Against God (the new religion?)

L

lightgigantic

Banned
Banned
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-de...1175971410059.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

ON PALM SUNDAY, Dr John Perkins drove out to the Careforce Church in Mount Evelyn to tell its congregation that everything it believed and held dear about God was, sad to say, mistaken and even dangerous.

It wouldn't be everyone's idea of a fun night out. Finding himself in similar circumstances, Australian arch-atheist Philip Adams once described himself as "a lion thrown into a den of Daniels".

And the scene did appear set for a mauling: the modern community hall-style building can hold 1000 and the debate had sold out within 20 minutes of tickets going on sale.

But there was no blood spilt. The Careforce house band belted out a few numbers, including John Lennon's Imagine ("Imagine there's no heaven, and no religion too …"), and then for nearly 90 minutes a mostly Christian audience listened intently while Christianity and atheism went 10 heartfelt rounds on stage. There was gracious applause at the end.

This slightly odd event is part of much wider phenomenon: the emergence of newly energised atheism centred around Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. An unapologetic and even contemptuous attack on faith, the book has caused a storm in the US where it has been camped on the The New York Times bestseller list for five months.

Dawkins' is just one of at least half a dozen popular books preaching an anti-religious message that have appeared in the past year or so. There are more to come, too. Connoisseurs of the heretical will be salivating at the prospect of Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which is due in May.

This swelling of atheist literature is a reaction to a worldwide rise in fundamentalist religion. But in kicking back at extremism, the bestselling atheists don't discriminate between mainstream faith and the loony fringe. It's religion itself they object to.

Dawkins hopes to eradicate faith entirely. This immodest project has put the high-profile English biologist at the vanguard of what's being called — inevitably — "evangelistic atheism".

Dawkins has been on the cover of Time magazine. He even appeared on TV show South Park, where he was, as he himself grumblingly described it, "portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite".

Popular atheism is not new — Bertrand Russell's classic Why I Am An Atheist was written half a century ago — but the emphasis on mass conversion to common sense might be.
Click to expand...

more in the article - I thought it was interesting to see how this (apparently) contemporary branch of atheism bears many similarities to religion itself
 
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

"Atheism is religion." When you hear a statement like this, it often comes form a person who has actually done little research or thinking about either Atheism or religion. Most people rarely study or investigate their own religious beliefs, assuming they have any. If they are born in a predominately Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish culture, they will probably reflect the religious beliefs of that society.

Nearly every dictionary will define religion as "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed a worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. The definition of all other terms linked to religion employ much the same language -- church, monastery, priest. They are all part of a religious-language universe or "game" that has little to do with Atheism.

There cannot be an Atheist "Church", or an Atheist "priest" anymore than there could be an Atheist "god."
Click to expand...

and

"Atheism is a religion", for some strange reason, is often used by theists to criticise non-believers. A couple of examples from my email and guestbook:

"Do you have a belief that atheism is true? If no, then you're lying, if yes, then you are acting on faith. If you don't believe in God, you must believe in something or someone else. An atheist doesn't simply lack positive belief in God. The atheist has positive belief in the non-existence of God."

"The Religion of Atheism is for the totally unrational person, which is why Atheists account for less that 10% of the population. There are Ulterior Motives to Atheism, namely : Admitting the obvious of an INtelligent Creator introduces accountability and someone who is bigger and more important than oneself ...and, it impedes on the present less than desirable and/or immoral (incl. sexually, in most cases) lifestyle that the Atheist has chosen for himself. Both of these can be summarized by Pride."

It seems odd for a follower of a faith to try to attack atheism by saying it is also a faith. I think the reasoning is that if atheism is a faith or religion, then atheists have no cause to criticise other faiths or religions. One flaw in this argument is that if atheism were indeed a religion, then theists would have no reason to criticise atheism being taught in schools as part of religious education, or even the setting up of atheist-run schools alongside Baptist, Catholic and Muslim schools.

Somehow, I think voices may be raised in protest should that happen. =)

Alternatively, the idea is that atheists are hypocrites for attacking the faithful when atheism itself is a result of faith.

However, the big problem is this :

ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION OR A FAITH!

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

As mentioned in the Introduction page, there is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. I don't know any atheists who "believe" God (take your pick, there are plenty) does not exist. All the atheists I know simply do not believe God does exist.

There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.

If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.

Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?

If you believe that unicorns do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No unicorns" religion? Is it a matter of faith that unicorns do not exist? Can I come along to your non-unicorn church with you tomorrow?

If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!

Do you see where this is going? [ Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but it's excellent for getting a point across. :cool: ]

If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith?

If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion.
Click to expand...

There is a check list here for more info to make up your mind:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html
 
w1z4rd said:
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. As an atheist, I have seen many fellow atheists treat their atheism as thought it were a religion. They actively attempt to convert others into our line of thought (convert the believers into atheists) and they preach atheists beliefs in the same fashion an avid and rabid Christian preaches bible verses.

This is something I have never appreciated. As an atheist, I dislike it when some attempt to force others into not believing (as I do not believe). Some atheists do treat their atheism as though it were a religion. And it is not and never will be.
 
On the contrary. As an atheist, I have seen many fellow atheists treat their atheism as thought it were a religion. They actively attempt to convert others into our line of thought (convert the believers into atheists) and they preach atheists beliefs in the same fashion an avid and rabid Christian preaches bible verses.
Click to expand...

That's purely dependant upon how you define 'religion'. If you use the definition:

- something one believes in and follows devotedly

Then anything and everything is a religion and thus the word descends into worthlessness.

More pertinent perhaps 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

The mistake is being made because 'religion' is being defined simply as something one does with devotion, (from football to sex to computer games). Once again: That definition includes everything and thus becomes a redundant, worthless word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top