Atheism Is Not A Religion
I’m taking a short break from writing lengthy articles so I thought I would write some small pieces on issues that annoy me. One of the major things I find when browsing religious websites / forums is atheism being referred to as a “religion”, and I object to this for some very good reasons:
- The definition of “religion” according to Dictionary.com is
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Atheism has no set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, we simply do not believe in a God, and follow what science tells us about the world around us. One can claim that all scientific deductions break down to a core “belief”, but everything in science is backed up with evidence to suggest that belief, and so it is well founded. Religious beliefs are wholly different, and the majority depend entirely on faith, not evidence.
- Theism isn’t a religion, therefore atheism cannot be either. The definition of theism is “the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities”. Granted, most religions in the world are based on the idea of theism, and their members are described as “theists”, but theism itself does not dictate a set of beliefs for people to follow. Indeed, it can be said that theism is one of that very same “set” of beliefs that defines religion. To put it in simple terms, we can say that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. are all theists, but not vice versa (unless I come across a Christian Jew Muslim, etc. hybrid to prove me wrong). Theism is an attribute of people with a belief in a God, just as atheism is an attribute of people who do not believe in a God, nothing more.
- If we were to call atheism a religion we would have to start calling the disbelief in the Loch Ness Monster a religion as well, and the disbelief in a celestial teapot on top of that (to quote the well loved Bertrand Russell /Richard Dawkins analogy). In fact, we would have to call every single disbelief in anything a “religion”, which means there would be an infinite number of the things, and the entire concept of religion would be destroyed in an instant. It is far simpler to define a religion as a concrete belief structure, i.e. a belief in something, not a disbelief in something. There are far more things that we could possibly disbelieve than we could believe.
I am sure a lot of people will argue that (in respect to the final point) atheism can be defined as the “belief that there is no God” and not the “disbelief in God”, but surely the two are the same? If a person says they are an atheist, then they have come to the conclusion that God is not in any realm of existence, and so believing in “no God” and disbelieving in “a God” are the same thing.
If you think about it, the same thing could be applied to any religion. Muslims both belief in the existence of Allah, and disbelief in the non-existence of Allah. A Muslim has come to the conclusion that Allah exists, and there are two way of expressing this. However, it is far easier to say that they believe in the existence of Allah, since the other is a double negative and is harder to say in normal conversation.
Suffice to say, the phrase “belief that there is no God” is almost as bad (in a literal context) as the double negative phrase “disbelief in no God”, and whichever way you are inclined to think, neither has any affect on the pure and simple truth that atheism does not break down to a set of beliefs, and therefore, like theism, is not a religion.
Finally, I should point out that just as theism is the basis for Christianity and Islam, atheism is the basis for Buddhism, which can be described as a religion (although that is a totally different topic).
Hopefully this article has provided some insight into the reasons why I personally do not think atheism is a religion. Please be invited to criticise / comment, and above all, suggest ideas for other small articles you want me to cover.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Loading ...
Hi Adrian - as a theist, who follows no formal religion now, I agree with you. Atheism, as a definition, does not break down to a set of beliefs. However, Dawkins does seem to have changed the ground rules.
By spending so much time and energy demolishing religion, he is in danger of creating an atheist’s religion - ie a set of countering beliefs. I call it Dawkinism and he seems to have become its messiah.
Rgds, Euphrosene
Euphrosene
18 Feb 08 at 6:45 pm (GMT)
Euphrosene,
Wow! Very quick with the comments there (only 10 minutes after I published the post :P). I agree totally with you views on Dawkins. I think his books are great and he is a very good writer, but he is (as he says in one of his books) “a very religious non believer”.
I do not condone his attacks on religion at all because they are very violent and unjustified. I think religion should be “attacked” but not in the way he does it. Reason and a relaxed attitude should come into it at some point.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
18 Feb 08 at 6:50 pm (GMT)
Ah! I spotted it in my Google Reader list and headed straight over!
Anyway, one small point ( and yes I see you have put it in quotes): religion, followed sensibly, can be a force for both personal and spiritual development (even if the ’spirit’ is just one’s inner resources).
My own view is that whatever religion or personal creed one follows, it should just be a stepping stone. So we would have to disagree on them being ‘attacked’.
That said, I should confess to being quite critical with the interpretations of some religions; not so much fundamental but rather too literal. Somewhere the mysticism that makes it worthwhile has got lost.
Must do some work now. Cheers Euphrosene
Euphrosene
18 Feb 08 at 7:03 pm (GMT)
I liked the Buddhist note. That’s why I really like that one.
Because we cannot truly know anything at all, and what I mean is that if there is nothing - oblivion, you won’t be around to know you’re right. So isn’t all you have to go on is a belief in no God?
Because there isn’t any evidence to say one thing or another, God or no God can be one of so many possibilities and until more evidence comes along all we have to go on is our gut. I’m just thinking along the lines of pre-Big Bang, which someday could be explained, but at this very moment we can’t say for sure what went on - so could Atheism be a religion with one core belief - There is No God ?
Not to mention a sweet religion that attacks nobody for choices they make, demands money, or starts war based on beliefs? :P
Rash
19 Feb 08 at 4:10 am (GMT)
Although I agree with you mostly, I cannot agree with your final statement - at least not without some clarification.
“Finally, I should point out that just as theism is the basis for Christianity and Islam, atheism is the basis for Buddhism, which can be described as a religion (although that is a totally different topic).”
This, to me, connotes that atheism (”the theory or belief that god does not exist”) is central to Buddhism. Buddhism, in my experience is more about a development of attention to that which is and never makes mention of a god or of no god. It can be implied that no belief in a god or gods exists in Buddhism, however the existence of statues of the likenesses of Buddha and the other person with eight arms and a crazy hairdo do exemplify god-like traits. Perhaps your statement - although well intended - could use its own explanation. Or, I could have read this having ingested less red wine.
buh-ching!
19 Feb 08 at 4:15 am (GMT)
buh-ching!,
I should have put it another way perhaps, but I think the point is still valid. Theism is a base factor of religions such as Christianity since the people who generally follow that religion believe in a God. The opposite can be said for Buddhists, for whom the majority are either atheist or agnostic, and in that way, atheism can be said to be a base factor of Buddhism.
The belief is not central to Buddhism though, so maybe it was a bad example. I do agree that most statues of Buddha are very god like, but his followers do not consider him a God, merely a human who has achieved enlightenment.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 4:26 am (GMT)
When you put an atheist next to an agnostic, the atheist certainly looks quite religious.
What you (and many people who identify as atheist) seem to have done is confused your disbelief in the Christian God with disbelief in any and all Gods. The latter stance carries a lot more philosophical baggage. So while I would agree with you that disbelief in the Christian God is not a religion (by the Loch Ness Monster argument), I would say that disbelieving in all possible Gods kind of is.
I often like to review the wikipedia entry on agnosticism after reading posts like this. My feeling is that people too often identify themselves as atheists when they are really one flavour or another of agnostic. For example, given that you are keen to take evidence from science to construct your model of the world, and that the existence or otherwise of God is untestable by science, that would make you a Strong Agnostic.
“Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience.”
Have a read and see what you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Qualifying_agnosticism
Apathetic Agnostic
19 Feb 08 at 5:19 am (GMT)
With regard to the Buddhism discussion, would a Buddhist be a Model Agnostic?
“Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity’s existence.”
Apathetic Agnostic
19 Feb 08 at 5:25 am (GMT)
>>> One can claim that all scientific deductions break down to a core “belief”, but everything in science is backed up with evidence to suggest that belief, and so it is well founded.
Yet, that “evidence” hasn’t been experienced first hand by most people. Thus, to most people, belief in science is based on faith (for instance, faith that the experience has indeed taken place, that it can be reproduced, that its results haven’t been embellished to fit theory by a careerist, that the laws upon which it is based will hold throughout the whole of space and time and thus that its results will have a use in the future, and so on…).
In a similar fashion, many religious people claim to have had extraordinary (”mystical”) experiences, and those who believe that such experiences have indeed taken place and/or can be reproduced also rely on faith.
Also, in my view at least, a large part of “evidence” gathered by scientific means is based upon the assumption that everything in the universe can be represented as a bunch of fundamental particles interacting with each other (i.e. the atomic model of Democritus). But, as far as I know, at this point in time that assumption hasn’t been verified, and thus one cannot take it as a basis without having to rely on faith.
Buddhism manifests itself in many flavors. In Tibetan Buddhism for instance, there’s a whole pantheon (of deities).
And as an aside : I’ve read at least one Buddhist text in which there are mentions to the effect that the Christians’ God is only one the lower deities (which hints at a continuum of intelligence, where human intelligence isn’t assumed to stand at the top.)
>>> I do agree that most statues of Buddha are very god like, but his followers do not consider him a God, merely a human who has achieved enlightenment.
In some schools of Buddhism, Buddha is presented as “a human who has achieved enlightenment” in the preparatory phases of the curriculum, but as the student develops, the notion of Buddha as enlightenment principle (i.e. an “enlightenarium” that the individual inhabits and which morphs as needed to further the student’s development) is introduced (for instance, see “The Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Law”).
>>> Atheism has no set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, we simply do not believe in a God, and follow what science tells us about the world around us.
To me, that implies faith, unless you actually verifiy “what science tells you about the world around you”.
And yet, just like (any) religion, science has many voices. For instance :
“[Is mind] primary or an accidental consequence of something else? The prevailing view among biologists seems to be that the mind arose accidentally out of molecules of DNA or something. I find that very unlikely. It seems more reasonable to think that mind was a primary part of nature from the beginning and we are simply manifestations of it at the present stage of history. It’s not so much that mind has a life of its own but that mind is inherent in the way the universe is built. - Interview with Freeman Dyson in U.S.News and World Report, April 18, 1988, 72.”
“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment. - Bernard d’Espagnat, “The Quantum Theory and Reality,” Scientific American, Vol. 241, No. 5 (November 1979), pp. 158-181.”
“Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experiments in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. - Erwin Schroedinger (Schrodinger (1961) claims that the Vedic slogan “All in One and One in All” was an idea that led him to the creation of quantum mechanics.)”
“…I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. - Max Planck, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931”
In my view, (most ?) religions address consciousness, while (most ?) sciences address matter.
Christopher
19 Feb 08 at 5:57 am (GMT)
Christopher
Quoting wikipedia, “Irreligion, irreligiousness, or nonreligion is an umbrella term which, depending on context, may be understood as referring to atheism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism or general secularism. Irreligous people of that type frequently view their attitude to religion as Scientific.”
Also there is a lot of overlap between atheism and agnosticism, hence you have terms such as “atheist agnosticism” and “agnostic atheism” on the Agnosticism page.
Sciences can be verified, however they are so broad, no one person can do this, this is why journals have peer reviews systems.
ewanm89
19 Feb 08 at 9:45 am (GMT)
Apathetic Agnostic,
Your point really depends on whichever way you think about it. I personally think that an atheist is one who disbelieves in God. “God” being any immortal deity living in another realm of existence. I don’t say that I disbelieve in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor…etc. God is merely an idea that other religions have used to forge a view of the universe, and I reject that idea as having no basis in science / reason.
I would judge myself as “Strong Atheist”, one who believes that “gods do not exist”.
If you would like an analogy (lets expand the Loch Ness Monster one). I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and neither do I believe in Big Foot, or the Yeti. All of which are monsters, and I can claim that I disbelieve in monsters since they have a basis in folklore and legends (i.e. stories). However, “monsters” are an idea, namely that there are beasts out there who are unique, secretive, and elusive. So I can happily say I don’t believe in the idea of monsters just as I don’t believe in the idea of “God”. Should this be called a religion? No.
The only reason why I talk about Christianity a lot and focus on it is that I used to be a Christian, and therefore know more about it than I do of Islam etc.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 12:36 pm (GMT)
Do yourself and the atheist community a favor and join the atheist blogroll. Go here, and then email Mojoey, he will most likely accept you.
The Atheist Jew
19 Feb 08 at 2:10 pm (GMT)
ewanm89,
>>> Sciences can be verified, however they are so broad, no one person can do this, this is why journals have peer reviews systems.
Peer reviews systems also rely on faith (for instance, that the reviewers have indeed reproduced the experience, that they are unbiased, and so on…).
In my view, if one doesn’t have an experience for themselves and rely on the reports of others in order to believe in the possibility/reproducibility/meaning/implications/etc… of such an experience, then this necessarily implies faith. Peer reviews simply had layers of faith. I don’t see how this can be escaped.
Christopher
19 Feb 08 at 2:35 pm (GMT)
Christopher, does it require faith to believe in gravity?
The Atheist Jew
19 Feb 08 at 3:04 pm (GMT)
this is what cracks me up the most about Atheism: you guys try to rely so much on Empiricism as though it is doctrine (without seeing its weaknesses). Then you turn around and put your faith into Darwinism, which can not be proven. Suckers…..
Atheism isn’t a religion? You can’t know God with your senses. You can’t know hydrogen with your senses either. Believers in hydrogen are stupid.
“Well, if I had the right device, I could see Hydrogen molecules”…Faith is the device to see God.
ed
19 Feb 08 at 3:05 pm (GMT)
An atheist is someone who simply answers the question “do you believe in God” with a NO.
I see zero evidence that there is a God or that there ever has been a God, and the world makes perfect sense to me without having to invent a magical invisible Sky Fairy.
The Atheist Jew
19 Feb 08 at 3:29 pm (GMT)
>>> Christopher, does it require faith to believe in gravity?
Right now, maybe not, as I’m experiencing it. I write “maybe” because I attribute to gravity the fact that I’m not flying to the ceiling when I push up with my legs as I walk, but perhaps the true cause is utterly different and not gravity at all (especially if conscience [and not matter] is fundamental as some scientists report).
The belief that there’ll be gravity wherever I go, whenever I get there, relies on faith (in the invariance of the laws of physics throughout space and time).
Christopher
19 Feb 08 at 3:39 pm (GMT)
With ignition and oxygen you can observe one of the properties of hydrogen.
ewanm89
19 Feb 08 at 3:45 pm (GMT)
“I know there is no god” is a statement of faith. Therefore, atheism is a religion, which includes it’s own doctrine. It is so simple, why isn’t that obvious to you. Oh, thats right, you are atheists.
ed
19 Feb 08 at 4:09 pm (GMT)
ed,
Atheism is simply a philosophy, an idea, that there is no God, just as theism is the idea that there is a God. It doesn’t require any faith to disbelieve in God because there is no proof of God’s existence, and so the most simple conclusion you can come to is that there is no such thing. I can’t see how atheism has it’s own doctrine, so please elaborate on that…
Also, the theory of Evolution can never be proved because it is a scientific theory and can only be improved upon. It does however have vast amounts of evidence that suggest it it the truth, which is why so many scientists stand by it.
Putting faith in something which has supporting evidence is no the same as putting faith in something that does not. By your arguments, believing in gravity / the moon / cheese is a religion.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 4:46 pm (GMT)
Atheism has its own apostles: Russel, Asimov, Hitchens
and Prophets: Darwin, Sanger, Marx, Nietzsche, Singer, Stalin
Atheism has its own “Great Commission”. Why is it that much of atheisitic wittings are concerned with criticizing Theism?
Can you say…crusade?
But..NO, it isn’t a religion. I thought that you guys were *free* thinkers…open you mind.
ed
19 Feb 08 at 4:58 pm (GMT)
I don’t worship any of those names, nor do I think they are better men than I. I respect their opinions and can relate to some of them, but that is all. The only reason atheism is on the warpath with theism is because theists attacked first. They called us blasphemous and told us we were going to hell, they insulted us at every corner, they made us the most distrusting people in the world, and they rejected reason in favour of ancient nonsense.
All I want is a world of free thinkers, where people are not held for their beliefs, and where reason is the greatest asset.
There are no apostles or prophets of atheism and never will be. There will only be supporters of the idea, just as there are supporters of the idea of theism.
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 5:05 pm (GMT)
>>> All I want is a world of free thinkers, where people are not held for their beliefs, and where reason is the greatest asset.
I suggest that free thinking will eventually lead you to rethink the “reason is the greatest asset” part… ;o)
Christopher
19 Feb 08 at 5:16 pm (GMT)
Christopher,
I severely doubt that. Reason helps us better understand the world around us, compared to most religions, which tell us to throw reason to throw reason out the window and rely on the scribblings of people so primitive they thought the Sun went round the Earth and were so afraid of death they invented an afterlife to help them feel comforted.
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 5:20 pm (GMT)
Adrian,
Atheism doctrine can be illustrated this way:
Where did life come from? Atheist often answer the same way (some sort of Darwinian view). Therefore, the doctrine to answer that question is: Big bang, millions of years, primordial soup, walking fish, etc.
What is the nature of evil? Evil…what evil? The doctrine is: evil is an emotive response to an event.
>Atheism is simply a philosophy, an idea, that there is no God, just as theism is the idea that there is a God.
Preciesly, you are making my point for me. You are willing to consider theism a religion, but not atheism. I’ve been trying to point to the similarites between the two. If you remove the truth claims of both, you have two very similar paradigms(religions).
It burns me when atheist say: “I don’t need faith. I have reasoning”. Baloney. We all believe in things that we cannot sense. Does my car exist, when I walk away from it?
ed
19 Feb 08 at 5:34 pm (GMT)
>>> Reason helps us better understand the world around us, compared to most religions, which tell us to throw reason to throw reason out the window and rely on the scribblings of people so primitive they thought the Sun went round the Earth and were so afraid of death they invented an afterlife to help them feel comforted.
It’s a lot easier to disregard others as primitive than it is to actually read their scribblings and recognize that some of them were actually a lot more advanced than most people seem to be today, and that some of them were aware of facts that scientists have just only recently “discovered” (for instance, consciousness as fundamental / matter as derivative).
But, thoroughly knowing the extent of most religions, you knew that already, didn’t you ?
Or perhaps you have taken on faith the reports of some other atheists who commented on the extent of most religions ?
>>> I severely doubt that.
Give yourself time… ;o)
Christopher
19 Feb 08 at 5:39 pm (GMT)
Ed, you don’t have to be an atheist to accept the facts of evolution and an ancient earth.
All you have to do is not believe in God.
I can’t say 100% that God doesn’t exist, but I can’t say for sure there isn’t a deity who lives at the center of the sun either, nor can I disprove the idea that an invisible man lives under my bed.
But I’m as atheist as any atheist.
The Atheist Jew
19 Feb 08 at 5:55 pm (GMT)
>Ed, you don’t have to be an atheist to accept the facts of evolution and an ancient earth.
>All you have to do is not believe in God.
I thought that a-theism was a belief that there is no god.
How can you say for sure that there “isn’t a deity who lives at the center of the sun”?
Have you been to the sun and asked “are there any invisible gods here”?
ed
19 Feb 08 at 6:10 pm (GMT)
Atheist Jew,
my bad….reading error.
ed
19 Feb 08 at 6:12 pm (GMT)
Atheist Jew,
Are you saying (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you can only acknowledge the existence of things that you can see? If so, how then can you believe in evolution and the whole Big bang, millions of years, primordial soup, etc without a reproducible experiment?
ed
19 Feb 08 at 6:33 pm (GMT)
Ed, all the evidence points to the big bang. Even if one scientist would originally postulate the big bang and evolution, which happened, by now many other theories wouldn’t work and many findings just wouldn’t jive if the theories were false in any way.
I know how science works and how meticulous the guts to it is.
All the fossils fit the timeline, and you can see evolution is fact for example, unless you want to remain wilfully ignorant.
The world makes perfect sense to me without a God. All findings in science can be appreciated by me, I don’t have to apologize for why things don’t appear to be what they are because a little black book written 2000 years doesn’t agree.
The Atheist Jew
19 Feb 08 at 7:47 pm (GMT)
ed,
“You are willing to consider theism a religion, but not atheism.”
I guess you didn’t read the section of the article entitled “Theism isn’t a religion, therefore atheism cannot be either.” Never at any point have I even considered theism to be a religion! You are just putting words in my mouth now, so please read the article again to see my position. Theism and Atheism are opposites, but neither are religions. Theism is an idea that supports a God, Atheism is an idea which does not.
Religions like Christianity and Islam base their core beliefs on the idea of theism, and followers of these religions can all themselves “theist”, but being “theist” doesn’t mean you are necessarily religious, just as being atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you are religious. You can however be religious and an atheist (I gave the Buddhist point to prove that), but Buddhists simply use atheism as an idea in their religion.
So to break it down for you:
Theism is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion.
Christianity / Islam is a religion based off theism.
Buddism (some sects at least) is a religion based of atheism.
Just because religions use ideas does not mean those ideas suddenly become religions themselves.
As for your question about the definition of atheism, dictionary.com defines it as two things:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I tend to go with the second one personally, as does the wikipedia article on atheism, and I find that most atheists I meet agree with me. Atheism is an absence of belief, not a belief.
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 8:45 pm (GMT)
Since you asked.
What I would like to see the Atheist blogger blog about is:
1. Who is the quintessential atheist, in your opinion? Who has(if anyone)fully represented Atheism both in beliefs and actions?
2. How does an Atheist deal with Evil?
3. Is it possible to be an Atheist without being a Humanist or a Doctor of Biology?
thanks, Adrian
ed
20 Feb 08 at 6:54 pm (GMT)
I’ll take a stab.
1. First off, an atheist is simply one who says that the answer is no to the question “Do you believe in God?” So we don’t have a top guy when it comes to beliefs, because atheism doesn’t require beliefs. Richard Dawkins is a good rep for atheists. His points are well understood by many except the wilful ignorant.
2. What is evil? We are innately “moral.” Just check out great apes likes bonobos or chimps. We deal with bad things by others and ourselves pretty much the same way they do. The bible just put a lot of morality out there, but the morality was there to begin with.
3. There were plenty of atheists prior to Darwin. It is just that science now fills in gaps that couldn’t be filled up until recently. Lot of Christians and other theists are biologists. Plenty of people believe in theistic evolution.
The Atheist Jew
20 Feb 08 at 7:29 pm (GMT)
Religious people have been unhappy with the articles on my site about Jesus, God, and Xenu. It’s pretty annoying. I hate censoring myself.
Harris
22 Feb 08 at 1:43 am (GMT)
[...] Atheism is not a religion [...]
Answering “ed” | The Atheist Blogger
25 Feb 08 at 6:45 pm (GMT)
I don’t agree with the definition of ‘atheism’ which according to dictionary.com is
“1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”
As it implies that faith is a factor and that there being no God is a theory, when in fact atheists have no faith in a higher or alternative deity they simply know. Knowing is different to believing. Knowing is also different to disbelieving. If faith was a factor, ‘agnostic’ would be a more accurate term.
Thus ‘atheism’ needs a new definition or at least a more comprehensive.
Dev
25 Feb 08 at 10:11 pm (GMT)
Just my 2 shekels on Buddhism and agnosticism. Check out the “Arrow Parable” by the Buddha. In it, he indeed takes a very apathetic agnostic stance towards such metaphysical stuff like god, the soul, reincarnation (and solipsism/simulated reality by extension, hehe)…
I remember seeing a list of banned books. One of the books got banned about 50 years ago in America. It was a collection of Zen buddhism lectures by S. Suzuki… Lol.
Science doesn’t contradict theism (notice I don’t say ‘religion’) and theism doesn’t contradict science.
Personaly I really think the whole idea of militaristic atheism is childish and stupid. As long as I don’t get blown to bits by them (and do consider that the possibility for it to happen isn’t that low, since I’m form Israel) I don’t care about theists. But writing all sorts of condemning books about god (Dawkins, Htichens) isn’t what going to make them stop and think.
Rasputin
6 Apr 08 at 10:44 am (GMT)
I agree that most atheists do not practice religion. But when you start a church it becomes a religion.
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
There are theists who practice religion and there are atheists who practice relgion. There are theists that do not practice religion and there are atheists who do not practice religion. Setting up an atheist website, in my opinion, borders on practicing religion.
Tristan
3 Aug 08 at 12:30 pm (GMT)
Tristan,
You do realize the FCA is a joke church, set up simply to be ironic? I’m a member of it because its funny. You say that setting up an atheist website borders on practicing religion but when you change the word “atheist” to “search engine” your argument collapses. If I set up a new search engine would you call it practicing a search engine religion? Likewise if I set up a sales websites, would it be practicing a sales religion?
Why does atheism get this special treatment when nothing else does. I believe you entire argument is flawed.
Adrian Hayter
3 Aug 08 at 1:29 pm (GMT)
To quote the marvellous Sam Harris:
“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87 percent of the population) claiming to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence-and, indeed, for his BENEVOLENCE, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.”
–Sam Harris, “Letter to a Christian Nation”
Marthe
13 Aug 08 at 7:21 pm (GMT)