Is Atheism just a new religion?

Ok,,, so reading around on ATS. A split seems to be set in stone about religion. Now I have no care either way as to what is what, who believes what, It's a persons actions that defines a man, not his passed on beliefs.

Now why I bring this up for is: - I wish to have peoples opinions, from both parties on this question: -

Is Atheism pushing against religion but setting itself as a religion of its own?

Why do I say this. Atheists as a general principle seem to blame problems of the world and history on religion. Perhaps there is evidence to support this, I havent looked into it much. But every Atheist I meet seems pushed to the notion that everyone should believe what they believe...

Now correct me if you feel the need, but isn't these traits the exact thing your against. Aren't you against religion because of the conflict caused by different peoples beliefs? So why are you against people with religious beliefs? Atheism is setting itself up with all the traits of religion, with science as your God. This being pushed to all manners of extremes.

I myself believe in Science, I believe in God. Im not sure about Christianity, as I refuse to believe a religion based on the fact that I was born in a mainly Christian country. If I was born in India I would have been Muslim or one of the other prominent religions of the Middle east. I will one day look into all these religions to further my knowledge, but for now I am happy with my own knowledge that something beyond the power of man exists. I believe it, you dont have to, you dont have to understand it.

It seems to me, Atheism was onto something good, man looking after himself, looking towards understanding the world rather than just living in it. But you took it too far. But anyway, I could go on about this for hours. I am not here to spread my view only, I want to hear others views, religious and atheists... What do you make of my views...

I leave the page open to you.

Atheism is neither a religion or pushing against religion.

Atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existance of gods or god. Anyone that thinks atheists hate religion should do further research. We dont all hate religion, we just dont agree with its concepts.

In my opinion people should be free to choose whatever religion they want, without being scaremongered or forced into believing one or the other. In my case I chose atheism and have a strong belief in scientific proof and evolution, but I also respect religion and people that follow it.

Originally posted by Dany_Barking
But every Atheist I meet seems pushed to the notion that everyone should believe what they believe...

Now correct me if you feel the need, but isn't these traits the exact thing your against. Aren't you against religion because of the conflict caused by different peoples beliefs? So why are you against people with religious beliefs? Atheism is setting itself up with all the traits of religion, with science as your God. This being pushed to all manners of extremes.

It would seem you have just met some bad Atheists. Atheists do not see themselves as religious, they see themselves as the opposite. Science is not the "god" of Atheism, because Atheists don't worship science. They simply take it at face value because that's all science is, it's an observation of the world around us and the formation of conclusions based on those observations.

While I once considered myself an Atheist, I would instead be closer to an Apatheist, which means I am apathetic to the existence or non-existence of a deity. If there is a deity, it is bound to secrecy as it never outwardly reveals itself. Therefore, it is childish to make assumptions about said deity or to regard other peoples assumptions about such deity as fact or fiction. It is simply beyond the scope of reason, and as human beings we should focus on other interests.

Even if you believe in god, you can certainly see that he/she/it does not want us to know anything about god. We were born into ignorance, and we die in ignorance. Best to try and make the most of it while we're here.

Thats good to hear.

Sorry if I sounded a bit anti-atheism. As a term. I meant as a lifestyle. Have you never met anybody who uses atheism as a religion though. Who will laugh at anyone who believes in religion saying its caveman and disproved. Which after research, i'm yet to find anything disproving god-like work on earth. Even if it is minimizing over time.

A good flame to add to the fire, is evolution, as without a missing link this is just theory.

Originally posted by Dany_Barking
Have you never met anybody who uses atheism as a religion though. Who will laugh at anyone who believes in religion saying its caveman and disproved. Which after research, i'm yet to find anything disproving god-like work on earth. Even if it is minimizing over time.

A good flame to add to the fire, is evolution, as without a missing link this is just theory.

Yes, I have certainly met the kinds of people you described. I like to refer to them as "secular extremists". After an entire human existence of wars based on religion, it is entirely understandable how some would lash out against religion in such a way. However, we will never truly abandon religion as most people just need something to believe in. It's a fact of life.

As for evolution being a theory, so is most everything we discover with science, as scientists tend to hesitate to call something a "fact". Our understanding of gravity is based on theories, yet no one contests it.

reply to post by Dany_Barking

I think a person can call themselves an atheist and it can either be a religious belief or not depending on whether or not they assume facts not in evidence.
Some people might not like the word "agnostic" thinking that it gives God too much of a foot in the door for Occam's razor, but if all this type of atheist says is " I don't see sufficient evidence for the existence of God based on my current review of said evidence"...this doesn't seem like a religious assertion or assumption to me.
It's when they make dogmatic assertions that "there is no God" or "there can be no God" that they seem to me to be entering into the realm of religion, asserting doctrine as opposed to parsimonious reviews of more-or-less falsifiable facts.
If memory serves back in ancient Greece they had (for purposes of this argument) two styles of skeptics, right, the Academy ones who said that it was not possible to know about the truth or falsehood of certain things, and then the Pyrrhonistic who said that such a statement involved asserting a dogmatic belief, a doubt that didn't doubt itself, and that it was better to hold the approach that it was not yet possible to tell whether it was possible to judge the truth or falsehood of (the various types of propositions in question) or not.
So I'd say the Pyrrhonistic skeptics are analogous to the non-religious
(by my distinction above) atheists, and the Academy-style skeptics then are like the religious atheists, who go a little big on their assumptions.
But what do I know, it's just an analogy.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Interesting argument. But I'd argue theres a slight difference between a hunch that man evolved from apes with no evidence of a transition and no evolution since, to a name for a force that keeps us down attached to the earth and rotates the planet around the sun and sucks things into black holes.

Think I realized why this type of argument isn't more active in the ATS community. 20 minutes and I can already tell this is going nowhere lol. Could just be because i'm tired and the argument seems a little one-sided. Was hoping for views from both. Perhaps my title was the problem.

reply to post by Dany_Barking


That's a good point, evolution is certainly a more controversial theory than gravity, I was just trying to point out the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific community.

Yeah, the problem is, get to the point of theory, and suddenly everything can become quite bleak and unexplained. Hell, theres not even proof everyone even sees the same thing, as what we see is just what our brain makes of the messages sent to our brain. Makes anything rather hard to proof or disprove in such an unsure environment. Especially now that everyone has their own theories. Not that i'm any better with my singular religious views lol.

There are currently several threads running amuck with their own investigated closures to atheism being an out right conspiracy. But, for the most part, I can only defend what I do and my actions of intuitive information on my atheistic choice.
More times than not, it turns into too a real thread screamer and nothing is absorbed as acceptable to anyone who has a faith or a belief system. They just must not be able to grasp the fact that there are real people of this world that have a totally different out-look, rather than accept us for our morals and values instead of a belief system, bum's me out sometimes, but I still am who I am with no regrets.
You will find people such as Stalin, Mao, Dawkins, Darwin and some others mentioned frequently when discussing the conspiracy factors of religion or belief systems, the only true thing is that they were real people and they proclaimed atheism, then did very bad thing's. Hence, "Atheists are the root of all evil" scenarios.
Inquiring about these thing's is a very good step towards the true meaning of denying ignorance, but on the same token, which has a different face on the opposite side, I don't want to be held accountable for someone else's actions and demonstrations of atrocities committed by other atheists from the past or the future, and that is a hard thing to divide yourself from when discussing this particular topic.
Just remain open-minded and considerate to every sect and walk of life, it is a lot easier than trying to figure it all out with conclusive evidence and slanderous attacks against people that don't or can't accept you /me/us for who we are, no matter what your station is in life.

Regarding science:

The principal issue with respect to science is that many atheists subcribe to its principles without a better understanding of how science works, similar to how some religious folks subscribe to a religion without a better understanding of its principles.

For example: evolution as a principle is not a theory. It was proved by the pepper moth experiment and later through fruit flies. It is evolution of life that is a theory.

As for the epistemology of whether we all "see" the same thing, that is why scientists rely on instrumentation that collects data. Of course, there's always a philosopher who will question the validity of the data, but like Descartes' cogito, ergo sum, we have to start somewhere.

All non-Atheists should be forced into Re-Education camps....

...Then they will have no choice but to believe what we believe!


God Bless Atheism!

I believe this is true. I mean they seem to have pushed really pushed science to make people believe there is no god. Personally I think religion is ridiculous but as for a God and whether or not we're spiritual beings I'm not sure. I think that religion and science have both probably been used to lead people away from the truth about the world and our creator. I've spent ages thinking about whether there's a god and whether there's an after life and I've spent ages pondering atheism and all I could come up with is that they both seemed absurd to me.

Atheism isn't a new anything. It was the claim of lucifer.

We all have free will to believe what we want. If you don't want to believe in God because you're jaded that someone you knew when you were growing up did something wrong to you in the name of "god", then that's on you.

It's every person's responcability to come to their own conculions. I have always known of the reality of God and it's an easy thing to figure out if your not just masterbating interlectual.

Lucifer, Satan, and all the fallen angels chose to believe there was no God as to make them the overcontrol of their own destanies. It was their foolish actions that lead to the confusion of this, and other planets.

In the end, it's all up to you. If you want to be an Atheist, well you'll have no one to have proven yourself right too in the end.

reply to post by Incarnated


umm....last time i checked that lucifer dude would have known that god exists and had several conversations with said deity
...at least that's how i thought the story went

you cannot be an atheist if you're in that position...you'd just be someone who knows god exists without actively worshiping said being and clearly rebelling against that being...hell, you can't start a war with what you don't believe in, eh

see, you're kind of badmouthing atheism and repeating many of the common myths about atheists...look through my old threads, i have one...actually two, that talk about the common myths about atheists.

our disbelief isn't because we're jaded, it's not about control of our destinies, we're not masturbating our intellects, it's mainly about a lack of evidence

stop this sort of ignorance, it's what causes hate towards atheists.

reply to post by Dany_Barking



It's a very valid and well formulated thought.
The subject line alone is worth a star.

Originally posted by Dany_Barking
reply to post by drwizardphd

 

Interesting argument. But I'd argue theres a slight difference between a hunch that man evolved from apes with no evidence of a transition and no evolution since, to a name for a force that keeps us down attached to the earth and rotates the planet around the sun and sucks things into black holes.

Just thought I'd point out the common misconception here. Humans didn't strictly, "evolve from apes". Humans and apes have a common ancestry. There's a big difference. Evolution is not a linear process but constantly branching. I think most biologists would agree that nothing 'stops evolving', including humans. The problem we have is our narrow view/context of generations and the fact that evolution of higher organisms occurs on a geological time-scale (especially when we become capable of modifying our environment). There is no argument that evolution does not occur. Anybody can observe natural selection of bacteria, for example, in real time as their generations are measured in hours. Classic examples abound including, as previously mentioned, the peppered moth.

How is this relevant? We'll I'd argue that after an hour in a room with me, a few good history books, some fundamentals of evolutionary biology and a lot of strong coffee, any open minded person, irrespective of initial belief, would leave seriously questioning the existence of God, or at least have their curiosity sparked. Most atheists are very familiar with the scriptures of Christianity at least (after all, it is not the only religion!!!), but I would suggest that most 'believers' are not equally familiar with basic biological concepts. They tend to regurgitate strange contorted versions of scientific theory that, admittedly, make no sense and are generated by those with a vested interest in people remaining ignorant. Generally speaking, atheists have chosen NOT to believe, usually through understanding counter arguments. I'd say that most Christians have not 'chosen' to believe, they have been indoctrinated.

Would people agree that no atheist could convince a believer to "believe in NO GOD" if that were the only requirement for being an atheist and no justification was given? That would truly be a religion! Atheism is the freedom to consider all the facts available to you on merit, and that can not be 'imposed' on anybody... Atheism is not a religion. The reason that atheists have recently become more direct in their views, being more, "STOP BELIEVING IN GOD!!!" rather than, "are you aware of this evidence that eliminates the requirement for a divine creator?" is because they have hit a wall of ignorance and absolute refusal to even listen to a rational scientific debate. What atheist has not had to listen to bible scriptures endlessly? How many Christians, on the other hand, have made a real effort to understand evolutionary genetics? I have yet to hear an argument on the basis of 'irreducible complexity', missing fossil records, carbon dating or anything else that the believer couldn't answer themselves if their minds were free to do the research. In fact, they probably wouldn't listen to the answer even if they posed the question to someone who could provide one!

The concept of atheism is simple, but not simpler. In a few words, atheism is just a disbelief in supernatural beings. For that reason, atheism is strongly correlated with rationalism, with dialectics, and (when needed) with rhetorics. And that's exactly where the confusion is instantiated - people confound rational minds (which characterize human beings and differentiate them from animals) with religious dogma (which most of the time control both people and animals) and that is ultimately wrong.

Atheism is NOT rational. Or at best it is a semi-rational conclusion based on skewed or poor logic.

Ultimately if you can not "prove" the existance or non existance of something, you can only say that you can not prove it's existance. You can place it's existance only in doubt. As there is no rational way to "prove" god does not exist, it is not a rational view. Please show me the experiemnt that "proves" otherwise. Pure rationalism instead at best could only support agnosticism. The intellectually honest person who has no first hand experience with god might say "i simply can not say".

However the athiest takes on "faith" that God does not exist, with no proof to that effect. It is as much a religious leap as any I know..and I would argue more so. It is almost always coupled with a bias against religion, often becuase of some percieved injustice, and is therefore colored more by personal emotion and prejudice then any sort of "rational" logic.


Let me illustrate further,

Let's say it's say it is a time before photographs and videos, and I never had been to the Great Wall of China....(I have) but let's say i decided that it was just too unlikely that such a wall over such an expanse could ever be built, and was likely a myth........now that would be a perfectly rational conclusion if I had only heard of it as a tale....but now if I meet 5 people who have been to it and swear they have first hand experienced the great wall.......well I would have to doubt my opinion. But I could chalk them up as delusional, crazy, or just plain liars.

But what if I meet hundreds and hundreds of people who have been there? If I still refused to beleive it existed, I would be nothing more then willfully supporting my "faith" that it didn't exist, as all first hand reports would be telling me I was wrong. I could not disproove their experiences. I could at best simply doubt it was possible, but ultimatley admit since I had not been able to go check myself, that unless I saw it myself I could not be sure....even then I would be rather stubborn. How little any of us would know about anything if we only accepted first hand knowledge. We wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING of scientific value if we had to reinvent every step that others have already done before we accepted it.

Millions if not a billion people have claims that they have experienced God first hand in a "religious" experience. To say you can say deffinitively God does not exist, with so much of humanity saying they have experienced a higher power first hand, is to be willfully in denial of at the very least the possibility you may be wrong, and simply can not say one way or the other.

When you consider how many people have had a religious experience in many different faiths, and you consider just how improbable life was formed on our planet, how every planet had to be "just so", how every distance had to be just right, how we had to be shielded from the debris that would make so many other solestial bodies uninhabitable....and more and more it becomes less and less probable, that we are but a random chance.......but all of these arguments are only useful to those without a religious experience. Only useful for A priori discussion.

To the mystic, to those who have experienced God, and had that transcendent experience, that is more real then the computer screen in front of you, it is beyond question, and doubt. For those it is not a matter of "faith" it is a matter of KNOWING. It is a posteriori truth.

I could surely beleive that all of that around me is but an illusion but that experience.

Athetism is a faith, it is not rational....only agnosticism has any sort of rational defense.....and given the millions of of humanity who have a first hand account.....I wonder how they can be sure of anything if they will not take any value in so large a body of testimony.