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...

[Skywalk]

I'm an agnostic, I'm wise enough to know that I don't know for sure. ;)

However, your post is easily refuted. The technical definition of religion does not allow for typical atheism(as opposed to some sort of Marxist utopianism) to be included into the list of religious beliefs.

Saying that one does not believe a god exists is no different than saying I don't believe a gay leprechaun hawking DnL soft drinks is in my living room. Saying that such a magical being does not exist is not itself an affirmation or statement of faith of any kind.

Now political atheism is a different animal, but not really a religion. UNless you believe anti-gunners are religious too(which they CAN be, but need not be at all.)

As for the removal of Ten Commandments---the absence of religious symbols for a public courthouse is NOT the same as installing a religious symbol. I may not agree with their approach, but a lack of something does not equate to the enshrinement of atheist belief.

[Skywalk]

I'm an agnostic, I'm wise enough to know that I don't know for sure. ;)

However, your post is easily refuted. The technical definition of religion does not allow for typical atheism(as opposed to some sort of Marxist utopianism) to be included into the list of religious beliefs.

Saying that one does not believe a god exists is no different than saying I don't believe a gay leprechaun hawking DnL soft drinks is in my living room. Saying that such a magical being does not exist is not itself an affirmation or statement of faith of any kind.

Now political atheism is a different animal, but not really a religion. UNless you believe anti-gunners are religious too(which they CAN be, but need not be at all.)

As for the removal of Ten Commandments---the absence of religious symbols for a public courthouse is NOT the same as installing a religious symbol. I may not agree with their approach, but a lack of something does not equate to the enshrinement of atheist belief.

[xzins]

In my opinion your position is close to a decent, succinct definition of religion.

That is why the opinion of reasonable, respectable others would verify whether or not we are wayward in our opinions or if we are using acceptable logic.

Something can be a reasonable viewpoint and still not be accepted by the mass of people. But, if it's acceptABLE to other reasonable persons, then that fairly well says that the position has merit.

[Dataman]

#118 was meant for you.

[GETMAIN]

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?

If you do not make a "definitive claim" that God exists, then that would make you an agnostic, no? Are you claiming to be an agnostic, or are you just being disingenuous in your responses to WackyKat?

FWIW, I'm not asking either of you two to prove anything. Just pointing out that your dance has no rhythm.

[Dataman]

Lewis was just full of nonsense.

You are in the miniscule minority.

[WackyKat]

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.

I think it is a least possible that Jesus studied in Persia or India during the 17 of so years of his life curiously omitted from the Gospels

Some of his teachings do have a Buddhist ring to them

Of course, this suggestion outrages fundamentalists. But then, what doesn't outrage fundamentalists?

[Loc123]

The Creator made the world full of challenges. It states (and makes sense) in Genesis that the universe was created from the Lord. Further, our entirely unique mental abilities were specially given later on. The universe, with all its pain, is a challenge for us to prove we are worthy of re-integrated with the Lord upon the end of our trial (death).

Evil is what we want to do but are admonished, by the Lord, not to do. Of course corporeal evil does not apply to the Lord--the Lord is omniscient and should have no struggles. The denial of evil--which is difficult for both sexes though in different ways--is to prove we can facilitate our unique gifts (logic and self-control being a couple) and therefore are worthy.

Ethics springs from mortality, but this is not the case for morality. (<-------I know, a tricky syntax/diction).

[ffusco]

Non traditional beliefs such as atheism, environmentalism and liberalism are all offshoots of humanism.

[MineralMan]

"If one can't prove a negative, how can atheists claim there is no God definitively except upon their faith? "

Wrong question. Most atheists don't claim there is no god. They simply disbelieve in deities and supernatural entities of any kind.

I disbelieve. That's not a claim of any kind. It is simply a statement of my disbelief. I disbelieve in ghosts, too. I disbelieve in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, as well.

I don't try to convince anyone else not to believe. I worship nothing. I have no religion. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Dataman]

I disbelieve. That's not a claim of any kind. It is simply a statement of my disbelief. I disbelieve in ghosts, too. I disbelieve in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, as well.

William F Buckley once remarked that only atheists try to define themselves by what they do not believe.

I have no religion. Why is that so hard to understand?

You have a beilef system based on wishful thinking. That is not hard to understand. That belief system is based on faith and is, as even humanists have admitted, a religion.

[highlander_UW]

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?

My answer would be yes, although viruses, natural disasters, diseases, aging and death are elements related to sin, which was not part of the initial creation but brought about by the actions of man.

Who is he to judge us?

He is God.

He made us imperfect then says we all fall short of his standard?

Who says God made us imperfect, that's your false assumption.

What standard? By definition he created evil.

By God's standards.

It would be illogical for a omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely good being to adopt standards from some source other than Himself, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, you're again imposing another false belief that God created evil. God created an existance that allowed for His creation to have free will. What sort of free will would it be if there was only one choice?

I have noticed, over the years, that the vast majority of atheists do not have a good understanding of Christianity, and thus what they are rejecting is a construct of their own imaginations and misunderstandings.

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?

Now that's an interesting question I hadn't heard before. I would say that God does not "have" a moral code. Being ultimate good, God "is" 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)

I disagree, the application of a moral code would require the negative, but that doesn't mean the "good" could not exist outside of the "evil". In fact, one is the lack of the other.

So how can God be described as all-good and all-loving?

I answered your how good part above, as far as the all-loving, I wouldn't say that. The Bible says God is love, but there are things God does not love.

How is it he is attributed these qualities but not the negative traits that humanity has in spades?

You've answered your own question. You're applying human traits to God. God is not just some super powerful human.

[MineralMan]

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

True, and we're not trying to prove anything, either. We simply disbelieve in all deities and the like. Why should anyone care that we disbelieve?

[wizardoz]

Dude, that was an EXAMPLE, not "words in your mouth." Either you were able to follow the argument or (more likely) you were not. And that's the way it is.

As for logic being nothing but a silly word game, well, if that's the way you see it, you've made your choice between knowledge and belief. Hey, that's fine. The two are mutually exclusive and people who try to juggle both are kidding themselves. If you're man enough to boldly claim "I refuse to think, I just believe." then bully for you. At least you know that's what you're doing.

[MineralMan]

"Atheism is a danger, that´s for sure."

How so? I am an atheist. How am I a danger? Please be specific.

[Dataman]

Why should anyone care that we disbelieve?

If that is all you did, no one would care. The atheistic world view is at war with the biblical world view and is openly hostile towards it. So you tell me-- why should theists care about a world view that is openly hostile toward them?

[jwalsh07]

True, and we're not trying to prove anything, either. We simply disbelieve in all deities and the like. Why should anyone care that we disbelieve?

We don't care althoug a better Christian than I might have a slightly different answer.

We do care when it becomes a public policy matter and the courts order kids not to pray before football games at the behest of your fellow travelers.

See the difference?

[highlander_UW]

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

You've continually missed the point. We are both making a definitive statement, and you seem to agree that therefore, logically we are both under a burden of proof. I could provide what I believe are evidences, but not proofs that would fit your satisfaction, but in the end, I can also state that my view is also based upon faith.

You, on the other hand, under an equal burden of proof for your definitive statement can provide neither proof, nor will you confess that you must then rely on faith for your views, and thus it's your view that is the least defensible.

[wizardoz]

No, Dataman, you entirely misunderstand. The point of a paradoxical question is to show that there is a such thing as a paradox. A paradox illustrates that inviolable limits exist. Something that is A and not B cannot then simultaneously be A and B. For instance, there is no such thing as a square circle. It cannot exist.

Do you understand so far?

[whattajoke]

You have a beilef system based on wishful thinking. That is not hard to understand. That belief system is based on faith and is, as even humanists have admitted, a religion.

Huh? That's quite a stretch. If living one's life in the hope of attaining heavenly ascension (or 72 virgins, or "good" reincarnation, etc) isn't a "belief system based on wishful thinking," I don't know what is!

Which brings to mind the absurdity of FR religious discussions; they invariably only pertain to christianity, and mostly certain subsets of Protestantism to boot. (I'm pretty amazed this thread delved into Buddhism, i must say). There's an entire country with over a billion people in it alone where 99% of them don't believe in your god, and I'd guess many have never even heard of him. This never enters your mind?

As I've said, People like me will be rather happy if the govt deemed atheism a religion, because then we can get some faith based initiative money and possibly some tax exempt status (which I think was the driving force behind "humanism as a religion" IIRC).