J
JimO
Guest
This line of thinking shows that Atheism, though not a religion, is a philosophy. IMO, that is where Atheism and Theism are similar, they are both philosophies.
- Status
M
Monarchy
Guest
Atheism is a Religion like bald is a hair color.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
That still doesn’t make sense. Just look at the complex inner workings of the human eye. Even Darwin confessed that natural selection could not be responsible for the human eye.
S
SamCA
Guest
I think the problem with describing atheism as a religion is that there’s little or no uniformity beyond the basic lack of belief in a deity or deities. Some atheists do indeed believe in the lack of God with a fervency that can only be called faith, and they go to meetings to talk about it and try to convert people and the whole nine yards. Calling them religious might not be far off the mark.
But in my experience those folks are few and far between. For the most part, there’s no uniform code of rules or behavior atheists follow. Some of us believe there’s no God, some merely suspect, some reject the Christian systems of morality, some don’t…
At most, I think you might be able to argue that there are a few rare strains of religious atheism floating around, but I don’t think all atheists fall into that grouping. You need more than an opinion about cosmology to qualify as a religion. Someone who believes that God exists, but that’s it – no system of worship or code or behavior or anything else – is not religious. Similarly, someone who lacks belief in God and that’s that, isn’t religious.
But in my experience those folks are few and far between. For the most part, there’s no uniform code of rules or behavior atheists follow. Some of us believe there’s no God, some merely suspect, some reject the Christian systems of morality, some don’t…
At most, I think you might be able to argue that there are a few rare strains of religious atheism floating around, but I don’t think all atheists fall into that grouping. You need more than an opinion about cosmology to qualify as a religion. Someone who believes that God exists, but that’s it – no system of worship or code or behavior or anything else – is not religious. Similarly, someone who lacks belief in God and that’s that, isn’t religious.
S
SamCA
Guest
I think this is a lot more accurate. All religions are philosophies, but not all philosophies are religions.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
SamCa
Another way to look at it is that atheism, in all of its forms, is a deliberate flight from God. Why would one flee from that which one does not believe exists? In that sense atheism is a religion in that it believes in a supreme being … not God, but the Self that flees God and asserts thereby its own supremacy over itself.
But having asserted its supremacy … it does not rest content. It simply isn’t true that most atheists don’t care about converting others to their way of thinking. One sees atheists everywhere prosletyzing their cause … so much so that Einstein himself referred jokingly to the Church of Atheism.
Another way to look at it is that atheism, in all of its forms, is a deliberate flight from God. Why would one flee from that which one does not believe exists? In that sense atheism is a religion in that it believes in a supreme being … not God, but the Self that flees God and asserts thereby its own supremacy over itself.
But having asserted its supremacy … it does not rest content. It simply isn’t true that most atheists don’t care about converting others to their way of thinking. One sees atheists everywhere prosletyzing their cause … so much so that Einstein himself referred jokingly to the Church of Atheism.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I don’t flee the Loch Ness monster either.
Only if you think there is a god in the first place
Nobody does that. That happens only in the theist’s mind.
I don’t flee the Loch Ness monster either.
That make sense up to here: “In that sense atheism is a religion in that it believes in a supreme being … not God, but the Self”. Then it gets illogical.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
AnAtheist
*Only if you think there is a god in the first place
*
No, not if you think there is a God … but rather if there is a God … and the atheist only thinks there is no God … he does not know for sure there is no God because he cannot supply the same proof there is no God that he demands from the theist to prove there is a God.
*Only if you think there is a god in the first place
*
No, not if you think there is a God … but rather if there is a God … and the atheist only thinks there is no God … he does not know for sure there is no God because he cannot supply the same proof there is no God that he demands from the theist to prove there is a God.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It does not seem so - faith, like any other habit, will die if not practiced. OTOH…
Well said
First, this - that atheism and religious activity are both responses to the same instincts in human nature.
That this instinct is logically and chronologically prior to those responses - the assumption being, that religious activity is a response to an instinct that is ethically and ontologically neutral; which ceases to be neutral only once one has committed oneself to a religious or an atheistic choice; because then it shapes human nature as either religious or atheistic.Muslims regard all men as being by nature Muslim - to become Muslim, is to be what one is meant to be. There is a similar notion in much Christian thinking; notably of the kind derived from de Lubac & von Balthasar, who were much influenced by the Greek Fathers.
However - such a view would collide with thinking of man as having an instinct that is ethically and ontologically neutral, which is the raw material for religious or atheistic commitments: the notion of an instinct which is the raw matter for such choices, goes against (or seems to go against) the belief that to be human, involves having our wills biassed towards God - for if they are, then we are religious precisely because we are human. Instead of our wills being wholly undetermined until we settle either for religion or atheism, they are (on this view) determined by our being created by God in the image of God.
Can one be committed without one’s will being involved ? If one could, then the two views set out above might be reconcilable. Otherwise, they seem to be irreconcilable -unless they can be reconciled in some other way.
I assume that by “atheism” you mean “not having any deity at all” - correct ? For there are several sorts of atheism - for instance, Christians were called atheists because they did not worship the gods of the Roman State.
If a Christian names God with his lips, while denying Him by his life, which is the atheist: that Christian, or the man who lives by Christian ethics, while rejecting in his theory the Christ to Whom those ethics point ? Are both atheists, perhaps ? There are many atheists who disbelieve in God, but do what Christ says is His Will - and many Christians, who ignore the Will of the God whom they profess to have for their Father.
This whole subject bristles with questions ##
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
*There are many atheists who disbelieve in God, but do what Christ says is His Will - and many Christians, who ignore the Will of the God whom they profess to have for their Father.
*
Both are atheists. The one who believes but does not act as a Christian, is an atheist in his heart. He is doomed as a hypocrite by Christ’s own words. The other is an atheist in his head, which is to say he acts from Christian impulses that are placed there by God but he shows no gratitude for the gift. He is no better off (than the one who is an atheist in his heart) for his conformity to most of the commandments because he violates the 1st Commandment, after which all the others come as secondary.
I do think ingratitude to our Creator trumps all other sins, though doubtless in his own mind the atheist thinks otherwise since he has persuaded himself by various tricks of logic that there is no God.
Like the lawyer who defends himself, he has a fool for a client.
*
Both are atheists. The one who believes but does not act as a Christian, is an atheist in his heart. He is doomed as a hypocrite by Christ’s own words. The other is an atheist in his head, which is to say he acts from Christian impulses that are placed there by God but he shows no gratitude for the gift. He is no better off (than the one who is an atheist in his heart) for his conformity to most of the commandments because he violates the 1st Commandment, after which all the others come as secondary.
I do think ingratitude to our Creator trumps all other sins, though doubtless in his own mind the atheist thinks otherwise since he has persuaded himself by various tricks of logic that there is no God.
Like the lawyer who defends himself, he has a fool for a client.
S
SamCA
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
You keep arguing that people become atheists because they don’t like God’s rules. And who knows, maybe some people do. But the ones I know come at it from the other direction – for reasons that tend to vary from person to person, they doubt that God exists in the first place. Therefore, they see no particular reason to follow a set of rules which supposedly come from a being who they doubt the existence of.
(… Actually, that may be a bad example, we AD fans are a bit cultish come to think of it. Heh. But you see where I’m going with this.)
Some people get an idea or a taste or something that works really well for them, and they’re not happy unless they’re spreading the word and getting other people onboard. But it’s not as if there’s anything inherent in atheism which makes people go out and convert others. Some people do that, some people don’t. Same as with anything else.
For that matter, proselytization isn’t even an integral aspect of religion. Your religion, yes, and a handful of others, but really, evangelical religions are the exception rather than the norm. (Which may have something to do with why they’re so much more successful in terms of followers, but that’s another topic.)
I don’t see that qualifying as a religion.
Yes, but I’d argue that this is a false way to look at it. In order to deliberately flee from something, you first need to think that something exists to flee from.
Well, yeah. Exactly.
You keep arguing that people become atheists because they don’t like God’s rules. And who knows, maybe some people do. But the ones I know come at it from the other direction – for reasons that tend to vary from person to person, they doubt that God exists in the first place. Therefore, they see no particular reason to follow a set of rules which supposedly come from a being who they doubt the existence of.
Except that this doesn’t accurately describe most of the atheists I know. I don’t see myself as a supreme anything.
Sure. There’s always people who want to proselytize something. I’m that way with TV shows and movies a lot – I’ll foist DVDs and books and all sorts of things off on friends if I think they’re good. I’ve ‘converted’ a number of friends to the TV series Arrested Development, but I don’t think that qualifies fans of Arrested Development as a religion.
(… Actually, that may be a bad example, we AD fans are a bit cultish come to think of it. Heh. But you see where I’m going with this.)
Some people get an idea or a taste or something that works really well for them, and they’re not happy unless they’re spreading the word and getting other people onboard. But it’s not as if there’s anything inherent in atheism which makes people go out and convert others. Some people do that, some people don’t. Same as with anything else.
For that matter, proselytization isn’t even an integral aspect of religion. Your religion, yes, and a handful of others, but really, evangelical religions are the exception rather than the norm. (Which may have something to do with why they’re so much more successful in terms of followers, but that’s another topic.)
Sure. There are, as I noted, atheists who are quite religious in their atheism. I was one of them when I was a teenager, to be honest. But in retrospect, that all seems rather silly, and I certainly don’t think the same way anymore. Still an atheist, but I don’t much care whether or not anyone else is, beyond the basic human tendency to want others to come around to my way of thinking and see how right, wise, cool, and awesome I am. (No, really!)
I don’t see that qualifying as a religion.
S
SamCA
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I don’t know for sure there’s no Bigfoot, and I can’t provide the same proof that there is a Bigfoot that I demand from cryptozoologists who claim there is a Bigfoot.
I still reckon I’m safe in my decision not to buy Bigfoot insurance, and I certainly don’t consider my lack of belief in Bigfoot to be an act of faith.
No matter how many times you say it, this argument doesn’t become rational.
I don’t know for sure there’s no Bigfoot, and I can’t provide the same proof that there is a Bigfoot that I demand from cryptozoologists who claim there is a Bigfoot.
I still reckon I’m safe in my decision not to buy Bigfoot insurance, and I certainly don’t consider my lack of belief in Bigfoot to be an act of faith.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
I still reckon I’m safe in my decision not to buy Bigfoot insurance, and I certainly don’t consider my lack of belief in Bigfoot to be an act of faith.
Your reiteration doesn’t work. No matter how many times you say it, Bigfoot may exist because you cannot prove he doesn’t exist. No matter how many times anyone denies it, there may be life in other parts of the universe, even if no one can prove it. No matter how many times you deny it, you may really be here at Catholic Answers because you will not refuse God’s call for you to come.
God is trying to sell you a policy, and He has got you to the table.
Watch out!
Your reiteration doesn’t work. No matter how many times you say it, Bigfoot may exist because you cannot prove he doesn’t exist. No matter how many times anyone denies it, there may be life in other parts of the universe, even if no one can prove it. No matter how many times you deny it, you may really be here at Catholic Answers because you will not refuse God’s call for you to come.
God is trying to sell you a policy, and He has got you to the table.
Watch out!
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
To you (and me) Illuvatar is just a figure made up by JRR Tolkien. And to me and other atheists your God is just another figure made up by some other guys.
Now, if Tolkien said, Illuvatar REALLY REALLY existed, THEN I would demand proof. Otherwise I can perfectly live with the fact that I cannot disprove Illuvatar’s existence.
And furthermore, if a group of Tolkienists insisted, that everybody must believe, Illuvatar really really exists, because otherwise they are immoral, baby-murdering, materialistic [enter bad words here], then it would be the time to search for some proof against that notion.
And, if those Tolkienists started to hunt down and to kill those heathens not believing in Illuvatar and to force people into their belief, then it would be the time to fight them.
IN HIS MIND the atheist is not fleeing God, even if he is practically fleeing him indeed, because he really exists.
I know for sure that some Gods do not exist. You know that too, don’t you, or do you really consider the existence of Illuvatar?
To you (and me) Illuvatar is just a figure made up by JRR Tolkien. And to me and other atheists your God is just another figure made up by some other guys.
Now, if Tolkien said, Illuvatar REALLY REALLY existed, THEN I would demand proof. Otherwise I can perfectly live with the fact that I cannot disprove Illuvatar’s existence.
And furthermore, if a group of Tolkienists insisted, that everybody must believe, Illuvatar really really exists, because otherwise they are immoral, baby-murdering, materialistic [enter bad words here], then it would be the time to search for some proof against that notion.
And, if those Tolkienists started to hunt down and to kill those heathens not believing in Illuvatar and to force people into their belief, then it would be the time to fight them.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
AnAtheist
To you (and me) Illuvatar is just a figure made up by JRR Tolkien. And to me and other atheists your God is just another figure made up by some other guys.
False analogy.
Tolkien clearly is creating a fictional character and admits to the fiction.
Moses clearly is not creating a fictional character and insists on God’s reality.
As an atheist you cannot make the distinction because you don’t want to admit it. But it’s there nontheless.
Likewise, you cannot admit that Jesus really lived and preached and performed miracles according to those who witnessed all that.
You cannot admit it because you dont want to, but certainly not because the Evangelists and Paul and Peter were making up a fictional Jesus in the sense that Illuvatar is clearly fictional according to Tolkien himself.
To you (and me) Illuvatar is just a figure made up by JRR Tolkien. And to me and other atheists your God is just another figure made up by some other guys.
False analogy.
Tolkien clearly is creating a fictional character and admits to the fiction.
Moses clearly is not creating a fictional character and insists on God’s reality.
As an atheist you cannot make the distinction because you don’t want to admit it. But it’s there nontheless.
Likewise, you cannot admit that Jesus really lived and preached and performed miracles according to those who witnessed all that.
You cannot admit it because you dont want to, but certainly not because the Evangelists and Paul and Peter were making up a fictional Jesus in the sense that Illuvatar is clearly fictional according to Tolkien himself.
J
JimO
Guest
Very true. I have regular discussions about the origin of life with atheists whom I work with and what I find interesting is that when I try to interject God into the conversation, I am accused of “bringing religion into the discussion.” However, they do not seem to have a problem explicitly excluding God from the discussion. I have no problem discussing facts in a purely scientific discussion, but any discussion that involves the origin of life, the human mind, or certainly whether any part of a person survives the body crosses over into philosophy.
Although atheistic scientists will claim that discussions about the origin of life, for example, can, and should, exclude even the possibility of a diety of any kind, if there is an absence of scientific proof for any hypothesis, then we are left with speculation, which, I maintain, puts us in the realm of philosophy.
What is interesting is that some of the atheists I know are perfectly willing to have a scientific discussion or an atheistic philosophical discussion, but will not even entertain a theistic philosophical discussion.
One other observation - and forgive me for generalizing because I know that atheists vary greatly in their beliefs and approaches to theism, but I am speaking from experience only - the atheists I have encountered will demand evidence that God, the soul, the afterlife, etc. exist. However, these are metaphysical or paranormal subjects; thus, much of the “evidence” is “non-scientific”, such as individuals’ experience, evidence of miracles, historical accounts of the paranormal, etc. This “non-scientific” evidence is rejected out of hand. There is a refusal to even consider the possibilities. This is like a blind man demanding proof that light exists.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
JimO
I also find it interesting that atheists are willing to engage in all kinds of wild speculation without proof about how the universe got started, but that when you bring up God, well, that’s just too wild for them!
Scientism certainly has its flaws … most notably the flaw that only scientism has any legitimate route to knowledge. Our so-called intellectuals have become myopic … not able to see the forrest for the trees … because they have had their noses pressed to the trees for too long.
This was not always so. Before Darwin the vast majority of scientists were deeply religious men who saw no contradiction between religion and science. But since Darwin we have come to ape the ape … no longer able to see, smell or suspect beyond our ocular and olfactory senses.
I also find it interesting that atheists are willing to engage in all kinds of wild speculation without proof about how the universe got started, but that when you bring up God, well, that’s just too wild for them!
Scientism certainly has its flaws … most notably the flaw that only scientism has any legitimate route to knowledge. Our so-called intellectuals have become myopic … not able to see the forrest for the trees … because they have had their noses pressed to the trees for too long.
This was not always so. Before Darwin the vast majority of scientists were deeply religious men who saw no contradiction between religion and science. But since Darwin we have come to ape the ape … no longer able to see, smell or suspect beyond our ocular and olfactory senses.
J
JimO
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
This atheistic bias is most clearly demonstrated when the concept of intelligent design is brought up, but that is a subject for another thread.
As a scientist, I am amazed at how biased many atheistic scientists are because of their philosophical beliefs. When a theistic scientist interjects his/her belief system into the discussion, many cry foul; however, interjecting atheistic philosophy into a scientific discusson seems acceptable.
This atheistic bias is most clearly demonstrated when the concept of intelligent design is brought up, but that is a subject for another thread.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Jim,
Is there anything in your field, geology, that suggests intelligent design?
Is there anything in your field, geology, that suggests intelligent design?
J
JimO
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
Allow me a simple example in the animal kingdom. Look at the giraffe. They have elongated necks that allow them to feed on vegetation that is inaccessible to shorter herbivores. Atheistic evolution explains the existence of a giraffe like this: a common ancester of various species of antelope was spread throughout the African continent. Some of those antelopes, through mutation, were born with longer necks during a time when this characteristic was favored, maybe trees in a given region were taller and the leaves were more nutritious. Thus, the longer necked antelope had an evolutionary advantage and that mutation was incorporated into an established population. Successive mutations produces antelopes with longer and longer necks until we have the modern giraffe. On the surface the evolutionary explanation sounds reasonable. There are a couple of problems with this explanation, though. You see, along with a longer neck, other bodily systems would have had to coincidentally mutate simultaneous with a longer neck, such as sturdier vertebrae, a much stronger heart to pump blood higher, thicker artery and vein walls to handle the much higher blood pressure, etc. Also, even though modern data suggests that most mutations are disadvantageous, the suggested mutations of the various bodily systems simultaneously would have had to have given a significant life or death advantage. Otherwise, those mutations would not be “selected” and incorporated into the population. Some suggest that mutations occurred after catastrophic events that gave a life or death advantage. Again, what is the probability that multiple, beneficial mutations of various bodily systems in multiple individuals in a population would occur coincident with a catastrophic event to allow an altered population to survive? This is the type of question that ID poses.
Another problem is that the fossil record does not show this type of gradual change from one type of animal to another, with some possible exceptions. Evolutionary biologists point to the fossil record of the horses present in North America and how the horse appears to change from a small three-toed variety through successive types until there were several types of horses, assumed to be of different species. This is a reasonable example, but it doesn’t demonstrate that random mutations gave rise to the changes. It simply shows that over millions of years horses were different. We don’t know why they are different or what caused the changes.
The fact is that atheistic evolution based on random mutation giving rise to the diversity of species is not supported by the evidence. When one challenges this line of thinking, one is presented with the explanation that with sufficient time anything can happen. This is what I refer to as “faith in the passage of time”. “I can’t explain how or why these changes might have occurred, but given millions of years it is possible.”
I expect that ID scientists will begin to use statistical models to evaluate the probability that random chance mutation gives rise to diversity of species and that the results will be enlightening.
A simple question with a complex answer. Intelligent design (ID) states that the complex systems present on earth and throughout the universe, such as the structure of the DNA molecule, planetary systems around stars, or the structure of an atom cannot be explained simply through evolutionary theory based on random chance, or atheistic evolution. ID concludes, based on empirical observation, that there must be a Designer for these systems.
Allow me a simple example in the animal kingdom. Look at the giraffe. They have elongated necks that allow them to feed on vegetation that is inaccessible to shorter herbivores. Atheistic evolution explains the existence of a giraffe like this: a common ancester of various species of antelope was spread throughout the African continent. Some of those antelopes, through mutation, were born with longer necks during a time when this characteristic was favored, maybe trees in a given region were taller and the leaves were more nutritious. Thus, the longer necked antelope had an evolutionary advantage and that mutation was incorporated into an established population. Successive mutations produces antelopes with longer and longer necks until we have the modern giraffe. On the surface the evolutionary explanation sounds reasonable. There are a couple of problems with this explanation, though. You see, along with a longer neck, other bodily systems would have had to coincidentally mutate simultaneous with a longer neck, such as sturdier vertebrae, a much stronger heart to pump blood higher, thicker artery and vein walls to handle the much higher blood pressure, etc. Also, even though modern data suggests that most mutations are disadvantageous, the suggested mutations of the various bodily systems simultaneously would have had to have given a significant life or death advantage. Otherwise, those mutations would not be “selected” and incorporated into the population. Some suggest that mutations occurred after catastrophic events that gave a life or death advantage. Again, what is the probability that multiple, beneficial mutations of various bodily systems in multiple individuals in a population would occur coincident with a catastrophic event to allow an altered population to survive? This is the type of question that ID poses.
Another problem is that the fossil record does not show this type of gradual change from one type of animal to another, with some possible exceptions. Evolutionary biologists point to the fossil record of the horses present in North America and how the horse appears to change from a small three-toed variety through successive types until there were several types of horses, assumed to be of different species. This is a reasonable example, but it doesn’t demonstrate that random mutations gave rise to the changes. It simply shows that over millions of years horses were different. We don’t know why they are different or what caused the changes.
The fact is that atheistic evolution based on random mutation giving rise to the diversity of species is not supported by the evidence. When one challenges this line of thinking, one is presented with the explanation that with sufficient time anything can happen. This is what I refer to as “faith in the passage of time”. “I can’t explain how or why these changes might have occurred, but given millions of years it is possible.”
I expect that ID scientists will begin to use statistical models to evaluate the probability that random chance mutation gives rise to diversity of species and that the results will be enlightening.
- Status