Religion

[Paddy™]

The obligatory mid-thread reminder to stay friendly:

---

1. No flaming/name-calling
   
2. No provocation
   
3. No ad hominems
   

---

Btw, Paddy, if Atheism isn't a religion, then what is it? Think about it; if Atheists say that they believe there is no God, then how does it make them any different to me saying that I believe there is a God? (Despite the obvious point in beliefs being different).

It's a fair question in the current climate, because the public perception of atheism seems to be that atheists exalt Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and others as its high priests, their books are its gospels and the sceptics conventions are its churches. As is the case with any "movement" there's a certain degree of religiosity in how its participants think, behave, assimilate information and proselytise on its behalf. But even if that were true for absolutely everyone involved, it doesn't make atheism itself a religion. If anything, it speaks to our natural tendency to be religious.

My take on the differences between religion and atheism:

Spoiler below!

Atheism is a position of default scepticism; nothing will be arbitrarily believed without sufficient evidence. In this sense, it's indistinguishable from the scientific approach in general. Religion takes the vast majority of its knowledge of reality on faith, with faith being seen as a virtue to be nurtured and encouraged. Faith is belief without evidence, which is anathema to atheism.

Religion claims a divine truth with an understanding of the universe unavailable to others. It's in large part unfalsifiable, a storehouse of secret knowledge accessible only to a chosen few and untestable by any natural, observable means. Much of it comes from alleged one-on-one communications with Gods or angels which were written down and passed on. Atheism deals with observable reality; things which can be tested, examined, understood with evidence. There is no limit placed upon who can access the information and knowledge gathered by science, there's no such thing as American science and Irish science, or Catholic science and Muslim science, there is only science. No one has authority in science or atheism, no one's word is taken on faith, no one has secret knowledge or unique access to knowledge, and thus no one is worshipped or looked to for absolute truth by others.

Religion has a hierarchy, featuring various levels of practice, authority and closeness with divinity; atheism doesn't require more than one person with a lack of supernatural belief.

Religion has sacred texts, rituals, festivals, traditions, people, places and things. Atheism has nothing of the sort. No churches, no sites of pilgrimage, no relics, no divine figureheads.

Religion concerns itself with the individual behaviours, thoughts, sexual appetites, physical integrity of genitalia, dietary habits and reproductive rights of its followers. Atheism doesn't judge or have an opinion about any of those things; there's no function built into by which it could judge any of those things.

Atheism isn't concerned about what makes people feel better, behave better or what rewards it can bring. Atheism doesn't care if what's real is "negative" or "positive". What's true, or rather what seems most likely in light of the evidence, is what matters.

Atheism is free. Religion costs money, and lots of it.

Atheism doesn't lobby politicians or dictate what should or shouldn't be taught in schools. It doesn't tell women that their wombs belong to God or the state, it doesn't tell homosexuals that they are abominations or that they're not entitled to the same rights as everyone else, etc. Atheism doesn't interfere with society, life or individuals on any level, except when it is used as a platform from which religion is discouraged from interfering with society, life and individuals. Atheism itself has no truck with any of these issues; individual atheists do, because they're members of society.

Atheism has no "activist" or "evangelist" component built into it. Religion must be spread far and wide, people must be actively converted, in some religions non-believers are to be despised or persecuted (or worse).

Religion claims moral authority. Atheism is amoral.

I'm sure others could contribute more to this.

1. If there was no need for a God, then why are we here? If there was no Creator, then we or this Earth wouldn't exist. If you think that this Earth could create itself, or that it was just here with people and animals in it, then where did the people and animals come from? Where did the germs come from? Where did atoms come from? Where did EVERYTHING come from? There must have been something before everything else.
   
2. There is lots of evidence that shows God's existence, I have witnessed Him at work in my life and many others that follow, and some that don't follow because of our prayers. Testimony is a great example of evidence.
   
3. It is possible to know, sometimes you've just got to take a leap of Faith. It's hard, I know, to put your trust in something you cannot see. But sometimes, He might just show Himself to you if you are really looking and listening for Him. You may be able to deny the Bible, but one thing you cannot take from Christians is testimony; their own personal experiences with God.

1. I don't know why we're here, how we got here or if we'll ever be in a position to know. That says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a God.
   
2. Personal experiences and feelings are important for individuals, and even for culture and humanity as a whole, but they're not evidence of anything. No scientist ever won a Nobel prize for feeling something. Evidence comes with a set of standards by which its value can be measured. Personal feelings/experiences - especially abstract ones like closeness with God - are worthless in terms of evidentiary value.
   
3. Trusting isn't the same as having faith. I trust that my doctor will be able to provide specialist care for me, even though I'm not a doctor myself and can't possible know how the drugs or therapy are working. The difference here is, I could, theoretically, go through the 10 years of medical training needed to be as knowledgeable as my doctor, or become sufficiently scientifically literate to test the drugs for myself to ascertain their effectiveness. That knowledge is not forever out of my reach, in other words. Believing in God requires you to believe something for which there will never be evidence.