Re: Is atheism a religion
I'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about simple propositions (many of which may make up a single concept). The proposition "God exists" is either true or false - and yes, just by knowing it you'll assign some level of belief.
Why resort to something as silly and useless as a belief when you can attempt to gain actual knowledge and reach reasoned conclusions? A belief is just something you want to be true, not something that is true, or is even likely true.
Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a supreme deity, that is all. Any other opinions and ideologies formed about the society in which we live are derived the same way any religious person's opinions and ideology is derived; by our personal opinion on various issues, personal morality on various issues, and our personal views of right and wrong.
I think atheism also applies to lack of belief in any non-supreme deities, too. Not just the western god, but any other god one might care to suppose. It probably also applies to other supernatural creatures. Atheism would apply just as well to the fair folk. Our culture supposes the question of higher existence around the monotheistic supposition, but I don't think atheism is merely disagreement with that particular theistic assertion. I think it applies to all of them.
There are certainly fanatical atheists who go way to far in their disbelief, but you could say the same for almost anything. Those people do not make atheism a religion.
No one is fanatical about disbelief. The prominent and outspoken atheists you're probably thinking of are those who advocate strongly over the political ramifications of religion. They are often scientists and educators who are incensed about myth being substituted for science in science classrooms, or peace activists who are angry over the wars started over religion, or civil rights activists who do not like the way major religions are so often concerned with trampling the rights of women and oppressing gays. That has nothing to do with being "fanatical about disbelief". That's real causes and protecting people from the abuses of religion.
The whole burden of proof debate is tiresome. Haven't you atheists "evolved" beyond that yet? It's the same thing Richard Dawkins was spitting out 30 years ago.
No, it's still quite relevant. The existence of a specific god as asserted by one religious person or another is not equally likely as that assertion being false. Ancient deities that no one believes in anymore are not equally likely to exist as not exist. Even moreso, deities that have been completely forgotten to history that literally no one believes in anymore. There is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility that those gods exist and someone would have to make a very compelling case for anyone to take that possibility seriously. Why is the western god different merely for being popular right now? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As much as theists like to squirm out of this, their claims are extraordinary and frankly absurd.
There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.
That's silly. Any god could make itself widely known and provide all manner of proof if it wanted to. That none ever has is compelling proof that no such gods exist.
God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.
Again, silly. If you think god is providing people with personal experiences and communicating, or is responsible for the creation of the bible or any other religious items, then god is attempting to influence that choice. The only god that doesn't circumvent free will is the god that we never hear about in the first place.
Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.
If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.
Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.
That's not even a little bit true. There is substantial evidence of a universe operating without intervention by a deity, of prayer having no effect on healing, of no gods revealing themselves, of having faith not actually leading to a person living a happier or more moral life... all compelling evidence that gods do not exist. The proposition of free will automatically precludes any gods, as shown above. That human beings have conjectured so many mutually exclusive views on divine existence shows that none of them can be true, since they are completely interchangeable but purport to be absolute truth. God propositions are astoundingly unlikely and patently ridiculous.