A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
What aspects of atheism make it a religion?
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
Pro: faith in the nonexistence of a deity.
Con: no structure (organizations like American Atheists claim no spiritual authority), no rites.
I’m perfectly happy just calling it ‘atheism’, not a religion.
Con: no structure (organizations like American Atheists claim no spiritual authority), no rites.
I’m perfectly happy just calling it ‘atheism’, not a religion.
I
IanBoyd57
Guest
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a deity.
You do not understand either the burden of proof or atheism.
Do you have faith in the nonexistence of unicorns?
Don’t pretend that atheists somehow have to disprove god.
J
john_doran
Guest
i assume that you mean to contrast this with belief in the nonexistence of a deity…
you can obviously use the word “atheism” any way you like, but it is being used here (i think) to denote actual belief in something, namely that there are no divine beings.
that remains to be seen.
that depends on whether you’re using “atheist” as a synonym for “agnostic”.
S
Strider
Guest
If atheists believe that there is no God, then they have to believe:
Matter Always existed
The structure of the universe is random
They must also give a plausible explanation of biogenesis.
They must believe in Darwinian evolution.
If they do, then human brains are the result of random mutations sected for the ability to survive, and as such there is no evidence that the results of the operations of human brains are not either random or mythical.
To overcome theseproblems, they resuot to physics to explain existance, but the still cannot axccoujt for all the matter the calculate to exist in the universe.
So they devise unprovable explanations for that which they cannot explain.
If not a religion, it seems to be at least a belief system because they have to accept things they cannot disprove.
Matter Always existed
The structure of the universe is random
They must also give a plausible explanation of biogenesis.
They must believe in Darwinian evolution.
If they do, then human brains are the result of random mutations sected for the ability to survive, and as such there is no evidence that the results of the operations of human brains are not either random or mythical.
To overcome theseproblems, they resuot to physics to explain existance, but the still cannot axccoujt for all the matter the calculate to exist in the universe.
So they devise unprovable explanations for that which they cannot explain.
If not a religion, it seems to be at least a belief system because they have to accept things they cannot disprove.
M
Mirdath
Guest
That’d be agnosticism – lack of belief either way.
Yes I do. You don’t quite get the idea behind proving a negative, I see – ‘there is no God’ is a positive statement. Positive statements (assertions) require proof, so the burden of proof lies with both theist and atheist.
‘There is no reason to think there is a God’, however, is a properly constructed negative statement. It just isn’t O’Hair style strong atheism; it’s merely an invocation of Occam’s Razor on the agnostic/weak atheist side.
I am ambivalent as to unicorns. And deities.
Actually, that’s pretty much what a strong atheist has to do, just as a theist would have to prove God. The theist asserts ‘there is a God’, the atheist ‘there is no God’. Both require backup.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
It depends on how rigorously they resort to physics. Nothing wrong with physics. It is a science. Science is a branch of philosophy.
Just because they cannot account for everything yet does not dismantle what they have accounted for thus far and does not prove that physics is a road that will never lead to God. Go take a look at some of the posts on the Big Bang Theory thread and see physics leading to God.
Point: physics is only a tool. Theism or atheism is a starting point on the journey of investigation.
S
Strider
Guest
I’m not saying physics won’t lead toward God, but they try to explain everything with reason. That will never work.
But real faith and real science can never contradict each other, and, yes, both can be misused.
I know. My education is in science.
But real faith and real science can never contradict each other, and, yes, both can be misused.
I know. My education is in science.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Please read what JP2 had to say about reason working:
Faith can never conflict with reason
Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology
OK.
D
dylanschrader
Guest
Atheism as a system of dogma (as distinct, say, from an individual’s simple lack of belief in God) can have religious elements.
The use of a skeptic method is taken on authority. Most of what we know, in fact, is “believed” rather than known through experiential, scientific certitude. Experiential, scientific certitude itself must be taken–at a minimum–on the authority of the memory and the senses.
The use of a skeptic method is taken on authority. Most of what we know, in fact, is “believed” rather than known through experiential, scientific certitude. Experiential, scientific certitude itself must be taken–at a minimum–on the authority of the memory and the senses.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Kewl. Religiouis elements like what for example?
The reference to ‘authority’ sounds vaguely like the references of modernism or postmodernism to foundational texts. Can you take this further? :bounce:
N
Nullasalus
Guest
Depends on the specific brand of professed atheism you’re talking about - I don’t think atheists are united in belief any more than theists are.
That said, it’s easier to talk about the religious traits of certain atheists beliefs. For example, there are some prominent atheists who insist that the only proper interpretation of Genesis is a strict literal interpretation - 6000 years, YEC and all that. Naturally they couple this with the argument that since said interpretation is falsified by science, the entire bible must fall on the spot. But having such a specific belief about biblical interpretation strikes me as religious, even if the person insisting is an atheist themselves.
Proselytizing is another incidence of atheism as religion - not only the practice of spreading their (a)religion, but the insistence that its spread and the defeat of enemy faiths is itself linked to the true purpose and good of humanity. Which leads to another - a strong (if relatively and purposefully vague) belief that there is a ‘better’ state for humanity as a whole and humans in particular to ascend to. It could be argued that some philosophies do the same (Marxism) but they’re obviously not religions - but then, these same prominent atheists are quick to cast such philosophies as religions-in-practice.
- Status