The Most Logical Religion

[G-Megas-Doux]

Lack of belief is not the same as having a belief.

[PointOfViewGun]

Right, next time you would start saying nature science is a religion too, and Aristotle was first founder of that religion.

I'm actually just paraphrasing the definition of the word that I posted on my post #24...

[MaximiIian]

Atheism, though it's just a theological stance rather than a religion.
I am religious myself, and believe in many gods. I worship the gods of the Greeks, as well as the gods of my Celtic ancestors. But I recognize that this, and any expression of theistic religiosity, is not entirely rational. The evidence I have for the gods is personally experienced UPG. I have "seen them with my own two eyes" so to speak, but to continue the metaphor further: I don't make the assertion that my eyes are equivalent to someone else's.
As such, I recognise that a mere lack of theism is the most rationally justifiable stance.

[basics]

Blind faith =/= wisdom.

High Fist,

The problem with your equation is that faith is not blind. In Christianity people can only come to faith by revelation, that is the revelation of Jesus Christ's act on the cross on their behalf and it is God Himself in His three Persons who makes that possible. So, something has to be seen or read by the mind and the heart of that person that is not natural. But it can't be said to be blind either in the revelation or in the experience that follows. So what follows?

God brings man to the point of acknowledging how deep his or her sin is and when that point is reached God acts to change the nature of that person by unlocking the key that separated him or her from Him. Rebirth is the culmination of the work finished by Jesus Christ at the cross. Faith is exchanged from Him to the new born person and as a now sin free person the Holy Spirit can take up residence in them. This Gospel was known from the beginning so it is not as though man is devoid of that knowledge.

So why do we need faith? We need it so as never to lose sight of Him that saved us, Him who will judge us and Him who will take us into that great place which will replace this creation. Then we will see Him face to face. That's the wonder of it all and it's all there from Genesis to the Revelation of Jesus Christ in type, shadow and figure that can only be discerned through the Holy Spirit's indwelling of any person reborn. Jesus said, " seek and ye shall find " something so true because in the ways of God that finding is that God has actually found you.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Is Buddhism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Then, yes, it's a religion. Same as atheism.

Simple concepts are apparently the hardest to understand for theists. Why is that? Atheism has no belief concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe on its own, it's just a disbelief in one claim (that god/gods exist/exists) due to insubstantial evidence, scientific research and fields of studies have, but they aren't considered religions either.

[PointOfViewGun]

Simple concepts are apparently the hardest to understand for theists. Why is that? Atheism has no belief concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe on its own, it's just a disbelief in one claim (that god/gods exist/exists) due insubstantial evidence, scientific research and fields of studies have, but they aren't considered religions either.

So, as an atheist, you don't believe that the universe has no divine purpose? The dichotomy of belief is also a simple concept.

[Phier]

It is true, read The God Delusion and any of his speeches.

I have, you are simply wrong.

[sumskilz]

I don't know why Dawkins' opinion should be considered any more representative than anyone's here, but anyway, it's actually pretty easy resolve the issue of what his opinion is:

[PointOfViewGun]

Just by claiming that one has no faith doesn't make it so. Dawkins has faith that there are no faeries in the bottom of the garden.

[Phier]

Just by claiming that one has no faith doesn't make it so. Dawkins has faith that there are no faeries in the bottom of the garden.

And this is why you fail to grasp atheism, at all.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

So, as an atheist, you don't believe that the universe has no divine purpose? The dichotomy of belief is also a simple concept.

Define "purpose" and "divine", please. Its purpose is likely obscured from mere ants like us. Humans are nothing but dust that has a rather insignificant effect on the Universe as a whole. Our planet we can up, and we are doing a grand job on that, but we have no powers to alter our solar system or our galaxy.

[PointOfViewGun]

And this is why you fail to grasp atheism, at all.

With such eloquent arguments put forward against me, yes I won't.

Define "purpose" and "divine", please. Its purpose is likely obscured from mere ants like us. Humans are nothing but dust that has a rather insignificant effect on the Universe as a whole. Our planet we can up, and we are doing a grand job on that, but we have no powers to alter our solar system or our galaxy.

Divine as in tied to a creator, purpose as in it created the universe for a reason. By saying that humans are nothing but dust you're expressing a belief.

[Phier]

With such eloquent arguments put forward against me, yes I won't.

You've already heard them. Many times. I have no "faith" there are not faeries in the garden. I have no evidence there are faeries in the garden, so I go about my life as if there are not faeries in the garden. If someone produces evidence to the contrary and there are in fact faeries in the garden, then I will have change my position on the subject of faeries.

To use a historic example. Lets take stomach ulcers. When I was a wee lad, they thought they were due to stress and diet. People who were stressed at work would be told "You will give your self ulcers". People with ulcers were told they needed to relax more and eat a bland diet.

Then someone found the faeries, they were a bacteria, Helobacter Pilori. For close to 100 years these little faeries were seen by a few scientists, but evidence was scant and fleeting, those seeing them didn't know what they were doing, then finally in 1982 they were isolated. If prior to then you said "we believe no bacteria live in the human stomach" you would have been consistent with most evidence, but now we have found them, our elusive and damaging faeries.

Atheism is about evidence, real evidence, not some "moving personal experience", its about probability based on the laws of the universe. I do wish the gardens have faeries, faeries would be amazingly interesting, but wishing for faeries does not make faeries real.

Until you are able to see that atheism has no ties to faith at all, you will forever be making rather ignorant statements about atheism.

[PointOfViewGun]

You've already heard them. Many times. I have no "faith" there are not faeries in the garden. I have no evidence there are faeries in the garden, so I go about my life as if there are not faeries in the garden. If someone produces evidence to the contrary and there are in fact faeries in the garden, then I will have change my position on the subject of faeries.

To use a historic example. Lets take stomach ulcers. When I was a wee lad, they thought they were due to stress and diet. People who were stressed at work would be told "You will give your self ulcers". People with ulcers were told they needed to relax more and eat a bland diet.

Then someone found the faeries, they were a bacteria, Helobacter Pilori. For close to 100 years these little faeries were seen by a few scientists, but evidence was scant and fleeting, those seeing them didn't know what they were doing, then finally in 1982 they were isolated. If prior to then you said "we believe no bacteria live in the human stomach" you would have been consistent with most evidence, but now we have found them, our elusive and damaging faeries.

Atheism is about evidence, real evidence, not some "moving personal experience", its about probability based on the laws of the universe. I do wish the gardens have faeries, faeries would be amazingly interesting, but wishing for faeries does not make faeries real.

Until you are able to see that atheism has no ties to faith at all, you will forever be making rather ignorant statements about atheism.

Lack of evidence merely enforces your belief in non-existence of faeries. Your ulcer story doesn't address much. It merely shows that back then people believed that ulcer was caused by stress and diet, hence, they believed that it was not caused by anything else. The evidence, on the other hand, pushed the issue from one of faith to a one of knowledge. The whole "if new evidence shows up" part is an irrelevant tangent.

Atheism is about evidence as much as theism is. It's based on lack of imitable evidence while theism is based on anecdotal evidence.

As long as people fail to come up with reasonable and logical arguments, yes, I will continue to make such statements.

[G-Megas-Doux]

What your post reminds me of would be, when someone who will be proven correct dies before the proof is produced to the world they die wrong and will never know the satisfaction of being right. When someone who will be proven wrong dies before the proof is produced to the world they die smug in the belief they were right and will never have to experience being wrong. I'm not necessarily talking about religion but also in science and the advances in society throughout the ages. The beauty is that few people ever think they might be wrong and even those that do have subjects they feel certain they are absolutely correct in. Even better is when you realise that it is part of the human condition that we cant know everything and that even in our specialist subjects we are aware of an unknown fraction of the total knowledge and what we do know may be inaccurate.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Why do chrisitans believe the cross is holy if it was the method that Jesus Christ was killed?

[Denny Crane!]

Why do chrisitans believe the cross is holy if it was the method that Jesus Christ was killed?

Symbolic of sacrifice so worthy of respect, just more so than the way say a buddhist reveres the image of a buddha sitting in contemplation, the symbology represents what you believe and what you are doing. As I say it goes a tad further for a lot of christians but the roots are the same.

[Visna]

Lack of evidence merely enforces your belief in non-existence of faeries.

Can't speak for anyone but myself, but for me that's where your chain of thought goes wrong.
It's not belief in nonexistance, it's nonexistance of belief. I don't believe in deities for the same reasons that I don't believe in dragons, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus etc. I don't completely rule out that they can exist, but it's so unlikely that I consider them irrelevant.

Which brings me to the thread title, atheism isn't a religion, so none. And another nitpick, this time about the poll, atheism =/= science. Plenty of atheists out there who believe in plenty of non-scientific stuff which fall in varying ranges on the absurdity meter. The healing power of crystals, astrology, the dangers of vaccinations, ghosts etc etc.

[Phier]

And another nitpick, this time about the poll, atheism =/= science. Plenty of atheists out there who believe in plenty of non-scientific stuff which fall in varying ranges on the absurdity meter. The healing power of crystals, astrology, the dangers of vaccinations, ghosts etc etc.

So horribly true. Disbelief in one ridiculous notion is not proof against belief in another. This applies to religions of course, as by embracing one religion, you are proclaiming the others are invalid to you. Recently I came across a "Risk Intelligence Test" which correlates with belief in the supernatural. Its an easy test to game, so take it like I did, and read about it later. Don't be tempted to "cheat" as its not that kind of test.

[Denny Crane!]

So horribly true. Disbelief in one ridiculous notion is not proof against belief in another. This applies to religions of course, as by embracing one religion, you are proclaiming the others are invalid to you. Recently I came across a "Risk Intelligence Test" which correlates with belief in the supernatural. Its an easy test to game, so take it like I did, and read about it later. Don't be tempted to "cheat" as its not that kind of test.

It is when your methodology is rooted in lack of evidence. There is a difference between coincidential accidental lack of belief or bandwagonning and considered positions. There is a good reason to bring this up, there is considerable difference between the random raised as, never goes to church, ambivalent about god so called Christian or otherl; and the die hard true believer and so it is the other way.