Is atheism a religion?

[animalia]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: animalia
NO.

No further discussion is necessary.

:roll:

well, it's true despite your emotion icon.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
I do know that when asked about the possibility of a universal pantheistic God, Richard Dawkins said he could agree with that.

Is this the idea the "we" and the rest of the universe are God? I haven't thought about it enough to have a reasonable opinion on what it implies (what does it imply?).

Yeah pretty much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
In reference to a panteist point of view you'll often see the term 'Spinoza's God' like in the famous Einstein quote;
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

This point of view is criticized as a way of avoiding the need to deny god (thereby appeasing religious people somewhat) by Steven Weinberg in this quote;
"But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?"

It's not "avoiding" God. The pantheistic concept of God meets every possible definition of the idea of God and its possibility cannot be denied.
I have no desire to appease anyone BTW.

It can be used as a way to avoid the label atheism in the sense that it is invoking the word god (and all the baggage that comes with that term) when there is no real need to. Whats the difference between non-theism and pantheism? Not much when you get down to it, they both reject traditional supernatural theism in the same ways except that pantheism finishes by saying there is a "god" but it is nature or everything. If there is such a thing as an atheist religion then pantheism is it (hell even Dawkins the big bad atheist himself doesn't object to it, saying "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism"). Its an appealing position to many people who grapple with this issue of what to call their lack of belief in the traditional theisms, but still feel something special when studying the universe through the lens of science and reason.

BTW, I really envy you. I can only imagine how it would be to be free of the desire to appease the religious people I am close to and avoid hurting them. I try and avoid this subject at all costs in my personal life because I've seen how devastated and sometimes angry religious family members and loved ones can become when they find out you don't share their beliefs.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

LOL. That's the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time...

Then you must read only intelligent things.

When you're pontificating about the existence of Object X, saying, "No! X definitively does not exist!" is hardly better than, "Yes! X definitively does exist!" Neither side can perform tests to determine the existence or nonexistence of Object X, so what exactly is an athiest basing his/her claim upon?

Or to rephrase the above, regarding the more logical position of weak agnosticism:

The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

Is the phrase "No! X definitely does not exist!" the same as "I don't believe in X." ?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
All religions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

That statement is completely bogus. You have it backwards.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: yllus
It does promote irrational belief. Disbelief in something that can never be proven is hardly more logical than believing in it.

LOL. That's the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time...

Then you must read only intelligent things.

When you're pontificating about the existence of Object X, saying, "No! X definitively does not exist!" is hardly better than, "Yes! X definitively does exist!" Neither side can perform tests to determine the existence or nonexistence of Object X, so what exactly is an athiest basing his/her claim upon?

Or to rephrase the above, regarding the more logical position of weak agnosticism:

The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

So if i told you that there were Martians, and you didn't believe me, then I'd be more logical than you? You sir...make no sense at all. You're going to have to show me evidence, even circumstancial evidence, to make me even remotely believe. I had yet to see a shred of evidence proving God exists, therefore at this point I don't believe. I could be wrong, but I don't know, I guess that makes me agnostic. But given everything I know, there is nothing to make me believe. I guess that you must be more logical since you choose to believe in something that you can't prove.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: mugs
Atheism is a religious belief. It is not a religion. Although with many people it resembles one.

Atheism isn't a religious belief. You can believe in a higher power without it being a religious belief.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: yllus
Well I'm assuming that this thread concerns strong/explicit athiesm (aka the poll's "athiestic zealots") which I'm taking as being defined as people who state, "God does not exist," or "the existence of God is impossible." That's poor logic.

Really what most of us are arguing over is definitions. I'm certainly not a God-lover.

Say god does not exist is not poor logic.

Logic, not the math kind, tells use there is no evidence for such a god therefor god doesn't exist.

Logic and rational thinking are not applied once all the facts are know. They most be applied before the facts are know. There is no thinking required to say the sky is blue when looking up at the sky because it is a know fact. If you were inside with out windows and I asked what color the sky was and answered blue only then could you claimed to have thought about the anwser.

 

[rikadik]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: yllus
Well I'm assuming that this thread concerns strong/explicit athiesm (aka the poll's "athiestic zealots") which I'm taking as being defined as people who state, "God does not exist," or "the existence of God is impossible." That's poor logic.

Really what most of us are arguing over is definitions. I'm certainly not a God-lover.

Say god does not exist is not poor logic.

Logic, not the math kind, tells use there is no evidence for such a god therefor god doesn't exist.

Logic and rational thinking are not applied once all the facts are know. They most be applied before the facts are know. There is no thinking required to say the sky is blue when looking up at the sky because it is a know fact. If you were inside with out windows and I asked what color the sky was and answered blue only then could you claimed to have thought about the anwser.

Well, I'd probably still hazard a guess at it being blue

Edit: ok just read what you said more carefully, and unfortunately what I said makes no sense. Never mind!

 

[Siddhartha]

No.

If you think atheism is a religion you are projecting.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ntdz
So if i told you that there were Martians, and you didn't believe me, then I'd be more logical than you?

You read poorly. That is exactly the opposite of what I've said.

Originally posted by: smack Down
Logic, not the math kind, tells us there is no evidence for such a god therefor god doesn't exist.

Logic, not the math kind? What kind of logic are we talking about then? lol.

 

[Jack Flash]

At the same time, a gigantic explosion emanating from nothing to form our universe isn't so logical... not more so than a higher being.

Chicken and Egg my friends.

 

[vital]

what is it called when you believe there is a god or higher being but not a religeon?

 

[Malfeas]

An interesting article in the LATimes

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio...016131.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[oOZo]

:evil:

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Gartseff
At the same time, a gigantic explosion emanating from nothing to form our universe isn't so logical... not more so than a higher being.

Chicken and Egg my friends.

Can you spot the difference? I'll give you a hint. People don't sculpt their lives around a gigantic explosion emanating from nothing, it is simply an explanation, one that is constantly being kicked around. The other is something people shape their lives and beliefs around. Chicken and Egg indeed.

 

[sao123]

whatever you desire most is your god.
Whether it be a thing such as money, it may be a person, or something less tangible (like power & fame), or a omnicient Diety.

However you look at it, everyone has their own god.
practicing atheism(the disbelief in the existance of a spiritual omnicient diety) does not remove the fact that you still having a religion/god.

 

[Oyeve]

All religions are cults. I am agnostic and I know of no agnostic associations. Religion was created by man so therefore it is falible and probably drug-induced.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Gartseff
At the same time, a gigantic explosion emanating from nothing to form our universe isn't so logical... not more so than a higher being.

Nonsense. With regard to origins, attribution to supernatural beings doesn't explain anything.

For example, imagine a room with no windows and only one door. Inside the room there are no other objects besides a table, an American half-dollar, and a jar with a mouth quite smaller than the diameter of the half-dollar. Suppose then you put myself and another hypothetical person, Fred, into the room and locked the door for 30 minutes. At the end of the duration, upon opening the door and entering the room, you find that the half-dollar is now inside the jar -- something that would appear quite impossible to accomplish by an ordinary person.

You ask me, "how did the coin get inside the jar?"

I respond, "Fred did it."

Now, what exactly does that explain about how the coin got inside the jar?