Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

I am turning a bit zealous in my desire to free people from their own delusions. For some reason I get personally offended by every single religious person. I think it is because I find it so incredibly stupid I take offence that a member of the same race as me can believe in such nonsense.

Gnarff, of course it is extremely difficult for people to have to think and decide for themselves. Of course many can't handle it and they turn to religion, drugs or other mindaltering hurtful thing. Religion is comforting, religion is soothing but so is a straightjacket and if you can't deal with life without a straightjacket then maybe life did not hold much for you.

 

Unless he smoked a bit of said burning bush before speaking to it.

I was, err, trying to be polite. I have more faith in myself than the rest of humanity, but I didnt want to come off as too arrogant. But yes, you are right, I dont consider human beings as greatly lordly beings.

See, another point of control - you arent allowed to talk about it. Why not? What will happen if you do?

In fact, to be quite honest, Scientology is good.... well example.... of why religion is useless. Look at it - it was invented last century, by a sci fi author, who said himself that religion was a means of controlling people, they charge exhorbitant fees for membership and advancement, everything is very hush so no one else can find out about it, and they have been found guilty of both attempting to drive a woman insane and attemptig to tamper with evidence in a police station. And yet, people still think scientology is the one truth, the only true "religion". I think anyone who thinks that their religion is true and could never be false, should look at scientology, and realize how easy and quick it is to create a religion and get thousands of otherwise normal people to believe it. Its that easy, its been done before and it will be done again. You saw it with your very eyes.

Look, I'm not saying all religious people are stupid - far from it. I am saying they are currently being controlled, and the means of control is so insidious that they dont even think it is a means of control.

 

There is a cure for this, Joacqin. It's simply to realize that any absolute claim on either end relies (in an arguement involving evidence everyone can agree on) on circular reasoning.

Hardcore atheists say, "There is no god, and we know there is no god because there's no proof (miracles), and we know there are no miracles because there is no god..." At the same time, the hardcore religionists say, "There is a God, and we know there is a God because He's shown himself (miracles), and we know there are miracles because there is a God..."

Once you realize that, so long as you have no absolute evidence, the arguement can go nowhere and is actually perfectly balanced, you may stop thinking of the other side as so stupid. Again, I would encourage you to look at all the very smart founders of modern science that were deeply religious. Not stupid people. Not gullible people, usually. Very well versed in how the universe works, yet they still found room for God, and by many testimonies, they found a perfectly God-shaped hole.

 

As I said in my last sentence in my last post above, thats just because they were looking for one.

 

Unless I remember my philosophy completely incorrectly it was infact Immanuel Kant who developed the cathegorical imperative and not Sartre. Sartre belonged to a very different school of philosophy as I recall.

As for my thoughts on atheism and religion in general I'll say that I'm myself an agnostic but still a member of my state church and not about to resign anytime soon. I think the church I belong to does mostly valuable work. Keeping young away from alcohol and drugs, giving hope to people in despair and preaching tolerance instead of hate is something I appreciate. That is why I think religion can be very very good for society but needs to be kept in some form of control to prevent it from turning to everything nasty that religion can represent. First and foremost I think it's important to separate religion from politics and preferrably create a unwritten rule where religious arguments are not valid in politics. I think Finland has succeeded in that quite well so far atleast.

 

Once again I must point out that there are a lot of people who have lived on this ball of mud who have been incredible thinkers and contributors to the general welfare of the human race -- even in fields like science. And these people to whome I refer also firmly believed in God or in religion (as in the religion without gods, Buddhism, that has previously been discussed by others.) The utter and complete arrogance in painting anyone who has faith in a higher power as being "incredibly stupid" is appalling. It certainly does not engender respect for the person's argument.

 

Hey, lookie at that.

Logic 101, boys and girls, what is wrong with this argument?

1. Straw man. ("There are no miracles because there is no god")
2. Assumption that every opinion is equally valid regardless of proof. ("The arguement can go nowhere and is actually perfectly balanced" (sic))
3. Requirement for absolute evidence for subjects there can only be absence of evidence for. ("so long as you have no absolute evidence")

 

I disagree a belief system requires faith. Athieism is based in science which has to be proven fact, you cant have a believe system about something that is

 

I find the belief to be utterly stupid, be it in the Great Lord Xenu, Jesus Christ, Allah or the Magical Yoghurt. Intelligent people sadly can believe in stupid things which galls me even more.

NOG, I used to be much more tolerant but after seeing what you amongst other write and believe in and learning more about the world I can't be that. I am not claiming anything, all I am doing claiming that you are wrong, that what you believe in is false, that it is a lie concocted by men in large extent to exploit other men. The two viewpoints are not equal, they do not hold equal value. The religious view of the world is of equal value to the child's belief in Santa Claus. It is the religionists who are making absolute claims, my claim is that they are wrong and that almost everyone who was not brought into the faith as a small child either have a similar view or just haven't given it much thought. Why are religious people often so keen on homeschooling and such? They are afraid that if their children get exposed to a superior viewpoint their children will not share their faith.

I respect people who have different politics than me, who believe that the greater good can be achieved by means I disagree with. I can disagree with people and still see where they are coming from and understand their reasoning, I just disagree with it. Religion does not warrant this, it is stupid, backwards, exploitive and senseless. As has been stated before, if atheism is selling anything it is to get people to think for themselves. To critically examine their believes. Have you really done so with your faith? Have you studied for example Christianity from a historical and sociological viewpoint instead of a religious one? The case against any specific religion is water tight and huge. Generic spirituality or belief in a greater being is as has been stated quite impossible to disprove but why would there be one? For me the entire thing falls down on simple logic I have argued before, if things need to have a creator to exist then that creator must exist thus it must have a creator and so on. So either the untestable supreme being is a being that does not make any sense logically and is actually then testable in that way or it is maybe just a very powerful being that has evolved alongside the universe which would make it not much different to us just like we are not much different from ants. Vastly more powerful maybe, with vastly more knowledge but still bound within the laws of the universe and when all things are said and done really no different from us.

As a final point and a reitiration to some extent, the more you actually learn and think about religion the more I at least actually reject it. I was quite ok with it as long as I didn't think about it but the more I thought about these issues the more I came to the conclusion that it is a negative yoke on humanities shoulders that I am actually willing to do my tiny little bit to try to erode (mostly by leaving the church and posting on the internet, I am a real go getter!).

 

All the time? EVERY time? Religion has never in history accomplished anything useful? Every religious person is "stupid, backwards, exploitive and senseless"?

If that's what you mean, then it is is you are are wrong. Flat out, totally plain wrong. Now you are the one talking in absolutes (If I'm reading it right, and I think I am.)

You're a smart guy, Joa, and I know that there's no convincing you of the existence of a God, but there is plenty of evidence of the good that religion and religious people have accomplished in the past. I'm not for a second denying the bad, but a look at the good is also warranted, otherwise your position is totally skewed.

 

Read my first paragraph and I can actually give you some points LKD. Religion is a very useful for a state to keep its population placid and subservient and often hardworking. Part of the success of the Western world, and particularly the northern (protestant) part was that hard work was an important part of the religious faith. So from the point of view of entire socities I guess religion actually can be a positive but not from the point of the individual.

 

So wrong.

Atheism isn't based on science - atheism is based on the rejection of a theist system - or one believing in a god or higher power.
Science isn't about proving facts either - it's about explaining how things that we can observe through repeatable experiments and falsifiable hypotheses. Science is NEVER an absolute truth, merely the best educated guess.
Atheism isn't based on facts either - or even probability. It's based on absence of proof and there being no reason to assume that there is a higher force when quite literally no evidence to suggest that.
And you can have a belief system about something that is - you'd just happen to be right. Not so much a belief system about things you can prove and have had proven to you.

 

No, Joa, not even close. There are plenty of individuals who are free thinkers who have benefitted from their beliefs and the support systems that religions can engender.

Just because a person believes in a higher power does not mean he is a placid, controlled sheep. Maybe all of the religious people you've met are like that, but having personally met ones who aren't (not to mention considering myself to be as intelligent and mentally able as the next fellow) I can guarantee that you are dead wrong on this one.

 

nope, it is religion that required the phrase athiest to exist. they said, if you do not believe in god, you are athiest.
If you dont believe in god then a belief structure isnt necessary anything else is science, the birds and trees are science, the ground is science, the air we breath is science, your very existence is science. Without religion, there would be no athiests, just people in a world of science.

Im not athiest, Im a person, it is religion that labels me athiest.

 

Wait, what?

You live in a world where science is some kind of strange, omnipotent figure governing the world. Are you sure you mean "science" and not "nature"?

Science is a method of explaining nature, based on experimentation and observation.

Not only can you be an atheist without believing in science, it's mandatory. The whole point of science is that with sufficient resources you can re-test and prove everything. You don't have to believe in anything in science. Sometimes trust is required because it's infeasible to re-gather all the related data, but it's possible regardless. Anything else, especially this "birds and trees and rocks and people all have qi^H^H^H science" crosses right into the realm of spirituality and religion.

 

I dont subscribe to nature, nature is simply a word to describe things which develop on their own, which is still science.

and exactly why science cannot be a religion.

How do you figure that? if you are athiest, dont have a belief structure. science doesnt require belief you have to accept it, therefore if you dont believe that god created the world then you must accept the scientific reason.

 

Now here's something I don't really understand. You'd said many times that you'd wish religion to just disappear and then you'll admit that it has positive social consequences motivating people to work hard etc. However then you state that it's bad for the individual. Is that which is good for society not supposed to be good for the individual in the long run (it might not be good for each individual but atleast good on the average). Assuming this then abolishing all religion will remove a motivation for people and make them less likely to be hardoworking and do harm to society and therefore in the long run to most individuals too. Therefore in seeking to remove religion aren't you advocating a socially destructive agenda?

 

I think he was placing special emphasis on the "believing in" part of believing in science. Atheists don't believe in science. Atheists haven't supplanted a belief in God with a belief in science, so to say that an Atheist believes in science the way that a Catholic believes in the resurrection of Christ or the immaculate conception of Mary would be inappropriate.

 

It's not SCIENCE causing things to happen, science is explaining how and why these things happen. Nor can you "subscribe" to science - science isn't a monolithic structure, and you can very well accept one scientific explanation and deny another based on what evidence they have backing them.

You don't have to accept scientific reasoning ("the" scientific reason?), you can just admit you don't know. You can be an atheist without accepting scientific explanations for certain things.


The power of Science compels you!

 

For some people Atheism is a religion in the way it dominates all their beliefs and attitudes towards others and they preach more than any man in a collar

For those that take the scientific route, it *can* be almost religious as the point is you have faith that science will be able to explain everything.

Some of the strongest arguments I've heard personally about Atheism being a religion is:
"Atheism can be like any other religion"
"THAT IS NOT TRUE! We athiests believe in... *cue lecture here*"

As it is the term Atheist itself could technically be applied to other world faiths that do not feature a god figure. Though many coin the term to refer to "religion-free" and wear it with pride.

Perhaps Atheism is a disorganised religion? Most people treat religion and faith as a pick-and-choose affair anyhow, "I like what this pasage says but will conveniently skip that one", I don't, personally, see how Atheism is much different. It just isn't defined beyond "There is no god. You're going to die. Have a nice day!"