Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

Philosphy Forum ^ | FR Post 12-6-2003 | "A Sloth"

[WackyKat]

Someone who asserts that a thing exists has the burden of proof; atheists don't have to prove anything

[wizardoz]

That is the worst attempt at logic I have ever seen.

[green iguana]

"There's something that we human beings can do that God cannot do. We can do evil."

I would contend that sending a good person to eternal damnation in Hell just he didn't believe in you is evil.

[highlander_UW]

Someone who asserts that a thing exists has the burden of proof; atheists don't have to prove anything

Simply stating that over and over does not make it so. Statements, both positive and negative require a burden of proof. In the case of atheists claiming there is no God they still retain the burden of proof for that definitive statement. You simply are making this claim because you do not wish to admit the obvious, which is you can only base your statement upon faith...and it galls you.

[Liberal Classic]

The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question How can we eat? the second by the question Why do we eat? and the third by the question Where shall we have lunch?
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[GETMAIN]

We say, "there is a God, and we know Him personally." If we know Him, we can logically say He exists.

Hi Greek. This is kind of tangential to your post, but I hope you (and anyone else who's interested) won't mind indulging me in the following (it's been a few years since I've looked at philosophy, so I'm not going to do the syllogism thing):

To positively affirm that the God of the Bible exists because you know Him, does this not imply one of the following :

(a) The God that you know is finite, as opposed to the omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God of the Bible. In fact, His limits coincide exactly with yours or are circumscribed by your limits.

(b) You are omniscient, if not also omnipotent and omnipresent along with God?

If you do not possess omniscience yourself, then how can you affirm that the God that you know is the same God, limitless in His knowledge, power and presence, to Whom you devote your Worship? If you are going to "logically say" that you know Him, must you not also admit the caveat that the entity which you know could possibly be a lesser entity than the almighty God of the Bible? To truly know that something is without limits, the knower must be without limits himself, or he must admit that the "knowee" could possibly have limits at some point beyond his (the knowers) own limits.

[Michael81Dus]

Atheism is a danger, that´s for sure.

[highlander_UW]

I would contend that sending a good person to eternal damnation in Hell just he didn't believe in you is evil.

and I would contend that is your personal value judgement which is not binding on reality or truth.

You also begin to work from a false belief to arrive at your incorrect conclusion. Prove people are "good", or more specifically, in relation to God's standards since He's the one that does the measuring.

[wizardoz]

First of all, you need to learn to format.

Secondly, you missed the ENTIRE POINT. The point is, no definition of "God" makes any sense. It's inherently paradoxical. The paradox is not solved by saying, Oh, don't worry, God won't let it be paradoxical in practice.

It doesn't matter how this hypothetical God would "solve" the paradox. You're making up a personality to with a God that can't even exist in the first place in hopes "He" can argue away the paradox. That's sophistry.

Let me just stop there and ask if you understand me so far.

[Sockdologer]

Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?,

Waaiit. You're a religion?

[green iguana]

I'm talking about a theoretical person who is good by all of God's standards except that he does not believe in God. Think MOther Theresa except she did all that she did becuase of her burning desire to help humanity and not because of a belief in God.

[miloklancy]

Further evidence that some Christians don't know how to read their dictionaries. The definition you have provided, does not in any shape or form allow for the atheist. I guess I can't expect much from someone who's God apparently has given them the right to determine who is a conservative and who is a liberal. And furthermore faith is your vehicle for explaining your world, not mine. I use my perceptions and the empiricism of science to explain the world.

[WackyKat]

No, you are projecting onto me exactly the illogic you are using

If I claim that Saturn is ruled by a society of giant purple hamsters, and you disagree, who has the burden of proof, me or you?

It's obvious, isn't it?

[Question_Assumptions]

Atheists love to point out that you can't prove a negative when they demand that religious folks prove the existence of God. That may be true, but the absence of proof is also not proof of an absence. When an atheist asserts that there is absolutely no God, then they, too, are making a positive assertion that they know for certain that there is no God. An agnostic, which allows for either the existence or non-existence of God, is the only one able to claim that they are not making a positive assertion about the existence of God.

[miloklancy]

As an atheist I agree that the ACLU is discriminating against Christians and recognize the fact that this country was founded by Christians. I also don't think that the influence that Christianity has had on our system is necessarly bad. However I hope Christians would appreciate my right to have no religion. Also I'm not too concerned with Under God being put in public places.

[Loc123]

There are some self-sustaining (read: never provable or disprovable) NOTIONS and obscure mathematical POSSIBILITIES that there need not be a Creator. These are fringe and widely unsupported, however. This is especially the case for the multiverse fantasy.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I never advocate becoming complacent with our knowledge on the universe's origins. It is just honest and accurate to state the universe was created.

Besides, my statement about the 1st law (Law of Conservation) stands for all evidenced phenomenae. hypothetical realms without any evidence what-so-ever can only bypass this with ignorance/avoidance.

[Dataman]

You also begin to work from a false belief to arrive at your incorrect conclusion. Prove people are "good", or more specifically, in relation to God's standards since He's the one that does the measuring.

Good point. It is also worth noting (as CS Lewis illustrated in The Great Divorce) that God doesn't send any humans to hell. We choose our own destiny while we are alive on this earth.

Where we can observe this cruel behavior is in atheistic utopias where those who choose to believe in God are given menial jobs, used for experimentation, confined to mental institutions and have their children taken away. Here in America we are treated to blackballing by college professors like Dini, called intolerant and ridiculed. Therefore those same atheists who complain about their strawman God who sends people to hell, themselves punish or desire to punish those who reject their baseless presuppositions. That's called hypocrisy by some, evil by others.

[miloklancy]

The jury is still out Buddhism. In some ways it can be construed as polytheistic. However the higher power as a concept in Buddhism and the Judeo-Christian tradition are markedly different.

[WackyKat]

I would contend that sending a good person to eternal damnation in Hell just he didn't believe in you is evil.

Me, too. But some people on this forum seem to take great pleasure in the idea of "sinners" being tortured forever.