An Idea Regarding Atheism

If atheism is truly a religion, than why isn't it acknowledged as a religion by the American government?

Scientology is recognized by the government as a religion.

So if atheism truly is a religion as many Christians claim it is, then it should be recognized as a religion by the American government.

If it is truly a religion. If it isn't recognized, then that is discrimination.

 

Are you suggesting that atheism is a religion and subsequently your concern about discrimination?

 

This poster beats me! Seems to have his own agenda. Says he is a Christian of 20 yrs, but.......let us see what he has to say.

 

Atheism is supposed to be against any form of organized religion, and you want it to be a religion?

 

That is exactly what I am doing.... waiting...

 

No, atheism is a lack of belief in the same way that a person couldn't believe in evolution or dragons or unicorns.

But that's just a minority view.

The majority of people believe it and claims it is a religion.

so if we're a true democracy, then they should be declared a religion and fully represented in the American government. After all, the American government claims to be a representative republic.

 

Then you are saying that you don't believe in the accuracy of the Bible, because the devil itself is referred to the 'dragon':
"Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

Well, I also do not believe it is a religion, but the law instituted by the US Supreme Court says that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the 1st Amendment. I use that reference to the USSC as a means of legally refuting the atheist claim that atheism is not a religion.

I also believe in at least one dragon: that would be the one referenced above. I will have to look and see whether or not the USSC has made any rulings on that matter to recognize any legal standing.

They are recognized and as for their representation,,, that would be up to them to find an appropriate candidate and gather enough support to cause that candidate to get elected. In the alternative, they could find someone to be a candidate who is sympathetic to their cause and get that person elected.

 

I'm not a Bible literalism, I do believe there are some facts in the Bible, and that there are some metaphors in the Bible. But not everything in the Bible is accurate. For example, there is no archeological evidence of slaves led out of Egypt from Moses.

I believe in the message more than anything else.

And Revelations is about what will come, so that wouldn't be a relevant verse.

A more relevant saying for your cause would be something like:

"Even Satan can use the Bible to mislead people".


As in:2 Corinthians 11:

12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

 

There are lots of things mentioned in the Bible where there are no archaeological findings to support the existence (past or present), therefore you are leading me to conclude that you are more of a materialist than you are a Theist.

Then try this one:
"Psa 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

Is not the Satan in the verse you prescribe the same Satan as mentioned in Revelation?

 

I don't know the answer to that one. But they are different messages.

A materialist?

For the most part, except where the message is important, I just want to see proof of something happening. I suppose that would make me more of a deist, like Thomas Jefferson.

But we are getting way off topic. The topic is should the American government recognize Atheism as a religion since so many religious people claim it is?

 

An article that covers exactly what the Supreme Court decided in regards to atheism and the first amendment:

http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

It is also worth noting that in article VI of the US Constitution it is spelled out clearly that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust'. Now, getting Christians to vote for a non-Christian is another matter entirely. As difficult a hurdle as that may be, that's still the fairest possible system to the religious and nonreligious alike.

 

Thanks for that article. I hadn't know that the Supreme Court had addressed the issue of atheism.

 

There are no doctrines, churches, organization, or common beliefs held by atheists... other than a shared lack of belief in deities. Scientology is highly organized, has a body of doctrine, has organizational meeting places, holds regular services, etc.

All Americans have freedom of religion, which implies a freedom from religions. Atheism is a protected religious belief, even if it is not itself a religion. It's a belief about religions.

 

it is a "personal religion", if you will.
not organized.

"democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions
it only guarantees equality of opportunity.”
~ irving kristol​

a personal leap of faith towards disbelief...
would you like to have a chapel for this?

 

Since there are several definitions of religion and using different ones will give you different answers to whether atheism is a religion or not, it would be irresponsible to call it a religion across the board. Instead, one should figure out which ones should apply and which ones should not and make laws after that, just as the supreme court has stated that atheism is equivalent to a religion in certain cases.

 

Actually I can answer this one. Atheism is NOT a religion by the standard of organized institutions. Meaning it is not an ORGANIZED RELIGION. However it is a religion in the sense that it is a set of beliefs. People seem to forget that the word religion means a set of beliefs or morals; usually dealing with creationism. As such when they think of the word religion they immediatly think of a church an attribute the word with organized religion.

 

Atheism is a religion in the same sense of not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It is not faith based. It is not a religion.

 

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. Atheists lack a belief in Gods. One shared non-belief is not a "set" of anything.

 

Atheism doesn't describe a set of beliefs, it describes a singular belief. It is the opposite of theism and alone means no more than that. You can't describe an individual in any meaningful way with the single word atheism (or theism).

Individuals have sets of beliefs and for some individuals, atheism is one aspect of that set. Some of those sets of beliefs could fit the definition of a religion but that doesn't mean atheism itself is a religion.

Unfortunately, the confusion is added to by all the people identifying themselves as atheist without any further explanation or context. It really doesn't mean anything at all.

 

Then atheism is not a proven 'fact' but merely "a singular belief". Interesting.

 

Actually, as long as the person is telling the truth about being an atheist, both can apply. The wording varies from individual to individual however, where one believes no gods exist while the next does not believe that gods exist. It's a minor difference, but a valid difference none the less.

 

Ahh. So beliefs can be valid as long as it is the belief(s) of an 'atheist'? Yet other 'belief(s)' are not valid? Interesting indeed.

 

When is the lack of a belief a belief? When a Christianist cannot grasp the idea of non-dependence on imaginary friends.

 

Perhaps you should direct your concerns to someone who is not a "Christianist" and yet declares "where one believes no gods exist while the next does not believe that gods exist."

BTW: What is a "Christianist"? My spell checker does not recognize that expression as a valid spelling.

 

Whether someone believes there is or is not a god that belief is valid to them, yes. This is not saying one is right and the other wrong and this is not about proving or disproving the existence of god either. If a person says they believe no gods exist or they believe a dozen of them do or they believe there is only one true god and they are not lying, then yes, their professing their belief is valid and until evidence to the contrary shows itself that belief can't be invalidated. That doesn't prove that the belief is a fact either, just to be clear.