Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:
1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.
2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.
3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.
4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)
Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.
While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.
1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.
2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.
Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.
"Atheist" on the other hand, says exactly what someone doesn't believe.
I think Mr. Lose makes a good point about the benefits of being identified as a religious group. Recently a few members of the Freethought Society were gracious enough to agree to be interviewed during a meeting of one of our local churches. The Freethought Society members are atheists. When asked why they felt the need to create and join the society, one of the Freetought members pointed to the lack of community among atheists. When one of them goes into the hospital, he said, there's no one to visit or bring meals to the family as there would be in a church setting. I don't think we should dismiss the need for community so quickly.
Atheists are individual human beings, who think individually, who act individually, who believe individually. It is an individually conviction that there is no gods. That is as far as atheists have anything in common with each other.
Religious people, conversely, identify with others through a myriad and complex tradition of thoughts derived from a core belief that a god or gods exists. They operate on a group level of belief, that is the very definition of a religion, a group that believes in common things.
Atheists operate on an individual level of belief, which cannot be considered a religion.
I laugh at all those who attempt to label atheism as a religion. They immediately show their thought process and show that they simply just don't get it. To them, I suppose, it is as hard to understand as it is for people to hear a dog whistle.
Except for those Atheist conventions and internet communities, of course.
And I think you miss the writer's point - he's not trying to label Atheism as a religion, but rather pointing out that many atheists act religiously and share many traits that are 'religious' in nature.
I stopped reading halfway through. Is this guy serious? Why is it so important to you to define Atheism as a religion? You wrote an entire article trying to somehow prove Atheists are religious, don't you have anything better to do? You failed anyway. Not one of those points helps your argument. Not all Atheists have been in the US military or been through that kind of trauma so that sample isn't representative of atheists worldwide. Your second point is a silly distinction that's flawed from the get-go, agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief and "firmly" not believing in gods or the folklore usually attached doesn't make you religious. Third point- Thanks for just figuring that out now. Fourth - Do you have a problem with that? How does that make one religious?
He builds his case toward that inference by citing 4 examples which he claims are interrelated. The only interrelationship is that they happen to be about atheists. He is actually using his conclusion to explain why each example supports his claim.
Look at premise one: Desire for an athestic chaplain demonstrates a religious motivation. Yet it is a Time magazine article he cites; not an atheist. It seems apparent to me that there are several other rationales for wanting a "chaplain" for atheists; not the least of which is the blatant proselytizing that extremist christianists do in the military. Whether at the Air Force academy or generals who give bible quotes or rank and file members who have the choice between religious services or physical work. (IN addition, I notice that the first Hindu chaplain was recently appointed)
Example 2: Refers to a Census report. Mr Lose doesn't mention that the question was open ended (respondents were not given a menu of choices) and required self-identification. That the number has grown slightly does not lead to any religious explanation. A better explanation is that declaring oneself as an atheist now carries less social opprobrium.
In both example 2&3 his explanation for them is that they are similar to religious expression, the conclusion he is driving toward.
I have already commented on example #4.
So, Mr Lose wants us to join him in his conclusion that atheism is just another "faith". But the examples he puts forward as premises are only valid if one already agrees with his conclusion.
Why would atheists post here on the HP "religion" section? I can think of at least two main reasons.
It is not uncommon for there to be an article about atheism, as this one is. So it is not unreasonable for theists and non-theists to share their opinions. One could as easily, and more to the point, ask "Why do theists feel the need to comment on non-theists?" especially in such a supercilious manner.
Second. More and more, people are beginning to realize the effect that theists have on the world. And it is not a positive effect. More in our nation than in other developed countries, the populace has a disregard for science. One could even say there is a broad anti-science attitude. Americans don't accept evolution or climate change, for example. And this attitude (truly a "belief" ) is engendered, fostered by christianists especially and foisted upon the rest of us. It has come to a point where religiosity is a requirement to hold office in our nation.
It, therefore, becomes almost a requirement for free-thinkers, agnostics, atheists, non-believers, pagans, uncommitted and non-theists alike to take every opportunity at hand to bring these extremists into the light of reason.
How many religious people do you know that are that open to believing something else if there was evidence for it?...
Wanting to be represented equally as a valid religious stance (the "none of the above" stance) does not make atheism a religion. Representation of the atheist sector in the military chaplaincy does not make atheism a religion. If there were a special person in the military who organized events for people with hobbies, wanting representation for those of us without hobbies does not make "not having a hobby" a hobby. That representative might even organize events for people to do while others are off doing their hobbies. That still does not make "not having a hobby" a hobby. That representative might even push against rules that force people to choose between a hobby event or work duty. That still does't make "not having a hobby" a hobby. BTW, there have been atheist military who have been told if they don't attend a religious event, they have to do work duty instead.
Pushing an alternative moral basis, such as secular humanism, doesn't make atheism a religion. If you count common moral basis as defining a religion, which is a real stretch, then maybe you could include secular humanism as a religion. Still, not all atheists are secular humanists.
So why can I buy books about Atheism and go to conferences about Atheism but not buy a packet of hair dye called 'bald'?
Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Atheist = Skeptic
We cannot have serious discussions about the distinctions of ideas held between religious and non-religious if we cannot agree on the definitions used in the discussion.
One more note: trying to include atheists under the umbrella of "faith" is just about the most clueless and insensitive way of reaching out for, uh, "mutual regard and even respect". This is like a Christian saying to a Jewish person "Well, I know that, in a certain sense, you really do think that Jesus was the messiah, so we can build mutual regard and even respect on that foundation." It's not a way of reaching out to include someone; it's a way of directly emphasizing the differences between us, and doing so in an extremely insulting way. Which is probably why there are a lot of atheists who are mad about this article, despite the fluffy language about respect.
Having "faith" implies that it is intrinsically valuable to believe certain things even if one does not have good reason to. It's the value judgment here that is most objectionable to atheists. Everyone believes something or other for bad reasons; that's normal human fallibility. But the idea that someone can be considered more virtuous simply for having certain beliefs about the way the world works? I find that abhorrent. Not only because it pressures people to believe certain things, even when they are completely wrong, but also because it implies that people who lack certain kinds of belief are deficient.
Good ideas are valuable because their value can be demonstrated, proven, and experienced. Not because they come from some vague mystical/mental/moral faculty that you supposedly have to have to be a whole person.