Atheism is a religion

[houseofcantor]

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

Hi, I'm a Christian looking for a good conversation. I have a comment, and I hope you reply so I can understand your thinking more clearly. It seems that Christians have told you that you have a religion, and this seems absurd because you don't believe in the supernatural (I'm assuming this; please correct if I am wrong). I think it makes more sense for a Christian to say that you have a world view because everyone has a world view. A world view is a construct that we use to answer important questions, make sense of the world around us, and live our day to day lives. In my world view, I acknowledge the supernatural along with natural world. This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity. You, I assume, would disagree with that last statement, but that is a conversation for another post.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes). I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

Now, I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water here. My point is that it takes a certain level of faith in its most essential premise to adhere to a naturalistic world view. And that is why I think some Christians might claim that atheism is a religion. Both Christians and atheists start with an incomplete set of data, make inferences, search for answers that are intellectually credible and existentially satisfying, and draw conclusions. I surmise that that my world view is superior, and so does everyone else. That is why we chose our particular world view. Not because we are certain, but because the hypothesis we came to fits that data better than anything else.

Please pick apart my thinking. I am sure there are some holes in my argument, but I think it is rather compelling. I would truly enjoy a discussion regarding belief formation and the similarities and differences between atheism and Christianity.


Thanks for reading.

You are an ignorant fool who does not read the rules... First half of your our story should be in the Introduction thread, The rest?? Meh

Australian women...

I might hafta go down there... Jared, I got faith. Me and my Gwynnies. You don't need to hear it. Atheist.

[Zen Badger]

Australian women...

I might hafta go down there... Jared, I got faith. Me and my Gwynnies. You don't need to hear it. Atheist.

Aussie chicks....

They'll kick yer fucken arse

[Darwinian]

Claudia Black..

Need a little lie down now...

[KichigaiNeko]

We don't tolerate childish fools very well


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-31.700239,115.797571

[Zen Badger]

Google answers all my prayers

Especially the ones relating to porn

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome, Jared! I hope you enjoy your experience here.

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

Only in the same sense I'm irritated when someone says a hyena is a canine, no matter how anyone goes about explaining why they aren't. That is, it's annoying because it is factually untrue. Theism isn't a religion either, by the way.

Hi, I'm a Christian looking for a good conversation. I have a comment, and I hope you reply so I can understand your thinking more clearly. It seems that Christians have told you that you have a religion, and this seems absurd because you don't believe in the supernatural (I'm assuming this; please correct if I am wrong).

It seems absurd because religion is clearly more than an opinion on the topic of whether God (or gods) is really real.

I think it makes more sense for a Christian to say that you have a world view because everyone has a world view. A world view is a construct that we use to answer important questions, make sense of the world around us, and live our day to day lives.

We all have world views. Athiesm isn't a world view. Neither is theism. They are opinions on one topic.

In my world view, I acknowledge the supernatural along with natural world. This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity. You, I assume, would disagree with that last statement, but that is a conversation for another post.

I do wonder what evidence and reasoning you base your conclusion on, but you're right, no need to multiply topics.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes).

Not all atheists are naturalists. I suppose you could say I am, though. I think your idea is a little restrictive. I'm willing to take your word for it if you claim you tied your shoelaces yourself this morning. If you claim to have levitated three feet over your bed this morning, I'd need more than your assurances.

I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

Science can't prove that science is valid. However, simple observation tells us that science is effective in discovering things about our universe. Do you think rejecting the evidence of your senses because you can't come up with a syllogiism that ends in 'therefore, science is valid!' is really a reasonable position in which to find yourself?

Now, I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water here.

Why are you a fan of it when you've concluded it is invalid?

My point is that it takes a certain level of faith in its most essential premise to adhere to a naturalistic world view.

You mean the premise that a reality exists which can be studied? Does that not drill down deep enough for you?

And that is why I think some Christians might claim that atheism is a religion. Both Christians and atheists start with an incomplete set of data, make inferences, search for answers that are intellectually credible and existentially satisfying, and draw conclusions.

I think you're equivocating faith with religon. Both words have multiple meanings, and can be synonyms, but 'faith' in the sense of trusting something is not the same thing as 'a faith' in the sense of a religion. Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow is not the same kind of faith as 'the Muslim faith'.

I surmise that that my world view is superior, and so does everyone else. That is why we chose our particular world view. Not because we are certain, but because the hypothesis we came to fits that data better than anything else.

Sure, no one holds a world view that they think is wrong.

Please pick apart my thinking. I am sure there are some holes in my argument, but I think it is rather compelling. I would truly enjoy a discussion regarding belief formation and the similarities and differences between atheism and Christianity.

Your thinking seems to be summarizable as you believe what you would like to be true.

Thanks for reading.

You're welcome, and thanks for posting.

[Mitja]

atheism is not religion it's a choice you make when you start to think logicly

[Doubting Thomas]

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football makes me an athlete.

[downbeatplumb]

I failed to find evidence beyond the wikipedia post for dinosaurs with feathers. All I found were quotes "with feathers" and a picture of the already determined Archaeopteryx hoax (true bird).
Some takes against thw wikipedia examples:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_..._2_09.html
http://www.icr.org/article/feathers-miss...-dinosaur/
That scientists feel they need to purposely mispresent evidence doesn't sit well. If you could provide a real source that would be great.

I have been to the natural history museum in London where they had a wing devoted to winged dinosaurs, I saw the fossils myself, will that do.

Creation science makes a fatal mistake: it's out to prove a particular outcome.

The same goes for evolution. The presumption is that God doesn't exist.

No it doesnt it, science just deals with what is it does not pre-suppose. but by showing how the world actually is it makes the god concept slightly more redundent.

Scientists work to figure out how the universe could come to be and develop all by itself, without ever leaving the possibility of God open. Suppose you're a child playing with blocks in an empty room. As you mature you wonder, "Where did these blocks come from?" So you dream up all sorts of ways the blocks could have made themselves. They used to be the size of a pinhead, blew up into gases, which changed elements, began living, made up functions for each part to work together and grow, evolved into different types of things, and finally--you have blocks! What the child never realizes is that their parent put them there. Unless, of course, the parent were to walk in the room in person (like Jesus) and leave a textbook (the Bible) describing how the world really came to be.

You have no idea wht the fuck you are talking about do you!

In their own journals, where they don't have to deal with those pesky 'real' scientists.

Oh, the irony. I've read books by widely acclaimed creation-scientists who explained how no evolution journal would let them publish. Can you imagine? Evolutionists claim creationists aren't reputable because they haven't appeared in an evolution journal, and then don't even let them in when they try! Neither side will let the other publish in their personal magazine... fancy that. There are, however, non-evolutionists who publish neutral articles in secular journals. But they don't call themselves creationists else they be excluded.
[/quote]

Now lets try this out creation scientists are being stifled by the scientific community or they are not actually doing science and the scientific journals are doing their job.

...it's merely bragging that you're close-minded on the subject.

On the contrary, it takes a broader mind to entertain possibilities of the supernatural. It would be easier to accept what secular scientists spoon-fed me, and I did that for years. I've been there and back. Try being a skeptic of your own side sometime--it'll make you stronger.

How braod minded are you?

Could Thor be real how about buddha Allah quetxelcoatl, Ra, Ganeshe?

I am pretty sure that you find the other gods not a viable option because you have picked one and its the right one eh!

Are you broad minded enough to consider the possibilty that there is no god?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

atheism is not religion it's a choice you make when you start to think logicly

Elitist crap.

My atheism was an inescapable conclusion,not a conscious choice.

Our most powerful beliefs (or lack of them) and our world view have little to do with reason or logic.

A life observation is that human beings as species are incapable of consistent rational or logical thought or behaviour. At least I've never run across one, anywhere.

---

Are you broad minded enough to consider the possibilty that there is no god?

I'll give odds that the answer will be an evasion along the lines of "that is not being broad minded",which is a "no".