What is Christian?

[Szechuan]

I've completely lost track of what everyone is arguing about in this thread.

In my mind, atheism is an active disbelief in a god or gods or whatever word you personally use for a supreme spiritual entity. It requires as much faith in science and the rational, measurable variables of the world around us as any religion - more specifically those in whose ethos a supreme being exists - requires in the old man waving his finger at us from up on high.

I. personally, choose to believe in the testable and physical world around us. Most human development has been achieved due to the use of the [usually/eventually] internally consistent beliefs and theories of the scientific. Could there potentially be a being that can manipulate the universe on a level we haven't discovered yet? Maybe. I don't see a reason not to think it could exist, but I'm not going to worship one in case it really is out there.

[3278]

I've completely lost track of what everyone is arguing about in this thread.

Whether atheism is a religion. Kind of hard to see for all the smoke.

In my mind, atheism is an active disbelief in a god or gods or whatever word you personally use for a supreme spiritual entity.

Active? Really? I don't think it takes much activity to not believe in things that you can't perceive. I mean, like, I don't actively disbelieve in ghosts, I just don't think they're real. I don't actively disbelieve aliens are in my house, 'cause I don't see any, or hear any, or otherwise sense any. I don't think you have to do very much not to believe in things, unless you can percieve those things, in which case it's probably pretty hard.

It requires as much faith in science and the rational, measurable variables of the world around us as any religion - more specifically those in whose ethos a supreme being exists - requires in the old man waving his finger at us from up on high.

Personally, I think slightly less, because in believing in the rational, measurable variables of the world around us, you simply trust your perceptions; it doesn't require positing the existence of things that aren't in any way detectable. It still requires faith, don't get me wrong, but I think it requires less.

I. personally, choose to believe in the testable and physical world around us. Most human development has been achieved due to the use of the [usually/eventually] internally consistent beliefs and theories of the scientific. Could there potentially be a being that can manipulate the universe on a level we haven't discovered yet? Maybe. I don't see a reason not to think it could exist, but I'm not going to worship one in case it really is out there.

Good call!

[Cain]

No, it's not restricted to Catholics. I said as much in my post. It does, however, refer to Christian spiritual leaders. Stop trying to use it as something very different.

Yes, "secular clergy" does refer to spiritual leaders, of any faith. The only restriction is that they be more "worldly" than other types of clergy; thus, we see lay priests and other nonordained members of the faith in positions of authoirty. Thus, the assertion that "atheism treats religion as a secular issue" does not preclude it from being a religion.

Atheism is not defined as something that is embodied in organizations. What organizations do is superfluous to atheism.

Wrong. Unless you're going to say Christianity is not embodied in organizations, atheism is equally defined by the practices and organization of its followers.

Woah, hold up. Are you trying to suggest that 3278 has asserted that atheism precludes religion? That by saying someone's atheist one should necessarily draw the conclusion that they're not religious? If you are, he's going to be right pissed that you're making things up out of whole cloth again.

He has, as he stated in a later post. That's why we're having a different discussion than you and me. But you straightened him out.

[Marius]

Yes, "secular clergy" does refer to spiritual leaders, of any faith.

I've seen no indications anywhere that it's intended to refer to spiritual leaders outside of Christianity. If you have specific examples, I'll look at them. But it still makes no difference in this discussion.

Thus, the assertion that "atheism treats religion as a secular issue" does not preclude it from being a religion.

Treating a topic as a secular issue uses a vastly different meaning for 'secular' than the term 'secular clergy.' There is, you will note, a definition of 'secular' specifically assigned for use in 'secular clergy.' To say "atheism treats religion as a secular issue" is to say that it treats it as "worldly rather than spiritual[ly]" and thus remains an objection to your suggestion that atheism is spiritual.

Wrong. Unless you're going to say Christianity is not embodied in organizations, atheism is equally defined by the practices and organization of its followers.

Christianity is frequently embodied in organizations. But what I said is that atheism is not defined as embodied in organizations. Neither is Christianity, really, but in the case of Christianity virtually all of it is practiced in organizations. The same is simply not true of atheism. And in any case it doesn't matter, since Christianity will definitively be religion whether in organization or not.

Atheism is NOT defined by the practices and organizations of its followers. Atheism has a very simple definition, which says nothing about practices or organizations. Atheism does not have followers, because in and of itself it doesn't lead anywhere.

[3278]

Thus, the assertion that "atheism treats religion as a secular issue" does not preclude it from being a religion.

It does if you pay attention to the intent of the usage of the word secular. Otherwise, there's no reason to assume I didn't mean, "Atheism treats religion as an issue that is observed once a century." That wouldn't make any sense. Neither would it make sense if one used the definition you are attempting to use: "Atheism treats religion as not bound by monastic restrictions."

Unless you're going to say Christianity is not embodied in organizations, atheism is equally defined by the practices and organization of its followers.

Christianity isn't embodied in organizations any more than atheism is, if "embodied in" is even a useful term in this case. A philosophy or belief is often very different from the practice of that philosophy or belief.

[edit: Yeah, Marius is right: "defined as" is a much better phrase in this case than "embodied in," which doesn't really mean the same thing.]

[Cain]

I have no real knowledge of any major atheistic organisations, but of those that you know, do they pay tax or are they exempt?

American Atheists comes immediately to mind. And I have no idea, actually. I presume they're at least non-profit, which tends to also be tax-exempt, with or without a religious affiliation-- so that wouldn't be a telling factor.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by, "it does not exclude things the way you've mentioned."

Like Marius said, there are very clearly things that are "atheistic religions".

I shall not turn to authority in any case, but rather logic. I have no need of intellectual superiors to prove my case, since I am confident in the case itself.

Logical fallacy. In this case, Begging the question. You are trying to prove the case correct by assuming it is already correct.

Murray v Curlett, and I don't recall any place in the decision or majority opinion in which atheism is referred to as a religion. Could you prove a quote and source, please?

Justice Clark's opinion, under section I: "The facts of each case":

The petitioners, Mrs. Madalyn Murray and her son, William J. Murray III, are both professed atheists. Following unsuccessful attempts to have the respondent school board rescind the rule, this suit was filed for mandamus to compel its rescission and cancellation. It was alleged that William was a student in a public school of the city and Mrs. Murray, his mother, was a taxpayer therein; that it was the practice under the rule to have a reading on each school morning from the King James version of the Bible; that at petitioners' insistence the rule was amended [1] to permit children to be excused from the exercise on request of the parent and that William had been excused pursuant thereto; that nevertheless the rule as amended was in violation of the petitioners' rights "to freedom of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments" and in violation of "the principle of separation between church and state, contained therein.... " The petition particularized the petitioners' atheistic beliefs and stated that the rule, as practiced, violated their rights "in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith."

Also, they cite Justice Black's opinion in Torcaso v Watkins, which says:

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. 367 U.S., at 495, 81 S.Ct., at 1683, 6 L.Ed.2d 982."

I tend to equate "spiritual" with "religious," which is, in the case of many eastern philosophies, perhaps somewhat inaccurate. I have a difficult time apprehending the difference between spiritualism and theism of one sort or another, because my beliefs preclude both, but I can certainly see how beliefs regarding spirit do not require beliefs regarding absolute or partial divinity.

Agreed. Further, Ryobu-Shinto has the concept of "Void", which is simultaneously an elemental force, a place, an object of reverence, and total nothingness. Thus, it's entirely possible to have faith in nothingness, which is effectively what atheism is.

Active? Really? I don't think it takes much activity to not believe in things that you can't perceive. I mean, like, I don't actively disbelieve in ghosts, I just don't think they're real.

Then you are apathetic on the subject. That's not the same as disbelief. Belief is active; disbelief is as well. (Haven't you played D&D? You never heard: "I attempt to disbelieve!" :) Ignorance or apathy are what require no activity.

Moreover, many of the faithful state that they can "feel the presence of God", etc, etc. That's partly why I wanted to raise the topic of "numinous phenomena"-- these people genuinely think they can percieve the "Hand of God" in their lives. Now, I know what you think of them, but that doesn't change the fact that they do genuinely feel these things.

With rather few exceptions, humans are emotionally-driven creatures. Thus, conclusions that are arrived at physiologically or emotionally tend to carry more weight with us than conclusions that are arrived at via logic. Even though there might not be any logical reason to accept these feelings as valid, they will be believed in much more strongly.

[Cain]

Treating a topic as a secular issue uses a vastly different meaning for 'secular' than the term 'secular clergy.' There is, you will note, a definition of 'secular' specifically assigned for use in 'secular clergy.

"Secular" wasn't my choice of words at any event; but if you'll look at the definitions you're pointing to, right under "secular clergy" is the word "layperson". Laypersons exist in every faith I can think of, so there are secular members of every faith. Note also that none of the definitions preclude religion; at best, thy merely ignore the topic.

Atheism is NOT defined by the practices and organizations of its followers. Atheism has a very simple definition, which says nothing about practices or organizations. Atheism does not have followers, because in and of itself it doesn't lead anywhere.

Neither does certain aspects of Zen, yet that is still considered a religion. In fact, certain Zen sects(?-- I'm not sure of the exact term) consider the soul to be an illusion. They don't acknowledge a deity, nor the existance of a soul, or a mind for that matter. There's not much separating them from "classic atheism", philosophically speaking. The only difference is that they don't make such a big deal about being classified as a religion.

[Szechuan]

In my mind, atheism is an active disbelief in a god or gods or whatever word you personally use for a supreme spiritual entity.

Active? Really? I don't think it takes much activity to not believe in things that you can't perceive. I mean, like, I don't actively disbelieve in ghosts, I just don't think they're real. I don't actively disbelieve aliens are in my house, 'cause I don't see any, or hear any, or otherwise sense any. I don't think you have to do very much not to believe in things, unless you can percieve those things, in which case it's probably pretty hard.

I employ the term active for a simple reason: To distinguish it from a more apathetic or agnostic view, in the sense that Atheists and the Religious believe they 'know' that what they say is right. They have drawn concrete conclusions based on their faith, whereas a more agnostic view admits that 'I do not know enough about what is out there to come to a final conclusion.'

It requires as much faith in science and the rational, measurable variables of the world around us as any religion - more specifically those in whose ethos a supreme being exists - requires in the old man waving his finger at us from up on high.

Personally, I think slightly less, because in believing in the rational, measurable variables of the world around us, you simply trust your perceptions; it doesn't require positing the existence of things that aren't in any way detectable. It still requires faith, don't get me wrong, but I think it requires less.

I disagree that either side takes more or less faith, although I do agree that believing in the testable is perhaps more reasonable. Even among those religious individuals I've met - let's avoid kibitzing over how shaky arguments based on personal experience are, please : - who try to use intelligent design or other 'logical' or 'sicentific' means to prove God's existence, they always wind up with 'I just know.', 'I can feel God with me.', 'God is in my heart.' or something similar. In their sensory world, they are able to perceive God in some way. There are people who are 'truly' religious, and really do feel the presence of a higher power. You and I may think they're crazy, but they're trusting their perceptions as much as you trust your own.

[3278]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by, "it does not exclude things the way you've mentioned."

Like Marius said, there are very clearly things that are "atheistic religions".

But that's not at all what we were talking about.

I shall not turn to authority in any case, but rather logic. I have no need of intellectual superiors to prove my case, since I am confident in the case itself.

Logical fallacy. In this case, Begging the question. You are trying to prove the case correct by assuming it is already correct.

Not at all. In fact, I was explaining why I didn't feel the need to repeat your logical fallacy. It's not an argument; it's an explanation of why I'll defend my position myself, rather than rely on arguments made by inappropriate experts.

Murray v Curlett, and I don't recall any place in the decision or majority opinion in which atheism is referred to as a religion. Could you prove a quote and source, please?

Justice Clark's opinion, under section I: "The facts of each case":

Which nowhere says implicitly or explicity that atheism is a religion, but rather explains that the petitioners were being restricted in their freedom not to practice religion; to whit: "in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief."

Also, they cite Justice Black's opinion in Torcaso v Watkins, which says:

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'

Which clearly delineates a difference between belief and disbelief, and does not state that disbelief is a religion.

Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

This does delineate between religions based on a belief in the existence of God and religions founded on different beliefs, but does not state or imply that atheism is one of the latter.

Sorry, but those are horrible supporting arguments for a pretty weak justification.

Active? Really? I don't think it takes much activity to not believe in things that you can't perceive. I mean, like, I don't actively disbelieve in ghosts, I just don't think they're real.

Then you are apathetic on the subject. That's not the same as disbelief.

No, it's not. In fact, the two have nothing at all whatsoever to do with each other, and a lack of belief in something cannot be considered, rationally, apathy, which is something totally different.

Belief is active; disbelief is as well.

Disbelief can be active, but is not inherently so. Lack of belief is much more likely to be passive; no effort must be taken by me to not believe in gods.

[3278]

I employ the term active for a simple reason: To distinguish it from a more apathetic or agnostic view, in the sense that Atheists and the Religious believe they 'know' that what they say is right.

That's a good point. Hard atheists arguably do actively disbelieve, in that sense, while soft atheists simply don't hold the belief. Agnostics can be passive or active, as well, now that I think about it.

I disagree that either side takes more or less faith, although I do agree that believing in the testable is perhaps more reasonable.

That's a reasonable point of view.

In their sensory world, they are able to perceive God in some way. There are people who are 'truly' religious, and really do feel the presence of a higher power. You and I may think they're crazy, but they're trusting their perceptions as much as you trust your own.

Absolutely, and from that perspective it's a reasonable thing for them to do. We may think they're wrong, but that's a difference in perception, and not a difference in logic.

[Szechuan]

I employ the term active for a simple reason: To distinguish it from a more apathetic or agnostic view, in the sense that Atheists and the Religious believe they 'know' that what they say is right.

That's a good point. Hard atheists arguably do actively disbelieve, in that sense, while soft atheists simply don't hold the belief. Agnostics can be passive or active, as well, now that I think about it.

I'm not sure how one can logically classify neutrality in this case as either active or passive. I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion.

I disagree that either side takes more or less faith, although I do agree that believing in the testable is perhaps more reasonable.

That's a reasonable point of view.

Of course it is. It's mine.

In their sensory world, they are able to perceive God in some way. There are people who are 'truly' religious, and really do feel the presence of a higher power. You and I may think they're crazy, but they're trusting their perceptions as much as you trust your own.

Absolutely, and from that perspective it's a reasonable thing for them to do. We may think they're wrong, but that's a difference in perception, and not a difference in logic.

*nod* Absolutely.

In my view, the active nature of atheism makes it like a religion, in spite of its lack of a central governing body or places of worship. A good friend once joked that he'd open a chain of pubs across North America and name it 'The International Church of Atheism". I don't know if I'd call it a religion unless the term religion simply means 'belief system', in which case any act of spirituality is a religion, and I don't buy that.

[3278]

I'm not sure how one can logically classify neutrality in this case as either active or passive. I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion.

I'm not sure it's a very good conclusion. Effectively, I'm simply saying that if it isn't active, it's passive. I consider neutrality to be largely passive, anyway, since it doesn't require active steps to maintain, in this case, at least.

In my view, the active nature of atheism makes it like a religion, in spite of its lack of a central governing body or places of worship.

It doesn't have to be active, though. When it is - which is to say, in practice, in some cases - it can be /very/ much like a religion, in that figurative "definition 4" sense. Active atheism - by which I don't mean evangelical atheism, but rather hard atheism - is logically untenable and kind of stupid.

I think most hard atheists, if the situation were explained to them properly, would admit to being soft atheists in truth. Very, very few people are so certain - so stupidly certain - as to believe they can categorically deny the existence of a supreme being or divinity of some type.

[Marius]

I'm not sure it's a very good conclusion. Effectively, I'm simply saying that if it isn't active, it's passive. I consider neutrality to be largely passive, anyway, since it doesn't require active steps to maintain, in this case, at least.

And then, we could talk about our strong and weak agnostics, couldn't we?

[3278]

Which is in many ways very similar. Soft agnostics are passive inasmuch as they simply admit they don't know; hard agnostics hold a more active position, that the nature of god is unknowable.

Even here, though, the usage of the words active and passive is arguable and extended. I like playing games with semantics as much as the next guy - okay, probably more, depending on who the next guy is - but it seems pretty dangerous around here, so I feel the need to add this paragraph as caveat, sadly.

[3278]

Is nihilism a religion?

[Marius]

I'd say no, it's not. On the other hand, I'd say it's much, much closer to being a religion than atheism is.

[3278]

Really? How is that?

[Daki]

Is nihilism a religion?

I classify it in the same way that Atheism should be classified, not as a religion but as a pure philosophy. Nihilism is the more depressing (or uplifting depending on your point of view) form of atheism that assumes because there is nothing, life as it is has no greater meaning so while alive, live, because there is nothing after the body dies.


Going back to the prior topic...

It looks like the raging debate has become a veiled debate of philosophy versus religion. At their cores, religions are a philosophy that have gone from a way of thinking to a "truth". Using Christianity as an example, you have those that approach it from a philosophical POV in following the tenants and underlying ideas of the Bible, or from a religious POV where the focus becomes the deity involved.

Atheism doesn't really offer the option to be considered a religion because it is focused on the null. It does require an amount of faith/belief (There is no god/higher power) but no more so than any philosophy requires (This is a good idea/way of thinking).

For me, atheism is a way of thinking that states "What is, is. There is no higher intelligence or creation that guides and moves the universe." The common thread that all religions share is a belief that there is something greater. Atheism is the exact opposite in saying there is nothing. Lacking that piece, it can't be a religion.

[Marius]

Really? How is that?

Well, in that it's a broader term, really. Obviously religion def. 1 is still out, applying 2 would still be silly, so 3 is going to be our point of interest. Nihilism comes closer in this respect than atheism because it really is defined more as a set of beliefs, values (actually, beliefs about values) and practices, because it is defined as making more claims that are arguably spiritual (whereas such claims are generally superfluous in atheism), and because while it can be a simple belief or set of beliefs, it is much more legitimately [than atheism is] referred to as a philosophical school descended from particular thinkers who could (albeit somewhat erroneously) be thought of as "leaders." In none of these areas (except maybe the first) do I really think it rises to the level where it could be meaningfully called 'religion,' but I think it's closer than believing there aren't monsters under the Prime Minister's bed.

[3278]

I classify it in the same way that Atheism should be classified, not as a religion but as a pure philosophy.

Personally, I don't even consider atheism a philosophy, any more than I consider "not believing in ghosts" or "not believing the sky is green" to be philosophies. Certainly, a portion of this is the emotional response Cain accuses Marius of; it's frustrating to be defined in terms of something you don't believe in or support. But mostly, it's a simple conceptual issue: disbelief in something not apparent is axiomatic, and doesn't require the sort of intellectual framework I think of when I think of a philosophy.

I do believe that, in practice, many atheists develop their personal philosophies from their disbelief in gods, because they are reacting to the culture around them; frustrating or not, they are defined in terms of what they don't believe, and they do it themselves. I think a turning away from religion can result in philosophical beliefs, such as nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, humanism, and so on, but the fact of atheism does not. Think of it this way: if a child grew up on a desert island, never having heard of divinity and believing in nothing other than what he experienced, he would be an atheist. He'd never have thought of religion, never have developed a philosophy. His religious belief - atheism - would be null. Not all atheists possess such a null value of religion, but the absence remains the same.

[3278]

In none of these areas (except maybe the first) do I really think it rises to the level where it could be meaningfully called 'religion,' but I think it's closer than believing there aren't monsters under the Prime Minister's bed.

I get you. I think either of us could effectively make the counter-argument, but I take your point. Interesting.

[Crazy Elf]

American Atheists comes immediately to mind. And I have no idea, actually. I presume they're at least non-profit, which tends to also be tax-exempt, with or without a religious affiliation-- so that wouldn't be a telling factor.

A simple way to solve the government outlook on atheism is to call the tax office and ask if atheist organisations get tax exemption. If they do, then the government thinks them a religion. If not, they don't.

[Cain]

This does delineate between religions based on a belief in the existence of God and religions founded on different beliefs, but does not state or imply that atheism is one of the latter.

Come on, now. If atheism is not based on a belief in the existance of God, it is in the latter category.

Disbelief can be active, but is not inherently so. Lack of belief is much more likely to be passive; no effort must be taken by me to not believe in gods.

As Szech pointed out, an athiest will state that they "know" there is no god. An agnostic or apathetic view will say either :"I don't know" or "I don't really care".

Is nihilism a religion?

I'm going to go with Daki on this one. Nihilism is not a religion, it is a philosophical stance that may be held as a subset of a religion. For example, the Trinity is a philosophical subset of Christianity-- it does not form a complete religion by any means, but frequently acts complimentary to it.

It looks like the raging debate has become a veiled debate of philosophy versus religion. At their cores, religions are a philosophy that have gone from a way of thinking to a "truth". Using Christianity as an example, you have those that approach it from a philosophical POV in following the tenants and underlying ideas of the Bible, or from a religious POV where the focus becomes the deity involved.
Atheism doesn't really offer the option to be considered a religion because it is focused on the null. It does require an amount of faith/belief (There is no god/higher power) but no more so than any philosophy requires (This is a good idea/way of thinking).

Actually, I'd argue this one. Using "hard atheists" as an example, they fervently believe that they know the "Truth", and everyone else is misguided and/or delusional. Atheists frequently follow set moral codes based on materialism, and have the religious view that there is no god.

As for the "focus on the null", I'll again point to certain types of Zen. They believe in "the Void", which is philosophical nothingness. There is no acknowledgement of a deity in any fashion, only elemental forces that act as metaphors. Other than the rabid desire of American athiests to not be called a religion, there aren't that many differences at the core of each belief.

Personally, I don't even consider atheism a philosophy, any more than I consider "not believing in ghosts" or "not believing the sky is green" to be philosophies. Certainly, a portion of this is the emotional response Cain accuses Marius of; it's frustrating to be defined in terms of something you don't believe in or support. But mostly, it's a simple conceptual issue: disbelief in something not apparent is axiomatic, and doesn't require the sort of intellectual framework I think of when I think of a philosophy.

Let's put it this way. No child has actually *seen* an Easter bunny paint eggs and hide them in the house, so the existance of an Easter Bunny is not truly apparent. However, they still believe in the existance of the Easter Bunny, because the myth has been built up enough around it. Since we live in a Christian-founded country and culture, belief in God works just like believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy-- it's something that is simply expected as a given. To go against the prevaling belief takes effort-- it requires active participation, as opposed to passively going with the flow.

Think of it this way: if a child grew up on a desert island, never having heard of divinity and believing in nothing other than what he experienced, he would be an atheist. He'd never have thought of religion, never have developed a philosophy. His religious belief - atheism - would be null. Not all atheists possess such a null value of religion, but the absence remains the same.

Wrong. Very wrong. If you look up any work on the origins of religion, it becomes abundantly clear that polytheim is practically as old as humanity itself.

Even without an external source to teach the concept of divinity, polytheism is a natural outgrowth of human curiosity. When one encounters something new, it's a natural thing for most people to try and understand it. However, if the mechanisms aren't readily apparent, the causes are usually attributed to human-like entities; either through direct imagining, or by excessive anthropomorphication. For example, for the former: since humans can make fire, the sun would be seen as the work of a much bigger and more powerful firebuilder, thereby resulting in a sun god.

A child raised alone would not be an athiest. He or she would be religious in the simplest fashion.

At any event, what you're saying amounts to: "A rock can't think, therefore it must be athiest". That's a horrible premise to begin with. What's more, since every human has been exposed to religion at some point in their lives-- or, if no religion was availiable, made up one to fill the void-- atheists are more than people who are simple "nulls", An athiest is someone who has been exposed to religion, and actively rejected that line of reasoning.

[Cain]

American Atheists comes immediately to mind. And I have no idea, actually. I presume they're at least non-profit, which tends to also be tax-exempt, with or without a religious affiliation-- so that wouldn't be a telling factor.

A simple way to solve the government outlook on atheism is to call the tax office and ask if atheist organisations get tax exemption. If they do, then the government thinks them a religion. If not, they don't.

Not that simple. Here, there are many nonreligious organizations that are non-profit tax-exempt; I've also seen religious businesses that weren't. As long as you fill out the paperwork, the government here is surprisingly relaxed about who can get non-profit status. Getting non-profit tax-exempt status is much tricker, but that's true for everyone across the board.

[Crazy Elf]

Like fuck it's not simple, Cain. Call the IRS and ask if an atheist organisation can get tax exemption on the basis of religion. If they can, then legally they're a religion.

[Paul]

To go against the prevaling belief takes effort-- it requires active participation, as opposed to passively going with the flow.

That's a steaming load of horse shit that I can't believe even you would post. What's your goal from this discussion Cain, other than to disagree with everyone here?

Your methodology is exactly the same, and as tiring as always. Not only do you warp the truth and definitions of words, and grammar to suite your purposes at a whim, but you're as condescending as any of us could hope to be.

For some one who is as smart as you claim to be, and try to present yourself as all you seem to succeed in doing is making me lose more respect for you, and your intellect with each post. Why not try a different tactic? What's so important to you that you have to win?

I know why 3278 does what he does. But why do you?

How about not bullshitting any of us this time. How about actually being honest with us? It's not liek we can't find out where you live, or what you do, or which classes you've really had if we really wanted to. That we don't, as a whole entity here, shows that we have a modicum of respect for you. Why not reciprocate it?

You're intellectual dishonest, and that seems to pretty much be the sum total of your reputation here. And that's a shame.

[3278]

This does delineate between religions based on a belief in the existence of God and religions founded on different beliefs, but does not state or imply that atheism is one of the latter.

Come on, now. If atheism is not based on a belief in the existance of God, it is in the latter category.

You're trying to prove your point with a circular argument: atheism must be a religion because the court says that there are religions based on the existence of God, and religions based on different beliefs. You're assuming they mean that anything not of the former is atheism - religion not based on a belief in the existence of God - without considering that there are many true religions not based on a belief in the existence of God: the Hindu faith, for instance, or any other polytheistic religion. Nothing implicitly or explicitly states that they're talking about atheism.

Disbelief can be active, but is not inherently so. Lack of belief is much more likely to be passive; no effort must be taken by me to not believe in gods.

As Szech pointed out, an athiest will state that they "know" there is no god. An agnostic or apathetic view will say either :"I don't know" or "I don't really care".

Will they? There are several atheists right here who don't say that.

Hard atheists will indeed make that statement. Soft atheists - as I've said, quite likely the more populous segment, although I doubt any of us have any evidence regarding that - will definitely not.

Is nihilism a religion?

Nihilism is not a religion, it is a philosophical stance that may be held as a subset of a religion.

Nihilism isn't a religion, but atheism is? Can you explain that?

Think of it this way: if a child grew up on a desert island, never having heard of divinity and believing in nothing other than what he experienced, he would be an atheist. He'd never have thought of religion, never have developed a philosophy. His religious belief - atheism - would be null. Not all atheists possess such a null value of religion, but the absence remains the same.

Wrong. Very wrong. If you look up any work on the origins of religion, it becomes abundantly clear that polytheim is practically as old as humanity itself.

Consider reading more closely what I wrote. Also consider the possibility that, while yes, polytheism is part of the oldest history of humanity, that by no means indicates that every isolated human would develop the concept of religion.

An athiest is someone who has been exposed to religion, and actively rejected that line of reasoning.

Sometimes, yes, that's quite true. Often, even. Perhaps most of the time. And in that context, as I've stated, it can be considered "active."

[Cain]

You're assuming they mean that anything not of the former is atheism - religion not based on a belief in the existence of God - without considering that there are many true religions not based on a belief in the existence of God: the Hindu faith, for instance, or any other polytheistic religion. Nothing implicitly or explicitly states that they're talking about atheism.

Hardly. I'm merely pointing out that atheism falls neatly in the latter category.

Will they? There are several atheists right here who don't say that.

*You* certainly do claim there is no God, and you're a self-described soft atheist. I mean, you're on record as saying that numinous phenomena are likely a combination of hallucinations, delusions, and other factors. Those who say they're not sure are, by definition, agnostic.

Nihilism isn't a religion, but atheism is? Can you explain that?

Nihilism isn't a religion any more than the Yawahistic faiths aren't "a" religion-- they're interrelated religions with a similar basis. Nihilism is a philosophical stance which acts complimentary to certain religious views, but doesn't actually form a religion. Nihilism, however, never forms the core principles of any religion-- something that atheism does.

Also consider the possibility that, while yes, polytheism is part of the oldest history of humanity, that by no means indicates that every isolated human would develop the concept of religion.

Let's put it this way, then-- to the best of my knowledge, there has *never* been a culture that developed without deific religion in some form or another. Further, when scientific techniques are not availiable to explain phenomena, supernatural forces are almost always ascribed responsibility. Thus, isolated people are more likely to develop religion, not less. (I've even read one theory that claimed that religion is an evolved trait, to enhance our survival! I don't buy that, but it's an interesting POV.)

Sometimes, yes, that's quite true. Often, even. Perhaps most of the time. And in that context, as I've stated, it can be considered "active."

Ok, then. If someone, somehow, managed to be completely unexposed to religion; and miracuously didn't manage to come up with the concept on his own, he would not be atheist-- merely ignorant.

[3278]

Hardly. I'm merely pointing out that atheism falls neatly in the latter category.

Which is a circular argument. "Atheism is a religion because atheism is a religion founded on different beliefs than a belief in the existence of God."

Let's look at this quote again.

Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

There are three clear segments referred to here: "non-believers," "religions based on a belief in the existence of God," and "religions founded on different beliefs." That would imply that non-believers are not members of religions founded on different beliefs, but a completely different category altogether. Now, I don't think Justice Black's opinion on this is authoritative, and I don't want to resort to authority anyway, but it is interesting that even the evidence you've provided doesn't agree with your stance.

Will they? There are several atheists right here who don't say that.

*You* certainly do claim there is no God, and you're a self-described soft atheist.

I don't claim there is no god. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I don't believe in God, but that I have no proof of that.

I mean, you're on record as saying that numinous phenomena are likely a combination of hallucinations, delusions, and other factors.

"Likely."

Those who say they're not sure are, by definition, agnostic.

Or soft atheist. Would it be helpful if we went through the commonly accepted definitions again?

Nihilism isn't a religion any more than the Yawahistic faiths aren't "a" religion-- they're interrelated religions with a similar basis. Nihilism is a philosophical stance which acts complimentary to certain religious views, but doesn't actually form a religion. Nihilism, however, never forms the core principles of any religion-- something that atheism does.

Perhaps it would be of assistance if you could explain what it is you think Nihilism is. I know there are different forms of nihilism, from the strict "nothing is real" school to the Russian movement of the 19th century, but I don't know what nihilism you're talking about. Perhaps this diversity is what you're talking about; it's not clear to me.

How does atheism form the core principle of a religion? Which religion[s]?

For the most part, I don't understand anything you said in this quoted paragraph. I don't know which religious views nihilism is complementary to, for instance. More detail - and more clarity - would be appreciated.

(I've even read one theory that claimed that religion is an evolved trait, to enhance our survival! I don't buy that, but it's an interesting POV.)

That's been my stated theory for years now; I'm not sure if that's where you read it, but it's one possibility. If it's not, I'm even more intrigued to know the idea is not uniquely mine; that lends it more credence, in my view, than just some offbeat thing I thought of.

[Marius]

Nihilism isn't a religion any more than the Yawahistic faiths aren't "a" religion . . .

And then I flipped back and he said to the prosecutor, "Can you define for me what you mean by the word 'is?'"

Nihilism isn't a religion any more than the Yawahistic faiths aren't "a" religion-- they're interrelated religions with a similar basis. Nihilism is a philosophical stance which acts complimentary to certain religious views, but doesn't actually form a religion. Nihilism, however, never forms the core principles of any religion-- something that atheism does.

Yes, you see the argument is bulletproof and self-explanatory. Nihilism isn't a religion because it's not a religion. And because it never forms a core principle of any religion. Atheism, of course, forms the principle behind Atheism, which as Cain has repeatedly told us is a religion. If we'd been listening, we'd have realized it.

[3278]

Damn it. I'm just so stupid. If I'd just paid more attention, I'd have figured it out.

[Crazy Elf]

So in Cain's batfuck loco land Atheism is a religion. No one else agrees with him. End. Of. Story.

[Cain]

There are three clear segments referred to here: "non-believers," "religions based on a belief in the existence of God," and "religions founded on different beliefs." That would imply that non-believers are not members of religions founded on different beliefs, but a completely different category altogether.

Wrong. The statements are not mutually exclusive, so there can be religions that are not based on a belief in the existance of God. That means atheism can neatly fall into that category.

I don't claim there is no god. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I don't believe in God, but that I have no proof of that.

You also state that you believe your opinion to be significantly superior to other views on the topic. If you were agnostic or apathetic, you would be giving other opinions more weight.

Would it be helpful if we went through the commonly accepted definitions again?

Okay. Look at definition 1B-- an agnostic is skeptical, but does not profess disbelief. Also, definition 2 includes those who are doubtful, or unsure. Thus, those who are doubtful are, by definition, agnostic. Only those who are certain are not.

Perhaps it would be of assistance if you could explain what it is you think Nihilism is. I know there are different forms of nihilism, from the strict "nothing is real" school to the Russian movement of the 19th century, but I don't know what nihilism you're talking about. Perhaps this diversity is what you're talking about; it's not clear to me.

Okay, try this-- nihilism is a philosophical school of thought, based on the principle that "nothing is real", to varying degrees. In and of itself, it makes no statements toward religion or divinity in any fashion; however, it frequently acts as a compliment to religions.

Atheism makes a direct statement about religion and divinity-- namely, that they are false. It sometimes includes nihilistic philosophy, but that's not strictly necessary.

That's been my stated theory for years now; I'm not sure if that's where you read it, but it's one possibility. If it's not, I'm even more intrigued to know the idea is not uniquely mine; that lends it more credence, in my view, than just some offbeat thing I thought of.

I got it from a book on evolutionary psychology that I read some years ago. I don't fully buy it, since it makes the assumption that all existing traits are evolutionary advantageous, but I think it makes for a good perspecitve on the topic.

I will say, however, that this pretty much knocks your example down-- if religion is genetic and evolutionarily advantageous, then people in a difficult environment are more likely to display that trait. What's more, to fight against our own biology would definitely require deliberate effort. If religion is somehow hardwired into our genes, then breaking free from it can not be a passive event.

[Cain]

Like fuck it's not simple, Cain. Call the IRS and ask if an atheist organisation can get tax exemption on the basis of religion. If they can, then legally they're a religion.

Dude, the 24-hour Electric Church of Elvis can become tax-exempt. However, I have found several atheist organizations that claim IRS 501(c)(3) status, which includes religious and educational exemptions. Now, the question is this: did they file as an educational agency, or a religion? I don't know, nor can I tell. However, they are using the religious exemptions.

[3278]

There are three clear segments referred to here: "non-believers," "religions based on a belief in the existence of God," and "religions founded on different beliefs." That would imply that non-believers are not members of religions founded on different beliefs, but a completely different category altogether.

Wrong. The statements are not mutually exclusive, so there can be religions that are not based on a belief in the existance of God. That means atheism can neatly fall into that category.

Let's read this together. I'm going to highlight three categories.

Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Notice the usage of the word "neither," in italics, above. That word means that "non-believers" are mutually exclusive to "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God" and "those religions founded on different beliefs." Atheism - non-believers - does not fall into that category, "neatly" or otherwise.

I don't claim there is no god. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I don't believe in God, but that I have no proof of that.

You also state that you believe your opinion to be significantly superior to other views on the topic. If you were agnostic or apathetic, you would be giving other opinions more weight.

If I were agnostic or apathetic, I might give other opinions more weight, but I'm a soft atheist. Thus, I don't "state that 'know' there is no god." Thus, I am one of the "several atheists right here who don't say that." As I said, I don't claim there is no god. Ergo, I am not agnostic or apathetic, meaning that I am a soft atheist.

Would it be helpful if we went through the commonly accepted definitions again?

Okay. Look at definition 1B-- an agnostic is skeptical, but does not profess disbelief. Also, definition 2 includes those who are doubtful, or unsure. Thus, those who are doubtful are, by definition, agnostic. Only those who are certain are not.

Agnostics are those who are doubtful, but those who are doubtful are not necessarily agnostic: soft atheists are doubtful, as well; their degree of doubt differentiates them.

Your focus on the definition of "agnostic" leads me to believe it might be helpful if we reviewed what a soft atheist is. There it's called "strong" and "weak," although that's not universally true, probably because we didn't like being called "weak." I'd much rather be soft than weak.

Perhaps it would be of assistance if you could explain what it is you think Nihilism is. I know there are different forms of nihilism, from the strict "nothing is real" school to the Russian movement of the 19th century, but I don't know what nihilism you're talking about. Perhaps this diversity is what you're talking about; it's not clear to me.

Okay, try this-- nihilism is a philosophical school of thought, based on the principle that "nothing is real", to varying degrees. In and of itself, it makes no statements toward religion or divinity in any fashion; however, it frequently acts as a compliment to religions.

How is it that a philosophy that regards nothing as real can make no statement toward religion or divinity in any fashion? Are not "religion" and "divinity" "something" and not "nothing?"

Atheism makes a direct statement about religion and divinity-- namely, that they are false.

That is true of hard atheists, but not true of soft atheists. As I've said, "Hard atheists arguably do actively disbelieve, in that sense, while soft atheists simply don't hold the belief."

I will say, however, that this pretty much knocks your example down-- if religion is genetic and evolutionarily advantageous, then people in a difficult environment are more likely to display that trait.

Solitary people would not be. Remember, the example isn't a collective of prehistoric people over a long period of time, it's of a single person in an isolated situation.

What's more, to fight against our own biology would definitely require deliberate effort. If religion is somehow hardwired into our genes, then breaking free from it can not be a passive event.

Not everyone possesses the gene, Cain. Not all advantageous traits are present in a species; that variation is what makes natural selection possible. And I don't necessarily believe it's a genetic trait at all; natural selection workes on memes as well as genes. I think it's easily as possible that religion is memeic rather than genetic, and memeic evolution is as variable as genetic.

However, I have found several atheist organizations that claim IRS 501(c)(3) status, which includes religious and educational exemptions.

That's very interesting. That would be a tacit acceptance of one part of the government of atheism as a religion, which certainly wouldn't be telling but would be fascinating; I'd like to know the history of that decision. Where did you find this information? Which atheist organizations did you check on? I'd be interested to know more.

[Cain]

If I were agnostic or apathetic, I might give other opinions more weight, but I'm a soft atheist.

Which straddles the line between agnostic and athiest; but does nome mean you're xclusively one or the other. If you had to be strictly honest about it, you know your views would be marginally more one than the other.

If I were agnostic or apathetic, I might give other opinions more weight, but I'm a soft atheist.

Wrong. By commonly-used and dictionary definition, you would be an agnostic.

Agnostics are those who are doubtful, but those who are doubtful are not necessarily agnostic: soft atheists are doubtful, as well; their degree of doubt differentiates them.

Look up the word history. "Agnostic" literally means "one who does not know".

Your focus on the definition of "agnostic" leads me to believe it might be helpful if we reviewed what a soft atheist is. There it's called "strong" and "weak," although that's not universally true, probably because we didn't like being called "weak." I'd much rather be soft than weak.

If you want to go by that definition-- and nice job, trying to switch definitions mid-stream-- then whay you describe would be best clasified as agnostic atheism. At any event, agnosticism is clarified to be a position without knowledge, or any claim of knowledge. An athiest makes a claim of knowledge.

How is it that a philosophy that regards nothing as real can make no statement toward religion or divinity in any fashion? Are not "religion" and "divinity" "something" and not "nothing?"

I'm used to considering the question from the Eastern point of view, so I'm going to use that. Although all is maya, everything is on the same level of maya as you are, unless you've achieved an exceptional state of enlightenment. If you consider that God is an illusion, but you also consider everything else to be, then you're pretty much right back where you started with nothing gained.

Solitary people would not be. Remember, the example isn't a collective of prehistoric people over a long period of time, it's of a single person in an isolated situation.

Ah, you're referring to "Wild Children". You're still wrong-- a feral child is universally mentally retarded to a significant degree. Unless you're going to make the assertion that a rock is athiest, it's clear that most feral children simply don't have full mental capaciies for such a decision.

Not everyone possesses the gene, Cain. Not all advantageous traits are present in a species; that variation is what makes natural selection possible. And I don't necessarily believe it's a genetic trait at all; natural selection workes on memes as well as genes. I think it's easily as possible that religion is memeic rather than genetic, and memeic evolution is as variable as genetic.

Thanks, I posted that link (or a similar one) earlier. And it still doesn't change the fact that to fight against one's own biology requries active effort. There is evidence suggesting that religion is hardwired into us, somehow; you're not really debating that point, I don't think.

That's very interesting. That would be a tacit acceptance of one part of the government of atheism as a religion, which certainly wouldn't be telling but would be fascinating; I'd like to know the history of that decision. Where did you find this information? Which atheist organizations did you check on? I'd be interested to know more.

Well, I spotted it on this site first; this one has got the clearest statement on the topic as well. About a quarter of the way down the page, you'll see this:

Atheist Alliance
The Atheist Alliance Inc. (AAI) is a democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies. Applications for Alliance membership from independent local, regional or international atheist clubs, groups, societies, organizations, and associations are always welcome. The goal of the Alliance is to establish strong, democratic atheist organizations in every state, and indeed, worldwide. The Alliance facilitates the formation of independent atheist groups by locating atheists in a particular area and providing information on how to set up a group, including standard articles of incorporation and forms to apply for IRS nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax exemption.

So, we see that athiest groups are being encouraged to file under the religious/educational exemption; and that it's a fairly routine procedure, since it's covered under "standard articles". That's certainly co-oberating evidence, if not truly conclusive.

[Marius]

If you want to go by that definition-- and nice job, trying to switch definitions mid-stream-- then whay you describe would be best clasified as agnostic atheism.

1) Switchting mid-stream!? Those have been the accepted definitions explicitly used in countless discussions on this board for years.

2) 3278 could be describing agnostic atheism, insofar as agnostic atheism is a certain type of weak atheism, but knowing 32 I'm sure he's not. The statement about agnostic atheism in the athiesm article emphasizes that 'agnostic atheism' is generally used for cases in which an atheist asserts that knowledge of God is unknowable. (The other two "agnostic" claims given for agnostic atheism are epistemological variations on that assertion.) It is, on analysis a term used for cases where weak atheism intersects with strong agnosticism. 3278 is a weak atheist, but on the matter of God is neither a strong nor a weak agnostic in any meaningful sense.

[Marius]

If I were agnostic or apathetic, I might give other opinions more weight, but I'm a soft atheist. Thus, I don't "state that 'know' there is no god." Thus, I am one of the "several atheists right here who don't say that." As I said, I don't claim there is no god. Ergo, I am not agnostic or apathetic, meaning that I am a soft atheist.

If we were in a more rigorous discussion I'd urge you to claim that you do know there is no god, or at least that you believe you know there is no god. It's no terrible difficulty to argue that your knowledge of nonexistence of god (or at least your belief that you know such) doesn't preclude your admission that you can't absolutely prove the nonexistence of god.

[Cain]

2) 3278 could be describing agnostic atheism, insofar as agnostic atheism is a certain type of weak atheism, but knowing 32 I'm sure he's not. The statement about agnostic atheism in the athiesm article emphasizes that 'agnostic atheism' is generally used for cases in which an atheist asserts that knowledge of God is unknowable. (The other two "agnostic" claims given for agnostic atheism are epistemological variations on that assertion.) It is, on analysis a term used for cases where weak atheism intersects with strong agnosticism. 3278 is a weak atheist, but on the matter of God is neither a strong nor a weak agnostic in any meaningful sense.

All right, I'll go with this for now. However, 32 also has repeatedly stated that he feels his own beliefs to be significantly superior to all others. That does push him further from baing a "passive believer" in atheism.

Those who are not certain, or assume the question is unanswerable, are clearly agnostic. That covers the "null belief" category, showing that an agnostic generally holds no opinion, or has an alternate conclusion. An atheist clearly *has* an opinion on the topic. (I'll also add that ignorance of the issue is also defined as agnosticism, so someone who honestly has no clue is agnostic, not atheist.)

[Marius]

However, 32 also has repeatedly stated that he feels his own beliefs to be significantly superior to all others. That does push him further from baing a "passive believer" in atheism.

One can't really have a belief that one doesn't feel is superior to all others. If one knows another belief is superior, then one would be intellectually bankrupt to hold the inferior belief.

[Cain]

One can't really have a belief that one doesn't feel is superior to all others. If one knows another belief is superior, then one would be intellectually bankrupt to hold the inferior belief.

Or you can hold all theories in more-or-less equal esteem. That's basically the classic definition of agnosticism.

For example, I'm a clear-cut agnostic, because I feel the whole mess to be effectively unknowable. No one theory has shown superiority over the others, especially since much of the evidence is purely subjective and personal in nature.

But since everything is subjective and personal, I cannot refute what others are claiming-- people who "feel" God, and what-have-you. I can't say that a given theory is superior to the others, since it's all dependant on personal experience. If someone has a theory that is right for them, then even though I might think it's cracked for me, I cannot deny that it's right for them.

So, I don't hold any one given theory over any other. Instead, I judge each on a case-by-case basis. That's why even agnositicism isn't necessarily a passive view; but if it's not, then atheism certainly isn't either.

[3278]

I'm not going to bother to defend the notion that I'm a soft atheist and not some sort of agnostic, because it's even more ridiculous than I can tolerate.

How is it that a philosophy that regards nothing as real can make no statement toward religion or divinity in any fashion? Are not "religion" and "divinity" "something" and not "nothing?"

I'm used to considering the question from the Eastern point of view, so I'm going to use that. Although all is maya, everything is on the same level of maya as you are, unless you've achieved an exceptional state of enlightenment. If you consider that God is an illusion, but you also consider everything else to be, then you're pretty much right back where you started with nothing gained.

That doesn't really answer the question. There is still a statement toward religion or divinity in that philosophy.

Thanks, I posted that link (or a similar one) earlier.

That's what made it ironic. You provided the evidence that contradicted you. It was one of the two things I was really proud of in that post; the other was the self-referential link to a post that didn't exist when the link was written. *sigh* You try to make great art, and no one notices...

And it still doesn't change the fact that to fight against one's own biology requries active effort.

You can't fight a trait you don't have, and not all people would have this genetic trait; that's one of the clearest points of the article.

If you did have it, the defiance of this trait might require active effort, or might simply be a product of your environment; many people are atheists not because they don't have a "god gene," but because their life experiences have led them in that direction. Perhaps it can be argued that's still active, but the activity is not on the part of the possessor of the trait.

So, we see that athiest groups are being encouraged to file under the religious/educational exemption; and that it's a fairly routine procedure, since it's covered under "standard articles". That's certainly co-oberating evidence, if not truly conclusive.

That's interesting. That's somewhat different, I notice, from having "found several atheist organizations that claim IRS 501(c)(3) status," however.

[Crazy Elf]

So, we see that athiest groups are being encouraged to file under the religious/educational exemption; and that it's a fairly routine procedure, since it's covered under "standard articles". That's certainly co-oberating evidence, if not truly conclusive.

True, it's not conclusive. Do they get tax exemption from being religious or educational? You could always ring the organisation and ask. It's going to cost you a lot less than it would cost me, in Australia, to do.

[Cain]

That doesn't really answer the question. There is still a statement toward religion or divinity in that philosophy.

Really? Where does it make any statement about the *actual* nature of divinity?
Oh, wait, it doesn't....

That's what made it ironic. You provided the evidence that contradicted you. It was one of the two things I was really proud of in that post; the other was the self-referential link to a post that didn't exist when the link was written.

Which still doesn't confirm why people without the gene are religious. In short, you've misread what I've been posting.

If you did have it, the defiance of this trait might require active effort, or might simply be a product of your environment; many people are atheists not because they don't have a "god gene," but because their life experiences have led them in that direction. Perhaps it can be argued that's still active, but the activity is not on the part of the possessor of the trait.

To follow the environment in defiance of your biology still requires active effort. You might be rewarded by being able to dive for an extended duration, but it still takes effort to hold your breath that long.

That's interesting. That's somewhat different, I notice, from having "found several atheist organizations that claim IRS 501(c)(3) status," however.

AAI, you'll notice, is simply an umbrella organization for many atheist organizations. Since they're helping new groups to claim 501(c)(3) status, it makes no sense that thye wouldn't provide the same service to their member organizations. They also list having 45 US member groups,so thta's more than "several".

[Crazy Elf]

Okay, I emailed the Atheist Alliance:

Is atheism legally considered a religion, or is exemption granted on educational terms?

To which they replied:

Our exemption is granted as an educational organization. If we were a religion, we would not have to file tax form 990, and therefore for all practical purposes could do anything we wanted with the money and not get caught.

Bobbie
Atheist Alliance International

So, for legal purposes, Atheism is not considered a religion.

[Cain]

Okay, I emailed the Atheist Alliance:

Is atheism legally considered a religion, or is exemption granted on educational terms?

To which they replied:

Our exemption is granted as an educational organization. If we were a religion, we would not have to file tax form 990, and therefore for all practical purposes could do anything we wanted with the money and not get caught.

Bobbie
Atheist Alliance International

So, for legal purposes, Atheism is not considered a religion.

First of all, that information is not entirely accurate. According to IRS publication 557, that exemption only applies to churches, not religions. So, for example, Baptists aren't exempt; but a given church or interchurch organization may be. Atheism is a religion, but the AAI may not be considered a church, or has chosen not to file as such.

Second, the same publication gives a sufficently vauge interpretation of "religion" to confuse matters:

To determine wether an organization meets the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3), the IRS maintains two basic guidelines.

1. That the religious beliefs of the particular organization are truly and sincerely held.
2. That the practices and rituals associated with the organization's religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.

Therefore, your group (or organization) may not qualify for treatment as an exempt religious organization for tax purposes if its actions, as contrasted to its beliefs, are contrary to well established and clearly defined public policy. If there is a clear showing that the beliefs (or doctrines) are sincerely held by those professing them, the IRS will not question the religious nature of those beliefs.

So, the primary criteria is that an athiest group sincerely believes that there is no god. That should be a given. Next, the criteria is that their stated actions should not act contrary to established public policy. Well, I've never encountered an atheist group that wanted to violently overthrow the government; and in fact every one I've encountered seems perfectly content to act within US law.

On the balance of it, this really still doesn't seem to be useful, Elf. It's clear that an atheist organization *can* apply for a religious exemption, and list themselves as a church. They're not expressly forbidden from doing so, and no one will challenge them if they try.

[Cain]

BTW, I also found this in the Abagail Township v Schempp decision:

The fact is that the line which separates the secular from the sectarian in American life is elusive. The difficulty of defining the boundary with precision inheres in a paradox central to our scheme of liberty. While our institutions reflect a firm conviction that we are a religious people, those institutions, by solemn constitutional injunction, may not officially involve religion in such a way as to prefer, discriminate against, or oppress, a particular sect or religion. Equally, the Constitution enjoins those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends where secular means would suffice. The constitutional mandate expresses a deliberate and considered judgment that such matters are to be left to the conscience of the citizen, and declares as a basic postulate of the relation between the citizen and his government that "the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand.

So, if it acts like a religion, and looks like a religion, then under US law it is the same thing as a religion, even if they might wish to be categorized differently.

[Marius]

You totally misinterpreted that. Like, you'd have had a better chance of getting it right if it were written in ancient Chinese script and you only guessed from the shapes.

[3278]

That doesn't really answer the question. There is still a statement toward religion or divinity in that philosophy.

Really? Where does it make any statement about the *actual* nature of divinity?
Oh, wait, it doesn't....

I'm not certain if you're joking or not, but presuming that you're serious, yes, it does, specifically, "that God is an illusion."

That's what made it ironic. You provided the evidence that contradicted you. It was one of the two things I was really proud of in that post; the other was the self-referential link to a post that didn't exist when the link was written.

Which still doesn't confirm why people without the gene are religious. In short, you've misread what I've been posting.

The mechanism by which the gene might express its effects have never been in question, only that different people might have differing levels of expression, as the article states.

To follow the environment in defiance of your biology still requires active effort.

Not if your mental condition makes that a natural action to take, as I said.

Equally, the Constitution enjoins those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends where secular means would suffice.

So, if it acts like a religion, and looks like a religion, then under US law it is the same thing as a religion, even if they might wish to be categorized differently.

Not only isn't that what it means, but atheism isn't even being referred to here as "religious." This is lunatic over-reaching.

[Crazy Elf]

So Cain, is your point that you think that Atheism means something that no one else seems to agree it does, or that you were dropped at birth? Seems like you're arguing the same thing.