Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

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

[vannrox]

This is a subject near to my heart and my own spiritual journey, and I'd like to discuss it with as many intelligent minds as possible as I ponder it. It seems to me as though the most basic, intrinsic aspect of a religious philosophy is faith. I have been talking to a lot of Christians lateley, so I'm not sure if that is the prevailing veiw among people of other persuasions. Anyways, it seems to me as though a religion can really be boiled down to beliving that it is THE answer, and it seems to me as though atheism is no exception.

But this is where I came to realize there many different brands of thought given the title of Atheist, each with their own twists. Here are some categories that i have run across, and my opinion(just roll with me on this one):

Spiritual Atheists Some people claim to be "spiritual" but not "religious," disavowing belief in a god persay in favor of just not thinking about the issue. It sounds just lazy to me. They get the "all good people go to heaven" feeling without defining good, heaven, or even feeling itself. This may work for some, but it seems to lack any real thought into the matter.

Non-Practicing Atheists And there are the "Catholics" like my parents who dont buy a word the church says, but are so afraid of what it means to be atheist that they desperately cling to a religion that offers them no real meaning.

Deist Atheists Some people use Atheism to describe a sense of disbelief in the major established world religions, which to me sounds like it could still be a throwback to the deism of the 18th century. Basically it can be summed up as: There is some kind of god, hes a pretty decent guy, dont be an ass and everything will turn out ok somehow, once again, a little too lazy for me.

Orthodox Atheists Then there are the Atheists so absolutly steadfast in their disbelief in god that they would have made an excellent Christian in another life (THAT's an interesting turn of phase!). They dont buy the proof that the various religions offer, but the seem to narrowmindedly rule out any possiblities except absolute soulless oblivion. I have a friend like this, and i have yet to figure out how he can 100% FOR SURE rule out a higher power of any type...

Agnostics This is the only one that really makes sense to me. I mean, maybe there's a god. Probably not one of the big religion's vengeful, mythical "gods" with their spotty and doubtfully accurate "historical records," I doubt reincarnation that doesnt work well with the increasing entropy of the universe, and the evidence for it is even less credible than the rest ... But prove to me god's not just hiding...

Thats where i'm at right now. I would appreciate any input, even religious propaganda. I want to know the truth, even if it means the complete destruction of my current schema for faith.

I would even go so far as to recommend two such books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith, to anyone who is openminded enough to consider Christianity. I almost bought into it after reading those, but to me, there are still holes (i'll probably talk about those later) If your already Christian, they will strengthen your faith, and if not, they will rock your world...

[highlander_UW]

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.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

You're attempting to create something that doesn't exist. You might find Jonathan Edwards an interesting read. Let me know if you'd really be willing to do it and I'll provide a suggested selection.

[Skywalk]

Well, depends on what Buddhism you're talking about. There certainly are god-like figures in Mahayana Buddhism.

In Theravada(likely the older of the sects) one still reveres the Buddha on the level of a prophet, at least.

Creation story? Well, weird but they do have one. The world was a plane of existence of ethereal spirits flying around in a void but with a flat world of a kind of cream. As they flew around they would come down and touch this fluid/gel/cream. The more they did this the more solid both they and the world became.

But I believe there might be other creation stories in Buddhism. I always thought that one was really weird.

[Loc123]

Do you attend UW-Madison?

I ask because I do and know of the Highlander.

[highlander_UW]

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

I don't recall seeing anyone evidencing pleasure at the fate that awaits some, nor does the word torture make an appearance in the Bible rather less in relation to hell. So if you're going to fabricate your own version of Christianity as a strawman I'd prompt you to consider what the actual point would be.

[Loc123]

Without a God, then there is no "good."

And if hypothetical person does happen to do the Lord's good works, but does so for a neurochemical reward, then they are being hedonistic and unworthy of re-integrating with a logical Creator.

[k2blader]

Yep, atheism is a religion. Check out any crevo thread.

[highlander_UW]

Further evidence that some Christians don't know how to read their dictionaries.

Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun Date: 1571 : one who denies the existence of God

Seems very clear to me. Care to try again?

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.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest or self-deceived.

[Skywalk]

Interestingly, Jesuits coming into contact with Buddhism called it a "Satanic counterfeit" because it bore such a resemblance to Christianity, and Buddha to Jesus. Mahayana definitely has a strong resemblance.

Of course, Budda was around about 5 centuries prior to Jesus.

Interestingly, both Buddha's and Confucius' births have mythical Christ-like(or perhaps Christ has a Buddha-like) similarities.

It is theorized(of course, not by believing Christians) that some of the contact between East and West, a continuous development for centuries, led to a synthesis of the MidEastern religious traditions, mystery religions and Buddhism which we call Christianity.

[xzins]

It all hinges on ones definition of religion, IMO.

And it hinges on whether other reasonable persons see atheism as a faith.

[WackyKat]

Creation story? Well, weird but they do have one. The world was a plane of existence of ethereal spirits flying around in a void but with a flat world of a kind of cream. As they flew around they would come down and touch this fluid/gel/cream. The more they did this the more solid both they and the world became.

Buddhist cosmology came much later; the Buddha himself refused to answer any questions on metaphysical topics

[highlander_UW]

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?

Yes, it's obvious, the one making the definitive claim, which in this case is you claiming a hamster society on Saturn. As far as the real discussion, since it's atheism making the definitive claim there is no God, then the burden is on atheism to back up their definitive claim...very clear. So, where's your proof?

[WackyKat]

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.

Lewis was just full of nonsense.

Who created hell?

Who set the rules for who goes to hell?

Who decides how long someone stays in hell?

Who decides what happens in hell?

The answer would be God in every case.

[highlander_UW]

Do you attend UW-Madison? I ask because I do and know of the Highlander.

Nope, sorry. University of Washington (UW)alum.

[Skywalk]

Now, would this be the same God who invented the physical form in which evil can take place(hard to harm a non-corporeal entity,) viruses, natural disasters, disease, aging and death?

Who is he to judge us? He made us imperfect then says we all fall short of his standard?

What standard? By definition he created evil.

Another larger philosophical question: How can a timeless, non-corporeal being that cannot be harmed and has something bordering on omniscience have a moral code?

Morality springs from MORTALITY, it springs from imperfect knowledge and corporeal forms being the reality of existence. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing are all incapable of being committed by non-corporeal, nearly omniscient beings(or at least those able to see through truth)

So how can God be described as all-good and all-loving? How is it he is attributed these qualities but not the negative traits that humanity has in spades? And how is it that so much of our negative traits are a result of our specific relation to certain apes? Meaning, prestige/power relationships are an intimate part of chimp and gorilla societies but maybe not so for other species.

[RinaseaofDs]

Sorry, but I have to say that you are incorrect.

Atheism is a belief that there is no God. A belief in the non existence of God mandates the belief that there is alternate explanations for everything else in nature.

Regardless, religion is a system of beliefs anchored in central tenants. The central tenant of Atheism is that God does not exist.

For Atheists to be offended at the suggestion of a supreme being by having religiously affiliated memorials and statues on public property requires an investment both emotionally and intellectually in wanting others to be like-minded.

As such atheists are capable of active proselytizing just like people in other belief systems. Belief in God doesn't define whether someone is religious. What about Hindus, Satanists, Gaiaists? When an atheist demands the removal of the Ten Commandments from a court house, he or she is asking the state to honor their belief system to the exclusion of all others.

[highlander_UW]

It all hinges on ones definition of religion, IMO. And it hinges on whether other reasonable persons see atheism as a faith.

Although, wouldn't one call a definitive view adopted without the ability to prove it one that by definition would require it being taken on "faith"?

[Skywalk]

See my post for the question I have NEVER heard answered by a theist--excuse me, a theist who believes in the predominant concept of a Father-in-Heaven.

[WackyKat]

Yes, it's obvious, the one making the definitive claim, which in this case is you claiming a hamster society on Saturn. As far as the real discussion, since it's atheism making the definitive claim there is no God, then the burden is on atheism to back up their definitive claim...very clear. So, where's your proof?

That you can admit that one who claims the existence of an entity has the burden of proof, then in the next sentence deny that those who claim the existence of God have the burden of proof, shows that you are incapable of providing a rational defense of your belief in God

[Dataman]

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.

The paradox doesn't really exist. The original question, "Could God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" contains the following flaws:

1) The object in question is a rock. Why a rock? Why not glass fruit? Because rocks are supposed to be heavy. Where are rocks heavy? In a gravitational field. Therefore the question likely assumes the rock is in the earth's gravitational field. Since God created the universe and all that is in it including the earth, it is unlikely that a rock smaller than the universe and all that is in it would be too "heavy" (another term that assumes gravity).

2) It assumes the Creator would be subject to the laws of the universe that He created-- a baseless and illogical assumption since the Creator must have existed before the universe was created which, of course, could not have been within the universe.

3) The act of lifting is supposedly a physical feat of strength. The absurdity here is that the act of creation would be a far superior demonstration of power than would lifting it.

To grant such a foolish question the status of paradox is to not understand the question at all.