Atheism is also a religion for many

Decent article, but:

"The organization has its own philosophy, holidays, and is on a proselytizing campaign to convert others to follow its belief system......sounds a lot like a religion to me."

"Sounds like" isn't the same as "is."

Claiming that 'Atheism and humanism are religions, so anything not of my religion can be called religion anyway,' does not mean that humanists and atheists are trying to 'proselytize' or that they're taking their orders and beliefs from an organization whose purpose is simply to claim that what *certain* religious types claim about others, and about the holidays themselves... Isn't true of everyone.

Yes, this organization wants to promote the idea that humanism and atheism aren't the evil and amorality that some religions use the holiday to claim.

That doesn't mean they're trying to 'convert' anyone.

Just establish... That others are human and can be good, too.

When I dedicated myself as a Pagan more than twenty years ago, I kind of thought I was settling into a quiet little religion no one would be bothering with.

Now we're household words. Not from 'proselytizing,' but because major mouthpieces of Fundamentalist 'book-religions' have been defaming and forcing us to *defend* ourselves from a whole lot of fearmongering and lies.

That includes these claims that "Without our God you must be Satanically deceived, selfish, evil, and to be ostracized and disenfranchised in your own free nation."

I can easily see it's the same thing when humanists are attacked. It doesn't mean they are following some rival authority, just that they're tired of others trying to eject them from their own country's life.

1) atheists have been working long and hard on missions to help the poor of the world. They don't need to advertise it to prove they are good people

2) the idea that the atheists have forced a culture on universities, etc. is silly. The University system represents a learning of how we learn. If the method of learning is do what the book says, there is little else to learn. If the the method is scientific, it takes some time to learn to do it well (usually requiring a PhD). If the method is artistic, the method includes learning the history of the process, and how art fits in the expression of history, culture, self, etc. And so on for the other elements of a University education.

The fact that the Universities want a measurable education and happen to find ways to seek epistemology beyond religious doctrine is not atheism, it is just good sense.

3) Certain theistic systems allow one to have alternate epistemologies and metaphysics. These theistic systems are not opposed to atheism and good sense /logic. Certain theistic systems (monoideologists in principle, christo-islamists in history) have a need to control epistemology and metaphysics. They have a problem with "world views" that differ.

hariaum

This is a problem of semantics. Atheists would like to claim that they are not a religion because they have no belief in God. That is a valid point; although there are many atheists that are far more zealous about spreading their beliefs than most Christians as long as they don't have to go to a 3rd world country to do so. For example, any atheist that comes on to a website about religion or faith in order to belittle and ridicule people of any faith and/or their beliefs are just as religiously zealous as those at the other end of the spectrum.
The semantic issue is not about religion, but about "worldview." This word didn't exist when they were making rules about religion. Theism is not a specific religion either. But it is a worldview that begins with a premise that God or gods exist. Atheism does the same with the belief that God(s) does not exist. They are both beliefs about God and both require faith to believe in them. And it is on that level that there is a battle of "worldviews."
Of course, atheists can never admit to being any form of religion, because it would eliminate their greatest missionary advantage, the public schools and universities where in the last half century have been able to remove their theistic opponents from the playing field by fault of being "religious," even though there was no precedent for such actions before 1949.

Yes, but still, belief in God as religious belief, does not compare to nonbelief in God.

Belief in God is founded on extensive speculative thought on the nature of existence, and the faith of the consequent religous belief is faith in validity of these speculations which can be quite complex and detailed.

Not believing in God requires a different kind of faith, a faith which is not religious in nature. It is faith in ones own intellectual capacity to distinguish what is true and what is not true.

In order to believe in God, there must me a concept of thing that is believed in. Not believing requires no concept, since it is not anything. Atheism is not really anything, and we would not even need a word to describe it, except that being atheistic comes into conflict with the political and cultural power of religion that is exerted against it.

There is no "there" there, as they say.

In the Hindu constructs, strict materialism is considered a religious perspective. This is one of the problems with understanding what Dharma is when it is translated into the european "religion."

the word Yoga literally translates to yoking to tying. This is much closer in etymology with religion (re-ligate - re tie) than dharma. In Hindu constructs, one yokes oneself to a method or system of beliefs. This does not mandate a scripture, etc. Thus hatha yoga is the practice of posture, breath, etc. Karma yoga is the practice of action independent of ego, renouncing the results ,etc.

I will alter RDs statement with that background. The positing of a non-existence is also without proof. thus it is formally a belief structure. Certainly a person can say there is no proof of the existence of a being, but a person can say there is no proof of his non-existence as well.

As to the bald man, the darkness does not exist but its presence is felt.

hariaum

Yes, atheism is not a religion. It does not refer to any sacred text; there are no prayers; there are no funeral or marriage rites; there is no place or building of regular assemblage; there is no organizaiton; no collection of money; no budget; no proselytizing; no decrees about sexual conduct; no hate-the gays; atheism is not a religion.

Atheist do not try to change peoples belief system they only point out what is contradictory and irrational in that particular system.We could care less what you believe as long as you do not try to force others by laws and rules to accept something that we believe is a myth and legend.

... or that bald is a hair color, or that starvation is a food group.

The lack of one thing does not imply or assert the existence of its opposite. You really have to bring the "zero" into your equation professor.

a-theism, not athe-ism. Why is this so difficult for the religious to understand? We have no church, we cannot be a religion by definition.

I seriously doubt you will be able to understand this. Obviously you do not at this time.

As has been mentioned, atheism is not a religion. It is simply a lack of belief in supernatural gods due to non-evidence.

If government officials would have respected the Constitutional mandate ofseparation of church and state and disallowed religious symbols from being erected on public property in the first place, none of this contentiousness would be happening. There are plenty of churches and synagogues and private homes for these displays.

Try placing a statue of Vishnu or Ganesh next to a Nativity creche that is (un-Constitutionally) on public land and see how long it takes before it is stolen or vandalized or Christians start whining about it. I don't think you will be so understanding anymore.

Dear professor,

You are not correct. Atheism is not a religion. HELLO. How can you be so ignorant? --- oh wait, maybe you are the believer, who can just say things, and your faith makes them so. Where I have I seen this before? oh yes, Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland", here we go
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

I'm sorry, Ramdas Lamb, but you are woefully uninformed. First of all it is a total myth (created out of whole cloth by racist site vdare.com and mindlessly regurgitated by Fox "News") that there are hordes of "militant atheists" waging war on Christmas. The "war on Christmas" is the only war in history where only one side showed up to fight - the religious right extremists who think they are fighting for a sacred cause by forcing unfortunate Walmart greeters to say "Merry Christmas" to Jews and Muslims.

Secondly, atheism is no more "just another religion" than health is "just another disease". I find it hilarious that religionists always try to denigrate atheism by dragging it down to their own level.

The AHA message is "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." I don't see how any reasonable fair-minded person could view this as indoctrination of believers. Obviously it is reaching out to people who are already atheists but have been shunned and made to feel like lepers by our religion-saturated community, or are in the closet for fear of losing their jobs or suffering harm if their lack of religious belief were known. It happens every day.

Finally, like many atheists I too celebrate Christmas - why shouldn't I? It is far older than Christianity, but the fact that it was hijacked by Christians doesn't stop me from enjoying marking the end of the year with loved ones. What is NOT ok is when my hard-earned tax dollars go to promote religion and shove it down my throat.

Saying that atheism is a religion for many is like saying that non stamp collecting is a hobby for some.

Haven't we seen this bit of fiction enough already?
"Local, state, and federal governments are all continually attempting to separate itself from anything to do with religion,"
--Umm as it should by law, and
"even private businesses have become reticent about advertising Christmas out of fear of offending atheists."
--I haven't seen a single case of this anywhere, at any time. Someone afraid of offending atheists...wow, that's a new one. I wish I could suffer that one.
And this tidbit:
"Bottom line for me is that if those who want to publicly celebrate a holiday put up posters or advertise it in their businesses, and they are not causing harm to reasonable people, then they should be allowed to do so"
--Oh, like a factual billboard or a bus ad, for example? I agree. People should be able to do that without being attacked by reasonable people.

How can a disbelief in deities of any kind be a "religion" - which would mean a belief in something?

That's all atheism is: Disbelief.