Is atheism a religion

[Boerseun]

Ughaibu, although I agree to a large extend, your analogy is rather failing.

 

In order for "There is no cat in the room" to be absolute, in order to defend your 'default' position, you have had to look in every nook and cranny for the room to be certain that there is, indeed, no cat. If you didn't investigate every single square centimeter of that room, there is no way in which to say that "There is no cat" is default, or absolute. Taking "there is no cat" as absolute without fully exploring the room, would then be a leap of faith, and would make "non-catness" a religion.

 

An atheist would have to have a very fast spaceship and billions of years at his disposal to investigate the universe sufficiently to make the statement "there is no God in the universe" absolute.

 

So - to make a long story short; atheists don't say "there is no God", rather, atheists say "our worldview and philosophy doesn't bother with things that cannot be tested empirically, for it is extremely unlikely that the concept of God can't simply be ascribed to deep personal insecurities, or simply self-delusion that stems from attempting to please your parents by acting like they do, for instance, going to church and attempt to speak to an invisible entity at night."

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but the default shouldn't be "there is no God". That would make atheism religious in nature, because there is no way of being sure about that. The default, rather, would be "We haven't seen God yet. Bring a piece so we can test it". The theists have placed the burden of proof on themselves. And until we can test a piece of Godliness under the microscope on in a particle acellerator, it doesn't fit in to the Standard Theory and therefore isn't included in our calculations.

 

But look on the bright side! In order to make your statement absolute, you don't really have to investigate the whole universe. According to the Bible, God's last acts was around the time of Jesus, when God assisted Jesus in all his party tricks, or 'miracles'. That was around 2,000-odd years ago. So, in order to prove his existence/non-existence, we only have to investigate a sphere centered on Earth with a radius of 2,000 light-years. That's not even ten per cent the distance to the Milky Way's core. The Hubble Space Telescope routinely investigates the universe billions of light years distant, so in order to finally put to rest this millennia-old question of God's existence, should be a job for NASA. And, with God being omnipotent, that implies having access to infinite energy. And infinite energy implies that God (and all his trappings) must be of infinite mass. And I'm sure as **** if anything with infinite mass existed within 2,000 light-years from Earth, we would have known about it. So, God's non-existence could be proven in terms of Standard Theory. And that won't be a leap of faith, because Standard Theory is the complete set of empirically testable science.

 

Bye-bye toothfairy.

[ughaibu]

I see what you're saying but I stick with my original position. In fact I would say that the impossibility of conducting a complete search, or in the case of god the impossibility of proving a universal existential negative, is the motivation for deciding who has the burden of proof. I dont need to prove that there is no cat, that there's no indication of a cat is sufficient for the proposition to be declared false under the 'burden of proof' principle.

 

ETA: Nice point about the standard theory and god's infinities.

[Boerseun]

I think the best approach would be a neutral one, seeing as there's no proof either ways. But atheists don't include theism into their world view, hence the name.

 

But we can conduct a few tests right here. The Bible says that God will smite blasphemers. So what we should do is to take a couple of first-year theology students and put them on top of a hill in a rainstorm and let all of them blaspheme. We should get Christians (of various denominations), Muslims, Hindus, Jews, the whole shebang. And whoever gets struck by lightning first will be an indicator towards the one true faith. But he should be killed, mind you, not just struck. I don't think 'smiting' is something that can be sorted out in the Emergency Room.

[ughaibu]

If I enter a room and there are no obvious indicators of a cat, I dont search for things that I can construe as indicators, neither do I make a comprehensive search to prove that there's no cat, in fact that there might be cat in the room doesn't occur to me in the absence of obvious indicators. If someone enters claiming there's a cat, and they're not carrying anything that might conceal a cat, unless they can support the claim, the default position isn't neutral, it's "no cat". Claims about god dont get special consideration, they're no different from claims about cats, in the absence of indicators the default position is "no god", that there might be a god wouldn't occur to me if it weren't for people making the unreasonable claim that there is.

[Boerseun]

Well, I see what you're saying, but absolutism is what made religion what it is.

 

For instance, let someone tell you that there's a "cloud" of matter circling the sun at an enourmous distance. You can't see it. They can't prove it. So do you tell them that it "simply isn't so" in the absence of evidence? Because that absolutism will be blown out of the water when the next comet from the Oort cloud makes it appearance. Rather, say "it might be, but untill evidence comes to the fore, we simply won't include it in our calculations". That's the difference between an "atheist" and an "anti-theist". The "a" simply denotes "without", not "actively against", seeing as there's no proof either ways.

 

I agree - the burden of proof lies on their shoulders. But saying it "doesn't" exist, is absolute - and that is exactly what the theists are doing. They say "there IS a God", also in the absence of evidence. Both stances are leaps of faith. Rather go the "a" route than the "anti" route. It's at least scientifically consistent.

 

In an infinite universe, we can't say "There is no God". But until evidence to the contrary comes to the fore, I simply won't factor the existence/non-existence of a deity into my calculations. And with calculations I mean everything, from what I eat (you gotta love pork) to what I do on Sunday mornings. I simply ignore it as yet another claim without evidence, mighty improbable, but like any good scientist we'll shelve it and recheck it when the evidence comes in.

 

As a matter of fact, any baseless claim is treated as an ordinary hypothesis which might be valid or invalid in the face of proper evidence and experiment. And until such time as evidence comes to the fore, theism should receive no special treatment compared to any other hypothesis. It'll lie on the shelf gathering dust. But that doesn't make it negative in the absolute. We just can't factor it in yet.

[ughaibu]

I agree, if someone produces some evidence it'll be a different story.

I think our disagreement probably boils down to a semantic issue, there's a nice definition along the lines of: if there is no perceptable difference in reality whether a thing either does or doesn't exist, then that thing doesn't exist. I understand that this definition is somewhat problematic. However, for the case of gods, I think it's satisfactory as gods are assumed to be relevant for humans in reality, if they're irrelevant there would be no motivation for conjecturing them.

[phoenixbyrd]

but the default shouldn't be "there is no God". That would make atheism religious in nature, because there is no way of being sure about that. The default, rather, would be "We haven't seen God yet.

 

There is no santa or easter bunny. We all know/believe this in adulthood, yet we've never ever ever seen or proven that there is no physical santa/easter bunny. We've always been told as kids that there is one though.

 

If we're good santa will reward us. If we're good, god will reward us. Why claim one is real and the other isn't? Why say that non belief in one is a religious disbelief but non belief in the other is A-OK? The analogy is awful. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If an athiest's non belief in god is a religious non-belief, then your non-belief in santa is a religious non belief.

[Boerseun]

If an athiest's non belief in god is a religious non-belief, then your non-belief in santa is a religious non belief.

You have missed the point by quite a bit.

 

Atheists don't actively deny the existence of God. That's the job of Anti-theists. Atheists merely say that the existence or non-existence isn't a factor to be considered, because there's no definite evidence either way.

 

The active disbelief in Santa Claus is a whole different matter. It's said that he lives on the North Pole. We have extensive and elaborate data of the geography and layout of the North Pole. We have satellite photos, aerial photos, ground photos, maps, the whole shebang. We haven't seen the jolly red-faced fat man in any of them. We can actively deny the existence of Santa, based on empirical evidence. The non-belief in Santa is based on empirical data. We can booby-trap chimneys to see if an intruder with a penchant for milk and cookies makes his appearance 23:59 on December 24th. There is no confusion here. At least not in my mind.

 

Discovering 'heaven' would empirically prove the existence of God beyond all doubt. But the writers of the Good Book have conveniently left out its location. We don't have grid coordinates to point our telescopes at. We can look as far as we want, and every empty spot in space will simply tell us that we've looked in the wrong place. But the universe is a big place. So, the mere fact that we haven't seen heaven yet, doesn't disprove its existence.

 

Same with God. He's not been around for awhile. Burning bushes don't speak to us anymore. Bearded dudes in robes don't go for a stroll on the surface of ponds anymore. Dudes haven't been swallowed and spat out by whales lately. None of this, however, disproves God's existence. He might merely be on vacation, or tending his interests on the multitude of other planets he frequents. There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.

 

And don't get me wrong. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God or any other flavour of supernatural deity. I don't disbelieve it, either. It simply doesn't feature in my life. All I'm trying to do here is to clarify the atheistic stand. It seems people are confusing it with antitheism.

 

And the above stand is actually consistent with science, whilst antitheism isn't. Antitheism demands a leap of faith, which makes it just as silly as theism, given the evidence at hand.

[phoenixbyrd]

Santa is magical, or so I've been told all through childhood. The reason we don't see him up at the north pole is because he stays invisible. So ... HA.

 

Well, I guess I'm an anti theist then. Considering that supernatural dieties can be easily disproven just by cracking open ye ol' history books. There's no reason for the monotheistic god to be so widely believed over Zeus or Odin. Especially when someone as cool as Zeus is older then the almighty himself.

[Pyrotex]

I think phoenixbyrd hit the point quite nicely.

The mere act of "not believing" something -- that is,

the act of "believing something does not exist" --

is NOT (necessarily) a religious action.

 

I do not believe in 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins crawling all over Boerseun's butt. That does NOT make it my religion.

 

But Boerseun, you might want to check a mirror just in case I'm wrong.

[Boerseun]

I do not believe in 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins crawling all over Boerseun's butt. That does NOT make it my religion.

The active disbelief in 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt is not a leap of faith. All we have to do is to pull down my rods and inspect my butt. We can prove beyond any doubt that there are any 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt. But this dies not disprove the existence of 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins.

But Boerseun, you might want to check a mirror just in case I'm wrong.

Checking in the mirror for any 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt, and not finding any 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt, gives creedence to the active disbelief in any 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt - but not to the existence of 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on anyone else's butt.

 

You know what my stance is on religion. I'm just trying to make clear that the atheistic stand is not actively trying to disprove the existence of God. An atheist does not see the existence/non-existence of God as a factor at all, it simply does not feature. We basically discount any and everything that has no proof, or way of testing it, as outside the scope of reality. Actively disproving any claim made will keep us busy for the rest of eternity, because there are a lot of kooks out there. We just shelve it with the rest of the proposed hypotheses, waiting for evidence. So an atheist does not actively believe or disbelieve in God, an atheist is merely indifferent towards it.

[C1ay]

The active disbelief in 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt is not a leap of faith.

 

Nor is the active disbelief of any God(s). There is no evidence to suggest that there are any God(s) in the first place so there is no reason to believe in them. Would anyone classify an active disbelief in the big bang a leap of faith or a religion? No. There is no reason to believe in a theory until it is proven to be fact. There is even a vast quantity of evidence that suggests that the big bang is highly plausible or even likely but disbelieving in it is just being a skeptic because it's a theory, not a fact.

[Pyrotex]

The active disbelief in 7-legged, fanged, poisonous, green and pink grymphymoggins on my butt is not a leap of faith. ....

Yes, I know your stand. And I don't actually disagree with you.

 

However, I lied. There ARE 7-LFPGAPG's, and I paid someone to slip one inside your pants. Good luck with your leap of faith. :)

 

Nelson

[Boerseun]

There ARE 7-LFPGAPG's, and I paid someone to slip one inside your pants.

Good hypothesized omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being! :D

[Tormod]

Santa is magical, or so I've been told all through childhood. The reason we don't see him up at the north pole is because he stays invisible. So ... HA. :confused:

 

You guys are all mistaken. Santa lives in Norway. In fact, his minions run a store close to where I live:

 

Julehuset i Drøbak - Welcome to Tregaarden's Christmas house

 

[Buffy]

You guys are all mistaken. Santa lives in Norway. In fact, his minions run a store close to where I live...

What have I been saying?

 

All others are false Gods,

Buffy

[Imitar]

Atheism is certainly not a religion. Think of it this way: Christians are a league or a faction of sorts, gathering together, praying, etc. Simply because atheists don't do these sorts of things does not make atheism a faction itself.