Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[AtheistAlan]

First, I would like to be very clear. I'm not here to promote atheism. I am not here to answer questions about atheism, as that is clearly not allowed on these forums.

I had an entire thread deleted because I wanted to answer any questions about atheism, respectively, so that I can show that we are good, normal people like everyone else. I wanted to inform and educate about what, exactly, we are or are not. That is clearly not allowed. I was respectful the entire time. I even appealed, but I was denied that request. The reason given is that they do not allow "Ask a ___" for non-Christians. I did not post in a Christian only sub-forum category.

I am here to hear any conceptions you may have about atheism. I will then attempt to either confirm, correct, elaborate, or debate.

I am here to engage in stimulating conversation. I kindly request that everyone be respectful at all times. I thank everyone for their time and comments.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AlexBP]

What do you think about people who claim to have had personal experiences with God, such as holy visions, locutions, or direct communications from God?

What do you think about people who, because of their religious beliefs, worked hard for social reform and did a great amount of good in the world, such as John Wesley, George Fox, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Rev. Martin Luther King? Do you think it would have been better if they hadn't been religious and thus hadn't done what they did?

 

[AtheistAlan]

What do you think about people who claim to have had personal experiences with God, such as holy visions, locutions, or direct communications from God?

What do you think about people who, because of their religious beliefs, worked hard for social reform and did a great amount of good in the world, such as John Wesley, George Fox, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Rev. Martin Luther King? Do you think it would have been better if they hadn't been religious and thus hadn't done what they did?

I think that good people can do good things, and bad people can do bad things. I don't specifically care why they are motivated to do good things, so long as good things are done. And of course I don't mean overly bad things that have some good included in them.

Mother Teresa was a highly regarded "spokesperson", if you will, for Catholics. She raised quite a lot of money to help poor people. But when you look at what the actual result, were that a majority of donated funds were NOT used to actually help the suffering improve quality of life. There are several Youtube videos that highlight my point. (I cannot link in posts, yet)

I'm in no way saying that the above is true, as I have not performed extensive research on the subject, I'm simply using it as an example. I also note that MT may not have known where the funds were being used.

Also, lets not forget a fairly recent court case where a woman killed her children because she thought God told her to do it. Again, the why or the reason still doesn't outweigh the actual act.

People around the world find different sources of motivation for both good and bad things.

-Atheist Alan

 

[Davian]

What do you think about people who claim to have had personal experiences with God, such as holy visions, locutions, or direct communications from God?

I would ask why these direct communications with "God" do not appear to rise above the level of personal anecdote.

What do you think about people who, because of their religious beliefs, worked hard for social reform and did a great amount of good in the world, such as John Wesley, George Fox, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Rev. Martin Luther King? Do you think it would have been better if they hadn't been religious and thus hadn't done what they did?

I do not accept the premise of the question. You cannot demonstrate that those individuals did these things because they were religious, or that they would not have done them were they not.

 

[drjean]

I had an entire thread deleted because I wanted to answer any questions about atheism, respectively, so that I can show that we are good, normal people like everyone else.

-Atheist Alan

Aye, there's the rub.

Christians believe that God says that none of us are good...that we are all sinners and even our Sunday best is "as filthy rags" before the goodness of God.

Perhaps a new premise can begin us all on equal ground?

 

[AtheistAlan]

Aye, there's the rub.

Christians believe that God says that none of us are good...that we are all sinners and even our Sunday best is "as filthy rags" before the goodness of God.

Perhaps a new premise can begin us all on equal ground?

Ah, see that is where I respectfully disagree. I do not believe that the first humans, as per the Holy Bible, who committed the original sin, really determine if I'm a bad person. I believe our actions are who we truly are.

Also, I'm fuzzy on the exact details, as it has been a couple of years since reading the Holy Bible, but didn't Jesus's sacrifice absolve humans of the original sin and save us all? My understanding may be outdated or centered around the incorrect denomination.

-Atheist Alan

 

[Orkan]

Also, lets not forget a fairly recent court case where a woman killed her children because she thought God told her to do it. Again, the why or the reason still doesn't outweigh the actual act.

The problem I have with this is that often those who commit crimes such as this are the victims of mental illness. I don't know which specific case you're referring to, but often post-partum psychosis can take the form of religious-based hallucinations and delusions. It is not the fault of the religion at all. If there were no religion, her hallucinations would have been of something else and the result would likely be the same. If you want to make a compelling argument about the harm religion can cause, it might be best not to include the mentally ill.

 

[SavingCady]

....didn't Jesus's sacrifice absolve humans of the original sin and save us all? My understanding may be outdated or centered around the incorrect denomination.

-Atheist Alan

Jesus Christs sacrifice "saves you" from Hell if you accept Him as your Savior. Other than that, no, I wouldn't say He "saved" everyone. He paid for everyone's sins, but being saved is a gift that YOU have to accept.

 

[Buy Bologna]

For some reason, christians/theist get uncomfortable when presented with the fact that there are good people who don't need their virtues from a holy book. Or a belief in a god.

 

[drjean]

For some reason, christians/theist get uncomfortable when presented with the fact that there are good people who don't need their virtues from a holy book. Or a belief in a god.

I certainly know that that is the basis of such a religion as atheism. However, again and especially since this is in the philosophy forum, I just want to make clear that Christians believe (that) without an Absolute Truth and Perfect God as an example, man has nothing to which to compare, and thus there can be no morals or virtues.

 

[AtheistAlan]

I certainly know that that is the basis of such a religion as atheism. However, again and especially since this is in the philosophy forum, I just want to make clear that Christians believe (that) without an Absolute Truth and Perfect God as an example, man has nothing to which to compare, and thus there can be no morals or virtues.

Here is one of the most common misconceptions about atheism.

We are NOT a religion.

Atheist do not believe in deities. There is nothing more or less to it than that. We are a religion as bald is a hair color; we are religion as abstinence is a sexual position, as to say, not at all.

Also, if humans had no morals and virtues before Judaism or Christianity, then we as a species would not have made it to this point. Take me for instance; I do not believe in your (or any) God, yet I have morals and values. I hold nothing to be perfect by any comparison.

What gets me about the last part of your statement, is that are you saying, without your religion, you would go around stealing and murdering without restraint? This has always been a part Christian philosophy that has eluded my reasoning.

I need no fear of hell or promise of a heavenly reward to be a good person. I am (or I strive to be as best I can) a good person because I want to be a good person. I have about 86-ish years to make the greatest impact I can ever make. I only have one chance. Death is my only reward. I accept that and I strive to do as best I can.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

The problem I have with this is that often those who commit crimes such as this are the victims of mental illness. I don't know which specific case you're referring to, but often post-partum psychosis can take the form of religious-based hallucinations and delusions. It is not the fault of the religion at all. If there were no religion, her hallucinations would have been of something else and the result would likely be the same. If you want to make a compelling argument about the harm religion can cause, it might be best not to include the mentally ill.

I never said that religion is at fault at all. I think we are all accountable for our own actions. Let me expand.

I find it incredibly interesting the following:

Abraham was told, by God where only he could hear, to kill his son Isaac. This is in the Bible as holy scripture.

Dora Alicia Tejada Pleitez, LaShaun Harris, Andrea Yates, or Deanna Laney was told, by God where only they could hear, to kill their children. These people are mentally insane.

-Atheist Alan

 

[drjean]

Here is one of the most common misconceptions about atheism.

We are NOT a religion.



-Atheist Alan

Likewise it is a misconception to think diety is at the center of all religions. People can be religious about their going to a ball game for their fanaticism, etc. See? If you dispense with the idea that atheism is not a religion, and follow the definition of general religion, you will find that the structure of the believism does, indeed, follow that of someone religiously acting and believing. Your religion just doesn't include God, that's all.

 

[AtheistAlan]

Likewise it is a misconception to think diety is at the center of all religions. People can be religious about their going to a ball game for their fanaticism, etc. See? If you dispense with the idea that atheism is not a religion, and follow the definition of general religion, you will find that the structure of the believism does, indeed, follow that of someone religiously acting and believing. Your religion just doesn't include God, that's all.

From Google's define feature:

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

These are the clear cut definitions of religion and atheism. I think sometimes the wording can differ between sources, but these both have the idea correct.

Atheist do not believe in God. Religion is a belief and/or worship of God or gods.

You can change the definitions to anything you want, that doesn't make what you are defining the same thing as what word you are using however. I can call a tree a cat, and define cats as to having green leaves on their branches, but that however isn't the definition of a cat at all.

I think the major disconnect is that you confuse atheism with a belief in evolution, belief in the big bang theory, and other such scientific theories. I will agree that most atheist believe in science and science's currently held theorys that explain the universe as best we understand it at the moment.

You are religious, I can assume? I can also assume that you have hair? Because you are religious, and most religious people have hair, can I say that hair is associated with religion? No I cannot. Equally you can not say that atheism is a religion because we tend to believe in the same scientific theories. Scientific theories are a part of what we atheist consider fact, but it is not part of atheism itself, thus the comparison to religion and hair.

-Atheist Alan

 

[SonOfTheWest]

There are a few rare religions not centered on a deity or deities. But atheism itself is not a religion. It's an ontological position.

 

[drjean]

From Google's define feature:

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

These are the clear cut definitions of religion and atheism. I think sometimes the wording can differ between sources, but these both have the idea correct.

Atheist do not believe in God. Religion is a belief and/or worship of God or gods.

You can change the definitions to anything you want, that doesn't make what you are defining the same thing as what word you are using however. I can call a tree a cat, and define cats as to having green leaves on their branches, but that however isn't the definition of a cat at all.

I think the major disconnect is that you confuse atheism with a belief in evolution, belief in the big bang theory, and other such scientific theories. I will agree that most atheist believe in science and science's currently held theorys that explain the universe as best we understand it at the moment.

You are religious, I can assume? I can also assume that you have hair? Because you are religious, and most religious people have hair, can I say that hair is associated with religion? No I cannot. Equally you can not say that atheism is a religion because we tend to believe in the same scientific theories. Scientific theories are a part of what we atheist consider fact, but it is not part of atheism itself, thus the comparison to religion and hair.

-Atheist Alan

Alan, I doubt we will be able to even discuss the deeper things since your base of knowledge is quite limited. Perhaps an investment in a good dictionary and thesaurus to begin with, and a mind a little more open than you currently possess. Be well.

Definition of RELIGION

1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith



— re·li·gion·less adjective

 

[AtheistAlan]

People can be religious about their going to a ball game for their fanaticism, etc.

I wanted to post about this directly. In this case you are using the word religious as a metaphor. The ball game is not a deity or spiritual being in the literal sense. Therefor it can not be religiously followed literally, only metaphorically.

-Atheist Alan

 

[AtheistAlan]

Alan, I doubt we will be able to even discuss the deeper things since your base of knowledge is quite limited. Perhaps an investment in a good dictionary and thesaurus to begin with, and a mind a little more open than you currently possess. Be well. [/I]

May I inquire as to the source of your definitions? As to the printing or website of the thesaurus or dictionary.

Also, I find your statement to be dismissive and quite rude. I am unclear how we are to have debate or conversation on matters, if when someone doesn't agree with what you are saying within a few exchanges, are dismissed as not having knowledge of the subject mater and being close minded.

With your exact reasoning, I can say that you are close minded and lack a base knowledge. That is not my opinion however.

Also, with the above definitions you posted, a good Wal-Mart employee could be religious about Wal-mart. I think that your source uses the word too broadly. I don't think Wal-mart is a religion. But it can be a religion using the definitions you posted.

Edit: also, any workplace with good employees can be considered a religion as well. So are social circles, schools, Facebook, Twitter, or anything that has groups of people that are devout. This is another example how the definition you use is extremely too broad.

-Atheist Alan

 

[Redac]

Likewise it is a misconception to think diety is at the center of all religions. People can be religious about their going to a ball game for their fanaticism, etc. See? If you dispense with the idea that atheism is not a religion, and follow the definition of general religion, you will find that the structure of the believism does, indeed, follow that of someone religiously acting and believing. Your religion just doesn't include God, that's all.

So what is the institutional belief system inherent in atheism? What is its dogma? What practices do its followers commit to?

 

[drjean]

Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist at Thomas Jefferson University whose field of study is neurotheology, the study of the relationship between the brain and religious and spiritual beliefs and experiences. Newberg and his late partner Eugene D'Aquili mapped various parts of the brain showing activation in specific areas when people were undergoing certain religious rituals or experiences, such as a shaman being in a trance or a Buddhist entering a mystical state. Regardless of the religion, the brain function was the same. Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford's suit in The Electric Horseman.
This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that "we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn't. Your brain is doing its best to understand the world and construct beliefs to understand it, and from an epistemological perspective there is no fundamental difference."
So, whether you make sense of the world as an atheist and don't require the God postulate to complete your understanding, or you are a theist and your feelings and experiences tell you something greater is there, biologically speaking, that big blob of gray Jell-O in our skulls is like a giant arrow pointing us in the same direction. I believe that is delicious. And religious.

(Kennedy)

Childs makes the case:

Atheism is a religion.​

Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I&#8217;ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don&#8217;t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn&#8217;t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn&#8217;t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I&#8217;d say the new atheists and their religion are &#8220;anti-theistic.&#8221; But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:

• They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
• They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
• They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one&#8217;s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world&#8217;s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the &#8220;open-minded, tolerant&#8221; New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of &#8220;tergiversation.&#8221; It&#8217;s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their &#8220;faith.&#8221;
• They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
• They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin &#8211; in their view &#8211; drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
• They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they &#8220;evangelistic.&#8221; Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a &#8220;gospel&#8221; calling for the end of theism.
• They have faith. That&#8217;s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris&#8217;s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won&#8217;t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by &#8230; faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don&#8217;t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

bit.ly/AtheistReligion

The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the &#8220;secularisation&#8221; of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.
Atheism: A religion