Re: Atheism a religion
guns_God_glory said:
Alright answer this question. How did the Universe form? Not earth. But how did all of the planets stars and even space get here? Is there a rational answer the this question?
A semi-definitive answer? There is no rational answer to this question of that nature. Nothing can be known about the Universe before the Big Bang because all evidence that would tell us anything about conditions prior to the Bang would have been obliterated. This includes any evidence for God. Which means that you cannot rationally
conclude that God exists based on any evidence that might have existed prior to the Big Bang.
One can speculate rationally, however. But there is no more liklihood that a Prime Mover set up the Big Bang than that the conditions for the Big Bang event always existed, or more precisely, that the conditions for the Big Bang were eternally inevitable without a Prime Mover.
The only things of consequence are things that leave evidence of their existence. God does not seem to have done so, so if God exists, one need not worry oneself about it. God is of no consequence regardless of whether God does exist or not. I am therefore Not Theist. Atheist. Theists believe in God, Atheists hold no such belief, and have seen no reason to entertain one.
Do I believe that God does not exist? Atheists sometimes believe God does not exist. Other Atheists do not hold this belief. I am of the second variety. I cannot believe that something does not exist unless it can be shown that it does not. It is not possible to show that something does not exist, except as qualified in the next paragraph. Atheists of this variety generally put the foregoing into the following perspective: I cannot prove that magical creatures, such as elves, do not exist. Elves and God are equally likely to exist, both being magical creatures.
Let's examine things that cannot logically exist. Most Atheists believe that certain Gods could not possibly exist, because the definitions of those Gods are inconsistent. That is to say, that the definitions of those Gods are self contradictory. Atheists accept that logical contradictions are impossible in reality (can only exist as ideas) and thus certain Gods could not possibly exist. Many Atheists are satisfied that the Christian God is of this variety.
Atheistic belief is of a different character than Religious belief. All Atheistic beliefs are subject to revision. It is recognized by Atheists that where self-consistency is possible new evidence may in all cases present itself, and that where it seems that self-consistency is not possible, new arguments may show that the Atheist was in error. On the other hand, Religious belief is partly based on revelation. Revelation is accepted on faith, and thus, Religious belief is not "revisable" (immutability is a good concept here). That is to say that Religious belief is not even merely superstitious, it is dogmatic.
Religious people have often stated that Atheists are dogmatic, and perhaps some are. It has been my experience that when the Religious person is confronted with the consistent Atheistic demand for evidence, this is seen as dogmatic. Quite the opposite, actually. If an Atheist were to accept a belief without a preponderance of evidence, and fail to shed that belief when presented with the notion's the lack of evidence, this would be dogmatic. The refusal to do so cannot be fairly construed as such.
I think, though I am not sure, that all Atheists would say that their notion of God's existence is subject to revision. Some Religious people might claim the same thing.
Let's examine the reason why these approaches to belief are actually wholly different.
The Atheist will withold belief in a thing until presented with evidence. The Religious will grant belief in a thing until presented with evidence of the thing's non-existence. Think carefully about this:
Once certain beliefs are accepted by the Religious, they will not change them unless the impossible is performed. Thus, the Religious person's claim that their belief in God is revisable is an empty claim. They don't really mean what they imply.
This difference in approaches to Belief is one aspect that makes Atheism fail to qualify as a Religion.
My reply is illustrative. What I have illustrated is an Atheist's position on the notion of a Prime Mover. Can you make a religion of this position? If so, How?
