Why are atheism and agnosticism in the Religion PDF?

Roger Barrett2 said:What exactly are atheism and agnosticism doing in a PDF titled Religion?

This PDF—titled "Religion: Institutional Belief as a Core Theme"—covers atheism and agnosticism. But honestly, why on earth is it titled "Religion" and then tacked on with "institutional belief"? It feels completely off-base.

As for the whole debate surrounding the etymology of *religare*—honestly, I think we're just spinning our wheels here. There's really no point in even discussing it.

Siniša Zrinščak, What exactly is religion, and more importantly—what is its actual function? If we look at this through a sociological lens, we can move past the typical debates about faith and focus on how it actually operates within a society. Is it just a collection of shared myths? Or is it the very glue that keeps a community from falling apart? When you strip away the theology, you’re left with a complex system of symbols, rituals, and social structures that define how people relate to one another—and to the divine. From a sociological standpoint, religion isn't just about what people believe in their hearts; it's about how those beliefs manifest in their behavior and how they reinforce social cohesion. Does it provide a moral compass for the masses, or does it serve as a tool for maintaining the status quo? It’s a question worth digging into—not just as a matter of personal belief, but as a fundamental driver of human organization.It presents two distinct definitions of religion:

Of course, you’ll get different answers depending on which researcher you ask—that’s just how this works—but the most obvious path involves a substantive definition: the belief in a supernatural being and that specific sense of power and strength tied to it. This feeling of potency is inextricably linked to the concept of the sacred—that which stands in direct opposition to the profane. Therefore, believing in the sacred, or maintaining a distinct relationship with sacred objects, becomes the core pillar of any substantive definition. Because this approach aims for such surgical precision, its scope naturally expands to include institutions, rituals, beliefs, language, and symbols. It seems to strike at the very heart of what makes something religious, specifically through that concept of the sacred—the thing that draws a hard line between the religious experience and the mundane, separating the otherworldly from our everyday reality (p. 26).

Once again—if you dig through the literature—you'll find a massive variety of functionalist definitions out there. But here’s the catch: almost none of them actually touch on the creation of meaning or identity. For these theorists, the specific content of what people believe or how they practice their faith is secondary. What actually matters is the fallout—the actual impact religion has on the individual and society at large. We're talking about providing a framework to make sense of natural or social phenomena, creating a cohesive sense of purpose in life, or finding ways to transcend our basic biological limitations (p. 27).

Take a look at these next two links: Is there actually any logical basis for religious belief? If you dive into the FAQ section over at Atheism.com, you’ll find a pretty intense breakdown of the arguments surrounding faith and reason. It’s one of those deep dives that forces you to stop and think—really think—about whether we're clinging to ancient traditions out of habit or if there's some actual substance behind the claims. The core question remains: can faith ever truly stand up to rigorous scrutiny? Some argue that the existence of God is a matter of personal experience, while others—more skeptics, I suppose—insist that without empirical evidence, it all just falls apart. Is it enough to simply believe because it provides comfort? Or does that make the entire structure of religion inherently flawed from a logical standpoint? It's a debate as old as humanity itself, but reading through these perspectives makes you realize how much the conversation has shifted toward demanding more than just "because I said so." Does anyone actually have a rebuttal that doesn't rely on circular reasoning? It's worth looking into if you want to test your own convictions against some serious pushback.
i
What exactly counts as "religion"? It’s a question that gets tossed around constantly—usually by people trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand—but we rarely stop to actually define our terms before we start fighting about them. If you look at how most scholars approach the definition, it isn't just one simple thing. Is it a set of beliefs? A collection of rituals? A shared moral code? Or is it that deep, internal sense of connection to something greater than oneself? Depending on who you ask, you can make almost anything fit the description if you stretch the definition far enough. The problem is that when we use the word loosely, the entire debate loses its teeth. If we define religion too broadly, then everything from a die-hard sports fandom to a strict adherence to a diet becomes a "religion." But if we define it too narrowly—focusing only on organized institutions or specific deities—we miss the underlying psychological and social structures that drive human behavior. So, where do we draw the line? Are we talking about the institutionalized stuff—the cathedrals, the hierarchies, the official dogmas—or are we talking about the raw, fundamental impulse to find meaning in the chaos? Without a clear, rigorous definition, any argument about atheism versus faith is basically just people shouting different definitions at each other in the dark.

You’re going to see that atheism simply doesn't fit the definition of religion—it just doesn't. It lacks the fundamental components required to be categorized that way. Therefore, my proposal is... Can we please just change the PDF filename? Or maybe we should just strip atheism and agnosticism off this PDF entirely—since they don't even belong under the umbrella of Religion, let alone institutional belief?

If this thread doesn't belong under Religion, then move it over to PŽK.

We've already covered the definitions—religion, religiosity, atheism, and all that good stuff—in previous threads.

Changing the title of a PDF regarding religion isn't within the moderator's jurisdiction.
That’s why I’m moving this discussion over to the PŽK—where the people actually in charge can weigh in on your proposal.

Atheists probably wouldn't agree if we actually started talking about religion. But then you've got theists constantly insisting that atheism is just faith/belief in the nonexistence of God. Given that, it actually makes sense for most of the folks on this forum—who are mostly believers—to keep their religious views locked down in a PDF.

As for this whole "institutional belief" thing, isn't Dawkins basically acting as an "institution" by bringing all those atheists together? Are there any actual "atheist institutions" out there, maybe something on the level of Protagoras or the DIA? If so, then everything checks out.

Anthony Perez9 said:Atheists probably wouldn't agree if we were talking about religion—but then again, theists are constantly insisting that atheism is just faith in the nonexistence of God. If that's the case, isn't it reasonable to hold onto certain stances—stances that most of the folks here (who happen to be believers) consider religious—as a sort of PDF on religion?

As for this whole "institutional belief" thing—isn't Dawkins essentially his own kind of "institution" that gathers atheists together? Are there any actual "atheist institutions" out there, maybe something akin to Protagoras or the ACLU? If not, then everything seems perfectly fine.

I'm with you on this. 😲 😁

I have to share an answer I saw over on Yahoo once—it actually lines up perfectly with what I was thinking earlier. It’s pretty much spot on:

This isn't a "religious forum." Think of it more as a forum for discussing religious topics. Atheism is one of those topics. It’s specifically about a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, so any conversation involving atheism definitely fits right here in this section.

* This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum meant for discussing religious themes. Atheism is a subject under the umbrella of religion. It's the absence of belief in God, not the absence of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, which is why discussions about atheism belong in this category.

Brenda Cook4 said:I have to share an answer I saw on Yahoo—it was pretty much along the same lines as my own thought—and it goes something like this:

This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum for discussing religious topics. Atheism falls under that umbrella. It’s a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement; therefore, discussions about atheism belong right here.

* This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum for the discussion of religious topics. Atheism is a subject within religion. It is a disbelief in God, rather than a disbelief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, so any discussion involving atheism belongs in this section.

It’s been said a thousand times already, but there's no harm in repeating it...
there will always be newcomers and those who tend to forget quickly 😁

besides, doesn't religion infringe upon the rights of all people 🤷

Brenda Cook4 said:I really have to bring up an answer I saw once on Yahoo Answers—it was pretty much the same way I felt about this—and it goes something like this:

This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum designed for discussing religious topics. Atheism is one of those topics. It’s a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, so discussions regarding atheism definitely belong here.

* This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum for discussing religious themes. Atheism falls under that umbrella. It represents a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, which is why conversations about atheism fit perfectly in this section.

If that's the case, then they might as well just rename the whole subforum to Religious Forum or something along those lines.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue what atheism is actually attempting to accomplish within the context of this religion subforum. Generally speaking, it just seems to be an exercise in posturing and acting intellectually superior. If you ask me, the whole thing is a comedy. It becomes even more absurd when you consider that we even have atheists masquerading as religious types here, which only adds to the farce. Then again, life itself is frequently nonsensical, so perhaps this sheer absurdity is simply being mirrored in our dear little "religion" subforum.

I actually suggested last year that we categorize Religion into three distinct groups: atheism/agnosticism, Christianity, and Islam. I truly believe anyone with even a modicum of reason and an open mind will see this as the most logical way to organize things, especially since the majority of users on this particular forum tend to hold those specific worldviews.

hollowtrucker77 said:I said it then, and I will say it again: if you are looking for an echo chamber, feel free to go find a specialized forum where you can sit around and debate only with people who already agree with you.
We don't support ghettoization here on this forum.

Have you ever truly paused to consider what we actually mean when we use the term "specialized forum"? 🙂 What if the issue isn't actually with Religion itself, but rather something else entirely? 🙂

hollowtrucker77, whether we decide to distribute or split a PDF doesn't actually depend on my opinion or yours—though, if I’m being honest, I suspect you only care about your own! It really comes down to one thing: does sharing it this way make the discussion easier? We have to consider if it's practical for the members participating in the thread and, just as importantly, for the moderators who are working hard to maintain a healthy atmosphere here. 🤷

You don't necessarily need to split up the PDF subforums; in the grand scheme of things, that’s a minor detail to me. However, I find myself struggling because, as of now, there hasn't been a single rational or logical explanation provided as to why Religion shouldn't be divided into three separate PDF sections. It seems quite inconsistent when I see that the Alternative category actually has five (!) different PDFs. It makes me wonder why we have such an extensive number of subforums in other categories. Wouldn't it simply be more efficient to head over to a specialized forum if one wanted to discuss something like IT? Why is this the case? Not quite. Isolation and the discourse surrounding Religion—it is indeed an issue. 😲 ? 🙂

Please, go ahead—try to convince me that I'm wrong. 🙂

Steven Clark2 said:I suggested splitting Religion into atheism/agnosticism, Christianity, and Islam. I suppose anyone with a bit of sense and an open mind will realize that this is a natural way to categorize things, especially since most people on this forum tend to hold those specific worldviews.

True... though then everyone would just be shouting their own hallelujahs on their own separate boards in an endless loop. It’s better this way... together... much like how God saw fit to put us all in this world together. We all have our places. 😬

I am also curious why you are requesting a separate section for Muslims when we don't actually want that. If you were asking for a Christianity sub-forum, fine... I could understand that. You are a Christian, after all, and that would be your prerogative. But you aren't Muslim! So why are you pushing for a dedicated space meant only for them? That doesn't suit us. We don't feel the need to segregate ourselves, because we know the truth... :Pacman: we enjoy the crowds, the noise, the public squares, the forums... we've realized that things are simply more interesting that way, and it works well for us. 😁

That is my perspective, anyway. Does that imply I lack a bit of sense? 🙂

rowdyhawk10 said:Yeah... otherwise everyone just stays on their own little sub-forum, endlessly chanting their own hallelujahs in a closed loop.

It doesn't have to be limited to that; I could just as easily chant "allahu akbar" themes indefinitely. What’s the difference, really?

It is much nicer this way... together... Just as God intended for us to be in this world. Every part playing its role. 😬

You are absolutely right in principle, but when you start receiving 500 points for insulting Christians, Christian values, and traditions—which is exactly what you have done while receiving zero points—then I might begin to believe there is true justice here. Until then, I am not particularly convinced.

Then why are you asking for Islam to split off, claiming to speak for Muslims when we don't want that?

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you personally want or don't want. However, I do know two things: 1) You are not a representative Muslim who should be speaking for the community—in fact, you deviate so much from tradition that you have even less standing to speak on their behalf—and 2) there are certainly Muslims who wouldn't mind such a natural separation. About 25% of Muslims lead with Religion; anyone with half a brain can see there is nothing wrong with having a distinct section where Muslims hold the floor. Have you forgotten that your own forum is divided into multiple sections? 🙂

Fine, go ahead and request a Christianity sub-forum, okay... I understand. You are Christian, so you can ask for that. But you aren't Muslim! Why then are you requesting a separate space specifically for Muslims? We aren't interested in that. We don't prefer isolation; we know the truth... :Pacman: we love the crowd, the noise, the town squares, the forums... we've realized it's more interesting that way, and it suits us perfectly. 😁

Actually, I am not requesting anything. I simply stated that it isn't important to me at all, which stands in stark contrast to your fear of it happening. It seems you've exhausted your efforts with your missionary work and "lofty goals" on this forum—goals that, if I may remind you, involved insulting, mocking, sanctioning, and removing anyone who stood in your way, including Muslims whom you labeled as fanatics and extremists.

Well, that is my opinion. Does that mean I lack common sense? 🙂

It isn’t a matter of intellect. What you’re actually lacking is empathy, tolerance, and basic respect. So far, you haven't demonstrated any of those qualities—not in your role as a moderator, and frankly, not even just as a fellow forum member. I truly cannot wrap my head around who on earth appointed you to a moderator position there.