Is Atheism a religion?

[HarrassedDad]

My DW and I were debating this and thought we would ask all of you! The question stemmed from asking if Atheism is taught at schools during RE lessons (we think it should be).

I read a research project alst week that suggested jains suffered from a form of food phobia, it was interesting.

I agree about the morally reprehensible behaviour, but I ahye ot when eligion is used as an excuse, full stop. the religious tects I have read all seem to promote great things and visions of the world (remarkable similar ones too generally), what people do with that is another thing entirely, unfortunately. Islamic fundamentalism being a case i point- the Qur'an is an amzing text in itself.

I have had this problem at school too HD, and didn't get a great response when I went is to dicuss it. I think the main problem is that the 'powers that be' have made it their policy that all children should be brainwashed into believing in god because it makes their task of 'crowd control' easier. They do not wish for children to be atheists. In my experience, schools teach RE in exactly the way they wish. I get very angry about this. My children have consistently been made to feel odd because they don't believe in a higher being ( or the tooth fairy etc) Schools have overstepped the mark here, I'm afraid.

I have had the argument before DC about wars in the name of athiesm and I think it is a tough one to call. What you have described is persecution not war and they are different.

I am not sure that people shoudl be free to believe exactly what they wish either. If their belief system involves hurting others or taking their freedoms away they should be argued out of those beliefs.

One of the aspects of many relisioug beliefs I dislike is the notion that one set of people is better than another simply because they believe in something. It may be that one belief is more open to science or has led to someone living a moral and generous life but that doesnt actaully mean the person involved has more value than another.

I have no respect at all for followers of religion just because they believe in something but they should be free to believe in the tooth fairy, or God if that is what they want and so long as that does not put others down or get in the way of real life.

To me, the question of this topic begs another one, which is for what purpose you are defining a "religion" ?
Religions are granted all sorts of privileges, and of course are taught in "RE".
As Caterpiller says, various "powers that be"!, want to put people into nice neat groups. That's what they mean by multi culturalism. They don't mean diversity which is messy, but want people to toe the line of specific groups.

Yes I agree about hurtuing people, I did specify harm in my definition! Freedoms I sort of agree with, with the proviso that other peoples definitions are taken into account- for example many Islamic women genuinely believe they have greater freedom under (proper, not fundamental / Taleban / Warped versions of) Islam. Hinduism is a more complex one imo but even there actions such as Sati are being gradually resigned to history and are illegal. That needs to be taken into account I think (though how wou'd explain that case, in Western terms, where 2 women, both wives of a deceased Soldier (irc) and one heavily pg, fought each other in court for permission to commit sati is beyond me- it was a while ago though).

Peachy has a good point, it is often those we see as "oppressed" by religion who are most in favour of it. Only the morning I saw pictures on the TV of Iranian women protesting in favour of being made to wear "modest" dress.

There is a certain logic to their position.
In Britain, sexism is a nasty little vice that affects women's employment and education, but in most social situations, a man who tried it on would have a pretty hard time.

Not so, once you get outside N.America and Europe. Part of the "bargain" of women's rights in civilised countries is that they look out for themselves more. Women have defined roles in primitive societies like India or Iran, and as we saw in Ireland they fear that their "position" will be undermined and replaced by legal rights that they cannot enforce. Many Irish women feared that being granted the right to divorce would make things worse.
Rights emerged for women in places where they could rely upon the courts and police to enforce them (usually). Primitive societies don't have the rule of law, and won't enforce laws if they go against "custom and culture".
Ireland made the transition successfully because by the 1990s it's legal system was far less corrupt, partly because of coercion from the EU.

"primitive societies like India or Iran"?
Do you mean "the world's oldest major civilisations"?

Old does not mean advanced.
Botulism is far older than almost everything on the planet, apparently dating from before the evolution of photosynthesis, and older than most rocks on the Earth's surface.

I use the term "primitive" for societies that may be able to buy DVD players or missiles, but are unable to move beyond superstitious oppression of large chunks of their population, especially women.
Such societies can never be either fair or even efficient until they wise up. Iran and India are of course moving in opposite directions, even if they are at about the same level of evolution. Give it 50 years and India (or the states it breaks into) will be a pukka civilised region. Can't even guess what the culture of the survivors of Iran's dementia will be like.

India's cities are amazing and actually rather 'westernised' but most Indians don't live in sities.

I can't remember the exact figures (learned them for an exam last week) although remember they came from indiachild.org- its something like 70% on Indians live in the villages, 90% of whom have noaccess to sanitation, 70% to safe drinking water.
The diversity of the situation in India is immense.

Ancirent civilisations do not remain advanced necessarily- Baghdad was once one of the major seats of learning in the world with libraries and universities that spawned many of the discoveries that created the world we have today- now look at the place . In fact, there seems to be more of a cyclical thing going on in terms of major powers- countries go through a period of huge advancement (territotial included in some cases) but then new ones rise to take their place, it almost seems to be a sort opf adolescence that countries go through (America being a current case in point). It's never static though.

Iraq is indeed a particularly sad commentary upon the human race. It has the first human cities, and the first ecosystem destroyed by humans to such an extent that the cities died.

OHHHH not agaaaaaaaainn>>>>>>>>>!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHH!!
FOR THE LAST TIME. SHORT ANSWER.

NO. IT. BLOODY ISN'T.

Sorry, I haven't read the thread. That was just my short answer to the OP.

I shall now read what the rest of you good people have put.

Tinker - like your J Miller quote. I shall bag that one up and let it out at opportune moments! I also like Martin Amis's "The opposite of religious belief is not atheism or secularism or humanism. It is not an ?ism?. It is independence of mind?that?s all." (Although hasn't he moved away from atheism in recent years?...)

have not read the whole thread but athiesm is taught in schools, in the sense that we look at people like Bertrand Russell, richard dawkins and we try to look at an atheistic viewpoint. For example when we looked at the ten commandments we also dicussed what motivates people to behave in a "moral" way if they do not believe in god.

I also think that is you asked ten buddhists if they classed themselves as athiests you would get at least three different answers.

DC I really do wish you would come into work with me so you could see RE being taught properly before you make your sweeping statements

"But does RE talk of the torture carried out by religious groups including the Spanish inquisition ? Do kids get taught about how churches supported thge murder of kids in Norhern Ireland ? The legalised rape of women under Islam, and Hinduism ? The collaboration of the Catholic church with the Nazis ? The inherent racism of Zionist Judiaism ?"

All of that has ben covered this year in my RE classroom , the one in my shitty little underachieving comprehensive sink school that you have attacked previously as being of no worth and full of crap, thick lazy teachers.

Botulism is older than most rocks on the earth's surface?
I dunno where you get this stuff from, DC.

Botulism is anaerobic, oxygen kills it.
Given that the Earth's atmosphere cannot have had oxygen gas in it, the first life must have evolved in it's absence. Numbers vary a lot on when the first life evolved, but we are into the billions of years here. That makes anaerobic life older than many rocks.

UnquietDad that was one LOUD answer ;-)

Thanks everyone for some very interesting comments. I have finally purchased the book by Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and while it is not a light read by any means it is an interesting one.

I agree it is good for children to be taught about other cultures and ways of life, including religion. Since many of you say that athiesm is taught in RE, I feel more comfortable with the fact that RE lessons are compulsory (correct me if I am wrong!!) Perhaps it is a shame it is called RE?

I remain concerned that my kids are being indoctrinated. They go to a C of E school. Before anyone says "What do you expect if you send them to a Church School", well, there are no secular alternatives here. (Why are most schools 'C of E'? Historic legacy? Is this fair? Doesn't this reduce the ideal of Equal Opportunities for all irrespective of religion? Has this been taken to the European Court of Human Rights? I suspect that this is a whole new debate in itself!?)

So, if my kids are not getting told that there is a god etc etc in RE, then where is the indoctrination coming from? I know they are required to have a morning assembly, but surely this does not 'preach'? What is the accepted teaching practice for RE or assemblies?

What are my rights? Could I withdraw them from the source of the indoctrination?

Is it possible the indoctrination is unlawful or resulting from an over-zealous teacher?

Finally, one BIG concern I have. If our kids expressed religious doubts at school, or repeated things we have said when quizzed about god, could they be penalised or marginalised for it?? That is a serious concern!

Silly question- of course not.

Silly question- of course not.

It was a silly question 13 years ago when it was asked. hopefully she's realised that by now.

Its a belief about religion. There are schools of thought that add up to atheist belief systems. Humanism is about as
Close as atheists can get to organised religion. Church of the spaghetti monster gets honourable mention sometimes.

Some atheists seem to prefer to think they dont believe in something. They tend to get annoyed if you tell them that their absence of belief in God is the same as saying they believe (but have not proved) there is no God.