Atheism is just another religion

[Green Gaia]

Atheism is typically the consequence of two unrelated belief systems. One is a mode of thought that embraces a teleology without Deity - as perhaps epitomized by Daoism.

The second belief system is naturalism or, more correctly, ontological naturalism (as opposed to methodological naturalism). This system views all that exists as a tapestry of natural processes no matter how incompletely understood, sees morality and ethics a evolved human constructs (judgements), and meaning as a posteriori narrative.

Yes. I get that. But do those calling themselves 'atheist' because they oppose a certian religion or all religions, get it? That 'atheism' is not the opposition to religion.

 

[Merlin]

Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying science is a religion. Neither of them accept anything by faith, only by proof and logic. In my personal case, I don't believe in any type of god because I have no reason to. I've grown so far beyond the idea of a personal god that I no longer bother arguing with myself, what if? Similar to when you reach that certain point in life when you realize Santa Claus never existed. You don't need to question it, you know (not believe). If you want to go so far as to say, There's no proof Santa doesn't exist, then, there's no proof Luke Skywalker doesn't exist, or Gandalf, or Stewie Griffin, Pikachu, and Zeus. You don't give them the benefit of the doubt, do you?

A. With that logic in mind, consider how many different gods there are. Can I say nearer 100,000 (perhaps thousands more) that have risen and fallen over the centuries in various parts of the world?

You worship one god, you might be pissing off one of 99,999 other gods. Let's see your odds:

1:100,000

You have a 0.00001% chance of having chosen the right god.

B. I think that anyone chooses a religion for the sole purpose of being saved isn't true to that religion. You can't be a true theist while saying, "I might be wrong, but I have a 50:50 chance, so I'll believe just in case." Assuming a god did exist and ask for unquestioning loyalty.. is he going to be happy that you believed in him on a "just-in-case" basis?

Scientists never accept that something is NOT THERE because they cannot prove it. You are obviously not a scientist. It is absolutely necessary in science to prove the absence of something in someone else's hypothesis. Why are we arguing about 'dark matter'?

To KNOW beyond any doubt that God does not exist - without any proof - does require faith. Faith is defined as the belief in something where there is absolutely no proof. So, to believe there is no God, is just as logical and/or illogical as belief that there is one. Nobody can be that sure without deep faith in their own belief system.

As far as multiple Gods. There may be 100,000, who knows. They may be petty and vindictive as you suggest, again who knows? I suspect that any entity (if it/they exist) will be way above the pettiness you suggest. I suspect that being 'pissed off' as you so elegantly put it is a human trait.

It would be quite a crowded heaven with 100,000 bosses. So, if we assume a God exists, it is most likely that one would be enough for this little universe, whatever He is called.

How do you conclude a belief in no God is more logical than a belief in one God? Where is your proof?

Reading your text again, I think the reason you do not believe in God, is that the one you have considered and rejected is a small minded petty vindictive being. I would reject that one as well. Maybe, just maybe, there is a better one to consider.

Keep the faith

M

 

[Merlin]

Yes. I get that. But do those calling themselves 'atheist' because they oppose a certian religion or all religions, get it? That 'atheism' is not the opposition to religion.

Yes, there are an auful lot of atheist evengelists.

If they really believe there is nothing, then why would they care that millions of people are wasting their time in worship (in their eyes). I suspect their constant attacks, and even contributions here, are a sign of insecurity in their faith.

M

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But do those calling themselves 'atheist' because they oppose a certian religion or all religions, get it? That 'atheism' is not the opposition to religion.

Probably not, but few people take time to actually struggle with the definition of 'religion' until prodded, and to the extent that these atheists [naively] equate religion with theism, they are correct.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, there are an auful lot of atheist evengelists.

If they really believe there is nothing, then why would they care that millions of people are wasting their time in worship (in their eyes). I suspect their constant attacks, and even contributions here, are a sign of insecurity in their faith.

M

That was not my point.

 

[Merlin]

Oh, no--not this boring, dead-end topic again! My friend, if you wish to believe that atheism is a religion (although it most certainly is not), be my guest. PEACE

If it is not a religion, then why are so many of you on a religious forum promoting and/or defending it?

M

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suspect their constant attacks, and even contributions here, are a sign of insecurity in their faith.

How very thoughtful of you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it is not a religion, then why are so many of you on a religious forum promoting and/or defending it?

So "religion" is that which you're willing to promote or defend?

 

[Ryan2065]

Scientists never accept that something is NOT THERE because they cannot prove it. You are obviously not a scientist. It is absolutely necessary in science to prove the absence of something in someone else's hypothesis. Why are we arguing about 'dark matter'?

We are argueing about dark matter because the laws of physics say that certain systems in the galaxy are moving too fast for the observed mass of them. So there has to be more mass than what we see... To equate that to this debate is useless because in the dark matter scenario we have tests that say something is there... Please give me one scientific study that says there is a god.

To KNOW beyond any doubt that God does not exist - without any proof - does require faith. Faith is defined as the belief in something where there is absolutely no proof. So, to believe there is no God, is just as logical and/or illogical as belief that there is one. Nobody can be that sure without deep faith in their own belief system.

I agree with you on this. It takes great faith to believe that there is no god. Does faith alone make something a religion though? I have faith that you are a human typing to me. This is based on no facts what so ever. Does that make it a religion?

 

[Green Gaia]

If it is not a religion, then why are so many of you on a religious forum promoting and/or defending it?

M

Blame the Admins for lack of imagination when coming up with a title for the forum (and no it's not going to change), but all belief systems are welcome here to discuss and debate not just those considered "religious".

 

[Merlin]

That was not my point.

Sorry. I thought you were asking why anyone who believes there is nothing, would bother to attack or appose other people who believed in a 'non-existent' God. Why would they care, unless they were not actually sure.

M

 

[Green Gaia]

Sorry. I thought you were asking why anyone who believes there is nothing, would bother to attack or appose other people who believed in a 'non-existent' God. Why would they care, unless they were not actually sure.

M

Nope, that's not even close to what I was talking about.

 

[Merlin]

So "religion" is that which you're willing to promote or defend?

You are on a religious forum, discussing religions. Why bother if non exist?

Leave us to our (in your eyes) delusions!

M

 

[JerryL]

Scientists never accept that something is NOT THERE because they cannot prove it. You are obviously not a scientist. It is absolutely necessary in science to prove the absence of something in someone else's hypothesis. Why are we arguing about 'dark matter'?

Proving the lack of something (a negative claim) is impossible. For example: Prove that gravity isn't the work of Gnomes.

We are discussing dark matter because we have observable phenomina that we are hypothisizing explanations for. The behavior acts like matter, but isn't visibme (hence "dark matter").

To KNOW beyond any doubt that God does not exist - without any proof - does require faith.

Which is why the honest ones of us say "I've no reason to believe one is there".

How do you conclude a belief in no God is more logical than a belief in one God? Where is your proof?

Do you believe that there are phase-shifted pink unicorns on the moon? You don't believe there are? How do you conclude that's more logical than believing in unicorns? Where is *your* proof?

 

[Green Gaia]

You are on a religious forum, discussing religions. Why bother if non exist?

Leave us to our (in your eyes) delusions!

M

Gah! :banghead3

Atheism only denies a belief in a god(s), not religion itself. Not all religions are based on belief in a god(s).

I don't know how I can state that any clearer. Perhaps I'm wasting my time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are on a religious forum, discussing religions. Why bother if non exist?

Religions do exist.

Leave us to our (in your eyes) delusions!

Do you find your delusions threatened?

 

[Flappycat]

I'll never understand the issue.

 

[Scott1]

Hah. I just think religion is an immense load of hokey.

Do you believe that there are phase-shifted pink unicorns on the moon? You don't believe there are? How do you conclude that's more logical than believing in unicorns? Where is *your* proof?

Do you find your delusions threatened?

.... and the beat goes on.... oh well... Merlin seems to be having fun with ya'll.

** Hey look! A barrell.... and it's full of fish!**

 

[Flappycat]

Try to make sense, world. I know you can do it.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Gah! :banghead3

Atheism only denies a belief in a god(s), not religion itself. Not all religions are based on belief in a god(s).

I don't know how I can state that any clearer. Perhaps I'm wasting my time.

OOOOOOOOhhhhhhh Maize, you'll get a headache!

I think the point is well taken in this thread. I have read some looonnnggg posts by zealous atheists who are very passionate. They act just like the religous nuts that they are objecting to in their debates. Logic logic logic, science science science. I have nothing against logic or science, but they demand this kind of proof of something that exists in the spiritual realm. We humans cannot quantify spirituality or thoughts that transcend the 3 dimensional enpirical world we live in. And so, this opposition to spirituality takes on the form of a religion in its vehemence.