believe the US government toppled the towers. I do not claim to be 100% sure, but I am not convinced by the case made by the believers. Hence, I am an a-conspiracy-theorist and not considered religious because of this lack of belief.

Now, my religiosity does not change if I try to convince the conspiracy theorists they are wrong. I have not added any beliefs or rules I must adhere to. I am simply combating what I think is an invalid belief based on invalid reasoning.

[The_Squid]

I thought I was clear that atheism is not necessarily a religion and only becomes a religion when atheists prosthelytize.

So a debate on a forum between an atheist and a theist.... is that proselytizing?

[TimG]

So a debate on a forum between an atheist and a theist.... is that proselytizing?

In a sense yes. People who were not zealously attached to their belief system would not engage in such a debate.

[cybercoma]

Religion has several definitions. Few things we call religions meet all of them. Atheism becomes a religion when....

X does not equal Y. If you're just going to pick, choose, or change the definition of Y, then certainly you can make the claim that X is Y. This is why we don't get to arbitrarily choose our definitions of things. We need to have a common reality in order to have any sort of mutual understanding or knowledge. So sure. Cats are dogs, if your definition of dog describes a cat.

[TimG]

X does not equal Y. If you're just going to pick, choose, or change the definition of Y, then certainly you can make the claim that X is Y.

The point is I am not choosing the definition. I am working the definition from the dictionary and explaining why atheism when 'pursued with zeal' fits that definition. You are the one who seeks to ignore the meaning of words because they result in conclusions that make you feel uncomfortable. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I've already addressed the problems with the dictionary definitions of "atheism." I even reposted an article from the Divinity school, a joint project between Cambridge and Oxford, that clearly articulates the issues. Their study of atheism is a hell of a lot more valid than the definition that the writers at Meriam-Webster come up with. More to the point, even using a dictionary definition of religion and atheism, AC has already clearly explained why atheism is not a religion.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Their study of atheism is a hell of a lot more valid than the definition that the writers at Meriam-Webster come up with.

In other words, you want the freedom to choose the definitions that you like and ignore the definitions that you don't like. I believe that is called 'special pleading' in your list of fallacies.

[cybercoma]

Let's unpack this further. The definition of religion from www.dictionary.com

religion

  Use Religion in a sentence

re·li·gion

[ri-lij-uhn] set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose ofthe universe, especially when considered as the creation of asuperhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotionaland ritual observances, and often containing a moral codegoverning the conduct of human affairs.

2.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generallyagreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christianreligion; the Buddhist religion.

3.

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs andpractices: 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.

Now let's compare atheism to this definition.

1. Atheists have no unified set of beliefs about the cause, purpose or nature of the universe. Their beliefs are as varied as the people who claim to be atheists. Moreover, this definition notes that these beliefs especially involve supernatural elements which require "rituals" or "devotion". Clearly, atheists do not believe in the supernatural and therefore have no group rituals as a sign of devotion to the supernatural.

2. You could argue that atheism is a "specific set of fundamental beliefs." However, this falls apart as well, since by definition atheism is the absence of belief. It's not belief in anything. More to the point, it falls short of this definition as there is nothing that is "generally agreed upon" by atheists. They simply don't believe in God. You wouldn't consider yourself a part of a community that generally agrees upon not believing in the tooth fairy. It's equally absurd to say that not believing in Gods or deities is some generally agreed upon belief.

3. There are no unifying beliefs and practices that define atheism. The only thing they have in common is that they don't believe in something. Once again, it is literally absurdity to say that not believing in something is a belief. That's like saying abstinence is sex.

4. Obviouisly does not apply.

5. There is no ritual with atheism. There is no observance of faith.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

In other words, you want the freedom to choose the definitions that you like and ignore the definitions that you don't like. I believe that is called 'special pleading' in your list of fallacies.

When you're faced with a variety of definitions that are mutually exclusive, you can't accept them all. I've presented you with definitions from a far more credible source than Merriam-Websters. If you're really suggesting that the writers over at Merriam-Websters are more credible than the researchers at Cambridge and Oxford that study religion, then we may as not even have this discussion because you're just being ridiculous.

[TimG]

2. You could argue that atheism is a "specific set of fundamental beliefs." However, this falls apart as well, since by definition atheism is the absence of belief. It's not belief in anything.

Irrelevant semantics. Atheists, like everyone else, choose to believe in a creation story. In the case of atheists, this creation story has no deity but it is still a belief.

[TimG]

If you're really suggesting that the writers over at Merriam-Websters are more credible

The writers at Merriam-Websters don't care about philosophical arguments about angels dancing on pins. They care about how words are commonly understood. The commonly understood definition is what matters here.

[cybercoma]

Irrelevant semantics. Atheists, like everyone else, choose to believe in a creation story. In the case of atheists, this creation story has no deity but it is still a belief.

What is the atheist creation story? Atheism has nothing to do with creation stories.

[cybercoma]

The writers at Merriam-Websters don't care about philosophical arguments about angels dancing on pins. They care about how words are commonly understood. The commonly understood definition is what matters here.

Well then, the common definition of atheism is not believing in Gods. How exactly is that religious?

Edited February 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Atheists, like everyone else, choose to believe in a creation story.

Seriously... this is the most ridiculous claim I've ever seen made on this forum. It's just absolutely and completely wrong.

[TimG]

Seriously... this is the most ridiculous claim I've ever seen made on this forum. It's just absolutely and completely wrong.

What is ridiculous is your suggestion that you do not have a belief in a creation story. It is simply not possible for anyone who thinks of these issues to not come up with a few that they find credible. e.g. the big bang was the result of random energy fluctuations in 5 dimensional space. That is a creation story even if the term offends you. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Well then, the common definition of atheism is not believing in Gods. How exactly is that religious?

If atheism is not commonly understood as a religion then why is it in this "The Big Religion Chart":

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

[Mighty AC]

What is ridiculous is your suggestion that you do not have a belief in a creation story. It is simply not possible for anyone who thinks of these issues to not come up with a few that they find credible. e.g. the big bang was the result of random energy fluctuations in 5 dimensional space. That is a creation story even if the term offends you.

Just like theists, atheists do not have a shared creation story. Both theism and atheism are not religions...just a belief or lack of belief in deities.

[TimG]

Just like theists, atheists do not have a shared creation story. Both theism and atheism are not religions...just a belief or lack of belief in deities.

I was not arguing for a shared creation story - just that atheists have them which means atheism is a belief. It becomes a religion when someone feels the need to go out and convince other people to share their beliefs. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What is ridiculous is your suggestion that you do not have a belief in a creation story. It is simply not possible for anyone who thinks of these issues to not come up with a few that they find credible. e.g. the big bang was the result of random energy fluctuations in 5 dimensional space. That is a creation story even if the term offends you.

I might have a belief in a creation story, but that is completely separate from atheism. Atheists (plural) do not share a common belief in creation. Atheism does not demand adherence to any mutually accepted set of beliefs. That's why your statement is ridiculous. Atheists beliefs about creation have nothing to do with their atheism. If alien life came here and seeded life on this planet, that would be creation without gods.