Court rules atheism a religion

[neutrino_cannon]

I think an atheist organization should try and milk this by claiming tax exemption status on the basis that they are a religion.
Me thinks that atheism won't be considered a religion for very long after that.

Yeah, right up there like the scientologists.

 

[Ceritus]

So, do Atheists have faith in their "lack of belief" in God?

With this kind of logic you could blame the air we breathe for our deaths since it keeps us alive and we all die.

 

[Cain]

Define "religion", then.

Religion gets fuzzy because the public tends to make a distinction between religion and cult. Also, many individuals self-identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." The defining characteristic of a religion seems to be an institutionalized set of rituals and beliefs (in the supernatural). Whatever the case, atheism can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a religion As I implied in previous postings, atheism is such an empty, unnecessary word. Science could more accurately be considered a religion.

AS writes:

That's why I prefer "non-believer."

Yes, but non-believer has a negative connotation. It's only what, one step removed from Infidel?

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do Atheists have faith in their "lack of belief" in God?

Possibly. Although what atheist is going to agree when faith is viewed as inherently irrational and atheism is deemed eminently rational? Faith is the disconnect between the evidence and one's intensity of belief. People who have faith usually believe in *something*. Do you have faith in your lack of belief in dragons? Furthermore, persons who have faith want that something to be true, and think that it can become true by sheer will power. This is one reason why the term is often confused with hope, and why certain people claim it can "move mountains".

 

[Martin]

Secular humanism has been considered by law to be a religion since 1961.

No, it hasn't.

 

[Ossai]

Iacchus

The thing is, if God does exist which, according to "most" Atheists has yet to be proven, one way or the other, what else is there to rely upon, except faith?

Empirical evidence and reason. Faith is not required.

In other words, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does "not" exist, it must become an article of faith.

Iacchus follower of the GTITS, because he can’t prove it doesn’t exist and by default he must be a follower.

Now I’m going to explain my above statement since you [Iacchus] have previously proven a lack of basic understanding. The statement was a tongue-in-cheek example of the idiocy of your statement.

KelvinG

I think an atheist organization should try and milk this by claiming tax exemption status on the basis that they are a religion.
Me thinks that atheism won't be considered a religion for very long after that.

Actually since atheists aren’t required to congregate and form organizations, can I be my own atheist organization? That way I can get a tax credit for all the video games and books I buy. If I push it, I may even have my salary paid directly to my object of worship, me, and have it declared completely tax exempt.

Ossai

 

[Bri]

Empirical evidence and reason. Faith is not required.

This may be off-topic, but isn't proving that God doesn't exist impossible? I can see that an atheist uses "reason" to conclude that God doesn't exist, since one might reason that if something is unfalsifiable then there's no reason to believe it (I can also see that a person who does believe in God could also use different reasoning to come to the conclusion that God does exist). But is there any actual emperical evidence that God doesn't exist?

Not that "faith" is necessarily required for something to be a religion, but it seems to me that there may be some faith involved in belief that God doesn't exist.

BTW, I am not meaning to offend anyone with this question. It is just that -- a question.

-Bri

 

[AWPrime]

Bri,

I would say: Logic tells me that in the absense of evidence to an extraordinary claim their is no rational reason to give it any credence.

 

[Cain]

Originally posted by Bri This may be off-topic, but isn't proving that God doesn't exist impossible? I can see that an atheist uses "reason" to conclude that God doesn't exist, since one might reason that if something is unfalsifiable then there's no reason to believe it (I can also see that a person who does believe in God could also use different reasoning to come to the conclusion that God does exist). But is there any actual emperical evidence that God doesn't exist?

There's an article in today's NYT's on scientists and faith. Richard Dawkins is quoted on a subject related to the above paragraph:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary theorist at Oxford, said that even scientists who were believers did not claim evidence for that belief. "The most they will claim is that there is no evidence against," Dr. Dawkins said, "which is pathetically weak. There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them."

The article can be viewed here (although I'm sure most people on this board are already familiar with all the relevant points and players. In fact, it's not even very good -- see the last two paragraphs):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Bri]

I would say: Logic tells me that in the absense of evidence to an extraordinary claim their is no rational reason to give it any credence.

Understood. But isn't this stance also a matter of faith (as in "firm belief in something for which there is no proof")? You must have faith that an absence of evidence for something necessarily means that the something doesn't exist.

An agnostic might say that it's impossible to know one way or the other whether God exists, which many might view as a "copout" but certainly wouldn't be based on faith one way or another.

But to say unequivocally that one believes that God does or does not exist seems to require a certain amount of faith.

-Bri

edited typo

 

[toddjh]

But to say unequivocally that one believes that God does or noes not exist seems to require a certain amount of faith.

How much faith does it require to believe there is no evidence of elves of fairies?

Jeremy

 

[Bri]

There's an article in today's NYT's on scientists and faith. Richard Dawkins is quoted on a subject related to the above paragraph...

<excellent quote by Dawkins deleted>

See my response to AWPrime above.

I'm not saying that the atheist position is incorrect, illogical, or irrational. I'm just suggesting that perhaps it is based on faith.

I suppose my point is that perhaps a belief based on faith isn't necessarily incorrect, illogical, or irrational.

If faith is simply a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, then that belief could very well be based on logic and rational thought.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

How much faith does it require to believe there is no evidence of elves of fairies?

No faith is required to believe that there is no evidence of elves and fairies.

Some faith is apparently required to believe that elves or fairies don't exist.

-Bri

 

[pgwenthold]

Not that "faith" is necessarily required for something to be a religion, but it seems to me that there may be some faith involved in belief that God doesn't exist.

It is often stated that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And that is often the case. However, it is not absolute. The absence of evidence _where evidence should be found_ is most certainly evidence of absence.

Does it take faith to believe that there isn't an elephant in my office? I don't see any evidence for an elephant, but does that mean that it isn't there? No elephant noises, nor smells, no sign at all.

Now, you might argue that he is invisible, and so is everything else associated with him, and his poo don't stink, and the fact that I don't keep bumping into him is because he keeps silently avoiding me. Can you rule that out? Not really, but then again, should you necessarily entertain the possibility that it exists? Does it require faith to conclude it doesn't? If it had _any_ effect on anything, it would be perceptable. What is the difference between "existing and always staying out of sensory perception" and "not existing"?

ETA: To me? There is none. Is that an article of faith? Not at all. It's a definition.

 

[crimresearch]

The line of argument I'm most afraid of is this:

1. The government should not promote religion
2. Atheism is a religion
3. By refusing to invoke religion, the government promotes atheism -- thereby promoting religion anyway.
4. Since the government cannot avoid promoting a religion, it might as well be the most popular one. Let's vote on an official religion!

Under the heading of 'you cannot open a door partway', I suspect that it is only a matter of time before someone does indeed advance the claim that schools, etc. must not promote the 'religion' of atheism in a complaint or lawsuit.

 

[toddjh]

No faith is required to believe that there is no evidence of elves and fairies.

Some faith is apparently required to believe that elves or fairies don't exist.

I disagree. There is good evidence that fairies and elves were created by humans for the purposes of stories. If weighing that evidence and coming to the logical conclusion that fairies are imaginary requires "faith," then every single decision a person makes is based on "faith" and the word loses all meaning.

Jeremy

 

[Bri]

The absence of evidence _where evidence should be found_ is most certainly evidence of absence.

Does it take faith to believe that there isn't an elephant in my office?

I totally see your point. But there are many compelling explanations for why there is no evidence of God, which means that "where evidence should be found" is not only subjective, but also makes your analogy with the elephant inadequate. There is no reason to think that there would be evidence for God whether or not God exists. Frustrating, but true.

So I'm not sure it's such a stretch to say that an atheist position is based on faith.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I disagree. There is good evidence that fairies and elves were created by humans for the purposes of stories. If weighing that evidence and coming to the logical conclusion that fairies are imaginary requires "faith," then every single decision a person makes is based on "faith" and the word loses all meaning.

That fairies and elves are used in stories doesn't mean that elves and fairies aren't real. People write about a lot of things that are real. So by itself that argument doesn't distinguish a belief based on "faith" versus any other belief.

pgwenthold had a good point that faith might not hold where there is an absence of evidence where evidence should be found. If you buy that argument (and I think it's a pretty good one) it makes sense for fairies and elves, but not necessarily for God.

-Bri

 

[pgwenthold]

I totally see your point. But there are many compelling explanations for why there is no evidence of God, which means that "where evidence should be found" is not only subjective, but also makes your analogy with the elephant inadequate. There is no reason to think that there would be evidence for God whether or not God exists.

I disagree with your "compelling reasons for why there is no evidence of God." They are more post-hoc made up rationalizations for why there isn't, not _reasons_ why there isn't.

For example, consider my common example of "free will." Is there really a basis for free will? Why do people think we actually have free will? Mainly because, if we didn't, then God would have to be evil.

1) Assume God exists and is good
2) Observe evil exists in the world
3) Because evil exists, either it is by God's design, or it is because God does not interfere with free will
4) If God were to have evil by design, it would mean God is evil. However, this contradicts point (1)
5) Therefore, it must mean we have free will

Is free will a "compelling" reason that God doesn't show up to prevent evil? I don't think it is.

As I asked before, what's the difference between "existing and always staying out of perception" and "not existing"? I don't see any.

 

[pgwenthold]

pgwenthold had a good point that faith might not hold where there is an absence of evidence where evidence should be found. If you buy that argument (and I think it's a pretty good one) it makes sense for fairies and elves, but not necessarily for God.

Why not? It sounds like special pleading, to me.

 

[Cain]

See my response to AWPrime above.

I'm not saying that the atheist position is incorrect, illogical, or irrational. I'm just suggesting that perhaps it is based on faith.

In which case I think your definition of faith is inconsistent with my own.

I suppose my point is that perhaps a belief based on faith isn't necessarily incorrect, illogical, or irrational.

I'm afraid to say faith is -- at least according to my own understanding -- necessarily illogical and irrational -- though not always incorrect. Someone may have confident faith that in her first time on the golf course that she will most certainly hit a hole-in-one. It could happen -- but it isn't bloody likely. As I noted earlier, faith is the gap between the evidence and the intensity of one's belief. Hume long ago stated the rational position: "The wise man [sic] proportions his belief to the evidence." Faith is what lies inbetween.

If faith is simply a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, then that belief could very well be based on logic and rational thought.

Again, no it cannot. Although I will concede that a person with faith in belief X could turn out to be correct. This is known as the fallacy fallacy -- believing something that is true but for the wrong reason.

I think your distinction on belief in fairies vs. belief in God vis-a-vis faith is a false one, stirkingly culture-centered. Do you agree that a belief in Hindu gods, Greek gods, various gods worshipped by African tribes are also significantly different than the fairies and elves? Probably not.

People only feel -- and it really is just a feeling -- that a belief in God is different because it's widely held in their own area of the world.