It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is atheism a bona fide religion ?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:14 PM
In the case of religion and atheism they both have evidence, (you may be curious to ask what evidence does christianity(and i use this as my example because it is my faith) have) if a murder was committed, and 500 witnesses say they saw it happen, write matching testaments, and take this to court, it would be overwhelming proof. It so happens that there are such accounts confirming Jesus' deeds. Evolution on the other hand, has turned up 6 possible bodies of evolving humans, and these aren't even complete. There have been numerous scandals reguarding such finds, proving that some are false, and others lacking any senseable evidence. People have even tried to recreate the conditions on earth for where evolution happened (and where earth came from, if from the big bang, where did the matter required for that come from?) the tests resulted in only a few amino acids being created, and all of them were of the same type (you have to have both right handed and left handed types to create strands).

So in conclusion, i would have to say that both sides have as much proof as the others, and lack just as much also.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if a murder was committed, and 500 witnesses say they saw it happen, write matching testaments, and take this to court, it would be overwhelming proof.

And where do we find the evidence for the presence of 500 witnesses for an event stated in a 2000 year old book?

Do we have 500 individual and independent statements?

Or is the 500 also in the same book as the proposed event, even stated by the same people who are proposing such an event?

So, in essence, we have a book involving a small cadre of 2000 year old people claiming a particular event happened, but also that it was witnessed by 500 people, no?

ABE: I also don't see why we've turned to discussing evolution vs. christianity. Many christians accept evolution as a valid explanation for the diversity of life.

The real claim for an atheist is a non-belief in supernatural interdimensional magic-men.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:17 PM
One might argue that because an atheist rejects the idea of a deity or supreme being that it can not be a religion. However I believe that atheism does have a deity. The atheists deity is the miracle of random chance.

Yea verily I say unto you, in ancient times the great randomizer tossed the diced and created a perfect universe with manifold sublime physical laws just perfect for the randomizers ultimate act of creation.

This supreme act of creation again by the pure laws of random chance generated stochastically a set of self replicating intelligent agents. Using the axiom that order arises from chaos, hundreds of complementary subsystems including a nervous system, a circulatory system, an immune system, many internal organs etc. all formed by a mere fluke and random combining of chaotic elements. Even more amazing, said great randomizer programmed all of these self aware, self replicating systems using a tiny code, known today as DNA.

This my friends is true faith. The fact that all of this came about by sheer accident. I am impressed with the atheists faith, it is truly monumental, towering over most poor religionists who fall back on silly logic, require a designer for a complex design.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:04 AM
I think you sort of bias the issue with teleological words like 'design' and 'create'.

So, in sum, complexity must be formed/created/designed through complexity?

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:45 AM
This is turning in to a senseless discussion, there are religious people in her answering what we as atheists believe and dont believe, and what we think and dont think. The fact is they have no way of knowing what we think or believe or react to. We (the atheists) however have a knowledge of what believers think, because most of us was brought up in the christian faith and have read the bible. We have christians saying that atheism is a religion and athiests saying thats its not. Hmm im an atheist so i would know, its NOT a religion. Oh and its not that we dont believe that there is a god its that we KNOW theres no god. It might sound pompous but its not. You can ask us to prove there is no god, that is an impossible task. And if you state there is a god its your job to prove that there is, not the other way around. If i state that i can fly it is my job to prove that i can, not making everybody else prove that i cant.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by Daedelus

Actually the burden of proof lies with the atheist since the Bible is filled with hundreds of eyewitness testimony. So now you are tasked with proving that all these folks, many who were willing to die for what they saw first hand, are liars.

Good luck with that. I still think that atheism is a religion requiring an enormous amount of faith. After all now you must believe that all the complexity and even the mystery of life itself is a big accident.

I use the word creation here, because that's what it is. Something from nothing - order from chaos. So while atheists don't directly identify their god, they still have one, random chance.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by SevenThunders]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:34 PM
I don't think it does, seven.

Firstly, as I pointed out earlier, you don't have any such thing. What you have is a book written apparently by a handful of people, decades after the events. Thus, the information would have been passed down orally, and then eventually put to written word.

Moreover, the books have been added to and contaminated over time.

Furthermore, the bible is internally and externally inconsistent.

However, I don't really care. Your book means no more to me than the Qu'ran or any other 'holy' book. Indeed, I find discworld books more fulfilling, maybe I should worship the holy pratchett, as your god is just another small god.

You are making the claims of a divine book along with an omnipotent fairy, you support them.

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.

Robert Ingersoll, The Gods (1872)

[edit on 11-1-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:03 PM
I do think that atheism joins in overall concept framework with religion by accepting (then rejecting) the concepts presented by religion. After all, an atheist can't reject God without there being at least a concept of God to reject. It's a bit like Satanists. Satanists, rather than being entirely anti-God, actually have to accept the religious concept framework of God and Christ and Satan in order to choose sides. Sometimes Satanists accept the whole system even more than a casual Christian, who might go along with some concepts they like, but ignore others that either they're not interested in, or are too difficult to follow. Like the Holy Spirit concept. It's a difficult concept that not many Christians embrace or really understand, even though it is a fundamentally important part of the Christian Trinity.

Personally, I don't consider myself an atheist, because I don't accept or understand the concepts of God enough to reject them. I can't say for sure that there is no God, not only because it's impossible to prove a negative, but primarily because I've never been able to find anyone who can give me a good enough definition of the concept for me to even argue against its existence. When people start throwing around words like "omnipotent" or "omnipresent," or "infinite," then the argument becomes one of semantics, rather than that of the existence of some kind of being or entity or whatever.

And I'm sure there are no meetings for folks like me to go to. I'm sure not going to any dopey Atheist meetings. I have no prayers. I have no particular goals to educate or change other people to my way of thinking. I don't really even have a beef with religious people, unless they all get together and decide to burn me at the stake as a heretic or infidel.

Everybody has to figure out for themselves what will help them get through life and keep themselves from dwelling on the unknowns like death and existence until they go nuts. Some choose religion, some choose to fight against that religion. I, like the Cheese in the Farmer in the Dell, stand alone.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Nohup
Personally, I don't consider myself an atheist, because I don't accept or understand the concepts of God enough to reject them.

If you want a label, you'd be an ignostic. A position I see as having credibility. The concept of god is an amorphous mess, each theist appears to have their own little personal view of what it is.

From energy to infinite omnipotent thinking sky-fairy and everything in between. Like trying to nail jello to the wall.

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in