Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

I think my only issue with that I don't see how a "traditional atheist" (I know, but that's all I can think of to call them right now) would view their not wanting to participate in organized religion as their own religion. I don't think that there is really a subset of atheists that have a set moral code and "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values", because, that kind of goes against the feeling that there is *nothing* out there.

I see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I would not consider Buddhism a religion as classically considered either, but unlike atheism, there are definitely ideals and thoughts in Buddhism that adherents try to live by. I'm very good friends with a practicing Buddhist. There is no worshipping, but there is definitely a following of the Buddha and his teachings.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

As for Greeks having their rituals as their religion, that is pretty rare and bizarre as to border on unheard of. To then use that reference from Baird's to then espouse that Greek organizations are religions is ridiculous.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.

People are passionate about their work. A evolutionary scientist who truly believes in evolution is making a religion out of science just because they don't believe the religious version of the beginning of the world? Or is it because Dawkins and Hitchens dare to write about it?

No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.


No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

Ha. Just continuing the debate! It's kinda interesting. I think lots of people don't think about the fact that there really are people who work with them, that they actually know who don't believe in God. I've seen some signs on the sides of buses for an atheist group saying, "Don't believe in God? Me neither." So that atheists don't think they're alone. I've seen some really benign conversations at work turn UGLY when people decide to convert the atheist in the room. I know quite a few non-believers in the medical profession. In Maryland, there was a huge conversation in the Doctor's lounge one day. More than half of the physicians reported they were atheists/agnostics. Not a single one was intent on converting a believer into a non-believer.