Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

Philosphy Forum ^ | FR Post 12-6-2003 | "A Sloth"

[PeterPrinciple]

1) Creation - Where did we come from and who are we?
Gee, our parents?
And aren't we what we make of ourselves? If not, why not?

In my book, you are either an accident of nature or a created being.......your choice. How you answer this question affects how you live your life. There is only one truth, we will find out in the end.

2) Fall - What has gone wrong with the world?

You want to be a little more specific about that?

If there wasn't something wrong with the world, we wouldn't be here discussing it now would we?

3) Redemption - What can we do to fix it?

What do you want to "fix"?
And what do you mean "we", Kemosabe?

According to Mark Twain the only person who should say we are a woman with child or a man with a mouse in his pocket. But aren't we all here at FR trying to fix it?

We all have a world view.

If you would like some challenging reading on this read How Now Shall We Live by Colsen.

[Greek]

"Here's a well-known question that's often used to kick off theological debates: Is it possible for God to create an object so large / heavy that He cannot move it? There are several variations on this question. Another more secular variation asks, "What happens when an irresistible force meets and immovable object?" Of course, these questions are designed to be paradoxical. Most people who believe in God would agree that He is omnipotent - that He is all-powerful. Yet answering either yes or no to the question seems to be equivalent to saying that God is limited. If God can create an object that He can't move, then He's limited as to what he can do. And if He can't create such an object, then He's limited as to what He can create. So, what are we to make of this paradox? Is God limited? Is the question merely nonsense? Many people who try to tackle this question assume that God - being all-powerful - is not limited by anything. Nothing is impossible for Him. However, there's another aspect of God that often gets overlooked when addressing this question. God is also all-wise. This means that while nothing is impossible to Him, he does not allow Himself to do anything just because He can do it. I believe that God - through His wisdom - imposes limitations upon Himself. Some people may balk at the idea that God is limited, but here's an easy illustration. There's something that we human beings can do that God cannot do. We can do evil. Some might suggest that God's inability to do evil does not make him limited. I suppose it depends on your concept of what a limitation is. Many of us see a limitation as a bad thing - a weakness - an imperfection - a hindrance. Indeed, many limitations are hindrances, but limitations can be good as well. We set boundaries for our children for their well-being. We make laws (ideally) to preserve order and justice in our society. Some people answer the question by saying that the question is meaningless, because it asks God to do something that is logically inconsistent. I'm not yet sure what I think about this. I would tend to agree; however, I think about some of the things being explored in quantum mechanics. Things such as light being observed as both a particle and wave. This would seem to be logically inconsistent as well, but it's generally accepted by most quantum physicists. Perhaps the best answer to this question was the one given by the Usenet Oracle: The Usenet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was: If God is all-powerful, can he create a stone so large that he cannot lift it? And in response, thus spake the Oracle: This is a question often brought up by people arguing against the existence of an omnipotent God. I tried it out once. Oracle: Hey, God, you can do anything, right? God: This is true. Oracle: Well, I bet you can't create an immovable stone. God: Oh yeah? How much? Oracle: Ten pints and a packet of peanuts. God: You're on. Oracle: That's pretty impressive. God: You bet it is. Oracle: How about a double-or-nothing bet? God: Sure, why not? Oracle: I bet you can't move it over there. God: That's not fair! You're playing with semantics and petty logic. Oracle: So? If you can move it, I owe you the twenty pints and 2 packets of peanuts. If you can't, then I don't owe you anything. God: Let me think about this one... Got it. You see, I can play games with logic and semantics too.

[xm177e2]

Deist Atheists

"Deism", which at the time was the closest anyone who was intellectually honest could be to atheism before the advent of modern science. Deism used God as an explanation for the existence of the universe. It posited that God created the universe and then went somewhere else.

(From DenBeste.nu)

Deism concedes to Christians that yeah, there probably was a God at some point. So that's how the world got created. But he isn't hanging out here with us anymore (which basically means we live in a functionally atheistic universe, because God isn't interfering with us). This is why deism and atheism seem so similar.

Orthodox Atheists

There are plenty of these, but most people you would mistakenly identify as "Orthodox" are probably more like apathists or mechanistic atheists:

Apathists

Don't care one way or the other what may or may not be out there (credit for this term goes to Adam Carolla)

Mechanistic Atheists

Sure, maybe there is a God, but we'll never be able to tell which religion is correct, and it's just as logical to assume there probably isn't a God. It makes no sense from a materialist standpoint to try and appease a God that has never shown to benefit his believers or punish unbelievers, so why bother? (for more on this, see den Beste's weblog). Mechanistic atheists do not deny the possiblity of the existence of God, but they do see it as improbable. (so why don't they worship Jesus if they only see it as "improbable?" I mean, we're risking Hell. The thing is, we don't see Christianity as being any more probable than any other religion. And if we worship Jesus, and it turns out that the Muslims were right, Allah will damn us to hell.)

Agnostics

Agnostics are not the only ones unsure about the existence of God. Most atheists are not "Orthodox" types who rule out the possibility of the existence of God, we just assume it is a very low probability and don't see how we could prove it one way or the other. Agnostics are just less sure than the rest of us, to the point where it doesn't really make sense to classify them as a group as "atheists."

[xm177e2]

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.

There are religions, like Buddhism, that do not have any God or Gods. Religion is the belief in that which cannot be proven scientifically.

[Greek]

END SHOULD READ: God: Let me think about this one... Got it. God then dismantles the entire universe and then reassembles it so the immovable rock is relocated in a new place. You see, I can play games with logic and semantics too.

[xm177e2]

Did you end the story early? Which does God decide to do?

[GLDNGUN]

Of course you have to start with a definition of "religion". Depending upon your definition, athiesm could certainly be considered a religion. The US Supreme Court, in fact, declared athiesm to be a religion in a ruling. My definition of a religion, is that set of beliefs within which you form your worldview. By this definition, athiesm is most certainly a "religion". A belief that there is no god, is STILL a belief. I believe that the removal of all mention of God from public schools, courtrooms, the pledge, etc. IS an "establishment of religion" and unconstitutional. It's the same as determining what set of morals and values we want our schools to teach. Some suggest that schools shouldn't teach any morals, and should be a "value-free" zone. The absence of morals and values then becomes the moral standard for schools.

[MattAMiller]

Can't I believe there is no God while acknowledging that there's no way to be 100% certain? You can never be certain of the nonexistence of something. But belief in the nonexistence of things like elves and unicorns is rarely compared to religious faith.

[WackyKat]

I believe that the removal of all mention of God from public schools, courtrooms, the pledge, etc. IS an "establishment of religion" and unconstitutional.

Congratulations. You've won today's Twisted Logic Award

If prohibiting mention of God by government establishes a religion, that must mean that having government promote Christianity does not establish a religion, right?

Does that make any sense?

[Tribune7]

I don't. Friends?

Fair enough. :-)

[highlander_UW]

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.

Nice try, but I'd point out that it's the atheists that claim God does NOT exist, but then deny they have a faith based position. I'm willing to agree that I believe in God through faith, although I'd suggest there is plenty of evidence as well as logic that would support my belief. What is the support for the athiests belief? Nothing but faith that there is no God.

I state something DOESN'T exist, how in the hell am I going to show THAT to you?!

That's my question to you, you're the one making a statement you can't prove by your own admission. Therefore, atheism is an illogical and unsupportable view. Thanks for proving my point.

[MattAMiller]

He used Paul Tillich's "Dynamics of Faith" which we studied in our class, which defines the object of your faith as your "ultimate concern".

I prefer Rudolf Otto's understanding of religion as the experience of the "numenous," by which he meant some sort of non-contingent reality.

[highlander_UW]

Prove Santa doesn't exist. If you go up to the North Pole and find nothing I'll just say he's hanging out on Mars for the summer.

No one but children and fools claim Santa is real. Where do you fall on the topic?

[Cindy]

Yes, atheism is a religion and they are politically correct fanatics about it.

[whattajoke]

So, in your world, anything exists as long as someone says it does? Leperchauns, tooth fairies, yeti's, and flying carpets exist. Therefore they do? Odd.

[highlander_UW]

You can't prove a negative. But if one were to try, they'd first have to ask you to define "God." So you'd define "God" as an all-powerful being.

LOL, nice straw man arguement you have going here with yourself. Care to put any other responses into my mouth?

If one can't prove a negative, how can atheists claim there is no God definitively except upon their faith?

Then they'd say, "you mean, He can do the impossible?" And you'd say "Yes." Then they'd say that if the impossible can be done, by anything or anyone, it's not impossible. If you say "No," then He's not "all-powerful." In other words, when you really look at the concept of "God," it's internally incoherent and makes no sense.

Sorry, but I've been around a little to long to be cowed by a silly word game. Nothing is impossible for God, but there are plenty of things that are impossible for humans. And you can just skip past the moving an imovable object game as well...logic impossiblities do not prove or disprove anything except one's skills in logic.

[highlander_UW]

So, in your world, anything exists as long as someone says it does? Leperchauns, tooth fairies, yeti's, and flying carpets exist. Therefore they do? Odd.

Let me know when it's my turn to make up claims for you. I would say I don't believe those things exist and would admit that I have no proof they don't exisit although I've never seen anything to support their existence logically or physically. You, on the other hand claim there is no God, a definitive statement. Furthermore, you attempt to bring up fictional things to avoid discussing that fact that you are basing your views on faith, but are loathe to admit it.

[WackyKat]

Nothing is impossible for God,

How do you know that, exactly ? I'm asking for facts, not unfounded belief

[wizardoz]

He used Paul Tillich's "Dynamics of Faith" which we studied in our class, which defines the object of your faith as your "ultimate concern".

Well, that's one way to win an argument: redefine the words to fit your agenda. Hey, you're a Democrat. Yes you are. You see, I define Democrat as anyone who isn't an anarchist.

But is that valid?

[highlander_UW]

Nothing is impossible for God,

How do you know that, exactly ? I'm asking for facts, not unfounded belief

I can offer you two answers. Firstly, I believe God is capable of anything He wishes to do. Secondly, and probably more to your liking, if something were impossible for God (at least in the sense that the vast majority of us would agree upon definitionally), then he isn't God but simply a very powerful entity. So by logical defintion God would be all powerful.