Calling atheism a religion is like classifying someone who doesn’t care for sports, a ‘fan of Team Nothing.’ It would be more accurate to just say he’s not a fan.
You know, despite my sympathies in this topic, it occurred to me how it’s much more acceptable to ascribe negative motives to religions and the religious in general, as opposed to specific religions, especially Islam and Judaism. It’s probably for the same reasons it’s more acceptable to be a misanthrope than a sexist/racist.
As I mentioned, a few extremists, voted in by millions of dull, cafeteria believers who take an association with Christianity (for instance) to be shorthand for good morals. And in parts of the country, religious stupidity isn’t exactly rare. How many Americans believe in creationism? That’s real damage caused by religion. How many Americans fight to force women to have unwanted babies? That causes real damage, and it’s not a few people that try enforce their religious beliefs on others, it’s tens of millions.
I’m not sure about that. I don’t know that the majority of *people *are perfectly reasonable. 
And you’re still wrong. But in your fumbling to try to justify your stance, you jumbled the analogy around to attack it.
I also disagree with this statement. Its definition of religion is not useful; for example, it neglects religious traditions that are primarily focused on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy.
The reason you need to use Christianity as your example is because your terms (like “cafeteria believers”) stop being meaningful when applied to other religious traditions, or even to Christian traditions that are not the essentialized images of modern white evangelical Protestantism that everyone in the US seems to use as their model for religion everywhere.
If I take your meaning, you’re suggesting that for instance, a non-believing Jew that keeps to the traditions and laws, but doesn’t actually believe in a supernatural deity, would be covered by that?
I’d say that someone who keeps to the traditions of a religion without belief is basically in a social club. I so no reason to not call that person an atheist.
I use Christianity because they are the ones currently fucking up the country I live in. If I lived in a majority Muslim country I’d be talking about Islam.
Well, no I wouldn’t, because I don’t want my head cut off.
As for Judiasm, well, it’s as goofy as the other two in the Abrahamic fold, but at least they don’t proselytize.
I absolutely did not. Cite where I did so.
edited to add: I asked you to show me how that definition applied to Dawkins.
To momentarily go back to the subject of the OP…
I’m torn. I am in favour of non-religious philosophies gaining the same status in law as religious ones. It seems fairer. When it comes to you guys over there, it’d be nicer to see an amendment to the Establishment Clause, but I doubt** that **would come any time soon (and would probably be a counterproductive cause). “For the purposes of” seems like the best practical situation, at least for the moment.
Thats incorrect - atheism is a ‘lack of belief in god(s)’ - it may follow that atheists are by and large not going to be believing/following religion - but its not required.
The whole point of the establishment clause was to prevent the Gov’t from enforcing/favoring a set of religious beliefs over others - and establishing a ‘state religion’. Keep in mind that in those days, they had just escaped the ‘Church of England’ and its trappings.
I don’t think at the time they really considered that ‘atheism’ didn’t follow under that protection naturally - since if the Gov’t couldn’t establish a state religion, then it shouldn’t be able to ‘punish’ non-believers as well.
If Jews in general agreed that that non-believing Jew was fine, or if no consensus existed, then why wouldn’t he be covered? I could express this another way - what are the religious beliefs that a Hindu must maintain to keep being a Hindu?
Please bear in mind that my definition of religion as a process of meaning-making is extremely broad and essentially applies to processes that all people engage in, so when I make decisions about what who I identify religious, I try to keep in mind how they identify themselves. Otherwise then it’s hard to make a real distinction between, say, football fandom and religion.
And the world is broad, right. I’ve met people who identify as atheist Hindus, atheist Muslims, atheist Christians, and in China, identifying as atheist and engaging in personal religious practices is really common.
How can believers be cafeteria though, unless a true version of that religion exists? And if even practitioners of that religion who do believe a true version exists don’t accept that that true version of that religion is completely knowable on earth (like many forms of Buddhism), then what to do?
I was trying to keep an informal tone, but yeah, you’re right.
Although, I’m not sure an atheist can be said to *believe *in a religion, in that he would reject the central supernatural claim. An atheist can certainly *practice *a religion, and many do. I walked up and at a cracker at my grandmother’s funeral.
Actually it doesn’t, as it seems to require a established set of beliefs and a organization that espouses them, and does not include things like spirituality or what I may term individual atheists (for lack of a better term).
It seems like a organization that makes rules to follow in such ethical/moral matters may be considered a religion for the establishment clause, but find your own way (and even your own God), and you are SOL on this.
already given. You rejected it.
Well, that’s the distinction - being an atheist does not require you to “not believe in the supernatural” - you could believe in all kinds of things that could become religious in practice - just not ‘god(s)’.
Logic and reason is what generally precludes one from believing in ‘the supernatural’ and atheism simply extends that to a specific aspect of it - ‘god(s)’.
Looked it up, for a new religion we are back to circumcising :eek:
I’m not Jewish, but keeping the cultural identity is different from believing the supernatural claims about God. I have no problem in calling the Jewish non-believing person a Jew, at least culturally, but he’s certainly an atheist as well.
At least football exists.
Sure. I have no trouble with that. Religion is more than cultural practices. At its heart it has a supernatural claim. You can reject the claim and follow the cultural practices. You can say you follow the religion, but you don’t believe in the core claim about the God at the center.
Every single religious person picks and chooses. By cafeteria, I mean those whose belief is weak. I’ve got relatives who go to church, but the moment they’re out the door the practice of that religion suspends for a week.
They’re Christian, and would more likely vote for another Christian candidate, but in their daily lives religion is an afterthought. Unlike a passionate evangelical who makes every decision through a WWJD process.
Yeah, and the central supernatural claim of any religion is the God that it venerates. I agree with you. I know atheists who believe in horoscopes.
I think it’s actually quite funny to see how early Christian arguments against local and pagan “superstitions” as inferior to true and logical “religion” were later put to use by Protestant reformers against Catholic “superstitions” and now by atheists against religion as a whole, which has been fully subsumed by them into the category of superstition. Those who lived by imagined dichotomies, die by imagined dichotomies, I guess.