Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2016, 11:12 PM
Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Is atheism just a religion of nonreligion? What I mean is are atheists especially ones in this forum just trying to proselytize people into atheism? And objectively could evolution and the views of Richard Dawkins be seen as just atheist doctrine? Am I even allowed to ask these questions or are they too inconvenient? I know atheists don't see themselves as religious. But really haven't atheists just replaced God with no god or just themselves as gods? What I mean by that is instead of worshipping a cosmic being whose existence cannot be proven or even disproven (Much like a flatlander attempting to prove the existence of a space lander or debunk the existence thereof) you just merely worship science, technology, the laws of physics, or simply yourselves. Could you be doing this without even realizing it? And aren't atheist beliefs just as outrageous and incredible as any religious beliefs? My case in point is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He admits in his forward he isn't truly an atheist but rather a scientific pantheist. He has no problem attributing god-like qualities to the universe or even the multi-verse. In fact his only logical argument against the existence of God kinda falls apart in the fourth chapter. He says he cannot accept God as a theroy because he is a "skyhook" and an "infinite regression." And he rejects outright something as "complicated as God" as self existent and eternal. Yet he has no problem with a Darwinian multi-verse (which is infinity regressive not to mention must be very complicated by it's very nature) or a big bang/big crunch multi-verse (which is also very complicated and eternal/self existent by it's nature). Really by the same maxim Dawkins reject God as a theory, so is his counter argument rely. But my point is let's say I buy Dawkins case. Isn't that just as if not more so incredible than any creator? And wouldn't that take the same measure of faith as belief in any god? Or is it different because we replace a god with a universe or even a non-anthropomorphised force of nature. I don't know atheists help me out here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 11:13 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Is atheism just a religion of nonreligion? What I mean is are atheists especially ones in this forum just trying to proselytize people into atheism? And objectively could evolution and the views of Richard Dawkins be seen as just atheist doctrine? Am I even allowed to ask these questions or are they too inconvenient? I know atheists don't see themselves as religious. But really haven't atheists just replaced God with no god or just themselves as gods? What I mean by that is instead of worshipping a cosmic being whose existence cannot be proven or even disproven (Much like a flatlander attempting to prove the existence of a space lander or debunk the existence thereof) you just merely worship science, technology, the laws of physics, or simply yourselves. Could you be doing this without even realizing it? And aren't atheist beliefs just as outrageous and incredible as any religious beliefs? My case in point is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He admits in his forward he isn't truly an atheist but rather a scientific pantheist. He has no problem attributing god-like qualities to the universe or even the multi-verse. In fact his only logical argument against the existence of God kinda falls apart in the fourth chapter. He says he cannot accept God as a theroy because he is a "skyhook" and an "infinite regression." And he rejects outright something as "complicated as God" as self existent and eternal. Yet he has no problem with a Darwinian multi-verse (which is infinity regressive not to mention must be very complicated by it's very nature) or a big bang/big crunch multi-verse (which is also very complicated and eternal/self existent by it's nature). Really by the same maxim Dawkins reject God as a theory, so is his counter argument rely. But my point is let's say I buy Dawkins case. Isn't that just as if not more so incredible than any creator? And wouldn't that take the same measure of faith as belief in any god? Or is it different because we replace a god with a universe or even a non-anthropomorphised force of nature. I don't know atheists help me out here.

No. And no.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god claims. That's it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-12-2016, 11:21 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
So are we allowed to question even lack of belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Thanks Chas
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2016, 11:46 PM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Disciple, evolution has zero (repeat: ZERO) to do with atheism. In fact, most Christians accept evolution, outside of the United States, and a large number of them here have no problem with it. Many biologists, including famous and successful ones, are Christians. As I like to point out to people, the former head of the Human Genome Project (until its conclusion) and current head of the US National Institutes of Health (the main publisher of scientific papers on medicine, evolution, and abiogenesis chemistry) is Dr. Francis S. Collins, an evangelical Christian who wrote a book [edit: called The Language of God, click link for PDF format of the book, if you want to read it] on how we know evolution is reality through DNA studies alone, and why that enhances, not detracts from, his belief in God. Evolution is simply the reality of the world in which we live, and the only people who take issue with it are fundamentalists who think that their scriptures must be taken as literal science books (generally, fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, though there are others).

If we seem adamant about trying to explain evolution to people, it's because we find it shocking and appalling when we meet people who still believe the world was made by magic, as the Bronze Age authors of Genesis thought. It has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with the way you would react if you met a person who told you that the world was flat.

Many of us find Richard Dawkins to be somewhat irritating (I know I do) and not necessarily the best proponent of the atheist outlook... and we certainly don't take his words as Gospel, despite what you've obviously been told.

We do not worship ourselves. We do not worship science. We do, however, appreciate that the Scientific Method is a means of deliberately weeding out human fallibility through a number of processes, the most important of which are falsifiable hypotheses, repeatable experiments, and peer review (competition among scientists, essentially). These help to eliminate the biases that are inherent in even the most honest person, who is actively trying to be objective. The self-correcting nature of science is what we find most impressive about it, though many who believe there is an Ultimate Truth™ that they already have access to (scriptures of various sorts) tend to see that as a weakness.

If we do not know the answer to something, such as "what is the true nature of our universe's origin?", then the honest answer must always be "We do not know, but these are our best guesses." Trying to substitute a preformulated, magical idea into the gap in human knowledge does not, historically, end well for that idea. All the things we have discovered thus far by using the scientific method, which once were thought to be the actions of god(s), have turned out to be natural and not magical... we see no reason why the remaining gaps in our human knowledge should be assumed to be magical until proven otherwise.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 21 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-12-2016, 12:05 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(28-12-2016 11:21 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  So are we allowed to question even lack of belief?

Allowed by who?

Question everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
29-12-2016, 12:07 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Rocket: I have been a student of the Bible for the last three years. I have found no reason in the text itself to not accept evolution. The Bible merely claims God created the universe and everything in it. But it says nothing of His exact methods. I have also found that many Fundamentalist Christians don't even know what it is they claim to believe. For example they claim their most fundamental doctrines (Trinity, Immortal Soul,etc) come from the Bible. But an objective view of the text itself one can see the Bible makes no such claims. And that these views are more Platonic views and pagan beliefs woven into Christianity. But most fundamentalists either fail to realize this or refuse to do so. But thank you Rocket.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Disciple 21x's post
29-12-2016, 12:08 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
Exactly Dark Wanderer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2016, 12:13 AM
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(29-12-2016 12:07 AM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  ...
I have been a student of the Bible for the last three years.
...

Do you think it would have been more difficult to digest had they not numbered the verses and used paragraphs?

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
29-12-2016, 12:17 AM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2016 06:39 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is Atheism just another religion under guise of "non-religion"?
(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Is atheism just a religion of nonreligion?

Define religion. Atheism has no creed, no high holy days, nothing is sacred, there is no hierarchy, there is nothing supernatural, it cares not for what happens to you after you die. Atheism is not a religion.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  What I mean is are atheists especially ones in this forum just trying to proselytize people into atheism?

Did we come to your forum and start 'preaching' disbelief?


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  And objectively could evolution and the views of Richard Dawkins be seen as just atheist doctrine?

Define doctrine. The facts of evolution, and the opinions of Dawkins, are not beyond reproach or unquestionable. No one is being threatened with sin or excommunication from atheism for not agreeing with Dawkins. People are not being decapitated by faceless thugs for insulting Darwin (pbuh).

This is not a hard question, they're not even remotely similar.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Am I even allowed to ask these questions or are they too inconvenient?

Allowed? Certainly.

Inconvenient? No.

Stupid and showing a completely lack of forethought on your part? Most definitely.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  I know atheists don't see themselves as religious.

Because we're not. See above.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  But really haven't atheists just replaced God with no god or just themselves as gods?

Okay, level with us. Which bullshit Christian apologist are you regurgitating?


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  What I mean by that is instead of worshipping a cosmic being whose existence cannot be proven or even disproven (Much like a flatlander attempting to prove the existence of a space lander or debunk the existence thereof) you just merely worship science, technology, the laws of physics, or simply yourselves.

Atheism has no tenants, it holds nothing sacred. You can be an atheist, and still be a superstitious ignorant tool who thinks ghosts and tarot cards are real but just thinks god is bollocks. You can be an atheist and hate technology, or think evolution is bunk; because atheism is not a religion.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Could you be doing this without even realizing it?

No, but it's obvious you haven't thought about this nearly enough.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  And aren't atheist beliefs just as outrageous and incredible as any religious beliefs?

How so? Atheism is just what happens when someone comes down from the mountain saying they're here to speak on behalf of their god, and someone else speaks up and says "prove it". Being skeptical of god claims, and recognizing every religion's inability to meet their burden of proof, does not make atheism an equivalent to religion.

Off is not a TV channel.

Bald is not a hair color.

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

Atheism is not a religion.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  My case in point is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He admits in his forward he isn't truly an atheist but rather a scientific pantheist.

Considering that Dawkins considers himself a 6.9 on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being a theist and 7 being an anti-theist, I'd have to disagree with your interpretation.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  He has no problem attributing god-like qualities to the universe or even the multi-verse. In fact his only logical argument against the existence of God kinda falls apart in the fourth chapter. He says he cannot accept God as a theroy because he is a "skyhook" and an "infinite regression." And he rejects outright something as "complicated as God" as self existent and eternal. Yet he has no problem with a Darwinian multi-verse (which is infinity regressive not to mention must be very complicated by it's very nature) or a big bang/big crunch multi-verse (which is also very complicated and eternal/self existent by it's nature).

The possibility of a multi-verse is still nothing more than a theoretical possibility, but it does not require the assumption of the supernatural, unlike belief in the divine. There is a difference between being open to the possibilities of what science may show us about our existence, and not buying into the millennia old fairy tales born of superstitious hunter-gatherers who didn't know enough to keep their own shit away from their food.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Really by the same maxim Dawkins reject God as a theory, so is his counter argument rely.

You fundamentally do not understand skepticism.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  But my point is let's say I buy Dawkins case. Isn't that just as if not more so incredible than any creator?

For fuck's sake. Doubt of a claim is not itself a claim.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  And wouldn't that take the same measure of faith as belief in any god?

No. You fundamentally do not understand skepticism.


(28-12-2016 11:12 PM)Disciple 21x Wrote:  Or is it different because we replace a god with a universe or even a non-anthropomorphised force of nature. I don't know atheists help me out here.

Presupposition is a curios way to ask for help.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 14 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: