Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

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...

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?

No. You could stand next to Johnny and watch him throw 50 yard passes all day long. But do you contend that all of God's powers and knowledge are observable or knowable to a human being?

If God is infinite in knowledge and power and humans are finite in those respects, then how does a human "logically affirm" the identity of God? He cannot experience the totality of God without essentially becoming one with God. Therefore, how can you "logically affirm" that the God that you know is indeed, THE GOD, and not some deceptive entity playing tricks on you? Is this not where the leap of Faith comes into play? You can certainly affirm the existence of God, but can you truly do it "logically", in a formal sense of the word "logic"?

You said in the original post: "We say, 'there is a God, and we know Him personally.' If we know Him, we can logically say He exists." You may very well indeed know the almighty God of the Bible personally, I can certainly respect your experience and and accept your position as a completely valid cosmology. Perhaps I am reading more into your phrase "we can logically say He exists" that I should, but that was the point I was questioning you about. I see that phrase as implying that your position is logically superior to the atheist's because it is logically provable. I don't see that being the case. Both positions require an assertion of faith at some point.

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.

You qualify the position as "not illogical on its face", which implies that at some point it demands a departure from the realm of logic, then you say it is "not illogical". Either the statement that "There is a God' is wholly provable by logic, or it is formally "illogical", no? That doesn't mean that it isn't true, it just means that it is no more provable via logic than the atheist's position.

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".

These things still require you to make an assertion of faith that these things were indeed caused by an infinite and almighty God and not some other being that has the ability to control the realm which humans observe. Let me just say that I would also make that same assertion of faith if I believed that the stories of the Bible were wholly true. But I do not. But then again I have not read the books you suggested, so maybe I will change my mind. Thank you for recommending them.

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.

Your perception is incorrect, and apparently misdirected. Firstly, I do understand the nature of the thread, you simply disagree with my opinion. Don't you believe it is unreasonable to interpret anyone who disagrees with you as not comprehending the topic?

Secondly, I do not recall ever writing anything about the ACLU on this thread, so your comments regarding that are misdirected.

Thirdly, rather atheism is or is not a religion has no connection to the actions of the ACLU. It either is or isn't independent of the ACLU.

Fourthly, I don't recall seeing any posts from you previously, so I doubt that I called you intellectually dishonest. I am frugal with such assertions in any case. I did point out that atheists do not like it when their view is called a religion, nor when it's pointed out that they can only arrive at their view based upon their faith it is so. Now if an atheist denies these then they either do not realize their condition, or they may be practicing intellectual dishonesty. But any charge of intellectual dishonesty would require knowledge that counters their view. That is to say, it's a position taken as a willful act taken in the face of facts to the contrary.

Lastly, according to the dictionary, an atheist is a person who claims that there is NO God. That is not just a nonreligious person but one making a universal claim of fact. I realize that the etymology of the word is "without God" but that is not the current primary dictionary definition.

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".

You can break up the text into paragraphs by putting the letter p between a < and a >. No spaces, just the brackets with a p inside. I can't put one here to show it to you because it'll just manifest itself as a paragraph break.

As for the paradox, you are essentially saying that if logic doesn't support your belief in God, the fault must lie with logic. In other words, you validate methods by whether or not they give you the result you want. Like someone who comes up with a hypothesis to explain the world, and when presented with data that doesn't support the hypothesis, you decide that data is proven by whether or not it supports your hypothesis, rather than judging your hypothesis by whether or not it is supported by actual data. I've met a lot of these types in the social sciences.

Regarding the following remarks:

Your perception is incorrect, and apparently misdirected. Firstly, I do understand the nature of the thread, you simply disagree with my opinion. Don't you believe it is unreasonable to interpret anyone who disagrees with you as not comprehending the topic?

My response: You do little for argument and for that matter convincing me that you have a grasp on reality, by claiming to know whether my perceptions are incorrect or not. Also I did not state that I thought you misunderstood the thread, because there is a difference of opinion. I stated this, because it is clear that you have a very one-dimensional view of atheists. The reason the ACLU was mentioned, was to show an example that one atheist, myself, does not support their agenda. Hence it is foolish to lump us all into that particular camp, which is what I felt you were implying.

Regarding the following remarks:

Fourthly, I don't recall seeing any posts from you previously, so I doubt that I called you intellectually dishonest. I am frugal with such assertions in any case. I did point out that atheists do not like it when their view is called a religion, nor when it's pointed out that they can only arrive at their view based upon their faith it is so. Now if an atheist denies these then they either do not realize their condition, or they may be practicing intellectual dishonesty. But any charge of intellectual dishonesty would require knowledge that counters their view. That is to say, it's a position taken as a willful act taken in the face of facts to the contrary.

My response: There are numerous posts authored by me within this thread. Faith does not by any means figure into the reason I'm an atheist. I don't have faith God(s) doesn't exist, I simply don't have any reliable evidence for God's existence. In my view there are no independently verified facts countering the assertion that God(s) does not exist. I don't consider religious texts to be reliable documents in terms of proving or disproving the existence of God. I would appreciate it that you recognize as well that someone with a different opinion than you can be intellectually honest about it. Again I think the problem here is lumping all atheists into one category. Atheists are not all the same. Just as monotheists and polytheists are not all the same.

"No. You could stand next to Johnny and watch him throw 50 yard passes all day long. But do you contend that all of God's powers and knowledge are observable or knowable to a human being?"

ANSWER: Yes, as Romans states, man is without excuse. Just look outside at His creation, our at the intricacys of the eyeball that allows you to see His creation.

"If God is infinite in knowledge and power and humans are finite in those respects, then how does a human "logically affirm" the identity of God? He cannot experience the totality of God without essentially becoming one with God. Therefore, how can you "logically affirm" that the God that you know is indeed, THE GOD, and not some deceptive entity playing tricks on you? Is this not where the leap of Faith comes into play? You can certainly affirm the existence of God, but can you truly do it "logically", in a formal sense of the word "logic"?"

ANSWER: Good question. Jesus was either 1. Lord 2. Liar or 3. a Lunatic. It is not God's nature to be a deceptive entity as He is without sin, as the inspired Word of God states. Lunatics can't raise themselves from the dead, so that leaves Lord. Believing is certainly faith, but I would not say a leap. Christians are indwelled by God's Holy Spirit. This is the closest I can say compares to your "becoming one with God" comment.

"You said in the original post: "We say, 'there is a God, and we know Him personally.' If we know Him, we can logically say He exists." You may very well indeed know the almighty God of the Bible personally, I can certainly respect your experience and and accept your position as a completely valid cosmology. Perhaps I am reading more into your phrase "we can logically say He exists" that I should, but that was the point I was questioning you about. I see that phrase as implying that your position is logically superior to the atheist's because it is logically provable. I don't see that being the case. Both positions require an assertion of faith at some point."

ANSWER: No, I was merely pointing out that Atheism defies the rules of logic, that is assuming a universal negative as it relates to God's existence. There is no such flaw in one who says there is a god:

1. There is a god.
2. In order to know this, I must be all knowing.
3. Since I am all knowing, I am god.

While the conclusion is wrong, I am no god, you can see it is logically consistent.

"You qualify the position as "not illogical on its face", which implies that at some point it demands a departure from the realm of logic, then you say it is "not illogical". Either the statement that "There is a God' is wholly provable by logic, or it is formally "illogical", no? That doesn't mean that it isn't true, it just means that it is no more provable via logic than the atheist's position."

ANSWER: SEE ABOVE.

"These things still require you to make an assertion of faith that these things were indeed caused by an infinite and almighty God and not some other being that has the ability to control the realm which humans observe. Let me just say that I would also make that same assertion of faith if I believed that the stories of the Bible were wholly true. But I do not. But then again I have not read the books you suggested, so maybe I will change my mind. Thank you for recommending them."

Please do read these books. More than a Carpenter is a real short read, less than two hours. "Evidence" is pretty heavy, but you seem the intellectual type that would enjoy such a book.

"As for the paradox, you are essentially saying that if logic doesn't support your belief in God, the fault must lie with logic. In other words, you validate methods by whether or not they give you the result you want. Like someone who comes up with a hypothesis to explain the world, and when presented with data that doesn't support the hypothesis, you decide that data is proven by whether or not it supports your hypothesis, rather than judging your hypothesis by whether or not it is supported by actual data. I've met a lot of these types in the social sciences."

No, no, not at all. See Post #74. I am merely stating the obvious: Atheism is illogical in that it assumes a universal negative as it relates to the existence of god. There is no such logical flaw in the statement: "There is a god." The science crowd that wants we believers to give scientific evidence of the existence of god, cannot scientifically prove what they had for breakfast the week before. That is because breakfast was a historical event. We could though examine the evidence of what you had for breakfast. Testimony of the one you had breakfast with, for example. Science states a hypothesis and tests the same through experiment. Science therefore does not and cannot lend itself to proving the historicity of an event; i.e. the birth and resurrection of Jesus.

My response: You do little for argument and for that matter convincing me that you have a grasp on reality, by claiming to know whether my perceptions are incorrect or not.

My grasp on reality has nothing to do with convincing you, one way or the other.

Also I did not state that I thought you misunderstood the thread, because there is a difference of opinion. I stated this, because it is clear that you have a very one-dimensional view of atheists.

I'm simply using the dictionary definition. The problem arises when some label themselves as atheists when their views more accurately fit under agnostic.

The reason the ACLU was mentioned, was to show an example that one atheist, myself, does not support their agenda. Hence it is foolish to lump us all into that particular camp, which is what I felt you were implying.

I commend your wisdom in regards the ACLU. You're reading things my writings. I do not view all of any group as a single, lockstep entity. There are numerous posts authored by me within this thread. That may be, but my statement stands. I did not see them.

Faith does not by any means figure into the reason I'm an atheist. I don't have faith God(s) doesn't exist, I simply don't have any reliable evidence for God's existence. In my view there are no independently verified facts countering the assertion that God(s) does not exist.

According to the dictionary your view would more accurately be defined as that of an agnostic. The definition of an atheist is one who says there is no God. That position can not be prov en, scientifically or otherwise.

I would appreciate it that you recognize as well that someone with a different opinion than you can be intellectually honest about it.

Certainly people can be intellectually honest and disagree. My previous post was very clear that to be dishonest requires an act of willful falsehood.

It does, in the end, all come down to definition of terms. We can't really talk about the subject until we understand what it is we are talking about.

My definition of a "rabid atheist" is someone who does not believe in a supreme being and is so sure of themselves in that disbelief that they will try to convert others to their disbelief, even to the point of denying others their right to believe as they choose. It is marked by an arrogant attitude to others who don't view the world as they do.

One thing I can't quite understand is why some atheists of this sort find it necessary to convert others to their disbelief. If there is no God, or gods, why would the atheist be so concerned with someone elses superstitions? It might be that they don't disbelieve in a supreme being so much as they profess.

"Me thinks they do protest too much!"

As far as (insert religion here) goes, you are right on the point that there is a nearly infinite variety left to right. It seems that zealousness is not unique to any way of thinking, religious or not.

I'm glad you are learning as best as you can. I would only ask that you read what I am saying and not misinterpret it. My point is not that science is a bad measurement of the universe, or that those measurements are just made up and based in faith. I am stating the fact that we have faith in "that our eyes accurately report our scientific measurements. We have faith our brains accurately synthesize the info from those measuring devices"

I don't think you are truly understanding infinite. It is impossible to really understand or whatever the word. All we know is it is REALLY big and effectually makes numbers divided by it 0. I am not disrespecting you, just asking that you think about this harder.

From what I've read about this "law," it is how I summarized it. It only applies to the corporeal. Of course God is not corporeal. Even so, this is not a "law" in any way; it is a self-fulfilling (IE cannot be proven or disproven) idea.

Despite our disagreements, I still admire your spirit to grow.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.