Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[AlexBP]

AlexBP: I believe I can demonstrate that quite easily. It's only necessarily to look at what those individuals laid down as their reasons for doing the good works that they did. Have you read Rev. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail? I think it says quite clearly that King was driven to lead the Civil Rights movement for religious reasons. Have you read Gandhi's autobiographical writings? He said plainly that his political views were based on, and inseparable from, his beliefs about God, and also that God had spoken to him and told him to perform certain actions. Likewise for the individuals that I listed or countless others, their words testify clearly that their faith shaped what they did.

Davian: You failed to demonstrate that they would not have done them if they were not religious.
​

Actually I demonstrated exactly that. Individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. said, in so many words, that their political actions arose from their religious beliefs. Hence if they were not religious, they would not have done the political actions that they did. Being in denial about what these men said will not change the facts.

 

[Asvin]

To the OP: Do you believe the universe came into being out of nothing?

 

[Davian]

AlexBP: I believe I can demonstrate that quite easily. It's only necessarily to look at what those individuals laid down as their reasons for doing the good works that they did. Have you read Rev. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail? I think it says quite clearly that King was driven to lead the Civil Rights movement for religious reasons. Have you read Gandhi's autobiographical writings? He said plainly that his political views were based on, and inseparable from, his beliefs about God, and also that God had spoken to him and told him to perform certain actions. Likewise for the individuals that I listed or countless others, their words testify clearly that their faith shaped what they did.

Davian: You failed to demonstrate that they would not have done them if they were not religious.
​

Actually I demonstrated exactly that. Individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. said, in so many words, that their political actions arose from their religious beliefs. Hence if they were not religious, they would not have done the political actions that they did.

That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious.

Being in denial about what these men said will not change the facts.

I do not deny what those men said or did. What facts are you referring to?

 

[AlexBP]

AlexBP: Actually I demonstrated exactly that. Individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. said, in so many words, that their political actions arose from their religious beliefs. Hence if they were not religious, they would not have done the political actions that they did.

Davian: That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious.
​

Am I missing something here? Suppose I have a friend named Bob who says "I went to the ballpark because I like baseball". It would be reasonable to suppose that if Bob did not like baseball, he would not have gone to the ballpark, would it not? Isn't the only alternative that Bob is lying? So unless you believe that MLK, Gandhi, et. al. were routinely dishonest about this issue, how can you keep saying "That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious"?

In short, really, I'm asking you to defend your position, and you just keep repeating yourself.

 

[AlexBP]

The major difference is that there is quite a difference between this supposed God, a supposed creator of the universe and all of existence and time, and a Dr. Lin, one human being among ~7 billion on one planet of 8 (or 9 if you still love Pluto) orbiting one star in a galaxy with ~400 billions starts, in a universe of billions of galaxies.

I can accept the limitations of one doctor.

All very true, but I don't think you're seeing my point. Someone questioned your attitude towards a category of things, namely miracles. You responded by asking about one particular, very specific sub-category of that thing, namely miraculous restoration of limbs to amputees. But that's a highly unusual way to approach the question of whether a certain category of things exists. For example, imagine someone asked whether I believe that elephants exist, and I responded by saying, "I submit: why do elephants never eat meat?" The question of the existence of meat-eating elephants proves nothing about the existence of elephants overall. It's logically possible that carniverous elephants don't exist but elephants do. Likewise it's logically possible that miraculous restoration of limbs to amputees have never happened but miracles have happened.

 

[Tinker Grey]

AlexBP: Actually I demonstrated exactly that. Individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. said, in so many words, that their political actions arose from their religious beliefs. Hence if they were not religious, they would not have done the political actions that they did.

Davian: That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious.
​

Am I missing something here? Suppose I have a friend named Bob who says "I went to the ballpark because I like baseball". It would be reasonable to suppose that if Bob did not like baseball, he would not have gone to the ballpark, would it not? Isn't the only alternative that Bob is lying? So unless you believe that MLK, Gandhi, et. al. were routinely dishonest about this issue, how can you keep saying "That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious"?

In short, really, I'm asking you to defend your position, and you just keep repeating yourself.

The analogy almost works but not quite. If Gandhi had always been religious, we might accept that his statement that acted for religious reasons. But how does he or anyone know that he would not do those things if he weren't religious.

For example, Doctors without Borders is a secular charitable organization. It's probably reasonable to guess that there are at least a few non-religious doctors who do what religious doctors do without the need to be religious.

Isn't it possible that someone could do civil-rights type activities without being religious? Therefore though MLKJ or MG might feel that they've acted out of religious sensibility, it is not clear that they wouldn't otherwise.

I.e., there is no reason for me to suspect them of lying. We can simply assert that what they would have done if they were not religious is unknown.

 

[AlexBP]

I.e., there is no reason for me to suspect them of lying. We can simply assert that what they would have done if they were not religious is unknown.

I suppose that logically speaking, one cannot prove with absolute certainty what any person would have done if his or her beliefs were entirely different from what they were in reality, so in that sense it's correct to say that we don't know whether Gandhi would have lead India to independence if he weren't religious. I do think, though, that if we examine the evidence, we might it very unlikely that Gandhi would have had the same political program if he was non-religious.

If we accept this sort of logic, we can also turn it around and use to it to debunk common atheist arguments. For example, we often hear that the 9/11 terrorist arguments wouldn't have happened without religion. Now it turns out that no one can demonstrate that the hijackers wouldn't have hijacked even if they were atheists.

 

[drjean]

Yep, they're Buddhists who are atheists. As I understand it, at least in some forms of Buddhism gods are considered at best irrelevant to the important questions of life, so some believe, others don't. In any case, these atheist Buddhists are way different than the straw-man you're trying to build of all atheists.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's just a lack of a particular belief. This lack can be found in people who believe all sorts of different things. Republican atheists, objectivity atheists, socialist atheists, spiritual atheists, naturalist atheists, Taoist atheists, Shinto atheists, etc, etc, etc. The only thing these groups have in common is that they lack belief in a god. You simply can't conclude anything else from them being atheist.

You posted a list which wrongly tried to attribute various traits to atheists that not all of them share.

It would, if all of them actually believed this. But you've highlighted yet another thing that atheists disagree on.

Indeed what you say applies to all religions, including atheism. Someone believing in one religion also lacks particular beliefs in others...just as atheism. Plus, in no religion does everyone who ascribes to the basics also believe everything (you call them traits) of the entire religion.

Do you call Christianity a religion? It is not. Atheists ascribed to their faith in what they believe more cohesively than Christians do!

If one could stand back and away from any personal need to be defensive, they could see the truth in the categorization of the tenets of any "religion" and how atheism fits as well.

Alas, though, that is what I think of atheism. It is merely another religion that man has created so he doesn't have to face the God Almighty on this earth, just like buddhism, taoism, islamism, hinduism, pantotheism etc.

 

[Davian]

AlexBP: Actually I demonstrated exactly that. Individuals such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. said, in so many words, that their political actions arose from their religious beliefs. Hence if they were not religious, they would not have done the political actions that they did.

Davian: That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious.
​

Am I missing something here? Suppose I have a friend named Bob who says "I went to the ballpark because I like baseball". It would be reasonable to suppose that if Bob did not like baseball, he would not have gone to the ballpark, would it not? Isn't the only alternative that Bob is lying? So unless you believe that MLK, Gandhi, et. al. were routinely dishonest about this issue, how can you keep saying "That does not demonstrate that they would not have done them had they not been religious"?

In short, really, I'm asking you to defend your position, and you just keep repeating yourself.

My comments are directed the blanket statement of crediting religion for those things that they did. You would need to show that, had each individual been raised outside of religion, that there was no possibility that they they would have done those things. You can make a stronger case on an individual basis, but that was not my point.

 

[AlexBP]

My comments are directed the blanket statement of crediting religion for those things that they did. You would need to show that, had each individual been raised outside of religion, that there was no possibility that they they would have done those things.

Okay then, I have shown what you asked me to show, to the maximum extent that it is possible to do. I have shown you sources in which the individuals themselves say that their political views result from their religious beliefs. That is the strongest imaginable evidence that could be given on this question. If you won't accept that as evidence, then you're basically saying that there's no evidence that could possibly exist that would convince you that what they said is true. (In the language of teenage skeptics, your hypothesis is not falsifiable.)

If you want to continue fighting about this, at least answer one question. If to you, statements by Gandhi, MKL, et. al. about why they did what they did do not count as evidence, then what would count as evidence? Please be specific.

 

[Davian]

Okay then, I have shown what you asked me to show, to the maximum extent that it is possible to do. I have shown you sources in which the individuals themselves say that their political views result from their religious beliefs. That is the strongest imaginable evidence that could be given on this question. If you won't accept that as evidence, then you're basically saying that there's no evidence that could possibly exist that would convince you that what they said is true. (In the language of teenage skeptics, your hypothesis is not falsifiable.)

It's *your* hypothesis, and I agree that it is not falsifiable.

If you want to continue fighting about this, at least answer one question. If to you, statements by Gandhi, MKL, et. al. about why they did what they did do not count as evidence, then what would count as evidence? Please be specific.

You said "...if they hadn't been religious and thus hadn't done what they did?"

I agree that their statements count as evidence - just not proof. It was the premise of your question that I did not agree with.

I might excempt Mother Teresa. I understand that she had a predilection for human suffering that might be difficult to assign to secular motivations.

 

[Redac]

Indeed what you say applies to all religions, including atheism. Someone believing in one religion also lacks particular beliefs in others...just as atheism. Plus, in no religion does everyone who ascribes to the basics also believe everything (you call them traits) of the entire religion.

Is "Not being a Muslim" a religion?

Do you call Christianity a religion? It is not. Atheists ascribed to their faith in what they believe more cohesively than Christians do!

Are you one of those who subscribes to the idea that it's a "relationship" or something? It's a religion, and you shouldn't try to distance yourself from the term.

 

[Gadarene]

Are you one of those who subscribes to the idea that it's a "relationship" or something? It's a religion, and you shouldn't try to distance yourself from the term.

That always irked me.

Semantic oneupmanship, that shouldn't even be necessary in the first place if Christianity actually had anything going for it.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Some of the things LiveinMercy&Truth posted made me think of this video. So this is for some of the atheists in this thread.

Also, in before I get accused of being a traitor.

Social Suicide - YouTube

 

[Redac]

That always irked me.

Semantic oneupmanship, that shouldn't even be necessary in the first place if Christianity actually had anything going for it.

I've just never understood why they call everything but their own belief system a religion. Like you said, just semantics.

 

[Gadarene]

I've just never understood why they call everything but their own belief system a religion. Like you said, just semantics.

I do also love how vigorously the atheism-is-a-religion argument is pursued by some.

Ok, fine, suppose it is a religion. The painfully threadbare case for Christianity still hasn't changed one iota as a result.

 

[KCfromNC]

Indeed what you say applies to all religions, including atheism. Someone believing in one religion also lacks particular beliefs in others...just as atheism. Plus, in no religion does everyone who ascribes to the basics also believe everything (you call them traits) of the entire religion.

Sorry, that makes no sense. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods, and this is not what most religions claim. I'm not sure how you can say that all believers are also atheists - it makes no sense since most religions are theistic. But I guess that's the kind of word games you have to resort to in order to convince people that a simple lack of belief in god is a belief system equivalent to the dogma, theology and worship of religions.

Do you call Christianity a religion?

Yes, of course. It's a set of doctrine, beliefs and practices relating to the supernatural and divine.

If one could stand back and away from any personal need to be defensive, they could see the truth in the categorization of the tenets of any "religion" and how atheism fits as well.

Sure, all you have to do is list the beliefs that all atheists share as part of their "religion". So far you haven't been able to do so, but don't let me stop you.

Alas, though, that is what I think of atheism. It is merely another religion that man has created so he doesn't have to face the God Almighty on this earth, just like buddhism, taoism, islamism, hinduism, pantotheism etc.

It's interesting you think this, but it would be even more interesting if you could show you had a good reason to believe it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I've just never understood why they call everything but their own belief system a religion. Like you said, just semantics.

They're trying to convince themselves that everyone else is just blindly following tradition or dogma while they have a direct hotline to the allmighty creator of the known universe. It's a rationalization that their subjective personal opinion about religion is somehow superior to the subjective personal opinion of believers who disagree with them.

 

[KCfromNC]

To the OP: Do you believe the universe came into being out of nothing?

I'm not the OP, but I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. How is this relevant to atheism, aside from the fact that some groups of believers pretend they know the answer?

 

[Davian]

I suppose that logically speaking, one cannot prove with absolute certainty what any person would have done if his or her beliefs were entirely different from what they were in reality, so in that sense it's correct to say that we don't know whether Gandhi would have lead India to independence if he weren't religious. I do think, though, that if we examine the evidence, we might it very unlikely that Gandhi would have had the same political program if he was non-religious.

Logically speaking was what I was aiming for.

If we accept this sort of logic, we can also turn it around and use to it to debunk common atheist arguments.

Not likely.

For example, we often hear that the 9/11 terrorist arguments wouldn't have happened without religion. Now it turns out that no one can demonstrate that the hijackers wouldn't have hijacked even if they were atheists.

You would be out on a very thin limb if you tried to claim that someone would do such a thing *because* they were atheists.