Is Atheism a religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zootjeff
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I hope they do it in my lifetime.

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting reply.
 
ID is a matter of faith and not of science and should stay this way.
 
Gilbert Keith:
Moses clearly is not creating a fictional character and insists on God’s reality.
Click to expand...
Is that the same Moses, who wrote about his own death?
 
40.png
Shadowcry:
ID is a matter of faith and not of science and should stay this way.
Click to expand...
Not true. Faith is believing something in the absence of physical evidence. ID would only be a matter of faith if the premise was that there is a Designer. ID looks at empirical data and concludes that evolution based solely on random occurance does not adequately explain the complex systems present in the universe. It takes no faith whatsoever to arrive at that conclusion. ID then concludes that due to the order in the universe and the failure of complete randomness to provide an adequate explanation, then the existence of a Designer is plausible and should be considered as one alternative. It takes no faith to conclude this either.

Now, once one begins to speculate as to the nature of the Designer, one clearly enters the realm of philosophy. This is also true if one takes an atheistic approach to the origin of the universe. If faith is believing something in the absence of physical evidence, then one must excercise faith if one believes that either: a) matter/energy never had a beginning, or b) matter/energy came from nothing. Aside from a Creator, these are the only other plausible options and neither has any more scientific data to support it than belief in a Creator. The atheists I’ve discussed this with will say something like: “I am confident that science will one day be able to explain the origin of the unverse.” But, if I were to rely on some future discovery to support the concept of a Designer, I would be written off as a religious fanatic who refuses to discuss things scientifically. There is clearly a double standard operating here.

I find it odd that some people who want to discuss the deep things of science seem threatened by the potential existence of God.
 
AnAtheist

Is that the same Moses, who wrote about his own death?

And the same Moses who brought us the Ten Commandments that are so real and revered they are engraved at the Supreme Court Chambers in Washington, D.C.

Nor were the Ten Commandments given by Tolkien as a work of fiction.
 
O.K., so the question of this thread is whether atheism is a religion. If a religion requires faith rather than proof, then atheism must be a religion since the atheist believes, but cannot prove, that God does not exist. His faith is in blind, random chance. His faith is in a universe that never began. His faith is in a universe that will never end. All three of these propositions are unlikely based on the evidence of science as it is presently constituted. The atheist then is at war with science … even more so than is religion so far as the origins and design of the universe are concerned.
 
Gilbert Keith:
O.K., so the question of this thread is whether atheism is a religion. If a religion requires faith rather than proof, then atheism must be a religion since the atheist believes, but cannot prove, that God does not exist. His faith is in blind, random chance. His faith is in a universe that never began. His faith is in a universe that will never end. All three of these propositions are unlikely based on the evidence of science as it is presently constituted. The atheist then is at war with science … even more so than is religion so far as the origins and design of the universe are concerned.
Click to expand...
I would agree that when an atheist addresses the origin of the universe, he accepts certain things on faith. However, I think that you are lumping together atheists of varying belief systems. Atheists that are strict Materialists (those who only believe in things in the material world) often do not rely on faith in their belief system because they deal only with material or physical evidence. The existence or non-existence of God is not even given any consideration because neither can be proven materially. I wouldn’t characterize these individuals as being “at war with science”.

On the other hand, I have a family member who has been an atheist for many years. He recently stated something to me that made me understand him for the first time. He said, “Jim, if your God did exist, I’d spit in his face.” Now, for him, God’s existence is irrelevent because he has rejected any notion of God. That is his premise, if you will, thus he behaves as though God does not exist, regardless of the reality. When he addresses philosophical issues, he does exercise a great deal of faith in order to make sense out of life.

So, in fairness to the atheists on these fora, I wouldn’t generalize too much. And, it getting back to the original subject, to the degree that an atheist believes something that cannot be proven, he/she exercises a form of faith, which is beyond science. Therefore, in this sense atheism could be considered a religion, but it certainly is a philosophy.
 
Jim

The existence or non-existence of God is not even given any consideration because neither can be proven materially. I wouldn’t characterize these individuals as being “at war with science”.

Remarks made in a forum such as this are intended for the usual atheists who show up here. Of course there are atheists of different stripes and any generalization is not intended to have universal application. From now on I will say “some” or “many” atheists instead of “atheists.”

Let’s agree to that and cut the petty remarks. O.K.?

I’ll stand by my generalization, typified by physicist Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers versus atheist Isaac Asimov’s brutal assault on Jastrow’s thesis that astronomers came rather late to the recognition of ancient prophets … that the universe was created with a burst of light.
 
Gilbert Keith:
From now on I will say “some” or “many” atheists instead of “atheists.”

Let’s agree to that and cut the petty remarks. O.K.?
Click to expand...
You can express your opinion any way you choose. I wasn’t trying to admonish you and certainly wasn’t attempting to be petty, I was simply expressing my own opinion, which, as they say, along with a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
 
40.png
JimO:
Not true. Faith is believing something in the absence of physical evidence. ID would only be a matter of faith if the premise was that there is a Designer. ID looks at empirical data and concludes that evolution based solely on random occurance does not adequately explain the complex systems present in the universe. It takes no faith whatsoever to arrive at that conclusion. ID then concludes that due to the order in the universe and the failure of complete randomness to provide an adequate explanation, then the existence of a Designer is plausible and should be considered as one alternative. It takes no faith to conclude this either.

Now, once one begins to speculate as to the nature of the Designer, one clearly enters the realm of philosophy. This is also true if one takes an atheistic approach to the origin of the universe. If faith is believing something in the absence of physical evidence, then one must excercise faith if one believes that either: a) matter/energy never had a beginning, or b) matter/energy came from nothing. Aside from a Creator, these are the only other plausible options and neither has any more scientific data to support it than belief in a Creator. The atheists I’ve discussed this with will say something like: “I am confident that science will one day be able to explain the origin of the unverse.” But, if I were to rely on some future discovery to support the concept of a Designer, I would be written off as a religious fanatic who refuses to discuss things scientifically. There is clearly a double standard operating here.

I find it odd that some people who want to discuss the deep things of science seem threatened by the potential existence of God.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

It takes faith to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god, no matter what evidence you have.So the arguement that ID is a viable scientific equal with evolution is flawed.
 
40.png
Shadowcry:
You are wrong.

It takes faith to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god, no matter what evidence you have.So the arguement that ID is a viable scientific equal with evolution is flawed.
Click to expand...
You’re right. ID is not equal to evolution.

It’s better than evolution. See Michael Behe.

So, you are wrong.
 
Well thats not a fact is it now?

Michael Behe can say all he wants and there will be more scientists that refute him. The discussion will never end as more people will refute the scientists and so on.

In the end ID cannot be proven so it can’t be a theory.
 
Well thats not a fact is it now?

Every heard of the theory of evolution? Is a theory a fact?
 
I was reffering to when you said that ID is better than evolution. Its not a fact.
 
I was reffering to when you said that ID is better than evolution. Its not a fact.

So the arguement that ID is a viable scientific equal with evolution is flawed.

Ah, but neither is that a fact.

Why is evolution more viable than ID?
 
SHADOWCRY

I can’t find posts by you longer than three lines.

Do you have fingeritis?
 
Gilbert Keith:
If a religion requires faith rather than proof, then atheism must be a religion.
Click to expand...
That argument goes like: If a car requires a wheel, then my computer mouse must be a car, since it has a wheel.
 
Gilbert Keith said:
Well thats not a fact is it now?

Every heard of the theory of evolution? Is a theory a fact?
Click to expand...

You, like so many creationists, have no idea, what a theory is. There are facts, which are explained by the theory of evolution.

The theory of gravity is “only a theory”, yet I’ll bet anything that my pencil will fall down rather than up.
 
40.png
Shadowcry:
You are wrong.

It takes faith to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god, no matter what evidence you have.So the arguement that ID is a viable scientific equal with evolution is flawed.
Click to expand...
I would be wrong if I made either of the statements that you attribute to me. I made neither. I did not say that ID is a viable scientific equal with evolution. The only part of evolution that ID refutes is its atheistic premise. ID does not contradict the process of evolution as a mechanism for the diversity of life. ID simply states that the data suggest that random chance does not provide an adequate explanation for the complexity and order in the universe, not only of life but also of other systems.

Neither did I say that one could conclude that God exists without faith. I said that it does not take any faith at all to conclude that pure random evolution does not provide an adequate explanation for the complex systems in the universe. It also does not take any faith to conclude that the systems themselves suggest a Designer. Call the Designer God, Allah, the Force, a transcendent purpose, whatever you want. Yes, and when you get to the point of identifying the Designer or discussing anything beyond the basic conclusion that the data suggest a Designer, you are then stepping into a philosophical discussion and into the realm of faith.

I still maintain Shadowcry that anyone who gives any thought to the origin of the universe exercises faith in one form or another. So, those who seem to think that the exercise of faith implies that a person is non-scientific, superstitious, etc. need to objectively re-examine how they themselves exercise faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top