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]

In other words, no one knows (nor can anyone "prove") a darn thing about whatever system of belief to which they happen to subscribe. This applies to creationists and atheists alike - neither is ultimately founded on anything that can reasonably be called "logic."

Which gets to the point I've been making to those denying atheism is a religion, and that is, like it or not, atheism is no more than a position taken on faith. It's not necessarily an easy thing to live without the luxury and convenience of an answer to many of the biggest human questions - religion certainly addresses valid psychological needs in some people - but it does not meet the needs of all.

Of course this smacks of the unsupportable arrogance most atheists view religionists with. It is too pat an answer to discount all religion as something contrived to fulfill some psychological needs, in particular to those too weak to deal without.

Some would rather live with (what they perceive as) the uncertainty of reality rather than the illusion of faith.

This view, per your own admission previously, is unprovable. It is simply denial on the part of atheists that faith only leads to illusion. I will state again, belief without evidence is a faith based view, and therefore, atheism is faith based. It even has it's own dogmas as I noted previously as well.

[highlander_UW]

Atheism is the lack of belief in god...Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god.

A bit shifty on definitions, aren't you? According to the dictionary, you got it right the second time. Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God. Given that atheists can not prove their belief it is therefore taken on faith.

[Tribune7]

Atheism is the lack of belief in god.

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. :-)

The very etymology of the word explains this

This is what Merriam-Webster Online says about it:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So definition 2 is the one we are considering. The question is it 2a or 2b?

Concerning the cultural debate 2b is the one most appropriate, and it's also most appropriate to most -- but not all -- of the professing atheists on this thread.

[wizardoz]

Well, if you want to use science and I want to use philosophy, we aren't going to be able to continue. I might as well speak to you in French and have you answer in Chinese. Oh well. We tried.

[wizardoz]

I'm sorry, but your argument boils down to "the God answer is just easier." Easier is not good enough for me. If it's good enough for you, fine.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"There are almost no "groups" of atheists"

You are part of an atheist group on FR. You may not have meetings or be formally organized, but you are part of a group here nonetheless.

"A few idiots with an agenda appear on TV and in court for their own purposes."

The ACLU and similar groups are not 'a few idiots'. Just because they play down the atheist angle for PR reasons, doesn't change the fact that they are advocates and have an agenda.

"And among individuals, how would you ever know they were atheists?"

Ironic, coming from Mr 666...

Look, I am an agnostic. But hateful atheists with s#$% attitudes that push leftist agendas that threaten my liberty are my sworn enemies. I am glad you are not one of them.

As far as fundementalists go, I may disagree with their group and philosophy, but contrary to atheist scaremongering, they pose no threat to my liberty and do not express the 'destroy our institutions' mentality and hatred of prime time atheists.

[Tribune7]

Didn't you foget to address 2b? Atheism as you practice it is a doctrine or a faith.

I do not hold the belief that there are no pink unicorns or any of the infinite other beliefs which would be required to match every possible concept. I do not hold an infinite number of beliefs.

Of course, you don't. You have a doctrine which narrowly focuses on the idea that the only things that exists are what is materially measurable. How important is this doctrine to you?

[highlander_UW]

I'm sorry, but your argument boils down to "the God answer is just easier." Easier is not good enough for me. If it's good enough for you, fine.

Not easier, more logical since. Both are faith based views, mine allows for supernatural events, yours doesn't...but when one backs it up far enough the requirement for one to have transpired is demanded by logic. You may, of course, belief whatever you wish.

[weaponeer]

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.

Dictionaries don't always get it right, either. You quoted one source, there are other dictionaries. I choose to look at the original roots of the terms, not the current usage, which warps with time, and causes just this sort of problem. Whatever. I just wanted to point out that lack of belief and dis-belief are two different things. One requires faith, the other doesn't.

[stanz]

Many are fooled.

More are fooled by religious hypocrites who say "Do as I say, but don't do as I do."

[highlander_UW]

People used to believe that evaporating water, lighting, and earthquakes were "supernatural" events as well. Having a belief system which allows for supernatural events simply gives one a convenient excuse to avoid having to face the unknown - which was admittedly a horrifying condition for early man when life and death was determined by an incomprehensible nature. It was man's intellect which allowed him to observe cause and effect but it was his natural sense of fear that forced him to invent gods to whom he could appeal and reason with in order to try to gain control over those causes and effects. One thing history has shown is that traits once attributed to the supernatural have been shown to be entirely and perfectly natural after all once the lens of human reason and intellect had been focused. Since the Enlightenment religion and mysticism have receded further into the shadows as a kind of embarrassing residue left over from man's early childhood. Superstition is a result of ignorance meeting nature - which was certainly necessary, and perhaps inevitable, in the dawn of our species - but it's now a relic of a mentality which has been, and is further being left in, the past, where it belongs.

Atheists really seem to embrace this "mankind huddling over the fire shivering in fear at the unknown" creation of God. It is nothing more than speculation, and to present it as fact is simply an insult to honest discussion.

When I mention supernatural events, I'm referring to the "explanation" someone posted here where time and matter spontaneously happened in a bang and that is how existence has come upon us. That, my friend, is nothing short of a supernatural event. It defies every known law of physics and since it's given devoid of any possible shred of evidence is nothing more than a faith based atheist fantasy.

[highlander_UW]

Dictionaries don't always get it right, either. You quoted one source, there are other dictionaries. I choose to look at the original roots of the terms, not the current usage, which warps with time, and causes just this sort of problem. Whatever. I just wanted to point out that lack of belief and disbelief are two different things. One requires faith, the other doesn't.

If you wish to not use the current meaning of the word we can work with the archaic. You are still wrong if you make a claim that your lack of belief is actually factual and not just opinion.

Once you claim no God beyond your personal view it becomes a definitive statement and incurs the burden of proof, which, again, you can not provide. And therefore, any atheist claim of no God as universal fact is a faith based statement. Otherwise, all you're saying is "I don't believe" and your personal belief or disbelief has no universal impact on fact.

[#3Fan]

More are fooled by religious hypocrites who say "Do as I say, but don't do as I do."

Some are hypocrites, yes.

[#3Fan]

More are fooled by religious hypocrites who say "Do as I say, but don't do as I do."

I don't know about "more", by the way. There are many students in liberal universities. University professors are trying to lead souls to the second death by preaching that God doesn't exist. At least the preachers who are hypocrites don't claim God doesn't exist.

[Loc123]

1) Science is still based on the faith that our eyes/other senses accurately report the universe. We also assume our brains themselves accurately synthesize those stimuli. For practical purposes we are correct--still, it is a faith.

2) Actually, we never imagine infinite. We can right symbols that to us mean "really big number." But no, we cannot actually grasp infinite.

3) The Law of Identity is not a law, it is a philosophical criterion. Interestingly, the "law" itself falls before its own assumptions; it cannot explain anything metaphysical. Therefore, my objections still stand.

Thanks for your reply, btw.

[Loc123]

Then they weren't true Christians; they were interlopers.

And how do you know what is "moral behavior" if you don't have a set reference point/God.

[longtermmemmory]

Atheism is a faith of conscience just as much as any other religion.

[Loc123]

Not if you can benefit at another's expense.

This brainwashed/conditioned "pride" by a Judeo-Christian culture can be easily rationalized and has been throughout history (see Nazi German citizens post-WW2 for a clear example).

A true theist would not take the hypothetical money from the drawer because he would be failing the Lord and succumbing to darkness--both unacceptable consequences. The atheist/false theist would stand nothing to lose by taking the money, especially if rationalization was employed (IE "By exposing this security lapse they will be better off in the future").