Why Atheism is a religious belief

I can't help but be stunned at the birdbath shallow analysis of their own positions that many self-proclaimed 'atheists' are making on the blogs.

James and others keep trying to insist that Atheism is not a belief system, clutching at secular dictionary definitions like straws.

The issue is actually determined by logic, not what a secularist or a Christian chose to write in a dictionary.

Science has no empirically-testable theory to explain the origin of the universe or life. Thus, regardless of all the fluffy debate around the edges of the issue, all discussions about origins ultimately are grounded in metaphysics, not physics.

The 'atheist' bloggers I referred to are more correctly defined as hard agnostics. That's because they don't actually understand what atheism is. It is not a "lack of belief", the word specifically encompasses a declaration that God does not exist. It is a positive declaration. Atheist philosophers like Flew, Nielsen and others have long recognized this point and it is accepted and established in academia.

To be a true atheist, you must do more than lack an opinion on the existence of a deity, you must adhere to a belief that the deity is fictional. Obviously, an atheist cannot empirically prove that, so regardless of how firmly they believe it, or how firmly they "lack" a belief in said deity, their worldview is ultimately faith-based: they have faith that their belief is correct.

If you are willing to acknowledge the possibility - however remote - that a deity might exist, then regardless of how much you doubt the possibility you are, in philosophic terms, a hard agnostic (skepticism being a variety of this). A hard agnostic indeed "lacks" belief in a deity, but leaves themselves a rational doorway such that were a Deity to appear in the clouds and declare his presence to the entire world, the agnostic would not have to perform the mental somersaults that a true atheist would.

Agnosticism is, however, still a faith belief - a position that remains impossible to prove or disprove scientifically. At its core it argues that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God, and the more sophisticated philosophical arguments are based on the impossibility for finite mortals to truly know such an infinite God, if indeed he did exist. Thus the agnostic says that until such time as he is proven wrong he is better to live his life as if God did not exist. He takes it on faith that he is right.

You then move into other explanations of origins like Theism, Deism, Finite Godism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism etc. All of which are, like the first two, metaphysical.
Download winmail.dat

Comments

[James]

Ahhhh ...so Ian is unsettled enough at the possible loss of his major strawman argument against atheists that hes having a wail...;-)

[James]

It is of course absurd of Ian to attack someone for defining a term the way a "secular" dictionary does. Is there a Christian dictionary where words have different meaning? Perhaps Ian should write it.

This is just an attempt to insist that atheism is faith and since atheism and theism are both faith then why not believe because there is no real difference. If you can't prove a negative then to refuse to believe due to lack of evidence is a faith, he says. On that premise the only reason we believe Ian is not a genocidal Nazi is because we have faith he isn't. We can't prove he isn't so it must be faith.

On the other hand someone can say that they have the faith that Ian is a genocidal Nazi. Since both positions are faith positions then we can pick either one equally. So why not believe he is Nazi? Of course if you said that seriously, especially publicly, he would sue you demanding evidence to substantiate your claim.

This is a pretty desperate attempt to try to make faith appear reasonable while rejecting reason itself.

[insider]

Hmm my earlier comment has disappeared....wonder why.

[peter]

Ian

The beauty of being an atheist that you dont have to DO anything about it.

No flattering of an imaginary god.

No church politics.

No having to believe what you know aint so.

Bliss

[James]

Yes....it suits us lazy bastards hence part of its appeal....;-)

[Wilbur]

Umm, read the post again boys.

[peter]

OK then. I read this:

To be a true atheist, you must do more than lack an opinion on the existence of a deity, you must adhere to a belief that the deity is fictional. 'Obviously, an atheist cannot empirically prove that, so regardless of how firmly they believe it, or how firmly they "lack" a belief in said deity, their worldview is ultimately faith-based: they have faith that their belief is correct.'

This is nonsense. An atheist simply dismisses any concept of God. The world is simply taken at face value.

It is like saying that people who are not fans of rugby are therefore involved in rugby. By dismissing rugby from their field of concern, they are demonstrating that they have an attitude to it.

The reality is that a person can be unconcerned and unmotivated by both religion and rugby.

Good example actually because people say rugby is another religion in NZ

[insider]

You say “all discussions about origins ultimately are grounded in metaphysics, not physics”. That’s rubbish. The astrophysicist or biologist would say their views are based on physical laws and observation. I accept they may get to a point where they have to say ‘I don’t know’, but not knowing something does not mean their views are grounded in metaphysics.

You're assuming also that atheists actually care about 'the meaning of life', which drives much of religion. Religionists are much more concerned about the 'why?' to give their lives and universe meaning.

In my view atheists wouldn’t care about the why, they are more concerned about the ‘how?’, the origins of life the universe and everything from a scientific curiosity POV. The why is really of no import, we just ‘are’.

So comparing atheism and theism is actually a bit pointless as they may be answering fundamentally different questions.

The big difference with theism though is that non belief in a deity does not mean that you then conform to a dogma or use that non belief to guide your life and actions. (In that way it is probably quite similar to Anglicanism ;-) )

If I do not believe in god, it does not mean I ‘believe’ in the big bang to the exclusion of other options, and vest it with some mystical power over my life, then build a philosophy on that belief. That sounds more like astrology.

As a result your argument seems based on some flimsy false premises.

[stan]

do you realise that you argue against strawmen in your first post James, then proceed in your second post to create a perfect example of a strawman argument

[Think about it]

"The reality is that a person can be unconcerned and unmotivated by both religion and rugby."

Perhaps. But there are plenty of atheists, who love nothing more than to go round preaching their belief system to Christians. Possibly the only thing more annoying than Mormons. At least Mormons leave if you tell them to "fuck off", whereas atheists usually see that phrase as a sign that they've hit a nerve.

[peter]

Think about it says:

"But there are plenty of atheists, who love nothing more than to go round preaching their belief system to Christians."

Atheists are increasingly needing to defend the right for religious tolerance and objectivity - when we have entrepreneurial believers like Brian Tamaki making statements on what "people want"!

Atheists are not herded into strong pressure groups - but the strength of their individual arguments is rolling back religion now. Very noticeable really.

And it is amazing to listen to talk back - people with no involvement in any religion calling this a Christian country - basically anti-government and anti-Clark fans grabbing a convenient big stick. Air heads.

It is these baggage men, the amateur or leisure time or pretend believers that quite unnecessarily create a living for Brian Tamaki and other leaders of personality cults and religions.

The time will come, I am sure, when atheists will be recognised as the true leaders of society.

Just listening to National Radio where somebody thought "Rock and Roll I gave you the best years of my life" was best song ever. The final words of the chorus - "I was always one step behind you" also defines the relationship between the most progressive of religions and where we are really at!

[James]

"The reality is that a person can be unconcerned and unmotivated by both religion and rugby."

"Perhaps. But there are plenty of atheists, who love nothing more than to go round preaching their belief system to Christians. Possibly the only thing more annoying than Mormons. At least Mormons leave if you tell them to "fuck off", whereas atheists usually see that phrase as a sign that they've hit a nerve."

That explains those crowds of atheists who DON"T turn up on my doorstep on Sundays telling me to "just carry on as you wish....don't mind us"

Or have I just been out those days they came....?

;-)

[peter]

Atheist door-knocking! Never considered that but I wonder how I would do it.

Could do a stunt. Take a serious looking magazines and bound books. When our prospective atheist opens the book - nothing but blank pages!

If we made the books with perforations down the spine, they could double as note-pads for our paying customers. Otherwise how will we survive as career NON believers?

[insider]

yes but people like Dawkins can behave like real wonkers. He irritates me with his intolerance more than Tamaki does, because I expect nothing better from BT. Dawkins' arrogance is repeated in the one evolution book of his I have read where he can't stop himself harping on about GWB and fundamentalist Xtians.

[Ken]

Atheist door-knocking - some Aussies did this. Retaliating against the Mormons they traveled to Salt Lake City to do it.
Produced a funny video.
Some Mormon's were very upset! The videos on the web somewhere.

Mind you, the prejudices against atheism are live and kicking here - all the reporting of the interfaith activity ignores the fact that a third of our population don't have a religion, yet they are not represented by the Human Rights Commission in their religious diversity working group.

[peter]

Ken

You highlight a serious issue. By definition, Atheists don't belong to an organisation like a religion because there is no need to.

Identifying spokesmen becomes a problem. People like Bill Cooke represent only a fringe group that are just a small fraction of Atheism.

It seems a pointless thing to do - to put together an ORGANISATION to blow religion out of the water - when any individual can do it with ease whenever they want.

[usabikes]

Chaps... are you saying that you poor old atheists are getting persecuted for your lack of faith? Come on, the Prime Minister is a confessed agnostic and a practicing atheist, how poorly represented do you take yourselves to be?

[James]

Chaps... are you saying that you poor old atheists are getting persecuted for your lack of faith? Come on, the Prime Minister is a confessed agnostic and a practicing atheist, how poorly represented do you take yourselves to be?"

Atheists require no representation....except as equals before the law...no more or less.Only a secular society protects all persons while blind to any beliefs held or not by them.Helen Clark is no spokes person of mine...neither is Dawkins,Hitchens et el.They are expressing their views...views I agree with for the most part but we are not colleges or brothers in any organisation...

[Wilbur]

Peter, this is getting boring. GO BACK AND READ THE POST !

Read It, Understand It.

Can you at least try and do that ? If not, just go away.

[paul Litterick]

If we agree with you, Ian, can we stop paying income tax?