Is it possible to have no religion?

One recurrent theme on PF is the idea that atheism (however you choose to define it) is a religion. We are supposed to be blind to the patently obvious ulterior motive behind such assertions. The real purpose is to restrict or remove your intellectual freedom of choice. You have to choose between religions - the none of the above option is not permitted.

What if I am a remote island native never exposed to any religion? What religion am I? What if I just say no thanks to atheists and deists both?

I say a pox on both your houses. I loathe the Dawkins and Harrises as much as the Christian apologists who try to tell me what I really am and what I am permitted to believe. I don't want to be a part of your stupid debate.

I suppose I could say I could say I'm an agnostic or a non-believer, but you clowns would just come up with some insane reason why I can't be that either.

 

All matters of conscience (especially morals) that a person lives by and uses to guide their life is a religion despite any 'ism' anyone would like to assign to it. The ism assignment is a secondary matter.

Yep atheists are the ones who started that crap where they incorrectly assume you need a God or sky pilot as they put it to have a religion or be religious. Hence Jainism and Buddhism both being considered religions and the gays wining the right to marriage, scotus considers it that a religion. (correctly I might add)

religion is a multifaceted set of conditions that 'can' be fairly complex in practice depending on the circumstances, where several tumblers of the lock have to fall into place to be considered as such from a philosophical pov, than add the 'lack' of understanding atheists have promoted is it really any surprise people have such a hard time wrapping their minds around it?

the way that would work if you were living on an island is that people would observe you under a large variety of conditions and then list all the applicable isms. If you did not believe in a diety then your religion would be nontheistic. Agnostics too have religion, nontheistic religion.

The distinction:

​

So...........that said, when you have a gubmint that starts with ethics and then forces you to act based upon their ethics they hence establish a religion. The only possible way for the gubmint to remain neutral is to get the hell out of the religion business and turn the courts over to the people.

 

Man worships cause and effect. This makes perfect sense, as the world better make sense. To survive, you must make predictions based upon witnessed repetitions.

This making sense, extends to our upgrade from the apes, sense of mortality. So, we must make sense of our time here. For life to make sense, there must be order, and an orderer outside the system.

So, man went for some time like this. Then, man needed not only to make sense, but to be somebody. An actual human that will always care, is impossible, so an invisible one was made.

This consciousness of mortality, and social need, was evident in Neanderthals.

We need a compassionate God. The old testament God was Testy.

Jesus, or a compassionate whole, is deep in our souls. That is the greatest proof of God.

It was there in Neanderthals.

 

Jeez, sometimes I gotta just leave the room and shake my head.

Okay, so a religion in your view is equivalent to a moral philosophy, however derived. No belief in God is required to be a religion. I can kind of buy that. Shintoists and Buddhists don't really have a God. They do of course have ritual, communion, and a moral philosophy, so there you go.

My only problem is that "atheism" is, in and of itself, not a source of moral philosophy. It does not (indeed it cannot) lay down moral or ethical prescriptions based on the absence of a particular belief. Atheism is too narrow an idea to serve as a religion, since it is in essence an ontological position. An atheist will obviously have some kind of moral philosophy (we all do), but in general it will derive from other aspects of his life. The moral philosophies of atheists will be as varied as the moral philosophies of the various official religions - no particular moral philosophy can be identified as the 'religion' of atheism. (I'm going by your definition of religion, of which I retain a large degree of skepticism)

Your real moral philosophy is how you behave when nobody is watching you, and you are in no danger of being chastised by your peers. If you do what's right (even if nobody will ever know) then that is what you're morality is. I respect such people whether their morality comes from Jesus, Buddha, or Seneca...or whether it's just the right and wrong your mommy and daddy taught you.

One final thought. Your notion that the existence of a moral sense is sufficient to indicate the existence of a religion may not pass muster with a lot of people, including (I suspect) many theologians.

 

Why do you care what others demand? It's their problem, not yours.

IMO, barring any transformative experiences, agnosticism makes the most sense. It seems to be mostly those that had unpleasant childhood experiences with religion that go whole hog into atheism; IMO their negative childhoods make them biased, not correct.

If one makes a conscious choice to believe a teacher, then you can, at least in the Christ tradition, be "saved by grace," but not everyone holds that as a goal in life.

What you lose by not following a path is wherever that path might have led you. Some paths are more useful than others, and some more suitable to certain types of people than others.

Atheism seems to especially appeal to people like Nietzsche and Sartre, who were into creating self-aggrandizing philosophies...which is probably why so many of them seem so obnoxious.

 

On that basis, every individual would have their own unique “religion” and all of the things commonly called “religion”, that only ever form part (however large) of those individual morals and practices would be something different.

I don’t see why so many people have such an issue with accepting the clear distinction between formalised organised religion, with specific sets of beliefs and practices adherents follow (or try to follow) and the unique and individual combination of beliefs, understanding, principles and practices each of us have. It seems totally unnecessary to demand that the latter is also called religion without any further clarification and something that can only serve to generate confusion and argument.

What a load of rubbish. Atheists had no recognised involvement in defining these words and concepts which happened in entirely religiously dominated societies. It was the monotheistic religions (especially Christianity) that promoted the distinction between their own form of religion and the “pagan” or “heathen” practices of those who believed in many gods or none. In the West, our definitions and understanding of these words are still influenced by that distinction, which is a major reason why we have so much difficultly discussing religious principles and practices beyond our monotheistic norm.

But not the same religion. There isn’t a singular agnostic religion but, by your definition above, each and every agnostic have their own unique and individual religion. This is especially clear given that agnostics can also be atheist, theist, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist etc.

 

Why shake your head? What I posted requires some pretty serious reflection to realize.

First off you are dealing with very fine lines (the results of philosophical study) that are not well understood and certainly not taught unless one specifically studies it for these purposes.

Proof? The likelihood anyone here ever heard of what I just posted is next to zero. Strictly there is no such thing as moral philosophy, it does not exist in that sense despite you can look it up in dictionaries and the definition they use is a fallacy All P > Q, Q therefore P. That said there is however correctly stated [the]'philosophy of morals', which is the study of morals and that is called ethics. (ethics has no associated action attached to it), and that is what they mean in the dictionary when they say moral philosophy, its good to be aware of that.

If one reflects on the pic I posted it can be seen, from a philosophical perspective, but did you catch it before I told you? Few do before I bring it to their attention, and even then they dont because are so bent on throwing dictionaries or political rhetoric at each other critical thinking notwithstanding.

That said, atheism is 'strictly' the denial, lack of belief, disbelief whatever, [of a deity], therefore as we can see atheism is not a denial of religion, though todays atheists have a hatred as in their minds only theists have the religion label attached to their foreheads which is not the case. That said;

The creation of a moral only need be a resultant conclusion in regard to a matter of conscience, or a decision made based upon a matter of conscience no deity required that: and THIS IS KEY; [THAT] one lives in accordance and/or uses these decisions to govern their [ACTIONS]. The indians and the use of peyote comes to mind.

NOW: A decision made in regard to a matter of conscience that is NOT acted upon is a matter of ethics and/or philosophy.

No corresponding action or set of actions it cannot be classified as a religion. No matter of conscience or self preservation or no moral no religion. Therein lies the 'general' distinction that I am sure few will understandbecause its outside their scope of reason and/or politics.

That said if you read the mountainous pile of ******* the supreme court wrote on the gay marriage case it was decided on one very short sentence that [translated] meant gay people have the right to exercise their religion, and I agree with that decision. I dont agree that they camouflaged it like they do in so many cases. I forget the exact words but they buried it among volumes of 'political' bull(*)(*)(*)(*) where the average joe with a chip on the shoulder either way would never figure it out. That is malfeasance on the part of the court. I absolutely do not agree with it but I do understand their reasoning. Just look at how juvenile the religious discussions are on this and other boards. sky pilot comes to mind

I agree where you said that there are 2 sides and they are so polarized and distant from center they both lost touch with reality.

The ONLY pragmatic reason religions are identified with some label is that birds of a feather flock together. People with similar beliefs form groups because they can identify with each other and give themselves a label so other can identify them as well for [insert belief or set of beliefs here].

Its absolutely 'impossible' to have a religion if you are not allowed to 'EXERCISE' it. [leaves only ethics] If you are not allowed to exercise your religion to its full extent [with minimal limitations in public *liberty*] you will have lost every possible right you could ever imagine to the state, because if you dont have religion they will and do certainly impose one upon you. That is why people form communities, in other words if you want to live in a certain community you do as the romans or go elsewhere. Religions can legitimately say that states cant.

That said just because people label themselves a given religion does not mean they agree or believe every miniscule morsel that goes along with the bulk label.

Take any 2 people in the same religion and by the time you get to question 3 they disagree despite having the same label. Meaning each person has their own personal religion.

Group labels are merely a generalized summary means of stating typical core beliefs of the group as a whole that formed as a result of the same beliefs and a convenient expedient way to quickly understand what they stand for and how you can expect they will 'act'. (like the atheists building their own churches now days based upon common ground between them)

Its not just a moral 'sense'. That would be like saying that you could commit a crime simply by thinking about it. In order to commit a crime you must do the deed or 'act' upon the thought.

Granted its more complicated than that and this is a simplified explanation but the same goes with religion, you need the moral or (ethical premise).....(which is a matter of conscience) and you need the *associated action* [exercise (act upon) the decision] (plus a few other things) but to avoid the clutter that is the fundamental construct what must be combined to form the ingredients for the word 'religion'.

<Mod Edit - Rule 4 - Removed Baiting and Taunting>

 

Bravo!

I thought I was the only one on the forum who felt this way... yes not interested in their stupid debate either. They can call me a tooth-fairy non believer too I couldn't care less.

Some people struggle to process certain concepts unless it's filed into tidy little boxes only they can understand, regardless if it makes sense or not

Atheism is the pinnacle of individuality, I suppose you can't understand it with a sheep mentality

 

ah...........you need to look beneath your reflection in the water grahsshoppa.

 

Religions are something people do the same way, as a group. Atheists will never fit that mold.

 

An ideology could be considered a religion, such as 'progressivism'. Statism could be as well. The belief that government is incorruptible and can be trusted to manage peoples' lives. Xtians and blue laws, muslims and sharia law, socialists and egalitarianism based on quotas rather than effort.

 

There is a moral philosophy; it's called ethics.

No two people may view any single situation at the same range on their different but similar scales, and each of those situations can be taken on a case by case basis and don't have to adhere to a system.

The lack of a belief is not a system. It is the answer to the question of whether one believes or not in any given proposition. If the lack of a belief were a system, and were a religion, then not believing in fairies would be a religion, and not believing in Austrian economics would be a religion, and on and on, with every lack of belief being it's own belief system, because that's what religions are, belief systems, not single beliefs or singular lackings in a belief.

Ethics are possible without a religion, and no, people don't need a religion, nor do they have one as a default.

 

There is no such thing as religion. There are only people who believe in super people. There's the Marvel universe, DC, Christian, and Muslim. They're all just nerds.

 

Sure. But if everything is a religion, then religion doesn't really mean much. But if you want to go with that, no problem.

 

Everything isnt. Far from it.

I made a concerted effort to point distinctions made in 'philosophical' argument

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=460876&p=1066293834#post1066293834

and here:

That is far from everything! Posters who are struggling with dictionaries and politics as I predicted notwithstanding,

 

Continuing in the same vein, how would a belief that dust should be swept off the front porch, or that you should drink a porter or an ale be religious? I cant fathom any condition or set of conditions that would make that a matter of religion.

The only thing one could possible legitimately say is that the person does so religiously (as a habit) which has no connection to being a religion since it does not include matters of conscience.

 

The labels others place upon you says more about them than you.

 

Aside from the fact that religion is and starts as a singular personal affair it seems thats not true:

The Number Of Sunday Assemblies, Or ‘Atheist Churches,’ More Than Doubled Over One Weekend


The number of so-called “atheist churches” more than doubled this past weekend.

On Sept. 28, 35 towns around the world launched new Sunday Assembly groups for secular humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, atheists and agnostics who want a sense of community — without having to deal with any of the God stuff.

“The central idea we have to spread is that we have only one life, which means that life has to be lived to the fullest,” Mano Singham said to a newly-formed godless congregation in Strongsville, Ohio. “There is no second chance, no opportunity to have a do-over, there is no afterlife where wrongs are righted and cosmic justice meted out to the evildoers.”

The U.S. has been a particularly fruitful ground for this type of thinking, with 16 new congregations starting last weekend.

The meetings are filled with songs—Bon Jovi, Journey and Monty Python seem to be favorites—readings, and even a moment of silence where congregants are left alone with their own thoughts.

Some of the congregations intend to organize small groups, where a few people can gather to read books and discuss philosophy.

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/sunday-assembly-atheist_n_5915830.html



Worship at the Atheist Altar

02/23/2013 10:17 am ET | Updated Apr 25, 2013
796

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

It is, so the reports say, the first atheist church in Britain. Set in a former church in Islington, hymns include Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now” and Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition.” The altar is surmounted by an image of saintly former pop star turned physics professor, Dr Brian Cox. In place of a sermon there is a stand-up comic routine, and instead of readings from the sacred texts, there is a power-point presentation on the origin of dark matter.

It sounds terrific, though as a Jew I have to advise the organisers: If you want to flourish, make sure there are whisky and fishballs after the service.

Let’s be serious here: Theology is one thing, food another altogether. I also have to congratulate them on their ingenuity in introducing power-point presentations, the only phenomenon thus far known to science capable of rivalling sermons for sleep-inducing properties. There is, I seem to recall, a Swiss political party whose entire platform consists of a pledge to ban power-point presentations.

The holy church of atheism Islington-style takes its place in a long line of attempts to create a religion without God. The most famous was that of August Comte, the man who when asked where was God in his scientific theory replied, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Comte devised a religion of humanity with its own system of beliefs and rituals, its own priests and pontiff, liturgy, sacraments and temples. It had its own holy trinity (humanity, the earth and destiny), its own calendar (thirteen months of twenty-eight days each) and its own rites of passage (introduction, admission, destination, marriage, retirement, separation and, three years after death, incorporation). It was theatrical, magnificent and completely mad, and survived for quite a long time in, I believe, Brazil.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chief-rabbi-lord-sacks/worship-at-the-atheist-altar_b_2734568.html



seems their religion has rock stars, no god, and lets all sit around the camp fire (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about theists and sing kumbyah at least until they come between the gubmint power and greed then its kill em all let god sort em out, mao and stalin style rules the day.

 

Yes it is possible. More than possible.

 

Theists, almost exclusively Christian, almost exclusively fundamentalist/evangelical Christian....

INSIST that "atheism is a religion"....because of their own doubts.


Simply put, they have to believe that NO belief in God is "the same as my belief in God", because they need that equivalency to balance out their own fears and doubts with the idea that "I'm not being non-religious if I doubt the existance of God....I'm an apostate, switching religions!"


Plus for the politically minded, it's their way of excusing their attempts to turn the United States (if American) into a Christian theocracy.....by claiming (indirectly and subtly) "atheists want their 'religion' to become the State religion....why can't we Christians do that?"

 

Could libertarianism be considered a "religion"?

 

I was wrong, some atheists do fit that mold. Sixteen "Sunday Assemblies" in the whole US sounds like they're just the thing for 0.001% of atheists. These "Sunday Assembly" groups sound like a lonely hearts club, I can see why they were started by a couple comedians.

 

Do you believe in a deity?

If no, then you are an atheist.

 

Religious people are impossible to reason with. Our species' only hope is for a day when the religious are a minority.

 

Very well written. Kudos.

The only issue is, having to explain yourself (if you so choose to) to those who insist that a non-religion is a religion. I've pretty much narrowed that all down to nodding my head and smiling when I don't want to mortally offend someone who does believe the non-religion=religion.