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...

[#3Fan]

Good points, I never realized that!

[Dimensio]

1) I don't know why you call Big Bang a hypothesis. It fits the criteria for Theory, and NASA calls it a theory.

Interesting. Do you have a citation for this? I've never seen any scientific publication refer to it as a "theory" -- as far as I've seen, there's just not enough information to classify it as "theory" yet.

The Creator hypothesis is an informal way of saying the initial quantity of matter and the formation of the universe was done through intelligence design.

Okay. I assume, then, that there's justification by way of physical evidence and extrapolation of past events based upon future conditions.

It is not an official theory, rather it is my own (with help from probability evidence and scientific schema at this time in history).

You just said that it was a hypothesis. Is it a theory or a hypothesis? And if it isn't recognized as either by the scientific community, why do you think that you're so brilliant to have stumbled upon something that scientists have managed to overlook for years?

Normally I don't find "God in the gaps," but as those gaps close, the Creator appears more necessary (by large magnitudes.

So this would be "argument from incredulity", then? The "I can't understnad how this could have happened without divine intervention, thus divine intervention must have been the cause rather than processes that I simply don't understand." reasoning?

The scientific evidence of a Creator is in probability and impossibility. It is impossible that matter came from nothing without intelligence or an extra-universal agent.

Impossible? Justify this claim.

Second, the improbabilities of numerous cosmological occurrences (that the universe falls into anthropic physics, etc) demands an intelligence.

Really? You've calculated the probability of the universe having the properties that it does and compared it to the probability that the universe has different probabilities? Could you, perhaps, share this work with the rest of us?

Third,there is a ridiculously high improbability that life formed given the conditions and time-frame. 4) It is also highly improbable to believe consciousness evolved so quickly given the conditions and timeframe.

Again, can you show your work for whatever numbers you got here?

Yes, these aren't "proofs," but they are high probabilities.

You can say a lot of nonsense with probabilities. For example, 1000 years ago, the probability that the right male and female couples would mate and produce offspring that, through the millenia, would eventually lead to your birth, is astronomical. As such, your existence on this planet is utterly impossible without considering that a divine agent of some kind personally and specifically directed your birth. Can you spot the flaw in my reasoning?

[Loc123]

1) It is interested that you leave out citations that explain your questions/counterarguments. IE Sagan's relevance, my theory on the researcher's motives (you again said I believed they were lying, when I directly addressed that before).

2) Since you have basically skimmed my postulates about the Balaam story and seen what you wanted to see, I will condense them all into one postulate. If the donkey had free will--as you much claim by saying it could see and understand the Lord--then the Lord's power over a man was dependent on that donkey's decision. I am contending the donkey was a rock, manipulated by the Lord. If you say the donkey can "sense" God in the sense that they can understand His significance (sans your gorilla thought) then you must also say that rocks, water, oxygen, and everything else can also sense God since He can/has manipulated them all at one point. You are confusing yourself with the word sense. I say the Lord can manipulate non-conscious beigns (read: ALL animals minus humans) and you say they can see him and choose a response (ala the gorillas). You need to be clear and also clearly understand my postulates instead of glossing over them.

3) You might think the Bible has no deeper meanings, but I don't. When the Lord asks for a sacrifice of a lamb, He doesn't mean He wants a literal lamb today! He wants something valuable to be sacrificed, like a lamb was valuable back then. If you cannot analyze the Bible critically, you are foresaking at least two our our innate gifts from Him: abstract thought and critical thinking.

[Loc123]

1) http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

2) I explained the basis behind my Creator hypothesis. It does not have the actual data, but ancedotal improbabilities. Notice I am not a statistician but a college student, so give me time. Also, just because secularist scientists don't consider a Creator, doesn't mean a thing. I get quite a laugh reading some of those "ideas" that could spawn matter from nothing. Imaginary time, notions that are "acceptable" under "theoretical" quantum mechanics, boundary-free universe--it's all based on zero observation and test-free mathematics!

3) I directly cited where it would be impossible in my post you to. You didn't copy it, but it dealt with the Law of conservation.

4) You should read about the anthropic principle. And here: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/CosmologicalArgument.html

[Loc123]

I stand by that claim. If you look carefully at what I said, I said that matter didn't come about without intelligent action.

[Loc123]

If you can show me where I am egoist, I would really like to see it.

As for Highlander, from what I saw he was stating how a belief in no God was a faith. That's all. He was not saying religion is a better tool for understanding than science; he was saying religion is often validated or made probable by science.

I really don't believe I fall under your accusations, but if I do please cite them and, if valid, I will adapt and apologize.

[RightWhale]

Do atheists perform a religious ritual?

[Loc123]

I was using those words as a metaphor for old English. My point was the old language is not relevant anymore. Besides, if you respect the Lord in your mind and actions I don't think He would be offended by calling Him "you."

Thanks for the Othello citation--someday I will get to that.

And I know we need to worry about misinterpreting the original word (in Hebrew). That causes misunderstandings like "thou shalt not kill" instead of the correct "thou shalt not MURDER." Huge difference based on a small translation. Still, the real meaning of the Bible is not in the actual words, but what those words mean. I hope you agree with that at least ;)

[#3Fan]

1) It is interested that you leave out citations that explain your questions/counterarguments.

Citations? I simply don't know what Sagan has to do with observations of gorillas looking at sunsets.

IE Sagan's relevance, my heory on the researcher's motives (you again said I believed they were lying, when I directly addressed that before).

They were direct observations. The only thing I cited from the show were observations, not theories. Either they looked at sunsets or they didn't if they did then they were telling the truth, if they didn't they were lying. I don't think they were lying, you must think they were because you dismiss that they looked at sunsets. What we're to theorize about them looking to sunsets is up to us.

2) Since you have basically skimmed my postulates about the Balaam story and seen what you wanted to see, I will condense them all into one postulate.

I didn't see what I wanted to see, I read exactly what the bible said.

If the donkey had free will--as you much claim by saying it could see and understand the Lord--then the Lord's power over a man was dependent on that donkey's decision.

No, I'm simply saying the donkey saw what Balaam didn't, which is exactly what the bible says. You are adding to the Word so that you can manipulate it to fit your notions. You have proven yourself untrustworthy.

I am contending the donkey was a rock, manipulated by the Lord.

The bible doesn't say that and therefore you are adding to the Word.

If you say the donkey can "sense" God in the sense that they can understand His significance (sans your gorilla thought) then you must also say that rocks, water, oxygen, and everything else can also sense God since He can/has manipulated them all at one point.

I didn't say that donkey can sense God, I said that the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord while Balaam didn't, which is exactly what the verses say. I do believe that animals can sense God though.

You are confusing yourself with the word sense. I say the Lord can manipulate non-conscious beigns (read: ALL animals minus humans) and you say they can see him and choose a response (ala the gorillas).

I didn't say the gorillas can see God, I said the gorillas can sense God. You are proving that you can't keep anything straight. Your observations and discernment are definitely suspect.

You need to be clear and also clearly understand my postulates instead of glossing over them.

Your postulates have nothing to do with what the bible says, that the donkey saw what Balaam didn't.

3) You might think the Bible has no deeper meanings, but I don't.

Of course it has deeper meanings, but that doesn't mean we should just add our notions to it at will.

When the Lord asks for a sacrifice of a lamb, He doesn't mean He wants a literal lamb today!

Exactly and those parables are clear. However there is a big difference between that and reading that a donkey saw something and then adding that the Lord caused her to see it. You are adding to the Word.

He wants something valuable to be sacrificed, like a lamb was valuable back then. If you cannot analyze the Bible critically, you are foresaking at least two our our innate gifts from Him: abstract thought and critical thinking.

I'm perfectly capable of understanding parables, however I don't add to the Word to fit any made-up notions.

[Last Visible Dog]

Religions aspouse the belief in God(s). Atheists don't believe in God(s). So to answer your question, no it is not a religion.

Try that again.

Religions beleive there are God(s)

Atheists beleive there are no God(s)

Both are based on faith.

[Last Visible Dog]

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a deity

But it still is a belief. Let's put it this way: people that believe in God have about the same amount of supporting evidence as people that do not believe in god.

Atheism may not be a religion per se but it is a belief system and all religions are also belief systems.

[wizardoz]

Regardless of what you say NOW, the fact is, in post #469, you said,

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

If matter is not created, it cannot have a creator. I can't figure out why you are now acting as if you didn't say this, or that it doesn't mean anything after all, or that it means something other than what it obviously means.

The implications are obvious. Moreover, you never told me whether this "intellect" is made of matter or not.

[Last Visible Dog]

Another way to look at these discussions is to replace the term 'God' with another term, such as 'invisible purple monkey'. This is not meant as a slight to the religious, but is a healthy way to handle these types of discussions... So, is a disbelief in these creatures a religion of its own? If so, most of us must belong, although I have to admit I have missed the last few meetings.

Disbelief is still a belief. Unless Atheists have magically found a way to prove a negative (HINT: they haven't) then it is based on faith - a belief system just like a religion.

[Last Visible Dog]

Right. And to date no one has seen the slightest evidence for invisible purple monkeys, so it certainly seems like a religion to me.

Are you trying to claim there is not the slighest evidence in support of any religion? I don't think you have done your homework.

[Last Visible Dog]

I may be crazy but if one claims the existence of something, the burden of proof is therefore on the claimant. YOU state something exists, YOU show me. I state something DOESN'T exist, how in the hell am I going to show THAT to you?!

That is NOT how logic works.

If someone states God exists, the burden of proof is on them.

If someone states God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them also.

If you state something DOES NOT EXIST, you are practicing fallacious logic because one can never prove a negative therefore one can never say with certainty God does not exist. Atheism for the most part is very illogical.

Let me put it this way: religions understand they are a belief system and Atheists are in denial.

If you don’t like the rules of logic, take it up with Aristotle.

[tpaine]

Do atheists perform a religious ritual?
507 -RW-

---

I pray quite often that my fellow freepers here can understand that my doubt in a god does not make me a bad person. -- That it's just me personality acting up..
-- Hmmm, maybe it's a devil?

[RightWhale]

Both are based on faith.

Now we have to back up and consider what faith might be. Are we clear on what belief is?

[tpaine]

If someone states God exists, the burden of proof is on them.

If someone states God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them also.

If you ~insist~ that something DOES or DOES NOT EXIST, you are practicing fallacious logic because no one can prove it, to date. Therefore one can never say with certainty God does or does not exist. Thus both Atheism & Theism for the most part are very illogical.

The only logical stance is to admit you don't know.

If you don't like the rules of logic, take it up with Aristotle.

[Last Visible Dog]

Now we have to back up and consider what faith might be. Are we clear on what belief is?

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Belief - Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something

I can believe that hitting my head with hammer will hurt. It is a belief but it is based on empirical data therefore it is not necessarily faith. Atheism is a belief and since there is absolutely no proof or material evidence to support atheism (one can never prove a negative)it is also a faith.

[Last Visible Dog]

If you ~insist~ that something DOES or DOES NOT EXIST, you are practicing fallacious logic because no one can prove it, to date. Therefore one can never say with certainty God does or does not exist. Thus both Atheism & Theism for the most part are very illogical.

While there is no such thing as absolute proof, one can provide supporting evidence for a positive statement. I can provide a fair amount of empirical data to support the position that "I exist". There is a philosophical position that nothing is knowable but if you work in this realm, Aristotelian logic is also impossible. Within the realm of logic, positive statement can be proved - as in: well supported. A negative can never be proved within the realm of logic.

Atheism can NEVER be proved via logic.

Theism COULD be proved via logic (although as of now, it has not)