We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim neutrality, in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
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. IвЂ™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 donвЂ™t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesnвЂ™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 doesnвЂ™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). IвЂ™d say the new atheists and their religion are вЂњanti-theistic.вЂќ 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 oneвЂ™s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the worldвЂ™s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the вЂњopen-minded, tolerantвЂќ New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of вЂњtergiversation.вЂќ ItвЂ™s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their вЂњfaith.вЂќ
They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin вЂ“ in their view вЂ“ 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 вЂњevangelistic.вЂќ 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 вЂњgospelвЂќ calling for the end of theism.
They have faith. ThatвЂ™s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. HarrisвЂ™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 wonвЂ™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 вЂ¦ 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 donвЂ™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.
Lol of course atheism is a religion.
The pathetic state of denial that atheists find themselves in is never going to change that. And here is a perfect example of that denial:
@Saphlan: Religion – The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Clearly this person is in so much denial that he/she has forgotten about Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto . . .
I have no idea why this attempt to change the definition of what a religion is seems to be such a big deal for those who have some sort of issue with atheists.
If atheism is a religion (I couldn’t care less if it was officially considered one) the point would still be that the explanation still makes more rational sense than any other religious theistic explanation of our existence. Attempting to disparage atheism by assigning ‘prophets’ to it in an attempt to fashion some tangible social structure seems rather desperate and confused. Simply pulling out prominent commentators and suggesting they are ritualistically ‘worshipped’ rather than simply admired for their articulation with regards to their positions on theology, seems rather childish, and again, confused – which isn’t surprising given that the accusations usually come from people who who hang a primitive torture device in their homes and around their necks, as a symbol of good luck.
Wasting time on definitions is only an attempt to temporally distract from the core of the issue – that you STILL can’t provide any evidence of the existence of the god you worship,hence why atheists can’t invest belief in them.
Atheism is linked with science because both are reactionary, rather than blindly traditional like every religion – ever. Just because faith is invested in scientific discovery, doesn’t mean that faith is blind, given that science has a track record of being consistently accurate. For me, the definition of religious faith is blind, immovable investment in a waiting for a prophesy to be fulfilled. The difference with atheism is that there is no prophecy, so how where is the actual similarity with organised religion?
That was just stoopid… you aren’t stoopid, are you Sparkie?
":I’ve been cruising this planet for over 60 years.
IF God existed he would know what sort of evidence would convince me of his existenceвЂ¦ if he wanted me to know it 🙂
Nothing: nada: zilch.":
I suppose HE either doesn’t care about ME in any way whatsoeverвЂ¦
God is imaginary… I’m going with the latter.
IвЂ™m 100% certain god is imaginary.
If he really existed he would have found a way to convince me he exists.
Obviously he hasn’t cos just as obviously he doesn’t.
If you wanted to convince someone you existed, what lengths would you go to?
Would you drop a few seriously ambiguous вЂcluesвЂ™… OR, introduce yourself.
Seriously – this has SCAM written all over it.
Pretend you were some place and you were invisible вЂ“ letвЂ™s say 50% of the inhabitants вЂњknewвЂќ and вЂњlovedвЂќ you вЂ“ letвЂ™s say you wanted the other 50% of the inhabitants to вЂњknowвЂќ and вЂњloveвЂќ you tooвЂ¦ cos you really do love them all soooo unconditionallyвЂ¦
What lengths would you go to convince them?
Seriously – this has BOOLSHYT written all over it.
Dreams are not evidence.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Logical fallacies are not evidence.
Personal revelation is not evidence.
Illogical conclusions are not evidence.
Disproved statements are not evidence.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence.
Information that is ambiguous is not evidence.
The Universe doesn’t care what you believe in.
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence.
Information that cannot be verified is not evidence.
Information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.
Experiments with inconclusive results are not evidence.
Information that is only knowable by a privileged few is not evidence.
Experiments that are not and cannot be duplicated by others are not evidence.
The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn’t ask for your faith, only your eyes.вЂќ
It would be said it’s and is not…. Is dependent upon the HOW of how you look at it….. For example : involving the rationale – an atheist has that do not they ? They do *think* there was a *beginning* of life there for there have to be a purpose…. You say : they readily say there is no god. That does govern some targeted behaviors right ?? Purpose of – just isn’t *help of lifestyles* a intent ?? And in conclusion : it would be mentioned that atheists do in fact have a advisor line of devotional observances in the intent of their *learn* of others written phrase.. What they read and gain knowledge of does in fact check their line of notion, beliefs, suggestions, and even in , might be slight but still, some rituals reminiscent of now not going to any devout meetings, or praying or observance of a deity, some could argue that *avoidance* is in fact a ritual in itself… Morals : are taught/realized, simple and easy.. We gain knowledge of by means of observance, listening to , seeing, reactions and actions… Bible or no Bible, we each and every gain knowledge of morals…. Go in peace….. God bless
No, you’re just on drugs, or need to be on drugs. You have serious issues with reality, projection, and basic comprehension of what has been said to you a thousand times.
Theism and atheism are both not religions. Both are aspects of religious views which may or may not be incorporated into a belief system, which in turn may or may not be incorporated into a religion.
Without even bothering to read your stupid argument, atheism is nothing more than the disbelief in gods. If atheism is a religion, then not believing in fairies must also be a religion. Not believing in Thor will also be a religion. In fact, every person will be associated with an infinite number of religions, corresponding with an infinite number of disbeliefs.
First you have to define religion and then you must define Atheism.
You don’t seem to have the right idea about Atheism.
Atheism – The belief that god(s) doesn’t exist.
Religion – The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
As you can see, they are both beliefs, but Atheism is not a religion.
So you copied and pasted a blogpost without crediting the original author. Do you know what that’s called? Plagiarism. Good job, you have zero credibility in the scientific world from the get go.
But that aside, the whole argument is a fallacy. I’m not even going to bother debunking it since you clearly don’t have your own ideas and wouldn’t even know what to do with my argument.
":We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves.":
Funny, I know hundreds of believers that understand atheism isn’t a religion.
By your formulation they are either:
1. All irrational.
2. All crypto-atheists.
Absurd right from the beginning.
Before you shame yourself again by asking such a silly question you need to get educated and find out what an atheist is.
I’m not going to read all that. The classic argument is that atheism is not a religion in the same way that ":not playing football": is not a sport.