To say that atheism is a religious belief is like saying walking around naked in the CBD is ok, because nudity is a just another form of clothing  

- or like saying that a legitimate hobby is NOT fishing   

- or like saying that gross stupidity is just another form of intelligence 

It's confusing being an atheist, because logically I need to define all the other irrational beliefs that I don't hold. I'm an atheist, and a-horoscopist, an a-gambling mythologyist, and an a-(insert stupid traditional belief system)-ist.

I used to call myself an atheist, but I've lost interest in that now.

I've become a rational thinker instead, and a believer in the natural world.

Come on guys, read the fine print in the last Australian Census. The ABS usually gets these things right:

No Religion: (f) Comprises 'No Religion, nfd', 'Agnosticism', 'Atheism', 'Humanism' and 'Rationalism'.

If faced with a question like that, I always look at the negative hypothesis:

Is atheism a non-religious belief- Yes.

therefore:

Is atheism a religious belief - No. 

Logically it can't be both.

It depends. To me it's obvious that atheism fits the definition of  a non religious belief rather than a religious belief. It's certainly not associated with any of the major world religions, although it is a major world world viewpoint. Some atheists may be religious, such as some Buddhists, but most atheists would confirm that they do not associate with any religions. If you want the real definition of a belief, you generally ask the people who hold that belief.

I can see some people arguing over semantics in a way. It's like asking "Is right to life" an abortion related belief (or view)? The answer is obviously yes, but you can't go on to say that those who advocate 'right to life' believe in abortion. 

In the same way, there is no doubt that atheism takes a position on religion, although  that position is one of being without  (a prefix) a god (or gods). Generally in a Western context, there can be no doubt that atheists are non religious. 

It's a dishonest tactic to base such an argument on a dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is not logically rigorous, and usually includes many definitions of a word. The way a word is actually used depends on the context in many cases. For example, I could say that I have a tear in my shirt, and you could look up the dictionary and conclude that I must have been crying recently (presumably in frustration) because you know that tears evaporate quickly.

In the same way, I am very reluctant to label myself with the term Atheist, because it's a ready to wear definition originally provided by a society that believed in a Christian God. It's like me calling a religious person superstitious. To me there is no significant difference between religion and superstition, but to a religious person, there most certainly is.

The problem is that arguing about semantics based on dictionary definition doesn't actually get you anywhere.  The result will always be ambiguous. The example of the word 'tear' was probably a poor one.

In the case of atheism, an atheist should know best whether his worldview  is or is not a religion, because that's basically where you're going with this.

For example you could look at a sign and say "That sign is ambiguous". Only the person who said that would know exactly what was meant.  There are at least two possibilities - 1.That it can be read clearly but is open to several possible meanings or interpretations, or 2. That it is indistinct, and that you can't quite make it out.

To jump on one meaning or another and argue about semantics gets us nowhere, because it is the intent of the word that is important.

The English language is too imprecise to simply use the definition of a word without explanation. We see a sign saying "This area is Alcohol Free", another saying "Free Beer" and another saying "Free Beach". The word 'free' has three entirely different meanings in each case.   

- and that's why it's a dishonest tactic to use a dictionary definition unless you want to deliberately obfuscate the issue.

Now if you want to start a separate debate on rationality, that's an entirely different argument, but to start with we need to agree on the definition of an atheist.

Again it depends on the definition of religion that you use. Unfortunately it's a very vague concept. Here is an online attempt:

YourDictionary.com

Religion:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2a. personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3. archaic: scrupulous conformity



4a. cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The key word is 'faith', but that definition is far too loose to apply rigorously. For example the principle that if a black cat crosses your path, then you'll suffer bad luck. It's a superstition, but is it a religion? What about gambling? Is that a religion? A lot of people have faith in their system of beliefs (however irrational). Clearly the final definition is too vague to be of any use.

I'd argue that some religious people also have an emotional reaction to the word religion and especially atheism, and they aren't going to approach it rationally either.   

Then we have Dictionary.com :

1.      a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.      a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.      the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.      the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.      the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.      something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.      religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.      Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.      get religion, Informal.
a.      to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.      to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Again, definition 6 is extremely vague. It could apply to stamp collecting or weather forecasting, but nobody is going to seriously suggest that either of those is a religion. It's one of these catch-all definitions that is way down the list.  My particular brand of atheism certainly doesn't fall into that category, because it's not something I "believe in and and follow devotedly". (some do) I know many Atheists who haven't even thought about it deeply. They just take it for granted, like the vast majority of Christians.

I think we've done the dictionary definitions to death, but it's still handy to refer to the dictionary to check that we're talking about the same thing. You wrote:

"If you want to get away from semantics, the key point is that atheism is a belief that is equally lacking in a rational basis. If you agree on that but don't care about the semantics then that is sufficient."

I guess we can define rational as :

- consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
-  intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"

We again come into the problematic area of semantics. I don't consider that all people who have supernatural beliefs are totally irrational just as I don't consider all atheists as totally irrational. The word irrational has negative connotations in that way. If you accuse a person of acting in an irrational manner or having an irrational belief, then they are obviously going to get emotional about it.

Yet, even if human beings don't like being called irrational or even illogical, none of us really function in a totally logical or rational way, regardless of our belief system.  We all have our egos (some more that others), we have our emotions that can be triggered quite easily and we have our preconceptions and sentiments. Even the most logical of research scientists can cling on to pet theories.

I would be more comfortable with saying that Supernaturalism (which incorporates religion, superstition etc) is not a scientific belief system, because we can define scientific method much easier than we can define that which is rational.  Do you have a problem with that?

I would also say that both supernaturalism, including Christianity, Voodoo and the rest are probably perfectly valid belief systems for those people who hold them, just as my own belief system (for which atheism is a very poor definition) is perfectly valid for me. If the suit fits, wear it. Sorry, but I'm not one of these militant atheists. It doesn't really concern me. All that I ask is that we respect the rights of others to hold different beliefs. My personal belief does not happen to include supernatural elements, but most of my friends are religious, and quite frankly I find myself defending their rights rather than those of militant atheists.

The things that irritate me most are gambling mythology, these all-pervasive horoscopes that so many people follow without a thought, militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchins, racism and fundamentalism such as Islamic Fundamentalism and "In your face" Born-Again Christianity (but not necessarily in that order).

The thing that appeals to me most in people is tolerance.

Well you can discount Fraud, I mean Freud, the father of psychoquackery. They tell me that Clearasil is quite good for Marxism, or at least it goes away eventually at the same time as the acne. As for Darwin, well he did give us a pretty good insight into how things evolve, but I don't exactly worship him.

His biggest fault was to name his book "On the Origin of Species". Nowadays we have people who spend a lifetime trying to determine if something is a different species or not, and we have an unwarranted emphasis on the preservation of species, where we should be looking at the preservation of regional populations and ecosystems. It's an incredible waste of resources, and a diversion away from some if the bigger issues in biodiversity.

I don't think I qualify as a rationalist. The closest thing you can get to putting a label on me is "Bright", as in "The Brights". It's a general enough description. I have humanist tendencies, in that I feel compelled to help strangers in need, and I contribute quite a bit to secular charities.  I actually joined the Brights internet forum once, and find that I can't stand them. I seem to get on better with tolerant religious people.

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2008 at 7:59pm:


Here is one sample:

Quote:


http://www.the-brights.net/

Dennett originally coined the term. When challenged that it was arrogant, he somewhat conceded by calling those who believe in the supernatural "Supers".