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...

[WackyKat]

And no normal, sensible person believes that the flora and fauna, to say nothing of the humana, of Britain in 1869 came out of a fiery cloud of incalculable eons ago, without a superintending intelligence.

I do. What I can't understand is how any normal, sensible person could accept many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Of course, even many Catholics don't.

[Tribune7]

How about the idea that once you die, you're just dead. You cease to exist. You don't "go" anywhere.

Fine. If that were true. I don't believe it is. Dr. Maurice Rawlings, a cardiologist, has written several books about this encounters with death-bed and near-death experiences. Here's a link to some Amazon reviews, pro and con. Now, I've never read Rawlings books so that's not the reason I believe in Hell. I have felt the presence of Jesus which led me to believe the Bible is a true testimony on these things and the Bible describes Hell and a judgement.

Do you remember what it was like before you were born?

I don't remember being an infant either but I certainly was one once. :-)

[Tribune7]

You are astonishingly arrogant if you think only religious believers consider such questions

No, but when you consider these things the conclusions are based on faith, not empiricism. Science does not address them.

[MattAMiller]

Militant atheists ARE the leaders of atheists. If I saw other groups of atheists with a different approach in the media, like I see other groups representing many Christian schools of thought, I would have no problem.

It pretty much stands to reason that anybody who makes a career out of being an atheist is going to be a bit whacky doesn't it? You aren't going to see many normal non-pain-in-the-butt atheists on TV talk shows because they wouldn't end up in that position.

[Michael81Dus]

I did no say that atheists are a danger, I said that atheism is a danger. Read carefully. Atheists have no relation to God, they don´t feel a responsibility to something superior than us. It were always the atheists who committed crimes, not the religious people. For instance, the crusade knights have completely ignored the bible, so they didn´t pay much attention to Gods will. The Nazis weren´t religious either, they wanted to bring down the Christian faith. Finally, Stalin and his followers were atheists as well.

Atheism is a danger, because it may make people forget that we need to treat our neighbours and enemies with respect.

[wizardoz]

Of course we don't create them, so what does? Nature? They've just always been? If we recognize them they obviously exist...why do they exist?

You are asking questions whose answers you won't accept. Existance exists. It's axiomatic. You can posit a "Someone must have PUT them there!" answer but all that does is insert one more step before you arrive again at these questions. After all, once you decide there must be a big ghost in the sky, the natural questions return: "What created God? Why does he exist?" Then you get people just making up answers off the tops of their heads, assigning this fictional question-stopper a human personality and spinning out some tale.

[elfman2]

” We look at the consistency of Bush's statements and those of his opponents. We look at the history of the veracity of Bush, and those of his opponents. When we conclude that Bush is telling the truth we are beign rational. :-)”

That’s totally reasonable! You disbelieve an extraordinary suggestion thats inconsistent with what you know. The amount of faith in that’s so miniscule that I don’t think it’s worth mentioning.

In the same sense, an atheist can disbelieve the divinity of the Bible’s detailed accounts of events and miracles without any significant degree of faith.

[wimpycat]

Your assumption based upon your belief is no proof at all.

Who said I was attempting to offer proof? Your assumption...well, you know the rest.

[wimpycat]

Near-death and death-bed experiences are not a reliable source for what happens after death, since the person giving the information is alive at the time. (Not that I'm pooh-pooing the idea, mind you, but we're in the atheistic world, where nothing but cold, hard verifiable fact will do...so they say.) Either they said something as they were dying, or they "died" a short time and then lived to tell about it, in which case they weren't really dead after all. Even those who are witnesses to death-bed anecdotes or phenomena can only rely on their personal observation, and their experiences can't be replicated in a controlled environment. Only the dead know for certain what happens after death.

So even the assumption that there is "nothing" after death is only a guess, not based on knowledge, fact or truth at all.

In other words, those who assert there is only oblivion after death are, well...operating on faith, not knowledge. It is a faith-based assertion.

[highlander_UW]

thought I'd given you one, but perhaps I posted it to someone else. Well, the upshot of it is, the concept of something that is "all-powerful" is internally incoherent. If it can do the impossible, then there is no impossible. If it can't, it's not all-powerful. We know there are things that are impossible. Therefore an all-powerful being can't exist.

No, you'd posted that to me, but playing with the defnintion of "impossible" in relation to God does not do anything to disprove Him.

That's the bit where you were doing a straw man debate with yourself. Since God is omnipotent, then the defintion impossible can not apply to Him, so it's simply a game to attempt to discount God via defintion. In your little monlogue you asked yourself "can God do the impossible?" Your answer to yourself was in error, thus your conclusion was in error. The correct answer is "to God, nothing is impossible", not the "yes" answer your provided yourself. There are, however, things God will not do, such as violate His own nature.

[aruanan]

Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

It's a worldview that attempts to explain the true nature of things, something religions also do, but it's not a religion in the organizational sense. Try Waking the Dead and The Sacred Romance by John Eldredge to see what Christianity is all about.

[highlander_UW]

surely atheism requires a huge amount of faith

Atheism requires no faith whatever

Those who assert the existence of God have the burden of proving their claim

You continue to make this statement, but I've shown you that it's in error. Firstly, you are misidentifying yourself as an atheist from our previous exchanges. Secondly, it is atheism that makes a claim, that being "there is NO God". That is a claim, and one who makes a claim incurs a burden of proof, which you can not provide, and therefore atheism must be taken on faith.

[highlander_UW]

A-theist - has a LACK of a belief in a deity. This is NOT the same as a DISBELIEF. He just doesn't have the belief. This is what a lot of folks wrongly call agnostics.

Anti-theist - One who BELIEVES there is no deity. This is what most of you are (incorrectly) calling an atheist. He believes (is sure) there is no deity. Where he gets this belief, I don't know. It seems to require some faith, as he can't PROVE there is no deity, as you cannot prove a negative.

So, I wish folks would get their terminolgy consistent if they want to be able to discuss such things.

You might start with yourself regarding getting terminology correct...

Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun Date: 1571 : one who denies the existence of God - athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective - athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW Date: 1869 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god - ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

So unless you're going to rewrite the dictionaries, an atheist is one who DENIES the existence of God. That is a claim of fact. An agnostic is one who is likely not to believe in God's existence, but one way or the other believes the truth is ultimately unknowable.

So given the facts of the real defintions, and not your personal ones that we can't all agree to shift to, you are simply incorrect.

[highlander_UW]

Do you remember what it was like before you were born? Of course not. Same thing after you die.There is just oblivion, that's all

Ah, another faith based statement, unless you can prove there is no afterlife. This is one of the dogmas of atheism, further evidence of it being a religion.

[highlander_UW]

Existence exists. It's axiomatic...."What created God? Why does he exist?"

You've touched on something I had considered addressing but thought might end up with posts that are too long.

It all comes down, in one respect, to the fact that we all must believe something is eternal. You chose "existence", a deist would say "God". God makes more sense when looked at logically. To believe in God as the "eternal" takes less faith. I will explain...

A belief in existence as eternal requires many assumptions. Firstly, it must be a 100% closed system, if even a fraction of energy/matter is lost then over eternity the whole will wind down, thus making itself non-eternal. (this would be in keeping with the laws of dynamics, but science, to maintain their view must argue that it does not apply to existence) Scientists posit an expanding and contracting universe with periodic explosions as the mechanism for each expansion. What was the cause for the very first explosion? Everything tends to settle to a point of equlibrium and rest unless there is an outside influence.

There is no proof or even evidence that the universe is a 100% closed system, or does science have anything approaching an explanation why the universe, given infinite time would continue to be in motion, these views must be taken on faith. Anther set of dogmas of atheism.

If one believes that there is an eternal God, who is outside of the physical laws (being the creator of those laws), then there is explanation for the appearance of the "wind down" nature of the universe, as well as the prime mover of the universe. This logically makes more sense than the best science can offer, thus requiring less faith.

[balrog666]

Of course you two have a belief system.

You still don't get it or you ignore the obvious point. Let me restate #53 with a different noun one more time just for your benefit:

It's like this little commie grad student over in the Education department. "Everybody has a gun! Even not having a gun is having a gun!"

Do you really think that statement makes any sense?
Does substituting "god" for "gun" somehow change the meaning?

[lelio]

Secondly, it is atheism that makes a claim, that being "there is NO God".

So the people that don't believe in Santa are making a claim and thus the burden of proof lies with them?

What about the boogeyman in your closet? Prove it doesn't exist.

[lelio]

then there is explanation for the appearance of the "wind down" nature of the universe, as well as the prime mover of the universe

You lost me on that. What does "wind down" mean? That the universe is like some metronome that ticks back and forth but eventually will come to a stop?

Also what does "prime mover" mean? Is it something like when I throw a baseball and it leaves my hand the prime mover is there to push the ball through the air?

[balrog666]

"fanatical fundamentalists" are not the leaders of American Christians in any way.

No, they just want to be.

Militant atheists ARE the leaders of atheists.

Total bovine excrement. A few idiots with an agenda appear on TV and in court for their own purposes. But they have no "followers", there is no "movement", and they have no meaningful organization or broad base of atheist support.

If I saw other groups of atheists with a different approach in the media, like I see other groups representing many Christian schools of thought, I would have no problem.

There are almost no "groups" of atheists - the concept is an absurdity. And among individuals, how would you ever know they were atheists? After all, most people can honestly say they don't want creation myths in science class without being atheists.

[AnalogReigns]

Atheism requires the faith (without proof) that you are all knowing. Definitely a huge leap in the dark.