Is it possible to have no religion?

[xJesterx]

Lots of people claim to have no religion. So my question is this: is it humanly possible to have no religion?

Definition of religion: Oxford dictionary definition (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life." (Hubbard, 1994). [1: theology ] Definition of God: (1) The word which is used to describe the supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and all there is (2) Supreme and/or all-powerful being(s) of a particular religion. Can be male or female or neither or both.

So taking these definitions into account, can we say that there really is such thing as no religion?

[Cephus]

I have no religion whatsoever, unless you expand the definition of religion to such a degree that *ANYTHING* is a religion. Unfortunately, the non-theistic definition you give borders on that. It makes philosophy a religion. It makes any kind of rational thought a religion, simply because rational thought is required to make sense of the human condition. In the end, the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

With any rational, credible definition of religion, I am utterly a-religious.

[Jack]

"Such a thing as no religion"? What you ask about isn't a thing, a physical entity. It's a state of mind, a perspective, a frame of reference.

Do you like dogs? Every encounter between you and any dog will be affected by that bias. It's a filter through which you view reality. Religion is a filter. Not having a religion, or any belief in religions, but still believing in the supernatural is a filter. Not believing in gods or anything to do with them is also a filter, but one in which the gaps are huge. We even listen to nonsense. It gives us a chance to elaborate on our views. It appears at least two of us here can live without superstitions

[Kuldeep]

Not making the word religion complicated I could understand from OP that xJesterx wants simply to know could a world social system exist without any of the known religions.

My straight forward answer is a big NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The main reason is society's deep roots of beliefs in some or the other system. But with help of rationality and un-biased mind world's humanity could have humanity as the universal religion since, nobody would have difficulty to agree that we all are human only.

[another day]

Quote by: Kuldeep Not making the word religion complicated I could understand from OP that xJesterx wants simply to know could a world social system exist without any of the known religions. My straight forward answer is a big NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The main reason is society's deep roots of beliefs in some or the other system. But with help of rationality and un-biased mind world's humanity could have humanity as the universal religion since, nobody would have difficulty to agree that we all are human only.

You misinterpreted. He means can an individual truly have no religion even if they claim they don't.

The answer of course is yes, they can have no religion. Unless you trivialize the word religion so that it applies to anything, then yes you can have no religion. I have no religion. I attend no church, believe in no dogma or scripture, do not believe in a humanized creator (ie: god), etc.

Some people might say I have a religion and claim that my scripture is scientific documents and my spiritual leaders are scientists etc. This is of course, bollocks, and is an example of trivializing the word religion so that it can apply to totally irrelevant things.

I remember we had a big discussion a while back where people tried to prove that Atheism was a religion by using those tactics. Of course, atheism is not a religion unless mathematics is a religion, and altruism is a religion.

[Kuldeep]

Thanks for your input and explanation therein. I feel xJesterx meant both, who would tell us better. But then, what you said is absolutely perfect; science can never be termed as conventional religion. Surely, individual can exist without faith in any religion but not the world humanity or community.

[WakeTFU]

no, because 'religion' is a fance way of saying 'explaining things we don't understand'.

[shield772]

Religion is not a belief in a higher power/creator/deity that is belief/faith, religion is the practices of worshiping the entity you have faith/belief in, and I am all against organized religion.

[danoz]

I think what Jester was trying to ask (and Jester is a 'she' by the way) was pretty much what you have said. Whether Atheism could infact be considered a religion. If you are an Atheist, then you obviously dont believe in a God or a supernatural entity. In which case - you do not believe in 'religion' and so cannot be considered as 'religious' or having a 'religion'

[CrochityOldMan]

I think it is fairly obvious that one can chose not to be affiliated with any official religion; it is also obviously possible for one to reject the existence of any god. I think the real question at hand is: is it possible to believe in anything without faith? Even the philosopher David Hume (who was an atheist and an empiricist) believed that faith was necessary to understand the world. His two principle beliefs were: he would only believe anything that could A) be empirically proven, or B) something that was true by definition (I e 2+2=4 or a=b b=c then a=c.) However he admits that empirical evidence is based on faith as well as inductive reasoning. The reason inductive reasoning is based on faith is because it is impossible to defend inductive reasoning without using inductive reasoning. I.E. if all the swans you have seen are white then you inductively conclude that all swans are white. However when you try to defend this approach the only argument that has been given is: inductive reasoning has worked in the past so it will work in the future. But this it is using inductive reasoning. Faith it seems is necessary to function as a scientist or as a pope. The point here is that many people become atheists because they want to avoid having to use faith in there systems of beliefs. Yet this only appears to work because faith is necessary for practically any belief.

[xJesterx]

The definitions I gave were dictionary definitions that didn't single out a solitary religion. Which most definitions I found did.

I'm saying - what constitutes a religion? You have god/s which are supposed to give you guidelines and/or dictate the way you should live your life. You have subordinate 'authorities'. Then you have rules, consequences for breaching those rules and rewards for abiding by them. You are generally expected to tell other people about the religion/faith or 'enlighten' them if you prefer. These qualities are also to have been responsible for the creation of the universe yet there is only ever limited evidence that it/he/she/they were. And most if not all religions predict the destruction of mankind. Since things are worshipped in various religions as well (not just immortal or invisible beings) - a God can also be physical.

Add to this if I've missed anything - but this raises the question whether it's possible to have no religion at all or whether we are just slapping new names on old theories.

[The Architect]

I believe that saying that there is no higher power is arrogant and i dont like putting blind faith into something that may not exist, im stuck in the middle.

[Jack]

The point here is that many people become atheists because they want to avoid having to use faith in there systems of beliefs.

In my case I would tweak that slightly so as to read, "The point here is that many people become atheists when they can no longer accept religious faith as a system of belief."
There is generic faith and religious faith. Hume realized that we all operate on a certain level of faith but religious faith is a whole different animal.

[1slam]

people whom call themselves atheists are a "organized religious group" because they all identify themselves in a certain matter and share the same beliefs.

[Jack]

So being a man is a religious belief, do men constitute a religion because they all identify themselves in a certain matter (they're men) and share the same beliefs (we all believe we're men).
Atheists share one, single opinion in common; there are no gods. Beyond that there are all kinds of disagreements on other matters. Some even accept the supernatural but don't believe in a god. They're still atheists.

[xJesterx]

Okay, lets leave the label of atheist alone for a minute and just think of people with the atheist viewpoint Isherwood mentioned of 'there are no gods' as individuals. Wouldn't they still, by default be following a religion? A buddhist is still a buddhist if he/she isn't part of a community of buddhists so a communal following wouldn't be required.

Although those people would honestly think they believe that there are no gods - is that a viewpoint they can take or is the real belief that they don't believe in the current gods depicted by mainstream religions. It seems that they would be following the same system that qualifies a religion as a religion. So then what makes them not a religion?

Some people might say I have a religion and claim that my scripture is scientific documents and my spiritual leaders are scientists etc. This is of course, bollocks, and is an example of trivializing the word religion so that it can apply to totally irrelevant things.

Just thought I'd ask because this is the viewpoint that the whole debate was started for. What qualifies a religion in your eyes? In post 11 I put down my opinion on what a religion would require to be a religion. Is there anything you would take out and/or add which would therefore support your statement that science as a religion is 'bollocks', and if so why?

[zynner]

A-theism is the natural state of things.

One has to become indoctrinated to accept a religion.

~ zynner

[xJesterx]

So you're saying they have to be taught their religion for them to be part of a religion? In which case they are, the methods of teaching are just less segregated from everyday life than mainstream religions.

If atheism is the natural state of things then why does it exist at all? I mean, if it was the natural state of humanity then there would have been no requirement to invent religion. Then again if you believe that religion was invented to assist in the development of 'civilisation' (apostrophes make me happy) then atheism would have been the original state rather than the natural state since the natural state of humanity required theism to evolve.

(stupid question: is there a difference between a-theism and atheism (minus the dash) I've seen it a couple of times now and airhead that I am, it's confusing me)

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: xJesterx Okay, lets leave the label of atheist alone for a minute and just think of people with the atheist viewpoint Isherwood mentioned of 'there are no gods' as individuals. Wouldn't they still, by default be following a religion? A buddhist is still a buddhist if he/she isn't part of a community of buddhists so a communal following wouldn't be required. Although those people would honestly think they believe that there are no gods - is that a viewpoint they can take or is the real belief that they don't believe in the current gods depicted by mainstream religions. It seems that they would be following the same system that qualifies a religion as a religion. So then what makes them not a religion?

I think the definition you used shows how people who do not believe in gods cannot be seen as having a religion:

"1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship.

Obviously, if one does not believe in a superhuman controlling power, then one is disqualified here.

2 the expression of this in worship.

This relies both on the belief that is lacking, and a worship that would almost certainly be lacking, as well.

3 a particular system of faith and worship."

This doesn't relate to an individual.

Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings.

If the essence of religion is belief in spiritual beings, then one who does not believe in spiritual beings is not religious.

As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life." (Hubbard, 1994). [1: theology ]

This is the only one which seems problematic when taken by itself: a system of beliefs and practices by means of which people struggle with the ultimate problems of human life could describe religion, or science, or society, politics, philosophy, art -- anything a group of humans use to deal with life.

However, this is a continuation of the first half of the definition; the first clause of that last quote, "As it relates to the world," connects this to the sentence before, in which religion was described as a belief in spiritual beings; religion is used to describe any system of beliefs and practices by which people struggle with the ultimate problems of life through their understandings of spiritual beings.

And that would be my definition of religion: the set of beliefs that a person uses to try to understand the world through their understanding of spiritual beings, of higher powers, of the superhuman power controlling the universe. Without that element, the element of spiritual belief, the word religion does not apply. Thus any person who does not hold a belief in spiritual beings is not religious.

To answer your question about whether or not it is possible for a person to not believe in any gods, yes. I don't believe in any gods.

[zynner]

Quote by: xJesterx If atheism is the natural state of things then why does it exist at all?

That seems to me like saying, "If nudity is the natural state of things, then why does nudity exist at all?" It's because we take our clothes off! lol

I mean, if it was the natural state of humanity then there would have been no requirement to invent religion.

There have always been -- and will always be -- questions about the world around us. We are curious. The scientific method helps us answer questions. Today, we know what the Moon is like. Ten thousand years ago, they had to guess.

Gods were imagined as a way to explain the world when humans had no other way. Think about how important the scientific method is and realize that for most of human history, humans did not know how to find out information.

In the Middle Ages, a person suspected of theft would be forced to put his hand into a pot of boiling water and pull out a stone. His hand would be horribly burned. If it later became infected (no such thing as medicine in those days) then he was "guilty" of the crime!

Since there was no way to figure out things, they just made them up. Today, we have a system of justice, which includes such concepts as habeus corpus, trial by jury, cross-examination of witnesses, evidencial proceedure, etc. (BTW, these are things George Bush needs to learn, since he is a deluded mystic in the worst sense of the term -- it's why he does not uphold the principles of justice and why he's willing to abuse people as the theists of the Middle Ages did.)

Religion played a huge role in this attempt to explain the world when no other means was available. It also served the purposes of those who wanted power over other people. Control the people's minds and you can control their actions.

But all of that is made up nonsense. The reality is that we are all born without a religion. We have to be taught to believe in gods and religions. That's why most of the Christians are in one part of the world, most of the Muslims in another part, the Hindus in another part, etc. Each culture teaches their own brand of mysticism and sheep-following ideology.

(stupid question: is there a difference between a-theism and atheism (minus the dash) I've seen it a couple of times now and airhead that I am, it's confusing me)

No, just a way of emphasizing the prefix "a," which means without (as in, without theism, or lacking a belief in god).

~ zynner