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...

[Loc123]

My friend, I think you need to read my posts more carefully.

1) You can simply search your "My Comments" to see what I said about Sagan's claim.

2) I never said cavemen were atheists or anything on that subject.

Also, I don't quite understand your bit about liberals not wanting to admit animals "sense things."

Besides, even if chimps looked to the sky after a loved one died, that is way to ambiguous to say they are looking toward God. They could be doing anything, even trying to gain heat after their bodies get cold by the animal version of greif. This is a breif example, but there is no clear conclusions even if that claim were verified.

But yes, these are minor points.

[#3Fan]

My friend, I think you need to read my posts more carefully.

Nah, if you said something interesting, I would've remembered it.

1) You can simply search your "My Comments" to see what I said about Sagan's claim.

I believe I said that I didn't even look into it, so what does it matter what Sagan said?

2) I never said cavemen were atheists or anything on that subject.

You guys sound alike.

Also, I don't quite understand your bit about liberals not wanting to admit animals "sense things."

You need to read my posts more carefully. I said liberals do accept that animals sense things, they just don't want to admit they sense God.

Besides, even if chimps looked to the sky after a loved one died, that is way to ambiguous to say they are looking toward God. They could be doing anything, even trying to gain heat after their bodies get cold by the animal version of greif. This is a breif example, but there is no clear conclusions even if that claim were verified.

LOL Deny the obvious.

But yes, these are minor points.

Points that don't stick in the mind.

[MattAMiller]

You know the saying: "Actions speak louder than words!" The crusaders, Nazis and Commies behaved as if they weren´t responsible to a superior power.

You say that like it's automatically clear what being responsible to a superior power entails. People can believe that there's a superior power that requires them to kill unbelievers. They can believe all sorts of things. The Godly can be plenty dangerous themselves.

[MattAMiller]

You know the saying: "Actions speak louder than words!" The crusaders, Nazis and Commies behaved as if they weren´t responsible to a superior power.

I don't get this either. Why are we bringing liberals into this? Is this supposed to be some sort of contradiction? Cause I'm pretty much certain animals sense things, but I don't think they sense God. Even if God exists I don't see why animals would necessarily sense him.

LOL Deny the obvious.

Isn't the current theological concensus that all this stuff about God and heaven being up in the sky is metaphorical? So why would chimps looking up into the sky mean anything?

[#3Fan]

I don't get this either. Why are we bringing liberals into this?

An atheist brought liberals into it, he said that it is a liberal position to say that animals can sense God. I said "how could it be a liberal position when most liberals are anti-Christian".

Is this supposed to be some sort of contradiction? Cause I'm pretty much certain animals sense things, but I don't think they sense God. Even if God exists I don't see why animals would necessarily sense him.

Of course you don't think that animals sense God.

Isn't the current theological concensus that all this stuff about God and heaven being up in the sky is metaphorical? So why would chimps looking up into the sky mean anything?

To an atheist it means nothing I guess. But to me if a chimp pays reverance to a sunset when one of his group has died, then that tells me that the chimp sees a connection between creation and his lost companion, and that is religion, and if a chimp is capable of sensing God, then a neanderthal was. It's a wild sideshow argument sparked by the ridiculous claim that "cavemen" were atheists, ridiculous because there's no way to know.

[Michael81Dus]

If you haven´t known it before, I´ll tell you: I am a Christian. I do not believe that believers of other religions are right, so I cannot honestly call them "Godly". They just are wrong and have nothing in common with God. As for Christians committing crimes: I take this easy. I don´t consider them to be Christians while they do their shameful work. They´re off the road, and our Heavenly Father will forgive them, if they regret. Then they´ll truly believers in Gods power.

For me, a Christian must not only pretend to believe in God, he must act like a Christian. Actions speak louder than words.

Have a great start of the week!

[highlander_UW]

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.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand the second half of your response.

What I'm saying is, either way, one must posit something being eternal. Either matter/energy or God. But if one takes the atheist view and believes it's matter/energy that is eternal, then there is another problem for atheists to resolve. And that is, it is clear that the Universe is in motion. Either the Universe must be a 100% closed system that is in perpetual motion, or one adopts the view that someone posted where there was a big bang out of nothing that created all energy, matter as well as time...which could be described as nothing short of a supernatural event. In any case, since neither of these views can be supported scientifically, they must be taken simply on faith.

[elfman2]

Right… You define “true” Christians, I’ll define “true” Americans, he’ll define “true” electricians, etc… Whatever helps paint your opposition as everything outside of what you’d like your group to be.

[RinaseaofDs]

So, to be clear, you are convinced of the non-existance of God, even if confronted by any new evidence that may present itself to the contrary?

What led you to this? I know as a Christian there are all kinds of things that led me to believe that Christ is real. A combination of evidences, if you will.

What evidence led you to the position that God does not exist?

[RinaseaofDs]

Then again, BOTH of us may get what we are hoping for!

Take care,

Matt

[familyofman]

"You sound pretty dogmatic ..."
I truly am dogmatic, and proud of it.

[wizardoz]

1) I think you are misunderstanding my point. We have a level of faith that our eyes accurately report our scientific measurements. We have faith our brains accurately synthesize the info from those measuring devices. I am not talking about mirages here.

No, we do not have faith. I had to take a whole class on how archaeology labs can misinterpret data and how it should be double checked and triple checked, run through computer programs, re-analyzed... my point is, in science there is NOTHING that you are required to take on faith.

2) I'm sorry, but infinite is beyond any understanding. To us it will seem like a huge number, but being infinite we cannot truly even think about it. If you truly believe you can understand, think about--whatever the word-- about infinite then you are either crazy or the Creator. I mean this as a throwback jest, not an insult.

I disagree, we have a concept of what infinite means. But I no longer remember the point of this particular line of debate, to be honest.

3) Sure. From what I've read, this "law" is basically explaining the limits of our measurement of the universe. It states we cannot measure something that is not in the universe; we cannot measure something metaphysical. Therefore, it is beyond our comprehension.

If we are still talking about the Law of Identity, no. It simply means that for something to have an identity, there has to be something that is "not part of it" otherwise you are just saying "God is everything," and "everything is God." This is essentially meaningless. Is this what you're doing/saying?

[wizardoz]

What I'm saying is, either way, one must posit something being eternal. Either matter/energy or God. But if one takes the atheist view and believes it's matter/energy that is eternal, then there is another problem for atheists to resolve. And that is, it is clear that the Universe is in motion. Either the Universe must be a 100% closed system that is in perpetual motion, or one adopts the view that someone posted where there was a big bang out of nothing that created all energy, matter as well as time...which could be described as nothing short of a supernatural event. In any case, since neither of these views can be supported scientifically, they must be taken simply on faith.

You don't have to settle for either option. You could say "we just don't know yet" rather than saying,
"Gee, how did this come to be?

Must be a big supernatural being put it there!
Must be he wants us here for a reason!
Must be he wants us to do certain things!
Must be he was lonely!
Must be he made everything!

... But then why are things so bad?

Must be something went wrong!
Must be someone rebelled!
Must be there's going to be some plan to fix it!
Must be it hasn't happened yet!
Must be it's gonna happen soon!
Must be that then it'll all be fixed!
Must be he's told us what's gonna happen!
Must be he only told a few people!
Must be they wrote it all down!

And before you say that the "we don't know yet" position is actually, then, agnosticism, let me say in advance, no it isn't. Agnosticism holds that the question of gods and universes are unknowable, that human intellect isn't sufficient. I don't agree with that at all.

But once people start that "Must be someone put it here!" nonsense, off they go galloping down Wild Speculation Lane, because it's easier to create a god, give him a human personality, and then extrapolate off into fantasy land for ever after, than it is to use logic, or explore space, or anything else.

[Greek]

"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."


God does not send any one to Hell. People choose of their own free will to go there. His hope is that all choose Him and go to heaven. Say a man jumps into the river and is drowning, you hold out your hand to save him, and he refuses to grab it and be saved and then drowns. Did you cause the subsequent drowning?

[miloklancy]

First off define the "rabid version of atheism". Unlike Christians and Muslims for example, who may have varying doctrinal disputes within those two religions, but have very common beliefs with respect to those different religions, atheists are not all the same. The term atheist is simply too general to apply to a specific group, even though many religious people try to. There are atheists on the right and the left. There are also extremely zealous Christians on both the right and the left. With respect to the 4th definition provided, I think you would find variance with regard to the extent that one atheist lives by their disbelief in God, versus another.

[Greek]

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.

ANSWER: NOT AT ALL. WHY WOULD THE SUBJECT OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BE LIMITED TO MY SHORTCOMINGS? LET'S SAY I KNEW JOHNNY UNITAS. I CAN PASS A BALL ABOUT 5 YARDS. DOES THIS MEAN HE CAN ONLY PASS 5 YARDS?

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

ANSWER: MY POINT WAS THAT A UNIVERSAL POSITIVE ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS AT LEAST NOT ILLOGICAL ON ITS FACE, LIKE A UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE CLEARLY IS. I AM NOT SAYING I AM OMNISCIENT, I'M SAYING THAT THEW STATMENT, "THERE IS A GOD" IS NO ILLOGICAL.

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.

ANSWER: THERE ARE SERVERAL WAYS TO AFFIRM SOMETHING BY WAYS EXTERNAL TO OUR OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. DO YOU DISPUTE THAT KENNEDY WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD AND KILLED? HOW DO YOU KNOW? IN THAT SAME WAY, WE CAN AFFIRM GOD IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BY SEVERAL EXTERNAL FACTS. TAKE THE PROPHECIES OF HIS SOM FOR EXAMPLE, FULFILLED TO THE LETTER. THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS AND HIS FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IS NOT SERIOUSLY DEBATED. THERE IS LEGION OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF HIS VIRGIN BIRTH, CRUCIFICTION, AND RESURRECTION. READ "EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT" OR "HE WALKED AMONG US" OR "MORE THAN A CARPENTER".

[miloklancy]

Unfortunately by your logic, all Christians, Muslims, and Jews would part of the same religion, monotheism. And all other religions aspousing the belief in one God, would also be a part of this religion. This simply isn't the case. As I have indicated in other postings, not all atheists are part of a specific group. You have atheists on the right and atheists on the left.

[Greek]

Where do I go to learn format? A paradox is a human invention for a finite mind. You are the one who presented an alleged paradox, now that it is demonstrated as not really being a paradox, you cannot merely escape response by claiming I am engaging in "sophistry".

[miloklancy]

You don't appear to understand the nature of the thread. The question was whether or not atheism is a religion and the definition(s) provided simply don't indicate that it is. A common mistake being made here is lumping all atheists together. Atheism simply indicates that a person is non-religious, because they don't believe in God(s). We don't all support the ACLU and their effort to de-Christianize America. With respect there is nothing intellectually dishonest about my viewpoint.

[GETMAIN]

I didn't say any of those things to which you are responding in post 414. That's someone else's post.