Also, I believe a non-denominational theist would struggle with the same lack of religious rights that atheists do.

>> Who eats? Who reproduces?

As formerly good English subjects, newly victorious Americans had also thrown off a state church, the Church of England. In the Mother Country of 1786 a religious nonconformist (not a confessing Anglican) could not become a physician, attorney at law, an officer in HM forces on land or sea, could not attend either Cambridge or Oxford.

Americans were not about to tolerate a repeat performance. The issues were meat-and-potatoes: who eats well, procreates, educates the kids, rises in social standing. Real issues — not how to communicate with some cultural Icon, either theistic or deistic. As Marvin Harris would put it — we’re always talking about “cultural materialism.” The race to death of food production and reproduction. Guts lead God by the nose every time.

Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.

>> Historical fear of being branded ‘atheist’

In what we now call American popular culture, a charge of atheism has always been socially acceptable weapon as Tom Paine quickly found out way back in 1794. Agnosticism as a separate attitude towards established religion didn’t even exist until the concept and word were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1895. Deism, then as now, was a safe option among intellectuals with a flair for hypocrisy, like Jefferson.

Reflecting traditional fear in denying the gods, U.S. courts have consistently held that the ‘God’ in whom we profess trust on bills and coins refers to a non-denominational, cross-faith providential Power. (I call this “the minimum standard god.” Or, MSG.) You won’t see ‘In God we trust’ removed any time soon, especially just to please an unorganized mass of “godless atheists.”

>> Atheism is not a recognizable praxis

One defining characteristic of a ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common practices, identifiable from within and without. Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no affirmations, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification.

Having an opinion that the gods do not exist can not mean that one has an opinion about gods. There being nothing about which to have an opinion. One of the great clarifications within Logic is to distinguish an existence claim from a claim that some existing thing has a property.

>> Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters.

I can have opinions about the fictitious character “Hamlet” as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about the mythological being “God” as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’

All I know about these characters is what I can read in the pages devoted to them. I can no more find Hamlet’s bones buried in a chapel at Elsinore than I can find God by doing astronomical research or by having physical sensations attributed to the actions of the being called “God” in the NT.

The MSG is not the God of the NT, is not Allah of the Koran, is not Yahweh of the Torah, is not Ahura Mazda of the Gathas. Each of these mythological constructs can be assigned a position on a family tree of Middle Eastern gods and their Western derivatives. But, it’s total ignorance to say that all these fictions are identical. It’s logically wrong to claim that ‘God does not exist’ is the same sort of claim as ‘God is a loving person.’

bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007

Strong and Weak don’t describe the person, but the nature of belief/non-belief/lack of belief.

Weak Atheism is the predominant type. The Weak Atheist makes no specific claims as to God’s existence. He only claims that the Theist has not conclusively demonstrated God’s Existence. If presented with irrefutable evidence of God’s existence, the weak atheist will become a Theist. His mind is Open. Weak Atheism is probably better stated as Atheist-Agnostic: “I don’t know, therefore I don’t believe”

Strong Atheism differs in that the Strong Atheist says “God Does Not Exist”. The Strong Atheist’s mind is closed. If presented with irrefutable evidence, he will still disbelieve.Strong Atheism is sometimes referred to as Atheist-Gnostic: “I know, therefore I don’t believe”

One can’t compare an affirmative stance (Theism, Mac Users) with Atheism, which does not require a positive statement.

An A-Microsoftist, though, could either be weak or strong. A person who has never experienced Windows (Lucky bastard) couldn’t rationally and logically claim that Mac or Linux is better than Windows. This person would be a Weak A-Microsoftist. Us poor dumb bastards who have suffered the various flavors of BSOD over the years can claim to be Strong Anti-Microsoftists. We know how evil it is, and thus don’t use it.

The difference between Microsoft and God, though is that Microsoft has been demonstrated to exist, while no significant evidence supporting God’s existence has ever been presented.

Sil-Chan,

At birth, we have the right to live. But, we do not have the right to arbitrarily end our lives. (Sounds a little dark, doesn’t it?) If a person starts talking about ending his life, he is institutionalized. Having the right to do something does not necessarily mean we have the right to NOT do it. (Sorry, I’m nitpicking now)

“In the face of overwhelming evidence, most atheists change their stance on the issue. Most religious people will not and instead create excuses (think apologetics). This, in my opinion, is the key tenant that keeps atheism from being a religion.”

This is one of the assumptions you have tacked on to the definition of “Religion” (At least the definitions we were using above). Do you think “must maintain an irrational belief despite positive proof of that belief’s irrationality” is a fair phrase to include in a definition of Religion itself?

Note the concurring opinion stated:
“…fills the same place as a belief…”
Not
“…is the same as a belief…”

The answer to the question:
“…do you believe that there is no god as strongly as any Christian believes that there is a god?”
Is a certain no. That is true for most of the atheists I speak to as well.

A thought exercise. If tomorrow Allah came down and shook my hand, if I could examine the situation and determine that it was not, in fact, a hallucination or some other effect, I would indeed convert to Islam and begin praying eastward 5 times a day. The Christians I come across seem to be in agreement when I ask them this very question that if Allah appeared before them, they would know Satan was at work in the guise of Allah.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, most atheists change their stance on the issue. Most religious people will not and instead create excuses (think apologetics). This, in my opinion, is the key tenant that keeps atheism from being a religion.

And lastly, I’ll leave you with a bit of a tongue in cheek comment. Note that when people talk about Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and other religions, they always capitalize them. That is because they are proper nouns, and the name of something specific. Atheism is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence because it is not a proper noun. Keep that in mind ^.-

When we ask “is atheism a religion?” we make a few assumptions as to “atheism” – some people could be thinking Strong Atheism only, some could be thinking Strong and Weak Atheism.

Implicit Atheism could not be categorized as a religion, in any event. Of course, just be asking a person their religion, you’ve removed the “implicitness” of their atheism…

Weak Atheism is a conscious decision, although it is not a positive belief – It would not be a religion under the layperson definition, but would be under the legal definition.

Strong Atheism could be argued to be a religion in both cases. It requires just as much faith to say “there is no God” as it does to say “there is a god”

Buddhism is technically atheistic, but a religion.

Anti-Theism could go several ways as an anti-theist could fit into several categories.

Back to my response…

The government has no business asking a person’s religion. There is (or at least should be) a large wall between the affairs of Church and State. (On a side note, I just responded to a census over the phone, and told the census taker where she could stick her questions about race and religion) It is unlawful for the government to show preferential, or deferential treatment to a person based on his or her religion.

However, once you expand the question into the legal realm, there are a lot of reasons to call atheism a religion. I know I might stress this more than most people, just from a professional bias, but chances are pretty good that at some point in your life, the government is going to ask what religion you are, and it’s going to ask for a reason. From social services to military to taxes to… well, pretty much anytime the government bothers to ask you what your religion is, we as atheists can’t afford to be so philosophical: atheism is our religion.

Hannah: religion doesn’t require you to believe anything concerning any kind of spiritual, supernatural force. It requires you to have a belief concerning such a thing – and not believing in it is a belief concerning the supernatural. We have as much right to that belief as anyone has to believe otherwise – a right that is enshrined in the First Amendment. And like any muscle, rights that go unused do atrophy. We have unfettered freedom to believe what we want, and we have a nearly-universal right to exercise our religion however we want.

As I brought up in a few court cases in the main post, the Supreme Court has, in the past, come to the conclusion that atheism is, for legal purposes, a religion. The thing is, those were some time ago, under very different leadership. The Supreme Court is not an immovable force in government; it is made up of people who bring their own political, legal, and constitutional views with them. Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Earl Burger, from the sixties through the eighties, made the Supreme Court a liberal institution, expanding the rights of many minorities, including religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. But Chief Justice Rehnquist’s time on the Court changed a lot of that, turning the clock back – and especially with Bush’s recent appointments, Justice Alito and new Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court is once again a strongly conservative group.

The point behind this little Supreme Court lesson (and woefully incomplete, I apologize – we could fill fifty pages like this and still barely scratch the surface) is that those cases that ruled in favor of atheism so long ago were made by courts that were in favor of expanding civil rights, in favor of equal protection, and in favor of fair treatment to minorities. Don’t expect such favors from the current court – and with the ages of Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, expect the heavily conservative court to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Without getting too political, let’s just say that they would probably happily send Seeger off to war, and they would likely salivate at the chance to keep Torcaso off the job and to keep other atheists from taking office. (How fair and competent can these guys be if George W. Bush would want to appoint them?)

So there are very real reasons to assert atheism as a religion. Now, calling it a religion legally wouldn’t change the way you live your life. You wouldn’t suddenly have to start paying a tithe, or start following some atheistic code of rules, or anything of the sort. In fact, if it’s a religion, nobody would ever be able to force you to do any of that stuff, because that would be an unconscionable breach of your constitutionally-protected right to exercise your religion. That’s powerful language in legal circles – and language you can’t use if it’s not a religion.

Rivalarrival: Concerning the liberal/conservative dichotomy, maybe it’s because the Constitution is (in my opinion) the most liberal document ever written, created at the height of the modern age of liberalism, by some very committed followers of the Enlightenment. But yeah, those words can mean very different things depending on which century you’re in – and so far, this 21st century is shaping up to be a rough time for liberals.

“But I think it’s the standard anthropological definition, found here in Oregon State’s computers, that has the most useful definition, in everyday use, because it’s not specifically tied to any one religion: `a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power’.”

It does not say you have to believe the supernatural, it says you have to have attitudes, beliefs and practices PERTAINING to the supernatural. I think “Skepticism” would qualify as an attitude and belief pertaining to the supernatural, and “ignoring” could be considered a practice…

bseymour42: If atheism is not a religion under US law, it does not enjoy the protections afforded to person who practice religion – If atheism is not a religion, Fair Housing and Equal Employment Opportunity would not apply. Atheism would, at best, be a freedom of speech issue, and you CAN discriminate against a person based on their speech. You can put “No Musicians”, “No KKK Members” or “No Visible tattoos” in your advertisement because these are not “Protected Classes” – if Atheism isn’t a religion, it becomes lawful to say “No Atheists” – you can add that language to a contract, and you can be fired or evicted just for saying “I’m an Atheist”.

Most people consider Buddhism a religion, yet many of the definitions of Religion preclude Buddhism as well as Atheism.

Here’s a question: Why is it “liberal” to strictly interpret the constitution? Wouldn’t that be “conservative” – as in “The words should be taken at face value”?

Damn DoubleThink.

Also, a religion requires you to believe in some supernatural force right? As an atheist, I don’t, most atheists don’t. How can it be a religion if there is nothing for the people in it to follow?