This article made me gag a bit....

I don't even want to glance at the comments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/non-believers-say-their-prayers-to-no-one/20...

Actually I though it very interesting. I regard much neopagan religion in this light: people don't believe the doctrines but crave the cosmological structure that religious observance gives to life, so they construct personal or small-group religions based on images taken from obsolete polytheistic or animistic religions. I think some Jewish atheists still observe certain ceremonials.

If it wasn't for the overwhelming false identification (especially in the USA) of "religion" with "theism", then more people might consider turning to non-theistic religious practices such as Tibetan Buddhism.

I see what you mean, but I thought it was interesting. Twelve-steppers have to figure out some way to deal with those "Higher Power" steps if they're going to work the program, and working the program does change lives (or rather, people change their lives by working the program). I'd say this guy had a pretty good solution for it, even if it's not one that many or most avowed atheists could accept.

What interested me the most was the part about the role of the imagination in religious practice. I was brought up in a suffocatingly religious environment, and nothing that we did was ever characterized as imaginative. Rather, it was all positioned as some aspect of the truth. In the years since I left that way of life, I've tended to see this pairing as a dichotomy: either it's true or it's imaginary. No one would have talked frankly about how imagination serves their idea of the truth. Perhaps it also serves my idea of the truth? I'll have to think about that.

The idea of praying to something you know isn't there also caught my attention. I wonder how many committed atheists would say (aloud or to themselves) things like "Please don't let it be me" on layoff day, or "Thank {something} he wasn't hurt" when there's been an accident, or "I'm so grateful" (to what or to whom?) when good fortune strikes. Aren't these unconscious prayers? How do we account for what seems to be a religious impulse in a state of extreme emotion or distress, when the rest of the time we believe that we have no such belief?

either it's true or it's imaginary

I heard Robert E. Kennedy (Catholic Zen master) talking about Shaw's Joan of Arc play: when they tell Joan that her divine messages are just her imagination, she replies, well, of course it's my imagination: that's how God speaks to us.

All it suggests to me is that there are a lot of Americans out there who haven't understand what the word 'atheist' actually means. Sure, this guy's routine gives him a way of focusing his will to change and if it works for him that's fine but praying involves a belief that the pray-er is talking to a god. If he doesn't believe he's doing that then it's just talking.

Incidentally, I know two people right now - and have known others in the past - who need help with addictions and are put off seeking that help because of the weight these 12-step programmes give to religion (even if many of them give it another name).

#3 I've given a lot of thought over the years to these thoughts we have of 'Please don't let it be me' and I've come to the conclusion that this really isn't the same thing at all as asking some entity to stop it being you. It's simply the way we put our feelings into words. Of course we wish it won't be us when these things happen but that has nothing to do with prayer unless we believe that someone/thing is listening to our words and is capable of acting on them. When I trip over the pavement I might well say 'Oh god!' but it's just an experession; I might equally yell 'Fuck me!' but -at that point, at least - it isn't a request.

5> The man in the article doesn't believe any gods exist, but he desperately wishes that one did. He prays "I know you are imaginary, but please be real", basically, according to the end of the article. That's incredibly sad to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is no longer an atheist in a few years.

Also, I agree about wishes and hoping not being prayers to godlike entities. "I'm so grateful I had the good luck..." doesn't mean I'm grateful to a god. It means I'm glad that chance turned in my favor this time. Thank my lucky stars and all that, yeah? Or maybe I'm thanking all the people whose small choices combined to work out well for me, even if they had no idea.

Our language and culture has been steeped in religion for a long time, so we're taught to express ourselves from a young age with stock phrases of a religious nature. That doesn't mean we necessarily have any prayerful inclinations. It just means that this is how we've been acculturated.

I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective. I'm a churchgoing atheist (UU), in a church where belief in a deity or deities is neither required nor frankly considered terribly interesting - some do, some don't, we don't talk about it much. When I think of prayers from skeptics I think of the pastor at my former church, also an atheist, and of things like this, which basically says "God, it's a good thing you don't exist, because you'd have a lot to answer for if you did." I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to formulate meditation and contemplation as prayer, even though I personally don't find it useful.

There's always the agnostic's blessing from Creatures of Light and Darkness

"Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen."

What Booksloth said. An expression of hope or a wish doesn't mean you've suddenly, and for the space of that instant, found religion.

I'm leery of what mixing language might do to clarity of thinking. In another thread people talk about "religious atheism"--to me an obvious laughable oxymoron. I understand why we might see sometimes claims that atheism is a "religion" (usually coming from those hostile to atheism), but I draw the line at having it redefined as religion. No, let's not kill useful words, we need a term for rejection of belief in deity.

I don't mind if someone thinks that my "please please let there be a streetcar" at 8 AM is like a prayer, but I would mind if they concluded, on the basis of that, that I was "religious".

#5, #9 Have you read Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh? The question of whether imprecations count as prayer eventually becomes central to the narrative.

#10 Yes, I love that book, as I love many works of fiction that have religion as a central premise, but it makes the assumption - as do all of Walsh's books - that a god of some kind exists and that simply isn't an assumption that I could ever agree with. That doesn't stop it being a great story though, any more than the non-existence of fairies stops many ancient tales being great fun.

#9 I'm also baffled by this expression 'religious atheist' since, in my book, an atheist is someone without religion - or, at least, without a god, which I'd have said, amounts to the same thing. I guess everyone has the right to call themsleves whatever they want but to take words that are commonly understood as meaning one thing and turn them on their heads to mean their opposite seems to me to be pointless and deliberately misleading. And as far as those 'prayers for atheists' are concerned, if they are being said then presumably the person articulating them believes someone is listening or what would be the point? Just as there are many atheists who don't feel comfortable calling themselves that, I guess there are still plenty of believers who just don't want to admit that they believe. If you truly believe there's nothing there you don't converse with him/her/it, even ironically.

in my book, an atheist is someone without religion - or, at least, without a god, which I'd have said, amounts to the same thing

That's exactly the discussion I've been having at Let's Talk Religion. It is a common assumption, especially in the US, that religion and theism are the same thing: but it's quite untrue. Several strands of Eastern religion do not require the existence of God or gods, and I believe some Western pagans acknowledge the imaginary nature of their deities. Members of organizations such as the UU church or the Religious Society of Friends do not have to believe in the existence of God; in fact, some Anglicans/Episcopalians are also in this position, though it is controversial.

#12 And that makes perfect sense too. However, the Buddhists (for example) whom I know all insist that Buddhism 'isn't really a religion, it's a way of life'. Perhaps that's a bit of a cop-out as I guess most people who have a religion consider it to be their way of life but I can see what they mean.

My COED desrcibes religion as '1. The belief in a supernatural 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.' (I assume/hope, that for our purposes we can discard the view that it can also be 'a thing that one is devoted to eg. football.)

Judging by that it seems that the central tenet is worship, rather than a particular god and it is incomprehensible to me how one can worship without that worship being directed towards an entity of some kind.

Nonetheless, it appears we may all have very different ideas of what constitutes a religion and it would be interesting to hear the views of people who consider themsleves to follow a religion that does not have a god or gods at its centre on what exactly makes that a religion. Admittedly, I can get very irritable when discussions of religion turn into discussions of semantics but perhaps in this case we need to clarify what exactly we are talking about.

Buddhism isn't really a religion, it's a way of life

You get evangelical Christians saying that too. You don't need religion: just read your bible and walk with Jesus every day.

Religion, in John Crook's model, is the organizing scheme of meaning that we project on to the cosmos. If your belief system is monistic or pantheistic, then any worship you may wish to engage in is not directed at a personal god. If you detach "religion" and "belief in God", then you can assess aesthetic and spiritual experiences of many kinds as "religious". To say that science is some people's religion is probably not an exaggeration: it is the organizing scheme that provides meaning and purpose to their lives, and they commit their personal resources to it. For others it's football, though I think you have to have a fairly impoverished spirit to find your main solace in that.

The key feature of religion in the broad sense is perhaps not worship but a combination of moral observance and shared ritual or ceremonial. This would include, for example, masonic rites, which disavow the label of religion, but mainly because of the exclusivist claims of the Christian churches to which most masons historically belonged. There is a widespread assumption (supported by religious authorities) that you cannot adhere to more than one religion at the same time, though a number of pioneering souls attempt to do exactly that.

This may seem to blur the line between religious and spiritual: I think the distinction is the element of shared heritage or communal involvement.

You get evangelical Christians saying that too. You don't need religion: just read your bible and walk with Jesus every day.

But it's not the same statement at all. Evangelical Christians are theists, and not all Buddhists are.

The Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists I've worked with had opinions and attitudes nothing like the shrine-hoppers. One mentioned the awkwardness of having it seen as "religion", where explanations were difficult (among outsiders).

The meaning of "religion" may continue to evolve, but for now I'd say it is still firmly wedded to theism in popular understanding, enough so that confusions are irritating.

Should every assembly of people who follow some activity or interest in common, and have some things they traditionally do together according to some ritual be seen as "religious"? I just don't see the point of such usage.

My church's liturgy does refer to god(s), but our creed doesn't. We don't police consciences and we welcome the participation and membership of avowed atheists. Even as clergy, I often find myself more intellectually sympathetic to atheists than theists. After all, There is no god but man. And:

To you who yet wander in the Court of the Profane we cannot yet reveal all; but you will easily understand that the religions of the world are but symbols and veils of the Absolute Truth. So also are the philosophies. To the adept, seeing all these things from above, there seems nothing to choose between Buddha and Mohammed, between Atheism and Theism. (Liber Porta Lucis: 19)

From Why are You Atheists So Angry? by Greta Christina: The thing that uniquely defines religion is belief in supernatural entities. Without that belief, It's not religion.

That's a definition I feel pretty comfortable with, though I'm sure many would argue. To me, religion is about believing in magic. Without belief in magic you just have ordinary events and I would argue that anyone who claims their religion doesn't include supernatural elements is not talking about what the majority of people would define as a religion. What, in that case, makes it a religion?

It also seems fairly reasonable to me to say that atheists don't believe in magic. That's not to claim that this disbelief is the central point of atheism (that is a disbelief in one particular form of magic) but it's probably a fairly major element of it. Doubtless there are people out there who don't believe in gods but believe in fairies but I suspect that is just something they cling to from their childhoods because it's a cute idea, not because they actually genuinely believe such things really exist. Anyone here who disbelieves in god but genuinely believes in fairies is free to challenge me on that one.

>17 Booksloth: atheists don't believe in magic

That would be real magic ?

I've posted this before, but once again I'm reminded of a Daniel Dennett lecture in which he quotes Lee Siegel when he was writing Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India : "I'm writing a book on magic," I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. "No," I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic". Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic".

:)

Ie, the magic that actually exists.

#18 JB - I've just opened this one up in the Skeptics group (http://www.librarything.com/topic/155893). Would love to get your input there too.

> 18

Net of Magic is a terrific book.