Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Since a theist can exist without a religion, atheism can too.
In very small measure you can make a religion out of atheism, but I don't know of many clear examples.
Since atheism is most often a rejection of all religion as well as the concept of god, its a clear breach of common sense to make a religion out of it.

Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.

The people that follow those might also be dog lovers, or haters of worms. But they are not relevant, neither is atheism. People do not follow Stalin BECAUSE they are atheists.
The Charvaka are nor concerned with rejecting god. That is not the point of their religion in any sense.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.

Flaming is not allowed in the Forum.

-I'm not sure I understand what criticism you're trying to level when you say that atheism isn't the central point of those religions. It doesn't have to be in order for them to be atheists.

-I did my best to make it quite unambiguous that it wasn't my intention to throw an ad hom at you. Not sure why you're potentially accusing me of flaming when I did make a respectable effort at being polite as I could be?

Is it flaming just using the expression Eurocentrism at all?

No religion aims at being atheist. For all you listed atheism, although a factor, is just incidental.
I have not "breached common sense".
Stalinism, for example simply makes of Stalin a godhead, which is one of the chief objections of atheism. Be the leader Trump or Kim your un they are revered as a god by some.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.

The people that follow those might also be dog lovers, or haters of worms. But they are not relevant, neither is atheism. People do not follow Stalin BECAUSE they are atheists.
The Charvaka are nor concerned with rejecting god. That is not the point of their religion in any sense.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.

Flaming is not allowed in the Forum.

-I'm not sure I understand what criticism you're trying to level when you say that atheism isn't the central point of those religions. It doesn't have to be in order for them to be atheists.

-I did my best to make it quite unambiguous that it wasn't my intention to throw an ad hom at you. Not sure why you're potentially accusing me of flaming when I did make a respectable effort at being polite as I could be?

Is it flaming just using the expression Eurocentrism at all?

No religion aims at being atheist. For all you listed atheism, although a factor, is just incidental.
I have not "breached common sense".
Stalinism, for example simply makes of Stalin a godhead, which is one of the chief objections of atheism. Be the leader Trump or Kim your un they are revered as a god by some.

I'm not sure what your point is about the OP itself. If you're agreeing that whether or not something is a religion doesn't have to do with atheism vs theism, then what exactly is your criticism here?

I never commented about you having or not having common sense, and never stated that it was the aim of some religion to be atheist. In fact the central point of the OP in a lot of ways is that the aim of a religion is to have a general worldview for a social group to gravitate around and identify themselves with.

[popeye1945]

To quote the famous late mythologist Joseph Campbell, "Mythology is the other man's religion." Mythologies were always meant to give the illiterate population a form of orientation, when they became religions they became written in stone and completely dysfunctional.

[Sculptor1]

I'm not sure what your point is about the OP itself. If you're agreeing that whether or not something is a religion doesn't have to do with atheism vs theism, then what exactly is your criticism here?

I never commented about you having or not having common sense, and never stated that it was the aim of some religion to be atheist. In fact the central point of the OP in a lot of ways is that the aim of a religion is to have a general worldview for a social group to gravitate around and identify themselves with.

These are your words "Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions."
At least own what you said please.

My point about what is religion is bourn out by the demonstration that in most cases religions are theistic. If they are not then the basic criteria of what a religion means show that in order that they may be called a religion their practice mimicks some form of idolatry and ritual which is antithetical to the position of atheism. Citing Stalinism and North Korea demonstrates that. For other practices there is no "religion" whose aim is the promotion of atheism though they may not have a god in their system.
But if you take a look at the wide practice of Budhism, the bast majority are syncratic of a multitude of olxder religons all of whom believe in spirits an many gods. Purely atheistic budhists are rare and no budhist actively promotes at rejection of gods, since most of their co-religionists have gods themselves.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

I'm not sure what your point is about the OP itself. If you're agreeing that whether or not something is a religion doesn't have to do with atheism vs theism, then what exactly is your criticism here?

I never commented about you having or not having common sense, and never stated that it was the aim of some religion to be atheist. In fact the central point of the OP in a lot of ways is that the aim of a religion is to have a general worldview for a social group to gravitate around and identify themselves with.

These are your words "Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions."
At least own what you said please.

My point about what is religion is bourn out by the demonstration that in most cases religions are theistic. If they are not then the basic criteria of what a religion means show that in order that they may be called a religion their practice mimicks some form of idolatry and ritual which is antithetical to the position of atheism. Citing Stalinism and North Korea demonstrates that. For other practices there is no "religion" whose aim is the promotion of atheism though they may not have a god in their system.
But if you take a look at the wide practice of Budhism, the bast majority are syncratic of a multitude of olxder religons all of whom believe in spirits an many gods. Purely atheistic budhists are rare and no budhist actively promotes at rejection of gods, since most of their co-religionists have gods themselves.

-If you read that quote carefully, I didn't say anything about whether you yourself do or don't have common sense. Mentioning Eurocentrism wasn't meant to denigrate you either, it is a common Western idea that there is no such thing as a religion that subscribes to atheism.

-What exactly do you mean by idolatry and ritual? I have a good sense probably of what you're trying to say but it would be very helpful if you explain clearly what you meant.

-Yes the basic majority of Buddhists practice syncretism. Most are Mahayana Buddhists who practice Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, even Islam, Christianity and Judaism. That doesn't erase it being a prominent counterexample as there are atheist sects.

It simply isn't accurate to push the idea "religion is all about theism" when it's easier to cover everything by saying "religion is a sociological phenomenon that stresses a particular general worldview".

[Sculptor1]

I'm not sure what your point is about the OP itself. If you're agreeing that whether or not something is a religion doesn't have to do with atheism vs theism, then what exactly is your criticism here?

I never commented about you having or not having common sense, and never stated that it was the aim of some religion to be atheist. In fact the central point of the OP in a lot of ways is that the aim of a religion is to have a general worldview for a social group to gravitate around and identify themselves with.

These are your words "Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions."
At least own what you said please.

My point about what is religion is bourn out by the demonstration that in most cases religions are theistic. If they are not then the basic criteria of what a religion means show that in order that they may be called a religion their practice mimicks some form of idolatry and ritual which is antithetical to the position of atheism. Citing Stalinism and North Korea demonstrates that. For other practices there is no "religion" whose aim is the promotion of atheism though they may not have a god in their system.
But if you take a look at the wide practice of Budhism, the bast majority are syncratic of a multitude of olxder religons all of whom believe in spirits an many gods. Purely atheistic budhists are rare and no budhist actively promotes at rejection of gods, since most of their co-religionists have gods themselves.

-If you read that quote carefully, I didn't say anything about whether you yourself do or don't have common sense. Mentioning Eurocentrism wasn't meant to denigrate you either, it is a common Western idea that there is no such thing as a religion that subscribes to atheism.

If you knew me as much as you pretend to then you would know that was an insult to me.

-What exactly do you mean by idolatry and ritual? I have a good sense probably of what you're trying to say but it would be very helpful if you explain clearly what you meant.

Take me literally.

-Yes the basic majority of Buddhists practice syncretism. Most are Mahayana Buddhists who practice Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, even Islam, Christianity and Judaism. That doesn't erase it being a prominent counterexample as there are atheist sects.

That is not the case. Atheism would also disclude "spirits", and whilst many branches of buddhism may not formally have a "godhead" they do beleive in a bewilderingly diverse set of demi-gods and spirits that no self resplecting atheist would.

It simply isn't accurate to push the idea "religion is all about theism" when it's easier to cover everything by saying "religion is a sociological phenomenon that stresses a particular general worldview".

It is not a Europcentric view to hold that religion is prmarily about theism, since it takes excpetional language to posit that systems that include atheism, and almost an abuse of language to suggest that they are still religions due to their absence of literal gods.
The obvious one here is that to call Stalinism a religion takes some effort. And it is still the case that it is most like a religion in that Stalin is taken to be a god. In the case of North Korea the Kims are literally gods upon earth, and so are essentially theistic denying any claim of atheism.
Additionally the thought processes that lead to atheism tend also to deny the more esoteric aspects of "atheistic" Buddhism, which is actually very rare.
So whilst I agree that notionally there are religions that do not include a literal god, they are chararterised in the precise way that they do not resemble religions.
And whilst I can agree that there are things that look like religions, their resemblance to religion is precisely the way in which they resemble theism. And since none of these proselytise FOR atheism they can hardly be fairy called a "religion OF atheism".

[Zosimus]

Let me be clear to start with: I am in no way about to suggest that atheism is itself a religion. Atheism is one among a handful of stances on a particular philosophical question, and being an atheist doesn't preclude any one person from subscribing to a whole range of stances on other philosophical questions.

I'd like to propose a few criteria for recognizing something as a religion, criteria which I've selected specifically for their explanatory power, i.e. their ability to effectively explain things we observe in the world, namely how people come together to share in particular worldviews, how they identify with the group, and how it has a societal impact. It can be countered, for example, that one could identify as a Christian or Muslim but not participate in religious activities with others, but it remains that the religion is there in the first place for one to identify with because of the sociological vehicle.

Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

What are the implications here? I'm more than a little certain this kind of definition for religion implies that those of us who are enculturated to think of the issue from a westernized perspective need to broaden our horizons in order to grasp all of what's going on. English speaking discussions in which atheism is considered to preclude religion are virtually omnipresent and thinking that way really isn't helpful for anyone who might like to establish a deeper familiarity with, for example, Buddhism.

Religion, at least from an occidental point of view, is a set of beliefs that defines certain items, concepts, or beings as sacred. Generally, the sacred are venerated and certain rules may be instituted about how to show proper respect for the positive sacred and how to eschew the negative sacred. For example, in Christianity, the name of God is sacred and should not be "taken in vain." In Judaism, blood is sacred (generally negative sacred) and people must cleanse themselves after contact with blood. Blood must be removed from meat (generally with kosher salt) and men should eschew contact with women who are menstruating. Criticism of the sacred or treating the sacred as though it were profane (for example, blasphemy) is deeply offensive to true believers. Jehovah's Witnesses also have special rules about the handling of blood, and blood transfusions are prohibited.

In environmentalism, the Earth is sacred and plastic must be eschewed. Veneration for the Earth is shown through meaningless rituals such as recycling. Certain days, such as Earth Day, are set aside to venerate the Earth. Cars, especially those powered by oil products, are particularly offensive, and true believers should buy electrical cars even though the electricity to power them is produced through natural gas. These cars are, inexplicably, considered "clean" and you are virtuous if you drive one. Telling an environmentalist that you don't recycle and just dump your garbage into the Earth is equivalent to blasphemy. Expect environmentalists to socially ostracize you if you inform them that recycling is garbage (see https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/maga ... rbage.html).

In scientism, scientific theories are sacred. You know that you are dealing with an adherent of scientism when he informs you that "In science, the word theory isn't applied lightly. It doesn't mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments." To say "it's just a theory" in the presence of a true believer is to take your life in your own hands. A proponent of scientism will agree with the sentence "Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge." Proponents revere (or at least claim to) evidence. Yet, major proponents of scientism, such as Carl Sagan, have said "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." It is hard to even imagine what evidence one would need to back up such a bold claim.

[Hereandnow]

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:
Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

All this dances around the issue. What do you think is the essential issue of religion? What is its core, or, why does it arrive in our midst such that popular forms arose in the first place? Who cares about the vagaries of actual religions? If you want to address the question of what a thing is, one has to look to its essence.

Metaphysics and ethics? Do tell.

[AmericanKestrel]

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:
Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.
-It must be sufficiently organized and answer enough worldview related questions in order for the adherents themselves to deem it appropriate to identify with the religion, calling themselves 'Christians', 'Hindus', 'Punjabs', or whatever else.

All this dances around the issue. What do you think is the essential issue of religion? What is its core, or, why does it arrive in our midst such that popular forms arose in the first place? Who cares about the vagaries of actual religions? If you want to address the question of what a thing is, one has to look to its essence.

Metaphysics and ethics? Do tell.

Essence of religion is organizing a civil society. Lay down some laws. Division of labor. Crime and punishment. Capitalism.
The rest is all drama and entertainment, keep people busy. So temple building, dramatic worship, fireworks and mythologies.

[AmericanKestrel]

Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.

Atheism in Eastern Thoughts is not the same as defined by Western traditions. Atheism or nastika is not denial of deities but disregard for scriptures and religious rites. They do not feel bound by religious strictures. They are not necessarily atheists. Buddhists are not atheists.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.

Atheism in Eastern Thoughts is not the same as defined by Western traditions. Atheism or nastika is not denial of deities but disregard for scriptures and religious rites. They do not feel bound by religious strictures. They are not necessarily atheists. Buddhists are not atheists.

"They are not necessarily atheists" and "Buddhists are not atheists" don't really follow from each other.

Nagarjuna, easily one of the most famous Indian philosophers and a formative figure for Tibetan Buddhism, was more skeptical than Descartes ever was and most definitely atheist.

[Hereandnow]

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote
Essence of religion is organizing a civil society. Lay down some laws. Division of labor. Crime and punishment. Capitalism.
The rest is all drama and entertainment, keep people busy. So temple building, dramatic worship, fireworks and mythologies.

You mean to say that there is nothing there, in the fabric of the world that is both religious in nature and NOT reducible to the above?? Just a construct with no actual existential counterpart? Pls reconsider. Note what the liturgies, the hymns, the theologies and all about. What are they talking about, not simply how is religion used to maintain power.

You have to step beyond Foucault and Nietzsche, if only to look at things more clearly. Not that power is not in the presence of contrived social institutions that distribute law and order; but that looking exclusively at this overlooks something essential.

[AmericanKestrel]

Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.

Atheism in Eastern Thoughts is not the same as defined by Western traditions. Atheism or nastika is not denial of deities but disregard for scriptures and religious rites. They do not feel bound by religious strictures. They are not necessarily atheists. Buddhists are not atheists.

"They are not necessarily atheists" and "Buddhists are not atheists" don't really follow from each other.

Nagarjuna, easily one of the most famous Indian philosophers and a formative figure for Tibetan Buddhism, was more skeptical than Descartes ever was and most definitely atheist.

Nagarjuna’s philosophy is closely aligned with Advaita which is not atheist. The only difference between the two is his denial of the atma, the seer. Eastern Buddhists however do worship deities. Buddha did not deny or affirm anything, he only denounced vedic scriptures and rites. I agree there are different sects within Buddhism.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote
Essence of religion is organizing a civil society. Lay down some laws. Division of labor. Crime and punishment. Capitalism.
The rest is all drama and entertainment, keep people busy. So temple building, dramatic worship, fireworks and mythologies.

You mean to say that there is nothing there, in the fabric of the world that is both religious in nature and NOT reducible to the above?? Just a construct with no actual existential counterpart? Pls reconsider. Note what the liturgies, the hymns, the theologies and all about. What are they talking about, not simply how is religion used to maintain power.

You have to step beyond Foucault and Nietzsche, if only to look at things more clearly. Not that power is not in the presence of contrived social institutions that distribute law and order; but that looking exclusively at this overlooks something essential.

You're quoting someone else.

[AmericanKestrel]

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote
Essence of religion is organizing a civil society. Lay down some laws. Division of labor. Crime and punishment. Capitalism.
The rest is all drama and entertainment, keep people busy. So temple building, dramatic worship, fireworks and mythologies.

You mean to say that there is nothing there, in the fabric of the world that is both religious in nature and NOT reducible to the above?? Just a construct with no actual existential counterpart? Pls reconsider. Note what the liturgies, the hymns, the theologies and all about. What are they talking about, not simply how is religion used to maintain power.

You have to step beyond Foucault and Nietzsche, if only to look at things more clearly. Not that power is not in the presence of contrived social institutions that distribute law and order; but that looking exclusively at this overlooks something essential.

The quote is mis attributed.
Yes, religion is only a construct for utilitarian purpose. The truly spiritual have often stepped outside of religious doctrine and organization and even condemned them. Jesus, Buddha, the Upanishads, the Sufi saints. It is from their thoughts and experiences that we find the most sublime ideas, and this is the good that comes out of a religion, their association to the tradtion.