Atheism: The Religion

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is a set of beliefs declaring there is no god or God.

You may justifiably wonder when I is said that atheism is a religion. Most atheists would say it is the opposite .... no religion at all.

However that denies the meaning of the word. I simply selected some of the meanings of the word "religion" from various sources including and others.

Religion is defined as..
  •  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
  • a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
  • the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: 
  • something one believes in and follows devotedly  
  • Religion comes from Latin religio
  • The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, comes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast - from religo,
  • The root of the word is the Latin verb ligo, comes religo, to tie or bind over again, to make more fast - from religo
So putting both the definition and the root of the word "religion", one can say that ...

Atheism is a set of beliefs (in no god or God). Atheism is a set of beliefs concerning the "cause, nature and purpose" of the universe.

Atheism like organized religion is simply a set of beliefs that one has "bound" himself to or that the atheist holds to.

So I rest my case: Atheism is a religion by definition.

So what credibility does atheism have as a religion?

Was it revealed on stone tablets to the first person who did not believe in God? 

Was it relayed through "prophets"?

Was it simply chosen by individuals who did not want to believe in God?

Atheism is chosen by each individual who states categorically that there is no God.

Do atheists have any evidence for the non-being of God?

Any atheists I have encountered state that they have not seen God and therefore he must not exist.

But does that make sense?

Is that evidence? Is something you have not seen, evidence?

I have not seen Sydney, Australia; therefore Sydney does not exist.

I have not seen Rome; therefore Rome does not exist.

I have not seen tides; therefore tides do not exist.

Pygmies in Africa may not have seen a "Coke" bottle; so to them Coke does not exist.

Surely something is lacking when we take the word of an individual who simply says because he or she has not seen something, that it cannot exist.

Is that not akin to those in the world that had never seen North America and therefore did not believe it exists?

If a vast majority of people believe from evidence they have that Sydney or Rome or Coke exists, then is it not reasonable to say that there MUST be some common evidence or experience that makes one believe that any of the above exists.

Perhaps you have seen Rome or Sydney or Coke yourself? Why should we not believe you?

Perhaps you have seen it portrayed in books and videos, and on TV or the internet. Why should we say that it does not matter, because "I" have not seen them.
Therefore they do not exist!!!

Is that not a childish way of thinking? Because "YOU" have not seen something or someone, you claim it does not exist???

Why do "YOU" have to see it to make something exist? What makes you more special than the others that claim to have seen Rome or Sydney or Coke or God?

The answer is "Nothing."

Since you cannot prove that Rome or Sydney or Coke or God do not exist, you simply have no evidence of their non-existence when others do. You are lacking evidence. Where have you looked to find clues?

If you cannot see your car keys as they have been

misplaced, do you suddenly say, "They do not exist!"
Would that not be a childish way of thinking?

An honest atheist would say that they have not seen evidence of God, so they do not believe in his existence. Of course that would make the atheist an agnostic and therefore the atheist does not exist, but the agnostic does.

Atheism is a choice; a choice not to believe in a god.
Atheism is a religion to which all atheists ascribe; the religion of choosing to believe there is no God even tho millions of others say that they have reason to believe there is.

If the atheist says, "a majority of people believing in something" does not make it true, one would have to agree. Even if a majority of scientists believe that man has caused catastrophic climate change by his activities, that does not make it true following the same logic.

Therefore those that deny anthropomorphic climate change (man-caused) may not be in the majority but that does not make it true.

Majorities do not determine "truth". Truth is a demonstrable idea which is born out by facts and actions. 

Suppose someone says, "I do not believe in the law of gravity." and proceeds to step off the CN Tower and falls to his death. Was it the non-believer or Truth that won?

Truth is verified by evidence, it may be a preponderance of the evidence (as stated in a court of law).

So if so many people in the world, believe there is God, would it not be beneficial to investigate the evidence that those who do believe, have seen?

But does an atheist do that? Or does an atheist simply choose without any or shoddy evidence to believe there is no God?

It IS interesting that atheists will often say "Why does God make himself so hard to find?"

But of course, that is because He DID make himself easy to find, over 2000 years ago in the person of Jesus Christ. That is why God sent his son, Jesus. To let people know by the prophecies he fulfilled, the actions that he took and the life that he lived, that God did indeed care enough to send evidence of his existence. That is why the people a short time after his life, changed the calendar to have it start at the time of his birth and life.

Perhaps atheists like to selectively deny those parts of history that spoil their belief system, their religion. Millions have not.

Oh and another thing that bothers me about atheists: why are they so angry at Christians and their beliefs? Why does it anger them when they think there is no God?

Do they also get angry at the "tooth fairy", or "Peter Pan" or "Santa Claus" ?

I have to say that many atheists may be nice people and may try in some small way to help alleviate suffering in the world.

But those of Judaeo-Christian beliefs have changed the world for the better. Who does not respect Mother Theresa for her work with the out-castes of India?

There are millions of others that have formed organizations that do the same for sufferers all over the world and in all time periods since Jesus Christ was born.

I am still waiting to see what great atheist, Richard Dawkins, perhaps, gives up his fame, or notoriety and say he is giving 90% of his salary to help alleviate the problems of the starving and those who are sick.

Or perhaps you are an atheist and will do that instead?

Or perhaps atheism leads to self-centredness and does not really care about suffering humanity?

Just a thought.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Hello! We are happy to have your comments following the Terms of Service guidelines.