Well, there is a segment of the atheist community that oppose the idea of Godhood in it's entirety. That leads to some question on how you would "define" a God of course. But if there is such a thing out there that can change the nature of reality without using the principles of nature, that has an incredible large conciousness and that actually "created" our universe and has rules that define morals in an objective way and/or rewards you for good behavior in some kind of afterlife ... then maybe it comes close to our definition of what we would perceive as God. The issue is just that these people deny that this can excist in it's entirety, and they embrace this believe without having any proof. Therefore it becomes dogmatic. Now, we both know that most atheists are more prone to an agnostic postion, where "we don't know" is an important part of our thinking. And as long as we don't know, and we can't proof that one of our perceptions is real, we just ignore it because it's just not worth dominating our lifes. But when you are part of this small segment of people that embrace the dogmatic idea and pretend they do know without evidence... well, then you come pretty close to what you consider a religious idea.
I agree that for most (thoughtful) atheists, "I don't know for sure" is part of that stance on the existence of god. But even with the dogmatic, unquestioning worldview that some atheists adopt, can it really be called a religion? I mean, if one unquestioningly embraces the dogma that race x is inferior to race y, is that a religion? I think there is a necessary component of worship for something to be a religion...otherwise it's just a club. Or a gang lol
@Pikachu By definition atheists believe there are no gods or goddesses; agnostics pretty much say they don't know, can't say for sure either way. One is positive denial, the other sitting on the fence just in case.
Any thoughtful atheist won't claim to [i]know[/i] there are no gods. They don't believe that gods exist but they don't know. Agnostics don't believe gods exist but they don't know.
Essentially, if in answer to the question "Do gods exist" one does not answer "Yes"... then one is an atheist. Gnostic/agnostic is a position of knowledge while theist/atheist is a position of belief. So agnostics are agnostic because they don't [i]know[/i] if gods exist [i]and[/i] they are atheist because they do not hold a belief that gods definitely do exist.
@Pikachu [quote]I mean, if one unquestioningly embraces the dogma that race x is inferior to race y, is that a religion? [/quote]
It can be, there is such a thing as a political religion. Fascists in the 1930s called themselves "religious".
[quote][i]This positive conception of life is obviously an ethical one. It invests the whole field of reality as well as the human activities which master it. No action is exempt from moral judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the value which a moral purpose confers on all things. [b]Therefore life, as conceived of by the Fascist, is serious, austere, and religious[/b]; all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities. The Fascist disdains an “easy” life.[/i]
- Mussolini B. (1932) [i]The doctrine Fascism[/i][/quote]
You can also argue that the believe system set forth in the US declaration of independence has some seriously religious aspects:
[quote][i][b]We hold these truths to be self-evident[/b], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men[/i], [...][/quote]
Ofcourse... we have to solve the issue about how you define a religion. If rituals of worship is part of your definition, then my argument is moot. However, I'm sure that there are definition of a religion that don't have that aspect in their definition and where there is more emphasis on believe systems that are followed with great devotion and unshakeble faith. I think this is the part where the distinction between "religious aspects" and "religion" meet in the gray zone.
However, I'll grant you that political religions have forms of worship. They have hollidays, come together to remember and cite their oaths, they have a whole bunch of traditions that keep the believe going. If the segment of atheists that we are discussing come together, go protesting together, create bonds and form communities that spawn traditions... then I think we wouldn't be having a discussion about this because it would be clear to you too. But as I said, this small segment of atheists, well it's gray zone but I think we both understand that it's a "believe" espescially when you read the quote that I'm going to use from yourself in my responds to Ernie.
[quote]Essentially, if in answer to the question "Do gods exist" one does not answer "Yes"... then one is an atheist. Gnostic/agnostic is a position of knowledge while theist/atheist is a position of belief. [...][/quote]
Their are just diffrent forms of atheism, but they are all joined by the same idea that (at least today) there is no evidence what so ever for the excistence of God. And therefore, it's better not to have one in your train thought.
[quote] I'm sure that there are definition of a religion that don't have that aspect in their definition and where there is more emphasis on believe systems that are followed with great devotion and unshakeble faith[/quote]
Can you give an example of such a religion? Because if that's all one needs in order to be a religion then what separates a religion from a political affiliation?
I think that there is an overlap in the venn diagram of religion and worldview but i do very much think that there are certain requirements of religion which go beyond mere devotion to the ideology. It seems to me that by this somewhat lax definition of religion then literally any belief which is practiced zealously and without questioning could be called a religion: veganism, communism, even sports fandom.
@Pikachu [quote]Because if that's all one needs in order to be a religion then what separates a religion from a political affiliation?[/quote]
That's the argument. This isn't my argument btw, this is an old one that you can find in several authors that concern themselves about political believe systems. I can point to pretty much all the political -isms out there, people that are devoted to an -ism argue in the same way as religious people. Because these -isms have to embrace a particulair notion, some starting principle that lacks evidence. Political radicals and extremists, have the same structure of thought that you find with devoted people that you would categorise as religions.
The only thing that you can use against that (for as far as I'm aware) is that these devoted -ism people to create a following, have gatherings, readings, youtube-channels, ... that preach the believe the system and classify nay-sayers as heretics by ridiculousing them and placing them in the margin so that their following won't listen to them. There is hardly any discussion or debate, just the doctrine of the -ism that eventually creates it's own orthodoxy and behavioral patterns.
But yeah, if you want examples of this, just look up political extremists groups, read their pamphlets follow their messaging. They don't always do the "worship" thing, unless you perceive the gatherings that I mentioned as a form of religious ritual. The worship is more towards the doctrine then what you can perceive in a temple. [i](same goes for other identitarian groups btw, that have some devoted believe towards their own morality or them being better... you see it in football stadiums every month)[/i]
But to have a better understanding of all of this, you as the instigator of this toppic, should have defined what "religion" means for you. Because this is largely a conversation about semantics [i](and I don't say this in a negative way... it's just important to know what you perceive as a religion)[/i].
@Pikachu Well, if you accept that we are beings that are ignorant about a lot of aspects of our life, and we should discover things to make the ignorance go away... in the mean time, society is still struggling with that lack of knowledge. espescially when it comes to how we organise society.
One of the big discussions here, ever since the beginning of the enlightenment, is the nature of mankind in it's most natural form. You can take a pessismistic approach, like Hobbes who believed that human beings in their natural state are always at war with eachother and therefore Hobbes needs a state to create peace amongst those human beings that fall under the states rule of law. But you can also take the ultimate progressive approach like Rousseau, who believed that man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. Meaning that human beings are free and even virtues if not for society, it's society that corrupts. And in between there are a lot of other thinkers that have more nuances... ussually conservative thinkers have a less optimistic vieuw on the nature of human beings while progressive thinkers ussually have a more positive vieuw on humans. What ever idea you are going to embrace as your foundation on how human beings are as a start of how we "ought" to organise society, is kinda important. And this idea is always dogmatic because we just don't know, it's a philosophical debate. But once it becomes dogmatic, once ideas start flowing from it and it supports your entire political believe system... well, you'll have the beginning of a movement that can be labeled religious if you link religion with unshakeable ideas that people are devoted too. And these ideas will start to shape how people act, how people reason, how people structure their society... if these ideas are at the foundation, they become pretty much totalitarian because they will dictate other aspects of your worldview.
