Most dictionaries include the following definition(s):

"n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or
institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader. 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with
zeal or conscientious devotion." -
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

It is the 4th definition that causes me consternation: "4. A cause, a
principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion."

I may be an atheist but I do not "pursue" atheism with "zeal" or with
"conscientious devotion", I simply have no belief in deities/gods/the
supernatural. I follow no particular strand of atheism (I have to
figure this out! I wasn?t aware there were ?varieties? of atheists),
don't call myself a ?humanist?; a ?positive atheist?; nor consider
myself a "weak atheist". I simply do not care about the supernatural
as I have no belief in it. I neither belong to any organisation that
stands up for/promotes atheism nor seek that others "not believe".

I have been confronted that I do indeed follow a religion: atheism;
and it is the strict adherence to that definition that stumps me. That
4th definition is new to me and seems to be against what I thought the
word "religion" was defined as: the first 3 definitions. Or am I faced
with sophistry?
While I accept that there may be atheists who are quite vocal in
defending their rights ?not to believe?, are they followers of a
religion then?

Where/when did that 4th definition apply to the word "religion", or
should I be asking: Since when has the word "religion" come to mainly
mean belief system in a supernatural being(s) which led me to be
puzzled that religion can apply to atheism and thus I ?am following a
religion?? (i.e. Is the 4th definition a modern interpretation, or an
original meaning that now seems at odds with the main-stream meaning
of ?religion??)

Is the 4th definition correct on its own but when defined with atheism, not apply?
Help!

---

Clarification of Question by arohem-ga on 28 Mar 2005 05:34 PST

Thanks for your comments Pugwash.

I don't have a desire to examine my choice as I do not have a problem
with my non-belief in anything spiritual ;-) Nor am I questioning my
non-beliefs. I am quite comfortable with my position.

I'm just having trouble responding to someone that stated I followed a
religion, Atheism, based on the 4th definition. While I can reply that
I do not fall under that definition i.e. I don't pursue it with "zeal"
and "vigour", he still applies it to atheism at large.
His flippant reply was in the lines of "..if it quacks like a duck, ..."

I guess I am looking at a simple language-rule reply perhaps? A
question of semantics? The origins of the word, its current usuage...
a definitive and factual rebuttal!

I liked xarqi's comparison to jam-making and I shall use it, [thanks!]
but still not quite what I am looking for...

---

Clarification of Question by arohem-ga on 28 Mar 2005 05:36 PST

Thanks for your comments Pugwash.

I don't have a desire to examine my choice as I do not have a problem
with my non-belief in anything spiritual ;-) Nor am I questioning my
non-beliefs. I am quite comfortable with my position.

I'm just having trouble responding to someone that stated I followed a
religion, Atheism, based on the 4th definition. While I can reply that
I do not fall under that definition i.e. I don't pursue it with "zeal"
and "vigour", he still applies it to atheism at large.
His flippant reply was in the lines of "..if it quacks like a  duck, ..."

I guess I am looking at a simple language-rule reply perhaps? A
question of semantics? The origins of the word, its current usuage...

I liked xarqi's comparison to jam-making and I shall use it, [thanks!]
but still not quite what I am looking for...

Dear Arohem-ga,

First, I must thank you for posting this question, which gave me the
opportunity of exploring an issue that is pretty much of my interest.

As I understand it, the trouble you?re trying to overcome is a dispute
with this person who maintains that atheism is a religion, based on
the fourth definition from the dictionary. I think that we can count
on a few strong arguments to surmount it.

You did the first step already, by remarking that you ?don't pursue it
with ?zeal? and ?vigour??. As this person?s reply is about ?atheism at
large?, let?s see what do other atheists have to say about it. In the
article ?Atheism: Religious View, or View About Religion?? from
?Positive Atheism Magazine?, activist Cliff Walker answers to a
reader?s question (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8760.htm );
I?ll quote a few concepts:

?Atheism is a *religious view* only in the sense that it is an
*opinion about religion*. As such, atheism is protected under the
United States Constitution as an opinion about religion (...) Aside
from that, *atheism is not religious but is the very absence of
religion*. You will see that we rarely organize and don't have (or
need) ministers or creeds or any such thing.

?Also, for any atheist, our atheism is a very small portion of our
overall outlook or world view. Thus, for most of us, calling ourselves
atheists does little more than to distinguish ourselves from theists:
a theist believes in God and I don't so to keep you from thinking that
I do, I call myself an atheist. However, even as a full-time activist,
my atheism is a very small part of my life. I do this to help atheists
achieve dignity and rights, not because atheism is important to me.
It's not so unimportant that I would willingly lie about my beliefs,
but atheism is nowhere near being the center of my life.?

(...)

?(...) that's what an atheist is: somebody who has never been given a
reason to believe that gods exist. People go around telling us that
gods do, indeed, exist, but we just don't see it. We remain atheists.

?Most of us do not even think about religion or gods or even atheism.
We go about taking care of the business of living. You don't ever hear
from most of us (...) A few atheists here and there will join together
and form groups, mostly to fight for the separation of state and
church. Many of those groups become social outlets. But the leaders
are not "ministers" or "pastors" in any sense, because we are all
equal before Nature and we need no intercession of any kind.?

(...)

?Atheism is, specifically, the absence of theism, *the absence of
religion*. Thus, to think of atheism as a religion or as something
that's organized will lead you into all kinds of error regarding
atheism.?


For a religious person, instead, observance is important, to live a
life according to certain principles set by their religion is
important, as much as gathering in ceremonies, listening to the
minister?s advice, among other things that atheists, even activists
(those who supposedly ?pursue it with zeal or conscientious devotion?)
wouldn?t do.

Also in the article ?Why Atheism isn?t the numeral Zero?, at Ethical
Atheist website (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/not_zero.html ),
author K. Axel Brauch says:

?The argument that Atheism is religion simply doesn?t compute. 
Atheism has no church, no creed, no dogma and no priesthood.?


Now, back to the ?fourth definition? of ?religion?, I would say that
the ?original sin? ?please forgive a somewhat out of context
expression- of your contender in the dispute is to take a figurative
or metaphoric sense of the word ?religion? as if it was actually
holding the core meaning of it. I think this approach provides the
conceptual frame for xarqi's comparison to jam-making, and is in the
line of a semantic reply based on word usage.

For example, the word ?rain? has a second definition as: ?A heavy or
abundant fall: a rain of fluffy cottonwood seeds; a rain of insults.?
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rain )

Following your contender?s criterion might suggest that you would
protect yourself from a ?rain of insults? by opening an umbrella.

Also, the sixteenth definition of light
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=light ) reads: ?A prominent
or distinguished person; a luminary: one of the leading lights of the
theater.? Neither you nor your contender would expect that ?the
leading light of the theater? will actually lit the stage...

Similarly, the definition of religion referring to a ?cause, a
principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion?
is a figurative, metaphoric sense that may be applied to anything done
with so much conviction that it *resembles* the religious attitude,
with no necessary connection to the core idea of religion itself. This
is the meaning applicable to statements such as:

?Loving her was my religion?. ?He had no religion but gambling?.


I hope to have met your expectations. My search strategy was: ?atheism
as a religion?. Please feel free to ask for clarification if you need
so. Thank you.

Regards,

Guillermo-ga

Short answer: Atheism is not a religion.  It is a philosophy that
denies the existence of any deity.

Longer answer: It can be considered a religion in the 4th sense above
if an athiest pursues it with zeal, in the same sense that one might
say that jam-making could be a person's religion.  I take that sense
to mean any activity pursued with the vigour and conviction (and
perhaps lack of physical foundation) that is usually associated with
theistic philosophy.

Atheism is non-belief in a diety, a spiritual being. the fourth
definition mentions only a cause, principal or activity, all of which
are non personal in nature. Not really compatible. A true Athiest
looks at the way he/she is built/constructed/put together, grown from
a speck of matter and states; "I happened by accident". But did you?.
Hebrews 3;4 [ from the Bible] "of course every house is constructed by
someone, but He that constructed ALL things is God". Q.E.D.

great answer guillermo.

arohem-

for your friend who flippantly replies to you, as him/her if they
consider an olympic athelete part of a religion because by choosing to
look ONLY at
definition 4 i believe they would fit.

"4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with
zeal or conscientious devotion." 

would you agree?  

-dave

Thank you, Swmo-ga. By the way, I've heard that every four years, the
sect of the Athletes elects a Highest Priest who is entrusted the
Sacred Torch ;-))

Atheism implies a firm belief that no god exists, which is the part
that makes it possible to argue that it is in some way a religion.  It
still does not meet the definition for a religion in any other way as
has already been argued here.  It is just a completely different kind
of thing related to religions only by subject matter.  A bible is not
a religion either, even though it addresses the same subject and is
very closely connected to a religion.

You may consider one of these two terms if you need a word to describe
yourself to zealots:

Agnostic: Someone who believes it can't be known if a god exists.

Apatheist (not an official word yet, but it floats around): Someone
who doesn't care if a god exists.

By the limited and vague definitions we are given of various gods, in
many cases it probably IS impossible to prove the existence of a god
if the definitions are correct.  However, the churches could be wrong
and one day we may see a god walk into a corner shop to buy a cola,
then again the next day, etc, thus proving to ourselves that he
exists.  At least that would meet our standards of proof for other
things.

"Apatheist" may also be a good word to choose, if you assume that your
opinion will change following a scientific analysis of any new
evidence that may suggest there is a reason to care.

I would say this is a loaded question, like asking a single person if
they still beat their wife. ;)

Atheism is *not* a religion, note even close. Atheism is simply the
state of not holding the belief in this alleged entity "God". It is
only the widespread prevelance of belief in this nebulous and
infinitely contradictory "being" that has seemed to turn not holding
some belief into the equivalent of holding a belief. The burden of
proof of existence of something rests with those asserting its
existence -- in the absence of any shred of factual evidence, and in
the face of all the contradictions which "God" would represent, it is
perfectly reasonable to not hold this belief.

Everyone needs a philosophical view of the world, by necessity. You
can't act without forming conclusions about the nature of the world,
the nature of knowledge and ideas, the nature of man, the nature of
society, and the principles needed to guide action. Religion has,
unfortunately, been supplying answers to these questions for thousands
of years, on the basis of fiction, blind faith, ancient (and frankly,
mostly ridiculous) dogmatic texts, and intimidating orders from
authority figures like priest, popes, immans, etc.
*Rational* philosophy is entirely possible. For example, Aristotle's
views were largely naturalistic, and society could certainly do worse
than to live by his tenets, than by those of JC or Mohammad. In this
century, Ayn Rand defined a comprehensive philosophic system, based on
reason and the facts of reality, and dramatized it clearly in her
novels.

So in conclusion, an atheist is someone who is not religious, but who
follows *some* kind of philosophy that gives them answers to the same
kinds of universal questions that religion attempts to answer. Of
course atheistic philosophies like Communism demonstrate that
atheistic philosophies can be as dangerous and irrational as religion,
in their own way. My money is on Rand's Objectivism, in the long term,
because it is extremely comprehensive, well argued, and its detractors
and opponents seem to mostly deliver vitriol against it, not rational
refutations.

Interesting question.

I agree with the majority of you commentators about the fact that
atheism is not a religion.  I do have a comment to make about the
"philosophy" of atheism and its pursuit.

Religion, by necessity, requires faith.  Most non-believers struggle
to come to terms with religions for precisely this point alone.  I
will attempt to dispel this fear.

Not many people (believers and otherwise) would argue that we all
believe in a certain sense of justice.  This doesn't always
materialize in the everyday examples we see, but almost all of us
reconcile ourselves with the fact that "the better team lost, but
overall, in the great balance of things, absolute justice prevails". 
We all have faith in that at least.  Otherwise, what's the point?

To move on to my main point, consider this. God's existence is a fact
that is not only true, but also spiritually embedded within each and
everyone of us (no matter what religion, or lack thereof, we are born
into).  We grow up and either learn to understand and appreciate God,
or to ignore and deny him.

If you consider that all religions claim that God will reward His
followers and punish his transgressors, it is easy to come to the
previous conclusion about "being born with God in our hearts", at
least for the sake of absolute justice.  After all, how can we believe
in a God that chooses to guide certain people and neglect others,
before ultimately subjecting all to the same rewards/punishments?  So
in believing we all "instinctively believe in God", we are all born on
a level playing field, and from then on it's yours to lose.

Therefore, it would be quite necessary to also arrive to the
conclusion that it probably takes as much, if not more, effort to deny
the existence of God than to uphold it.  In this scenario, atheists
are actively denying God's existence, while believers are,
comparatively, just getting on with it.

I lay this before you only to urge those of you who state that atheism
is effortless, to really reconsider whether they are truly cruising
thru life with this philosophy, or find themselves constantly having
to rationalize events and find scientific or rational loopholes to
help set their minds at ease and be able to sleep better at night.

Indeed!  Many is the night I lie awake struggling with the perplexing
issue of exactly which is the best type of jam.

Please, folks, accept a respectful non-believer's opinion about it. I
used to strugle with the reasons to believe or not in my adolescense
-about 30 years ago- after a believing childhood, until I became a
non-believer, and then never had to worry about that again. I think
that the question "otherwise, what's the point?" is the key to
discriminate the esence of both points of view. For a non-believer
there's no point and no need for it, and that doesn't make life less
enjoyable at all, maybe it becomes even more enjoyable since they see
it as their only chance to enjoy it, for they wouldn't expect a next
life of any kind (heaven, hell, reencarnation, nirvana or whatever). A
non-believer does not believe that justice will necessarily prevail.
If this non-believer is also a good person will want justice to
prevail, but doesn't take for granted that this will happen. Thus, an
ethical non-believer is very likely to actively engage in actions to
support justice or other causes of their concern, for they think they
wont prevail by themselves.

I had a believing childhood. I think it was because I was born in a
believers' family who taught me to believe. My wife and I didn't do so
with our three kids. We didn't teach them not to believe either.
Actually, believing or not has never been an issue in our family at
all. They never became believers, and they're three happy and good
girls, who do well at school, enjoy life, and are nice to other people
and living things.

This is not an issue I usually care about, I just found interesting to
answer this question. And when I see a new post in a question that
I've answered, always take a look, and this time I felt like
commenting on it myself, just to express how a non-believer would see
this issue. Please note that I prefer the expression non-believer than
atheist for myself, because I do not state that believers are wrong:
all I mean is that I do not believe, that this doesn't prevent me from
being a good person, and that this brings me no insomnia. Actually,
I'm falling asleep ;-)
Good night ~