Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
The problem with this argument is simply that the definition of religion you choose to use is not at all specific. "A set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe" is part of it, certainly, but not the whole of it. Religions prescribe a set of rules or ideals by which one should live, for example; atheism does not.
Consider CanandaCraig as an example - hopefully he'll forgive me for dragging him into this. He calls himself a non-religious Christian, meaning that he believes that Christ exists, but is not a follower of the religion. If belief were all that defined a religion, then this would make no sense.
And the other main thing that separates atheism from religion is the type of belief. Almost every religion requires some amount of faith above and beyond what evidence we can find in the real world. So, for example, most Christians have more faith in the existence of Christ than in impartial observer would, given the evidence. Most atheists, however, strive to only be as confident in their world view as the evidence suggests. It is a different type of belief: belief in the quantifiable rather than belief in the unquantifiable. I feel this is an important distinction between the two.
That said, it is certainly possible to be a religious atheist. An atheist for example who actually claimed certainty in the validity of the big bang theory, and felt that there is a superior way to live as regards work, relationships, sexuality, etc; someone like that could probably be called a religious atheist. But the vast majority of us are not like that. As my roommate just so eloquently put it: "Most of the atheists I know just don't give a damn." And that is my experience as well.
|
But you've just followed a rule: by denying you do not follow rules, you imply that there is a rule within Atheism that you do not follow rules. I don't mean to get technical... however, this is a philosophy of a philosophy that contradicts and is redundant in itself.
CanadaCraig may not be a "follower of the regligion," but I am a follower of Christ because I love Him and I want to obey Him not because I have to, but because I want to and am in what I consider to be in an active relationship with a living and physical human being who is also God. However, if you say that you do not follow a set of rules, the rule of Christianity is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore in essence you are religious on just believing and therefore this example is not sufficient. Although I suggest that if you do believe in Christ this believe is also an active and not a passive believe in that you do not simply sit back and relax because you have a get out of hell free card. No, if I knew a meteor was coming to my house and wished to live would it be enough to believe the meteor was coming? No. I'd get up and move. It's an active believe that promotes an action based on what you believe and I suggest the same is with faith in Christ. This isn't a religious activity (by your definition). It is me responding to the gospel in a proper manner.
Also, you are implying that the different types that separate a Christian and an atheist is that the "evidence" the atheist has is correct to begin with. You are BELIEVING your interpretation of the world to be correct, yet I am certain you have been wrong before and therefore can be wrong again (yes, this goes both ways I know). Let me give you an example, many people believed the earth was flat. Is it flat? No. And if you said otherwise at that time period and spoke up against the scientist you would be scoffed at and called ignorant. Might I suggest that this may be the case today? You are putting your faith in the evidences that we have to day that may be in fact all false. I am certain that if the earth lasts another 1000 years our knowledge will look so ignorant and insignificant to those during that time period, much like our view of people 1000 years ago is today. Not that ALL people were ignorant, but much of their evidences which they believed to be right 1000 years ago are in fact proven false today. Therefore you must take into account that your evidence is in fact true to begin with and therefore implementing just as much faith as any other religion.
The problem is that people can get 2 completely different views on one topic and therefore whichever view they adopt they are putting in an aspect of faith which I will argue is NOT different than that of a religious view. I can argue that this world suggests much evidence for a creator, you may argue the other way. However: You cannot prove to me God does not exist and I cannot prove to you God does exist (though God can prove it to you by faith and repentance -- He says He will reveal Himself) and therefore each of us is putting faith in a worldview that we have adopted and our beliefs are not different.