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...

You clearly have no respect for Science, even though it has probably made your life easier and will probably save your life some day.

Your comment is quite telling regarding your own views. Science is not an entity deserving of respect or contempt. I have great respect for the scientific method, in fact. It functions from the same premise Christians do, which is, that God is a God of order and since He is consistent one can make observations, see patterns and make predictions based upon those observations.

What I don't have respect for are some scientists that overstep the reality of the situation (these sorts I view as the high priests of science) and make unsupportable claims in the name of science and expect others to accept them simply because a "scientist" has stated it. For instance, your friend who has written papers on how the universe was created by a rush of hydrogen. What part of the scientific method was employed to come to this conclusion? Here's the dictionary definition for you...

Main Entry: scientific method Function: noun Date: 1854 : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Was it observed? Is it reproduce able? What sort of testing can possibly be done on such a wild guess of a theory? It simply is not science to make such a claim. It is simply conjecture at it's wildest. That is what I don't have respect for...faux science.

I really don't care for religion.

I gathered that.

I realize it is foreign to the religious to actually make a decision on what you have before you and not speculation and fairy stories in primitive, inconsistent, and historical inaccurate religious texts.

You do yourself a disservice to write off every single person who has ever lived in the world that believed in God. Apparently you'll then discount any information discovered or developed by Galileo, Newton, oh, and maybe Roger Bacon who is often credited with the creation of the scientific method in the first place, although some suggest it was one of various Muslim "scientists" but then you'd have to discount them as well since they believe in a "fairy story" as well.

I don't know what caused the in rush of hydrogen that created our universe, because there is nothing out there conclusively explaining this, save mysticism. And I have ruled out mysticism.

And if "mysticism" (God) is the actual answer then you've condemned yourself to never find the truth.

I'm sorry you just can't take a straight ahead answer. Perhaps a little less pride and little more awareness would help.

Ad hominums are the resort of one who has no answers.

This is addressed to you, Highlander as well as anyone else who would like to answer. I didn't want to start a new thread so I just post this here: I am working with artificial intelligence computer programs right now and came across some sources that say an AI computer will eventually believe in god provided it mirrors human thought adequately. Do you personally think computers will ever believe in god?

I don't think computers will ever get to the point where they perfectly mimic the human mind. They would at best only approximate the processes of calculation. But I realize you're asking a hypothetical.

Belief is a state of conviction, which is not the same as arriving at a conclusion. I see it as the difference between a mind and a brain. I think at best a computer will only be able to mimic the brain functions but will not develop a mind. I'm sure you have your thoughts on the topic since you're working around it but the assumption your question is making is that with simply a high enough level of calculations one will create a mind. Clearly this is just a hope or a guess at this point.

If computers do start believing in god would that be a false (?) belief since, presumably, computers do not have souls and will be unable to ever go to heaven or hell?

There is an underlying conceptual error here regarding the Christian doctrine of salvation. The Bible says even the demons believe in God (they know He exists), and yet they are not destined for heaven. Salvation is a gift from God, by His grace. Christians are forgiven by God because of God, not because of their own righteousness.

So, to answer your question, even if one were to assume that a mind is simply arrived at from a quick enough reproduction of brain functions, and that such a computer then was capable of believing something and that this computer came to the point of believing in God it still doesn't have any bearing on it's chances of heaven. I would say that the conclusion of the computer could still be correct, however, which is the question you asked. Does that get to what you were looking for?

Your remark:
Ad hominums are the resort of one who has no answers.

Correct spelling: Ad hominem (check your Dictionary) (King James or Websters?)

There was no condemnation of theists in my posting, just that of using religion as a means to answer the mysteries of the universe. This is the fallacy of straw man, you distort someone's argument thereby weakening it, so you can go in for an effortless attack. One last time. Science uses empirical methods to explain the universe. The Big Bang is part of this empiricism. Consult a physicist, not a cleric. Religion relies on the faith of it's followers. Period. Science convinces us by using empiricism. Religion is far more subjective. Faith in religion is often derived from emotion and not rational thought. Lastly, my atheism again is not based on faith, it is a judgement made on what empirical data science has given us thus far. And there is no empirical data to suggest a human-like entity created the universe (i.e. the Christian God of who's image humans were made in).

1) I would honestly like to see any insults I have "hurled at you." I hope you don't find constructive criticism insulting. And that is all I have tried to give. Here is post 381.

LOC123 says: Thank you for being honest on your source.

Like my example and the many examples of humanist/liberal bias in the media, I would be skeptical about such claims. This is especially so if the researcher's meal ticket is dependant on sensationalism/their research has no practical application.

Could you please explain how I was crappy to you? I was discrediting a biased TV special, not yourself. Further, I never once said you were liberal. I did imply that the media is liberal and would be biased toward environmental/animal rights causes--a crux of the latter cause being that "animals are people, too."

2) I'm sorry you don't see my advice/constructive criticisms as worth your time. I will just tell you that I have learned the best when I ignore how I feel after a criticism and look at the substance of the criticism.

3) It's not that I don't believe you, per se. I don't believe that TV show that implied gorillas "sense God." The reasons for this are 1) Chimps completely lack certain human capacities, metaphorical/abstract thought being one of them. 2) Claims of human qualities in apes are widely heralded when revealed, but when they are refuted they are snowed-over. Had Dr. Ian Gilby not been married to a teacher at my high school I would have concluded chimps actually had altruism (as per their meat sharing). Turns out, they did it for purely selfish reasons--as is expected in nature (evol. psychology). Yes, you are not contended this point, but this is a parallel to that TV show you saw, perhaps.

No hard feelings, freind.

I already told you the first law: matter is neither created nor destroyed.

If matter could spontaneously, and as Highlander put it, effortlessly appear then there probably would not be much evidence for a Creator (since believe in Him would be self-fulfilling and therefore impossible to prove or disprove).

The fact that matter came from nothing and then did something particular makes it almost certain that there was a Creator of the universe. That is based on the 1st Law. Your belief that science's course will reverse and someday imply matter and be created from nothing is the actual faith here, and highlander UW has pointed this out numerous times to no reply. Of course there are mathematical and hypothetical scenarios where matter comes from nothing, but those are not based on any observation or known physics and therefore are pure fantasy.

Since you are so interested in philosophical ideas, here's one: if you were in existence and could create something out of nothing at all, would you been bound by it? Of course not because you existed without it. This is, in essence, the Creator. And if you accept that the universe was created, you must ask yourself what the purpose of that was. Was it to ignore your unique gifts and act like evolutionary psychology would have you act? Or are you to conquer your darkness, prove yourself to the Creator, and reintegrate with Him once the universe inevitably (both scientifically and theologically) comes to an end?

I see the latter as more logical.

I don't care if someone else lives a life slightly less perfect that Jesus Christ--it doesn't affect my actions.

Apparently you fall prey to your own objections. You deny there are set definitions and criterion. Yet you then feel I meet a criterion for a rationalizer. That is hippocracy. If you cannot speak, I wouldn't call you a vocalizer. If you couldn't run, I wouldn't call you a runner. If you wouldn't live your life according to the most logical instructions--the Bible--then I wouldn't call you a Christian. Every Christian makes mistakes, but if they truly try to live up to those ideals and make consistent progress towards them, they are Christians. Christianity is more an inclination of behavior than a state.

I hope that you actually address my points, instead of falling back on intellectually lazy equivocating. And even if you don't in this thread, it would be tremendously helpful if you looked at arguments very carefully before reacting to them. If you believe you cannot grow, or if you can only grow when your body feels good about something, your mind will self-limit itself and stagnate future success. I'm not saying I am successful or anything like that, I just want you to see what you were meant to be.

Correct spelling: Ad hominem (check your Dictionary) (King James or Websters?)

Thanks for catching the spelling error. My misspelling doesn't change the fact that you were engaging in it.

Science uses empirical methods to explain the universe. The Big Bang is part of this empiricism.

Really?

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cism Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"si-z&m, em- Function: noun Date: 1657 1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY 2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically 3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience - em·pir·i·cist /-sist/ noun

So where is the observation and experiment on the Big Bang? Where is the experiencing of the Big Bang?

Religion relies on the faith of it's followers. Period.

I'm not concerned about what a religion relies upon.

Science convinces us by using empiricism. Religion is far more subjective. Faith in religion is often derived from emotion and not rational thought.

Science should work with empiricism and the scientific method. That's often not the case, however. Much faith, rather in religion or in science is often based upon emotion. I don't happen to be an emotion driven person, how about you?

Lastly, my atheism again is not based on faith, it is a judgment made on what empirical data science has given us thus far.

Apparently you have a lower threshold of scientific data required to arrive at a judgment than most.

And there is no empirical data to suggest a human-like entity created the universe (i.e. the Christian God of who's image humans were made in).

You've already admitted that you discount the possibility of any "mystical" possibilities, so, with all due respect, you're not a very reliable judge of empirical data regarding God.

I don't think you appreciate how the Big Bang Theory implies a Creator. Research the alternatives to the Creator hypothesis--they are madness. They are based on zero observation or imaginery math or hypothetical (without observation though) concepts. In fact, the most commonly referenced, evidenceless notion--inflationary theory by Duane Gush--even admits there was a "father universe" that runs into the same problems this universe does.

The more we learn about certain areas of science (consciousness, abiogenesis, cosmology), the more unlikely (by factors with many, many zeros) these things occurred without intelligence. But you might say "science will reverse its course and explain away these problems." That is a faith. Besides, unless science eradicates its pillar--the first Law of Thermodynamics--an extra-universal Creator is the pillar of science. Of course, this is not widely acknowledged.

Besides, when the Bible says the Lord made us in His image, he was referring to our non-animal mental schema. Of course He is not a biped with similar urges. Although my theory is that He is tempted by something, resists, and created this universe as a trial to prove us worthy of rejoining Him upon death. But that's just my theory.

Could you please explain how I was crappy to you?

You said I was promoting liberalism! To say that animals sense God is not a liberal thing to say.

I was discrediting a biased TV special, not yourself. Further, I never once said you were liberal. I did imply that the media is liberal and would be biased toward environmental/animal rights causes--a crux of the latter cause being that "animals are people, too."

My point had nothing to do with animal rights. Some animals are meant to be sacrificed for our nutritional benefit, obviously. We should not deny animals have senses if it's a lie to do so.

2) I'm sorry you don't see my advice/constructive criticisms as worth your time. I will just tell you that I have learned the best when I ignore how I feel after a criticism and look at the substance of the criticism.

When you make ridiculous accusations, then yes your thoughts aren't worth my time. I was not promoting liberalism or animal rights when I said animals can sense God. Perhaps liberals use stuff like that to promote their agendas, but just because they do doesn't mean we should lie about what we think.

3) It's not that I don't believe you, per se. I don't believe that TV show that implied gorillas "sense God."

For the umpteenth time: FINE!, I DON'T CARE! All I said was "Observations show...they look to the sunset", it's not like I laid it down in rock thay they absolutely were worshipping the God of Israel. To you and atheists it means nothing, to me it could mean they sense God. Why do you feel the need to tell me this over and over? I told you I don't think they were lying, you think they were. SO WHAT?! You can't prove they were lying, I can't prove they weren't, so there's no use arguing about it.

The reasons for this are 1) Chimps completely lack certain human capacities, metaphorical/abstract thought being one of them. 2) Claims of human qualities in apes are widely heralded when revealed, but when they are refuted they are snowed-over.

So says you. Whatever is observed depends on the person observing and what that person wants to see in a lot of cases, especially with something like this.

Had Dr. Ian Gilby not been married to a teacher at my high school I would have concluded chimps actually had altruism (as per their meat sharing). Turns out, they did it for purely selfish reasons--as is expected in nature (evol. psychology). Yes, you are not contended this point, but this is a parallel to that TV show you saw, perhaps.

Why is this Gilby guy such an authority on the matter? He's married to a teacher, most teachers are liberal, so maybe he was seeing what he wanted to see.

No hard feelings, freind.

Too late, I don't like being called liberal and gullible. Since you're not an atheist (the way you were attacking me for making a simple remark about animals, I thought you were), here's some verses for you:

Num 22:32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because [thy] way is perverse before me:

Num 22:33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

Num 22:34 And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again.

The mule could sense the angel of the Lord while Balaam couldn't.

1) If you believed that little blurb in a TV spot, you are simply being complacent (believing without question). Notice that I never called you a liberal. Though I will say you are highly sensitive like a liberal.

2) You are still not understanding my point about Sagan/animals.

3) It is obvious by your "you can't prove it, I can't prove it" tendancies that you are quite cynical. I wish I could help you change that, and will if you want help.

4) Dr. Ian Gilby studies a very specific subject, chimp meat sharing. As a scientist, he went through a review. That and his evidence was pursuasive--certainly more credible than Sagan's--therefore I believe him. However, unlike you apparantly did, I didn't just hear something, notice it made me feel good, and stick with it. You seem to honestly believe the claim about gorillas sensing God.

5) It might be simple in your mind, but claiming animals have the capacity to sense God is a major issue with heavy ramifications.

6) That Bible quote says two things: 1) God controlled the donkey, 2) the man was ignoring the Lord's message through his rage (an unGodly trait). Look deeper......

1) If you believed that little blurb in a TV spot, you are simply being complacent (believing without question).

I'd put my discernment against anybody's anyday.

Notice that I never called you a liberal. Though I will say you are highly sensitive like a liberal.

Yeah, I don't like being called gullible and a liberalism promoter, I'm funny that way.

2) You are still not understanding my point about Sagan/animals.

I don't really give a rat's behind about how Sagan relates to animals.

3) It is obvious by your "you can't prove it, I can't prove it" tendancies that you are quite cynical. I wish I could help you change that, and will if you want help.

It's a fact that you can't prove they were lying.

4) Dr. Ian Gilby studies a very specific subject, chimp meat sharing. As a scientist, he went through a review. That and his evidence was pursuasive--certainly more credible than Sagan's--therefore I believe him.

How was it persuasive?

However, unlike you apparantly did, I didn't just hear something, notice it made me feel good, and stick with it.

"Feeling good" has nothing to do with it. I don't think they were lying, simple as that. I believe in unpleasant things also.

You seem to honestly believe the claim about gorillas sensing God.

Of course I believe animals sense God sometimes.

5) It might be simple in your mind, but claiming animals have the capacity to sense God is a major issue with heavy ramifications.

What ramifications? We all have to make sacrifices. We humans have had to sacrifice 100% happiness to put up with the ups and downs of this "testing" age realizing everything that's going on. Animals have to sacrifice their bodies for our benefit. In the end all who are saved will be glad they made those sacrifices.

6) That Bible quote says two things: 1) God controlled the donkey, 2) the man was ignoring the Lord's message through his rage (an unGodly trait). Look deeper......

Where did the bible say the Lord was controlling the donkey? You're adding to the Word, a definite no-no. You've proven my point when I said that we all see what we want to see. To you, the donkey couldn't see that there was an Angel of the Lord standing there and had to be controlled, to me the donkey knew the Angel of the Lord was standing there herself (as the bible says). Since you take such liberties as to add to the Word with this example, why should I believe you on anything else. Perhaps you make up a lot of things?

I don't think you appreciate how the Big Bang Theory implies a Creator.

The "Big Bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Research the alternatives to the Creator hypothesis--they are madness.

What is the "Creator hypothesis"? I've never heard of it.

They are based on zero observation or imaginery math or hypothetical (without observation though) concepts.

Interesting. I've observed that the same is true for claims of the existence of a Creator. The more specific the claims regarding this "Creator", the more evidence should be presented for the claims, and yet none is ever forthcoming.

In fact, the most commonly referenced, evidenceless notion--inflationary theory by Duane Gush--even admits there was a "father universe" that runs into the same problems this universe does.

Citing Duane Gish as an "authority" of anything other than dishonesty does not advance your argument.

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.