Religion finds its origins in the Latin word religare which means "to bind together". Time and Time again in the religion debate atheists seek to distance themselves from religion and religious connotations. But nothing could be further from the truth- Atheism is a religion. My critique of the 'new' definition of Atheism on Wikipedia should suffice as proof

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

*1 >>> Given that this is true, and that Atheism needs be expressed in terms of a belief (viz-a-viz the rejection of a belief). Then Atheism itself is a belief, and consequentially could be categorized as a religion; moreso, given the rise and spread of militant Atheism at this turn of the century. Atheism has lost its brand of 'meekness' exemplified by greats such as Paul Satre, Bertrand Russell.

Therefore, Atheism can be defined as: " a belief in the rejection of all belief(s) in deities".

*2 >>> Making a dichotomy of faith and reason amounts to the second volte by atheists to escape being branded as a religion.The fact that atheists have different stances on multifarious issues shows how subjective atheism can be.To further prove Atheism as a religion (albeit inchoate), it is necessary to remonstrate the subtle use of faith by atheists by :

their faith in the improbability of deity/deities whose existence is/are open to possibility
their faith in a vague explanation of man's origins which is primarily predicated on materialist philosophy
their faith in the validity of a "lack of belief in" which isn't absolute (by absolute I mean self-evident to all humans)



to be continued

Entirely, exhaustively, unspeakably, monumentally, and tragically misfooted, misconceived, and mis-delivered.

Frankly, a non-delivery altogether.

You have yet to grasp the simple connotation of that which may be deemed a religion. There have been too many threads where this has been beaten to death: I have not the strength to start it all over again: suffice to say that atheism is not a religion: the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion: for if that were the case, my belief that my mother's food tastes good would amount to a religion.

Better still, any person expressing a rejection of that belief of mine: could be said to be practicing a religion - as atheism is a rejection of specific beliefs.

That is ridiculous in the extreme.

Puker up. You gat it wrang mi nigga.

Uyi Iredia:

Religion finds its origins in the Latin word religare which means "to bind together". Time and Time again in the religion debate atheists seek to distance themselves from religion and religious connotations. But nothing could be further from the truth- Atheism is a religion. My critique of the 'new' definition of Atheism on Wikipedia should suffice as proof

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

*1 >>> Given that this is true, and that Atheism needs be expressed in terms of a belief (viz-a-viz the rejection of a belief). Then Atheism itself is a belief, and consequentially could be categorized as a religion; moreso, given the rise and spread of militant Atheism at this turn of the century. Atheism has lost its brand of 'meekness' exemplified by greats such as Paul Satre, Bertrand Russell.

Therefore, Atheism can be defined as: " a belief in the rejection of all belief(s) in deities".

*2 >>> Making a dichotomy of faith and reason amounts to the second volte by atheists to escape being branded as a religion.The fact that atheists have different stances on multifarious issues shows how subjective atheism can be.To further prove Atheism as a religion (albeit inchoate), it is necessary to remonstrate the subtle use of faith by atheists by :

their faith in the improbability of deity/deities whose existence is/are open to possibility
their faith in a vague explanation of man's origins which is primarily predicated on materialist philosophy
their faith in the validity of a "lack of belief in" which isn't absolute (by absolute I mean self-evident to all humans)



to be continued

smh. i guess that's gonna help you sleep better at night then

Academically atheism is not a religion but in reality it is cos religion can manifest it self in different ways. " a set of belief that denies the existance of any deity". The bottom line is 'BELIEF' without any fact and by that alone one needs a stronger 'faith' to conclude that there is no God.

Uyi Iredia:

Religion finds its origins in the Latin word religare which means "to bind together". Time and Time again in the religion debate atheists seek to distance themselves from religion and religious connotations. But nothing could be further from the truth- Atheism is a religion. My critique of the 'new' definition of Atheism on Wikipedia should suffice as proof

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

*1 >>> Given that this is true, and that Atheism needs be expressed in terms of a belief (viz-a-viz the rejection of a belief). Then Atheism itself is a belief, and consequentially could be categorized as a religion; moreso, given the rise and spread of militant Atheism at this turn of the century. Atheism has lost its brand of 'meekness' exemplified by greats such as Paul Satre, Bertrand Russell.

Therefore, Atheism can be defined as: " a belief in the rejection of all belief(s) in deities".

*2 >>> Making a dichotomy of faith and reason amounts to the second volte by atheists to escape being branded as a religion.The fact that atheists have different stances on multifarious issues shows how subjective atheism can be.To further prove Atheism as a religion (albeit inchoate), it is necessary to remonstrate the subtle use of faith by atheists by :

their faith in the improbability of deity/deities whose existence is/are open to possibility
their faith in a vague explanation of man's origins which is primarily predicated on materialist philosophy
their faith in the validity of a "lack of belief in" which isn't absolute (by absolute I mean self-evident to all humans)

to be continued

As Deep Sight has pointed out, if you wish to go by this method of identifying religions, are you ready to accept all sorts of beliefs and their counter beliefs as being religions?

"whenever or whereveryou see 'belief' and you see 'God' then there must be religion "___ Rhino.4dm

Deep Sight:

my belief that my mother's food tastes good would amount to a religion.

Better still, any person expressing a rejection of that belief of mine: could be said to be practicing a religion - as atheism is a rejection of specific beliefs.

Punch line!

Atheism is a rejection of certain beliefs which the OP agrees but the crude part is calling a non-belief a type of belief which now amounts to a religion. Very faulty indeed. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

_{DS how far now? I will be storming lagos soon and could surely use seeing you. How sayeth thou?}

ilosiwaju:


_{DS how far now? I will be storming lagos soon and could surely use seeing you. How sayeth thou?}

Great Ilosi!

Hit me @ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PS: Am out of the country between 20th & 30th November, so lemme know ok, ol boy?

Okay chief, thanks. I'll shy away from those dates and surely keep you posted.

@ Deep Sight

I looked at your post, then read it, then read it again !. Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its lines of weaknesses. But I must make mention of the part of your post which struck me.

"the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion"

I'll concede to this: that by brandishing atheism as a religion, i risk brandishing a mere belief as a religion. But,  Atheism isn't a mere belief.

That being said I'll tackle your statement. The ones made by others amount only to peccadilloes (Mudley's in particular). I trust you wouldn't mistake this for flattery.

That being said I proceed to deal the coupe de grace to your comment. Here goes

Deep Sight:

Entirely, exhaustively, unspeakably, monumentally, and tragically misfooted, misconceived, and mis-delivered.*1

Frankly, a non-delivery altogether.

You have yet to grasp the simple connotation of that which may be deemed a religion. There have been too many threads where this has been beaten to death: I have not the strength to start it all over again*2: suffice to say that atheism is not a religion: the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion*3: for if that were the case, my belief that my mother's food tastes good would amount to a religion.
*4
Better still, any person expressing a rejection of that belief of mine: could be said to be practicing a religion*5 - as atheism is a rejection of specific beliefs.*6

That is ridiculous in the extreme.

Puker up. You gat it wrang mi nigga.*7

*1 >>> A thoroughbred opprobrium, and proof, of lack of  prerequisite profundity of bent, on the topic at hand. This ensembles an emotional outburst engendered by an initial reaction to the topic, rather than the cool, calm thinking I expected of you. A disappointment_a sorry one at that.

*2 >>> Apt reasoning demands that you look deep and put up links to such threads were (as you imply) you dealt with such issues. Come on now,  what i need are fresh ideas, not lugubriousness and melancholy (evidenced by how you bemoan your lack of strength).

*3 >>> The meat of your post, for the most part all that you put forward were adumbrations.

The mere element of belief isn't 'mere' as it were. In effect & principle, belief is the core of any ideology, creed, school of thought  et al. There is no disputing about tastes.

This is the aptest way I can express it: Belief is the 'espirit de corps' of any mode of thought.

I quickly noted a trend (meme) in atheist discussion forums, sites, literature e.t.c which I have been chanced to peruse, and intend to keep on perusing (at least for the sake of knowledge). Any notion of faith or belief is snubbed. Atheists on Nairaland naively associate faith (and by extension belief) with religion_an annoying demotic. This is the root cause for my denouncement of atheism as a religion_with just cause. It amounts to sin on the part of atheists (and even agnostics) to repudiate the very faith they effuse because of the religious connotations it has.

Note that it is from a belief that a school of thought flourishes. Varied people contribute to such a belief and articulate reasons for such a belief till it becomes the very cornerstone of the existence of such people. It isn't hard to see parallels between the way militant atheism (in particular) is currently spreading, and how Christianity spread.

- Both become entrenched in a polity given favorable political environs (elucidate on Constantine & Voltaire)
- Both necessarily systematize their beliefs as they grow (i.e find more adherents)
- Their growth is hinged on the need to spread a percieved truth (i need not state how it applies in both cases, you're sharp enough to fill in the blanks)
- Both gained huge momentum at a point in history after a period of latency and repression (in the case of Christianity it was after
the rise of emperor Constantine, while i surmise that atheist thought picked up momentum at the turn of the 20th century after secularism had become fully entrenched in the political climate)

I will treat this robustly in the next thread i'll start on the subject. I hope by now you understand that mere belief is the seed which grows into
what is called religion. the way it does is not under one's jurisdiction. It evolves with influence from other beliefs and phenomenons which happen.

*4 >>> It wouldn't amount to mere religion. But it could evolve to become one (ironically this implies it would 'amount' to (become) religion). At the very least your belief that your mum's food tastes good could plausibly morph into a cultural stereotype/practice. How do you suppose the montage of the African cultural landscape appeared_"open sesame" perhaps ?

*5 >>> nope. but it could become an irreligious doctrine  DISCLAIMER:Comical satire is an effective means of passing across nuggets of wisdom BIG TIME

*6 >>> Even matt dillahaunty would hesitate to use that definition, and i'm not joking, nor am i being sarcastic. A poor definition. Even if atheism were a privation of beliefs. that itself would constitute a belief ITSELF (it would logically follow). This outline of Kervn Glaser should end any conception of atheism as a 'non-belief'

Russell and I were raised by a non-specific spiritual mom (coined the phrase "spiritual Internet", and an atheist physicist dad. I am also Jewish by heritage, culture, and blood on both sides of my family. My parents' approach was to present me with all possible knowledge and allow me to draw my own conclusions. At first I wanted to believe in god like I wanted to believe in unicorns and fairies. I went to religious school through my whole childhood, became a Bat Mitzvah when I was 13 and was Confirmed when I was 15. I was an assistant teacher in the religious school in high school, as well as the president of my local Jewish youth group, and a board member of my national youth group. In college I was on the board of my local Hillel, and after college I got a job with the Jewish Community Association of Austin. Currently I am a member of my temple choir and I attend temple about twice a month. Meanwhile, I'm a strong and active atheist by philosophy, and the two fit in perfect harmony with my life style. I am also a practicing Gerontological social worker, currently working at a hospice, and I'm very interested in exploring death and dying from a non-religious perspective. I believe that it is very important for Atheists to begin to develop a better outlet for dealing with death without having to choose between ignoring/dismissing it or becoming religious. Meanwhile, I'm a pacifistic, animal loving, tree hugging, vegan and I can tie all of that directly to my atheist belief system.

(culled from Atheist experience.com)

*7 >>> Hominis est errare . Being wrong isn't something i would be ashamed of. it only goes to show my humanity. But if i'm being told off as wrong there should be a good basis for doing so.

Uyi Iredia:

@ Deep Sight

I looked at your post, then read it, then read it again !. Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its line of weaknesses. But I must make mention of the part of your post which struck me.

"the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion"

I'll concede to this: that by brandishing atheism as a religion, i risk brandishing a mere belief as a religion. But, Atheism isn't a mere belief.

That being said I'll tackle your statement. The ones made by others amount only to peccadilloes (Mudley's in particular). I trust you wouldn't mistake this for flattery.

That being said I proceed to deal the coupe de grace to your comment. Here goes

*1 >>> A thoroughbred opprobrium, and proof, of lack of prerequisite profundity of bent, on the topic at hand. This ensembles an emotional outburst engendered by an initial reaction to the topic, rather than the cool, calm thinking I expected of you. A disappointment_a sorry one at that.

*2 >>> Apt reasoning demands that you look deep and put up links to such threads were (as you imply) you dealt with such issues. Come on now, what i need are fresh ideas, not lugubriousness and melancholy (evidenced by how you bemoan your lack of strength).

*3 >>> The meat of your post, for the most part all that you put forward were adumbrations.

The mere element of belief isn't 'mere' as it were. In effect & principle, belief is the core of any ideology, creed, school of thought et al. There is no disputing about tastes.

This is the aptest way I can express it: Belief is the 'espirit de corps' of any mode of thought.

I quickly noted a trend (meme) in atheist discussion forums, sites, literature e.t.c which I have been chanced to peruse, and intend to keep on perusing (at least for the sake of knowledge). Any notion of faith or belief is snubbed. Atheists on Nairaland naively associate faith (and by extension belief) with religion_an annoying demotic. This is the root cause for my denouncement of atheism as a religion_with just cause. It amounts to sin on the part of atheists (and even agnostics) to repudiate the very faith they effuse because of the religious connotations it has.

Note that it is from a belief that a school of thought flourishes. Varied people contribute to such a belief and articulate reasons for such a belief till it becomes the very cornerstone of the existence of such people. It isn't hard to see parallels between the way militant atheism (in particular) is currently spreading, and how Christianity spread.

- Both become entrenched in a polity given favorable political environs (elucidate on Constantine & Voltaire)
- Both necessarily systematize their beliefs as they grow (i.e find more adherents)
- Their growth is hinged on the need to spread a percieved truth (i need not state how it applies in both cases, you're sharp enough to fill in the blanks)
- Both gained huge momentum at a point in history after a period of latency and repression (in the case of Christianity it was after
the rise of emperor Constantine, while i surmise that atheist thought picked up momentum at the turn of the 20th century after secularism had become fully entrenched in the political climate)

I will treat this robustly in the next thread i'll start on the subject. I hope by now you understand that mere belief is the seed which grows into
what is called religion. the way it does is not under one's jurisdiction. It evolves with influence from other beliefs and phenomenons which happen.

*4 >>> It wouldn't amount to mere religion. But it could evolve to become one (ironically this implies it would 'amount' to (become) religion). At the very least your belief that your mum's food tastes good could plausibly morph into a cultural stereotype/practice. How do you suppose the montage of the African cultural landscape appeared_"open sesame" perhaps ?

*5 >>> nope. but it could become an irreligious doctrine DISCLAIMER:Comical satire is an effective means of passing across nuggets of wisdom BIG TIME

*6 >>> Even matt dillahaunty would hesitate to use that definition, and i'm not joking, nor am i being sarcastic. A poor definition. Even if atheism were a privation of beliefs. that itself would constitute a belief ITSELF (it would logically follow). This outline of Kervn Glaser should end any conception of atheism as a 'non-belief'
(culled from Atheist experience.com)

*7 >>> Hominis est errare . Being wrong isn't something i would be ashamed of. it only goes to show my humanity. But if i'm being told off as wrong there should be a good basis for doing so.

   ^^Kai see response! LOL I like this Uyi guy. Even for I that I'm uninclined to flatter atheism with the title of a religion, the articulacy, calculated approach and implied humor of this post, I find particularly endearing. This one had me in twisted fits -
 

Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its line of weaknesses.

    I don laugh well today.

Mama mia! Help me beg this guy to come teach me small now. meehhhn! I read so tey i forget wetin i dey do. Thank goodness and Nairaland!

JeSoul:


   ^^Kai see response! LOL I like this Uyi guy. Even for I that is uninclined to tag atheism a religion, the articulacy, calculated approach and implied humor of this post, I find particularly endearing. This one had me in twisted fits -
      I don laugh well today.

Rhino how body now? I find it curious that no one attempted your posts . . .

ilosiwaju:

Atheism is a rejection of certain beliefs which the OP agrees but the crude part is calling a non-belief a type of belief which now amounts to a religion. Very faulty indeed. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

True . . . but the catch is many atheists do not just "not collect stamps". They take it 100 steps further and say "stamps don't exist" "those who collect stamps are not intelligent" "collecting stamps is incompatible with reason" etc etc you catch my drift.

 The modern-day adaptation of an atheist does not simply show indifference to the subject matter of God, infact, they are invested, mind, pocket and time, to the spreading of their lack-of-belief and gaining more followers. When you have the aggresive furthering of a belief-system by foot soldiers a la Dawkinian style, then I think its not altogether unreasonable to re-evalute their 'religion' status.

Like I mentioned before, I have no interest or desire in labelling atheism as a religion, serves no point to me. But if it look like a duck and quack like a duck and shakes its tail feathers in defiance that it is not a duck even as the water droplets scatter all over the place, the chances are . . .  

i got the discombobulate idea from last year's Sherlock Holmes film. It's funny but in religious arguments >>> i pattern my style like Richard Dawkins. He has this cool, calm mien & laconic satire equalled only by >>> ________________

@ Uyi Iredia

I think you're making a fundamental error in claiming that atheism is a religion. You may also need to consider that theism is also not a religion. But Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc are religions.

I would go with Wiktionary's first definition of religion for the purpose of this discussion.

This is the quote from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

Going by this, one can see that the examples of religions that I gave above do fit but neither atheism nor theism does.

So, how do you wish to define or describe a religion?

Also in my opinion, getting a message across is better done using simple words. Except where there really is no better option.

if atheism is a religion then not playing basketball is a sport

i wonder what the obsession with labeling atheism a religion (especially by those of the christian faith) is all about. its like they really feel insecure bout their own beliefs. it's as if they're saying, "you atheists think you're so rational, but really your beliefs are just baseless as our- wait! that's not what I meant. I was trying to say that atheism has just as little evidence as Christia- no that's not coming out right, "

it definitely is not and, just as thehomer stated above, neither is theism. they are only religious positions. it would take elaborations of those positions, including traditions and dogmas, to describe a person's religion. it's essentially the same as "voter" and "non-voter" not describing someone's political affiliation. one may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.

Atheism is in fact a lack of religion (even the so-called militant atheism people like jesoul arbitrarily attempt to drag into the sphere of being a religion can best be termed anti-religion)

thehomer:

@ Uyi Iredia
Also in my opinion, getting a message across is better done using simple words. Except where there really is no better option.

you may not have heard of the general stereotype about nigerians being known for employing the use of unnecessary vocabs maybe to feel better about themselves. a typical example is the clown below. all words; no substance

[center][flash=450,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO8UlaaTqE0[/flash][/center]

if atheism is a religion then not playing basketball is a sport

What else can man say?!

From Mr Uyi's definition, philosophies like Stoicism, Platonism are religions?

Uyi Iredia:

@ Deep Sight

I looked at your post, then read it, then read it again !. Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its lines of weaknesses. But I must make mention of the part of your post which struck me.

"the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion"

I'll concede to this: that by brandishing atheism as a religion, i risk brandishing a mere belief as a religion. But, Atheism isn't a mere belief.

That being said I'll tackle your statement. The ones made by others amount only to peccadilloes (Mudley's in particular). I trust you wouldn't mistake this for flattery.

That being said I proceed to deal the coupe de grace to your comment. Here goes

*1 >>> A thoroughbred opprobrium, and proof, of lack of prerequisite profundity of bent, on the topic at hand. This ensembles an emotional outburst engendered by an initial reaction to the topic, rather than the cool, calm thinking I expected of you. A disappointment_a sorry one at that.

*2 >>> Apt reasoning demands that you look deep and put up links to such threads were (as you imply) you dealt with such issues. Come on now, what i need are fresh ideas, not lugubriousness and melancholy (evidenced by how you bemoan your lack of strength).

*3 >>> The meat of your post, for the most part all that you put forward were adumbrations.

The mere element of belief isn't 'mere' as it were. In effect & principle, belief is the core of any ideology, creed, school of thought et al. There is no disputing about tastes.

This is the aptest way I can express it: Belief is the 'espirit de corps' of any mode of thought.

I quickly noted a trend (meme) in atheist discussion forums, sites, literature e.t.c which I have been chanced to peruse, and intend to keep on perusing (at least for the sake of knowledge). Any notion of faith or belief is snubbed. Atheists on Nairaland naively associate faith (and by extension belief) with religion_an annoying demotic. This is the root cause for my denouncement of atheism as a religion_with just cause. It amounts to sin on the part of atheists (and even agnostics) to repudiate the very faith they effuse because of the religious connotations it has.

Note that it is from a belief that a school of thought flourishes. Varied people contribute to such a belief and articulate reasons for such a belief till it becomes the very cornerstone of the existence of such people. It isn't hard to see parallels between the way militant atheism (in particular) is currently spreading, and how Christianity spread.

- Both become entrenched in a polity given favorable political environs (elucidate on Constantine & Voltaire)
- Both necessarily systematize their beliefs as they grow (i.e find more adherents)
- Their growth is hinged on the need to spread a percieved truth (i need not state how it applies in both cases, you're sharp enough to fill in the blanks)
- Both gained huge momentum at a point in history after a period of latency and repression (in the case of Christianity it was after
the rise of emperor Constantine, while i surmise that atheist thought picked up momentum at the turn of the 20th century after secularism had become fully entrenched in the political climate)

I will treat this robustly in the next thread i'll start on the subject. I hope by now you understand that mere belief is the seed which grows into
what is called religion. the way it does is not under one's jurisdiction. It evolves with influence from other beliefs and phenomenons which happen.

*4 >>> It wouldn't amount to mere religion. But it could evolve to become one (ironically this implies it would 'amount' to (become) religion). At the very least your belief that your mum's food tastes good could plausibly morph into a cultural stereotype/practice. How do you suppose the montage of the African cultural landscape appeared_"open sesame" perhaps ?

*5 >>> nope. but it could become an irreligious doctrine DISCLAIMER:Comical satire is an effective means of passing across nuggets of wisdom BIG TIME

*6 >>> Even matt dillahaunty would hesitate to use that definition, and i'm not joking, nor am i being sarcastic. A poor definition. Even if atheism were a privation of beliefs. that itself would constitute a belief ITSELF (it would logically follow). This outline of Kervn Glaser should end any conception of atheism as a 'non-belief'
(culled from Atheist experience.com)

*7 >>> Hominis est errare . Being wrong isn't something i would be ashamed of. it only goes to show my humanity. But if i'm being told off as wrong there should be a good basis for doing so.

I am sorry, but I was unable to "re-comcobulate" anything from this post: and call me texas-pete if any one else can.

You have said exactly nothing sir - unless you will be so bold as to assert that a belief in santa claus is a religion.

JeSoul:


True . . . but the catch is many atheists do not just "not collect stamps". They take it 100 steps further and say "stamps don't exist" "those who collect stamps are not intelligent" "collecting stamps is incompatible with reason" etc etc you catch my drift.

Don't even bother to go there. Will an active propagation of a DISBELIEF in santa claus amount to anything? ? ? ? ? ? ?

For what the combobulated Mr. Iredia suggests to me is that not only is a belief in santa claus a religion, but a rejection of such a belief is also a religion.

I have not heard anything more preposterous on this forum.

Smoking cigarette is a habit and not smoking it is equally a habit so its depend on which context we are operating.

Listening to naija news can a habit and not listening to it can equally be a habit cos personally i have the habit of not listening to network news cos i BELIEVE they all sycophants and i always switch over to cnn and i tend to discourage people in listening and watching.

Deepsight, I wish you would point out the error in Uyi's post rather than wave it off as irrelevant. Yes he may need some encouragement in formatting and direct-speak but that withstanding, he said a mouthful and if you cannot see it, then no problemo.

Rhino, nobody still touched your posts . . . abi fear catch dem? lol

---

Perhaps a good starting point would be to define what Religion is . . . thehomer already started it off . . .

thehomer:

I would go with Wiktionary's first definition of religion for the purpose of this discussion.

This is the quote from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

  Nice link. But why only stop at the first definition? each person likely has a different definition/understanding of what a religion is - probably why the disagreement on the thread. But once we see the other definitions in your link:

religion (plural religions)

1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

3. Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.

4. An ideological and traditional heritage.

   Don't you think modern-day militant [/b]atheism - Dawkinian style - can very [b]easily be cast in #2 and #4?

Hey Rhino, i've being looking for you all over town. You 'falsely accused' me in that thread that was locked(the thread on tudor). Se na so life be now?

Atheism cannot be said to be personal in that, they are even more aggressive in propagating their belief and feel torchy when the mention of the name God.
My mentor is a 70 year fanatical atheist and he has succeeded in 'converting' his children and thier wives to atheism. At point in time he pointedly tried making it pre-requisite for recieving favour. He normally offer some lectures on the benefit of becoming an atheist. E.g " No luck only hardwork and dedication"
it still baffle's me to see people denying the fact atheism is one of the fastest growing religion.

JeSoul:

Deepsight, I wish you would point out the error in Uyi's post rather than wave it off as irrelevant. Yes he may need some encouragement in formatting and direct-speak but that withstanding, he said a mouthful and if you cannot see it, then no problemo.

Rhino, nobody still touched your posts . . . abi fear catch dem? lol

---

Perhaps a good starting point would be to define what Religion is . . . thehomer already started it off . . .   Nice link. But why only stop at the first definition? each person likely has a different definition/understanding of what a religion is - probably why the disagreement on the thread. But once we see the other definitions in your link:


Don't you think modern-day [b]militant [/b]atheism - Dawkinian style - can very easily be cast in #2 and #4?

I picked the first definition because like many other words in English with multiple meanings, a particular definition may be closest to what one wishes to say.

The other definitions would require adding some other beliefs and practices that I would not consider as religious in this discussion.

To clarify, the second definition could also add people going about their jobs as being religious e.g a lawyer going to courts 4 times a week, an architect designing buildings 7 hours a day etc.

The fourth definition could also include concepts like capitalism, socialism and even peculiar dance moves of some tribes.

I'm not sure what militant atheism means because in regular conversation, militants advocate or use violence. From what I've read about Dawkins and others, they speak and write more about opening up religious beliefs and practices to criticism just like other human endeavours. I've not read about Dawkins advocating or using violence to get his points across.

I don't think atheism fits with the second definition because what is the particular act that atheists do that marks them out as a particular group?
About the fourth definition, I don't think atheism has been adopted as some traditional view somewhere neither does it have enough distinguishing characteristics to elevate it to the level of an ideology.

Do we need to resurrect the thread? You see am equally a victim of insults and i have severally bursted out in defence of my ego and over streched boundries in my response. Personally i understand the effect of not been able to constraint my response to the same individual am directing it to. But by 'experience' i know you dont know and i throw in my 2cents and you ended up calling me 'muddled' and take it over to another thread and so on.

Image123:

Hey Rhino, i've being looking for you all over town. You 'falsely accused' me in that thread that was locked(the thread on tudor). Se na so life be now?

thehomer:

I picked the first definition because like many other words in English with multiple meanings, a particular definition may be closest to what one wishes to say.

The other definitions would require adding some other beliefs and practices that I would not consider as religious in this discussion.

To clarify, the second definition could also add people going about their jobs as being religious e.g a lawyer going to courts 4 times a week, an architect designing buildings 7 hours a day etc.

The fourth definition could also include concepts like capitalism, socialism and even peculiar dance moves of some tribes.

I'm not sure what militant atheism means because in regular conversation, militants advocate or use violence. From what I've read about Dawkins and others, they speak and write more about opening up religious beliefs and practices to criticism just like other human endeavours. I've not read about Dawkins advocating or using violence to get his points across.

I don't think atheism fits with the second definition because what is the particular act that atheists do that marks them out as a particular group?
About the fourth definition, I don't think atheism has been adopted as some traditional view somewhere neither does it have enough distinguishing characteristics to elevate it to the level of an ideology.

Thanks for the response Homer. You make some good points that I don't want to necessarily antagonize or nit-pick on but when I say "militant atheism" I mean kind of what Rhino described here:

Rhino.4dm:

Atheism cannot be said to be personal in that, they are even more aggressive in propagating their belief and feel torchy when the mention of the name God.
My mentor is a 70 year fanatical atheist and he has succeeded in 'converting' his children and thier wives to atheism. At point in time he pointedly tried making it pre-requisite for recieving favour. He normally offer some lectures on the benefit of becoming an atheist. E.g " No luck only hardwork and dedication"
it still baffle's me to see people denying the fact atheism is one of the fastest growing religion.

 What would you classify this man's obsession, systematic and calculated approach of converting followers to his belief system as? has it attained "religion" status? is it cult status? What is it? as its simply not just a lack of belief in God, its an active propagation of a standardized set of beliefs, complete with the aim of converting as many followers as possible. If you'd prefer not to call it a religion, what term would you rather use?

Rhino, another 'false accusation', i did not call YOU muddled, i was referring to someone else. It's just that this your post looks muddled up sha hahaahah

Rhino.4dm:

Do we need to resurrect the thread? You see am equally a victim of insults and i have severally bursted out in defence of my ego and over streched boundries in my response. Personally i understand the effect of not been able to constraint my response to the same individual am directing it to. But by 'experience' i know you dont know and i throw in my 2cents and you ended up calling me 'muddled' and take it over to another thread and so on.

JeSoul:

Thanks for the response Homer. You make some good points that I don't want to necessarily antagonize or nit-pick on but when I say "militant atheism" I mean kind of what Rhino described here:  What would you classify this man's obsession, systematic and calculated approach of converting followers to his belief system as? has it attained "religion" status? is it cult status? What is it? as its simply not just a lack of belief in God, its an active propagation of a standardized set of beliefs, complete with the aim of converting as many followers as possible. If you'd prefer not to call it a religion, what term would you rather use?  

I'll need more information than what is available here to come to a conclusion but there are some items in Rhino.4dm's post that leap out at me. e.g he put converting in quotes which implies to me that this method of conversion may have been quite distinct from that carried out by religious people. Also, attempting to make it a prerequisite for receiving favour? I don't think there is some sort of creed that atheists recite or have to believe to be considered atheists other than lacking a belief in a God. Then a person giving lectures? That's not quite outlandish to me.

EDIT: Do you wish to redefine what it means to be militant? If you do, then also consider the people one would also have to consider as being militant under this redefinition e.g Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Rhino.4dm:

Listening to naija news can a habit and not listening to it can equally be a habit cos personally i have the habit of not listening to network news cos i BELIEVE   they all sycophants and i always switch over to cnn  and i tend to discourage people in listening and watching.

well, true that. you can say i have a habit of not watching nigerian news but can you in the same context say you have a religion in not believing in god (or even just believing in god)? this your analogy is way off dude. read the prior posts

Rhino.4dm:

Atheism cannot be said to be personal in that, they are even more aggressivein propagating their belief

@ bolded. you're kidding right? cos i've never heard of anyone killing people or blowing up themselves in the name of not believing in god

and feel torchy when the mention of the name God.

well, maybe some have had horrid experiences like Men of GOD literally sending close relatives into bankruptcy that's why. everyone with their own personal experiences living amongst GOD'S(?) people. with your above analogy, a jew who gets torchy touchy at the mention of hitler must be religious in that sense as well

My mentor is a 70 year fanatical atheist and he has succeeded in  'converting' his children and thier wives to atheism. At point in time he pointedly tried  making it  pre-requisite for recieving favour. He normally offer some lectures on the benefit of becoming an atheist. E.g " No luck only hardwork and dedication"

so, if one who espouses tribalism or racism makes it a prerequisite to be of the same tribe or race as him/her before offering favors, it now places tribalism or racism in the category of religion huh? your mentor is just overtly anti-religious. how being anti-religious and being religious has now come to mean the same thing to you fundamentalist christians(?) is just baffling. your example above is just a case of sheer intolerance and i don't advocate such

it still baffle's me to see people denying the fact atheism is one of the fastest growing religion.

like i stated earlier, if that helps you (and your fellow christians) sleep better at night or makes you less insecure about your belief system, no problemo. there's enough posts on here to buttress the more than apparent fact that atheism cannot be considered a religion. ofcourse only insecure deluded morons will disagree

smh. and you wonder why people call you religious folks names

@Uyi Iredia:

Your attempt at 'discombobulation' was quite effective, as you just succeeded in 'discombobulating' yourself even further.  First of all, being unnecessarily verbose does NOT make you appear smart.   Tone down your vocabs, perhaps, you'd make more sense that way.  Secondly, your definition of atheism as being "a belief in the rejection of all belief(s) in deities" is at best, ludicrous.   Pray, what is "a belief in the rejection of beliefs"??  Talk of grandiloquence. Besides, how exactly does atheism pass for a religion, when even theism doesn't?  You wouldn't say that theism is a religion, would you?

Finally, I hope you do know that for a belief or an ideology to be classified as a religion, there's got to be some precise theology that should be central to it.  As DS rightly pointed out, the mere element of "belief" or "faith" in something doesn't suffice to religionize it.

Rhino.4dm:

"whenever or whereveryou see 'belief' and you see 'God' then there must be religion "___ Rhino.4dm

Genius. It is my belief that there are many Nigerians who reject the idea of a God. Now make a religion out of that.

@ purist
how hard it is for you to see that by just writting "God" & "belief" you have introduce "religion" in thsame passage? ? Cos that was your expectation?

Am not a genius but nobody spoon feed me with trash!

Purist:

Genius. It is my belief that there are many Nigerians who reject the idea of a God. Now make a religion out of that.