Does atheism have to be anti-religious?

"In recent years we've come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity."

We have?

I'm of the view that the very idea of organised Atheism is absurd. Beyond a shared lack of belief in a deity, there's very little to hold non-believers together, so it doesn't 'have' to be anything.

It's hard to argue with someone who believes atheism is a religion. I tried, recently, but even though I'm atheist and they aren't, it didn't matter, it didn't matter what I said or how I tried to explain it, they were stuck on that belief. It was annoying.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair colour or "Off" is a television channel.

>1 spartan: From that article:

The two atheists I've discussed were very different from one another. Where Leopardi accepted a godless universe with tranquil resignation, Powys embraced it with exultant joy. But for both of them, religion was much more than an outdated theory. If Leopardi believed religion of one sort or another was beneficial for human happiness, Powys valued religion as a kind of poetry, which fortified the human spirit in the face of death.

But each of these atheists was also very different from most of the unbelievers of recent years. The predominant strand of contemporary unbelief, which aims to convert the world to a scientific view of things, is only one way of living without an idea of God. It's worth looking back to other kinds of atheism, far richer and subtler than the version we're familiar with, that aren't just evangelical religion turned upside down.

I would argue that the writer misses the point of the more virulent anti-religious atheist thinkers, the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. The driving force does not seem to me to be "to convert the world to a scientific view of things" so much as a horrified reaction to the abuses committed in the name of religion: the way American fundamentalist Christianity seek to suppress thought, mistreat and abuse people they consider immoral. Or the way fundamentalist Islam has manifested itself in terrible, repressive regimes steeped in violence. It's a response to the political life of religion more than the actual faith. One notes, for example, that they have little scorn to offer Buddhists, despite the more obvious anti-scientific aspects of Buddhist belief, or the beliefs of various indigenous peoples, which don't carry any real political weight. Nor do they, as a rule, object to personal expressions of belief that don't seem harmful - saying Grace at table, wearing a cross, lighting candles for Hanukkah, etc.

So I would say that atheism is anti-religious at it's core, in the sense that it thinks religious constructs and faiths are flawed and their founding principles in error. But atheists are not anti-"religious people" -- an atheist mindset values people coming to their own reasoned conclusions, after all -- but they are anti-"religious institutions" when those institutions intrude on public life and the communal good in a harmful way.

>4 EricJT: I know that, but try to tell someone who thinks it's a religion that and they just don't get it.

It's possible for particular religions to be atheistic. Some forms of Buddhism are putatively atheistic, as are certain organized Satanist groups. The religious body to which I adhere has a professed atheist for a "prophet," and is indifferent to the (a)theism of its membership. So, to the title of the thread, "no, not at all."

"Atheism" isn't "a religion," and that's no more than a crass gambit cultivated by evangelical religionists in the face of modern pluralism.

As an atheist, I don't want anybody making global generalizations about atheists, and I particularly don't want anyone asserting beliefs on my behalf. When somebody says "We atheists believe..." or states that atheists do this or or don't do that (or, most annoyingly, claims atheism as a credential: "I'm an atheist, and I can tell you that atheists believe x"--no, you can't!), it makes me fume. Speak for yourselves, please, I think. Don't speak for me. You don't get to own the meaning of atheism and decide what I must be to practice it. If I wanted that sort of thing, I'd be religious.

I have actually seen people argue "atheists don't believe in God" versus "atheists believe there is no god." I recognize the difference. The fact is that some atheists assert such beliefs, one or another. Some don't. You don't have to subscribe to a dogma to be an atheist, and I honestly don't believe there's any statement that can be made about all atheists unless it's one that can be made about all humanity. I won't even call myself a nonbeliever because I do not define myself with respect to some established candidate for belief, the very nonspecifying of which is a kind of acknowledgment.

Anti-religiosity is a position that some people may take. Non-religiosity is a position that some people may take. Some people choose not to define themselves vis-à-vis religion at all. Because "a-theism" does exactly that, I don't even care for the term itself.

"Does atheism have to be anti-religious?" If you say yes, does that mean you think that a person who is not anti-religious is disqualified as an atheist? How absurd.

(Afterthought: The first openly self-avowed atheist I ever knew, back before I had thoroughly shed my upbringing, called atheism his religion. I thought what he meant was, "This is what occupies the place in my life that religion occupies in the lives of others." That made sense to me. I never thought it implied that there was an Atheist's Creed.)

Atheism doesn't have to be anything but what the word means: without a god. Some atheists are anti-religious, some are not. Personally, I don't care what religions exist as long as they play nice with others. Sadly, they seem to have an awful hard time doing that.

Given that some religions teach that they are the only possible path to salvation, an atheist would be anti-religious by default.

>10 southernbooklady:

Differing with "some religions" doesn't make one "anti-religious by default." Check the logic there.

Certainly, there are many (not just "some," yet still not all) religions that are anti-atheistic, but that says nothing about atheism itself.

I don't see any reason atheism has to anti-religion. I don't care what someone else does to bring meaning to their life as long as they are not harming others and they are not imposing their religion on others (which to my mind would be harming), they are free to do what they feel is right.

I live in a very religious part of the world. If I spent my time trying to anti-religion, it's all I would do.

That said, I have worked for public schools and had bosses who prayed at meetings and co-workers who played tv evangelists on their computers all day and that thoroughly pissed me off.

>11 paradoxosalpha: Differing with "some religions" doesn't make one "anti-religious by default." Check the logic there.

The point is that it would to the religious person whose belief is being rejected. Whether or not a person is deemed "anti-religious" is a question of point of view. Just as there are plenty of people who think being anti-same sex marriage is a question of religious belief, not bigotry. But for the gay couples looking to get married, it's bigotry.

>13 southernbooklady:

Why capitulate to a category error? If someone doesn't like me personally, that doesn't mean he is a misanthrope.

It seems weird to me to speak of an attitude or belief as if it were a person.

Some atheists--people, not abstractions--are antireligious. Some aren't. Why is it so hard to allow for variance within some defined group? especially when the alleged members of that group have no cohesiveness and very little commonality and are not asking to be defined?

>14 paradoxosalpha: Why capitulate to a category error?

I just think it behooves us to remember that when you ask if someone is....anti-religious, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, etc the answer depends very much on who is being asked. No one thinks of themselves as a bigot. The term is never self-applied. That doesn't mean that they aren't. Me? I prefer to deal with reality, so I'm conscious that my atheism can be interpreted as "anti-religious."

In fact, if "anti-religious" means "thinking all religious believers are stupid" then I am not. But if it means "in favor of severely restricting the political influence of religious institutions in civic affairs and government," then I most certainly am.

What if it means "thinks religions should not exist"?

>16 southernbooklady: But if it means "in favor of severely restricting the political influence of religious institutions in civic affairs and government," then I most certainly am.

But not all atheists are even "in favor of severely restricting the political influence of religious institutions in civic affairs and government," or am I violating your definition of atheism by pointing that out?

"But not all atheists are even "in favor of severely restricting the political influence of religious institutions in civic affairs"

This may be true but it seems pretty short sighted on their part.

>18 paradoxosalpha: But not all atheists are even "in favor of severely restricting the political influence of religious institutions in civic affairs and government,"

I never suggested they were.

or am I violating your definition of atheism by pointing that out?

I offered an example, not a definition.

But not all atheists are even "in favor of severely restricting the political influence of religious institutions in civic affairs and government," or am I violating your definition of atheism by pointing that out?

Perhaps you missed the part where she said "I most certainly am", not "atheists most certainly are".

>21 StormRaven:

Perhaps you missed the point (>10 southernbooklady:) where southernbooklady posited that "an atheist would be anti-religious by default," a conclusion unjustified by any premise presented in that post or this thread so far, and the original focus of my reply to her. I'm not questioning her claims about herself or any individual, but I am objecting to them as bases for that generalization.

>22 paradoxosalpha: where southernbooklady posited that "an atheist would be anti-religious by default,

From the point of view of the religious person -- specifically the kind of religious person who thinks that their religion is the only way to salvation. Ei, the fundamentalist. Context is everything.

So what does that make secular humanism -- a religion? Deism is a religion now? Nonsense! Won't be long before such loose thinkers will declare any "ism" is a religion.

Once one rejects the supernatural aspects of religion -- and all religions have them -- by definition, one's beliefs are not religious by any stretch of imagination or reason.

What does the word atheism mean anyway? Do we have to invent a new word, "aaatheism" to be understood to reject all religious belief? With a name like that, aaatheists should have a direct phone line to nnnogodwhatsoever.

Perhaps you missed the point (>10 southernbooklady: southernbooklady:) where southernbooklady posited that "an atheist would be anti-religious by default,"

A post that you misread completely.

>23 southernbooklady:

So you didn't actually mean "an atheist would be anti-religious by default," but rather that any atheist would be anti-religious according to such a religious view. Fine then. Your first clause in >10 southernbooklady: really didn't provide enough "context" to change the plain meaning of your second to that extent.

You could have meant: "Given the existence of anti-atheistic religion, atheists should be anti-religious in their own defense." Or any number of other things. That's why I called you out on it in the first place.

Still, after all that, I can hardly see why your clarified remark would even need making. Does anyone doubt that fundamentalists assume atheists are hostile?

Some religious people have difficulty (read: they find it impossible) understanding that's it's possible to live without a religious belief. Ergo, atheism MUST be some heretical god-denying religion. And since there's no clear organized set of dogmas, strictures, etc that differentiate between atheists (as opposed to the different Protestant sects, Jewish conduct, etc.) then all atheists must by default be members of that faith.

>26 paradoxosalpha: So you didn't actually mean "an atheist would be anti-religious by default," but rather that any atheist would be anti-religious according to such a religious view.

That is exactly what I meant. It seemed obvious to me, given the context, but hey, the Internet is rife with such miscommunications.

I'm sure my experience as an atheist in a highly conservative Christian community colors my perspective, but I don't see much point in not acknowledging how problematic, and even hostile, my position could feel to the religiously-minded people around me. I had a good demonstration of the kind of tension over the last five years here in North Carolina as Amendment One (stating that marriage could only be between a man and a woman) was proposed, argued, adopted, protested, and finally invalidated at the Federal level. I don't have it in me to dismiss an entire community's religious objections to my position with trite platitudes. They are my neighbors after all. If we aren't arguing politics, we're trading plants out of our gardens, or waving to each other as we walk our dogs. Religious vs atheist is not ever just an academic argument for me. It always has to bear the burden of what my position looks like in the real world.

So, in the real world, I accept I'm something of a gadfly. That if pressed, I'll have to say to those same neighbors "you won't like this, but I think your entire faith is built on wishful thinking." Or "I think many of your so-called Christian values are bad for people." And how could that not feel hostile to them?

>28 southernbooklady:

Telling people that they're wrong is never a way to win popularity contests.

It's also an impulse not always associated with the better angels of our nature.