Atheism is now a religion?

[HoundedbyHeaven]

---

yah..its like instituting strong faith on "thy self"..lolz

Mao ni ang common nga gi propagate sa New Age movement og onsa pa diha.

Exactly, like Wicca, Cruise's and Travolta's Scientology, Raelian Movement, Children of God, Branch Dravidian, Luciferian, Kabbalah, Son of Sam, Masonic Movement and the like.

[websniper]

@houndedbyheaven:
Freedom for/from religion is a human rights. It is a right to choose, practice and believe for any folks that considered as religion. Basically, religion used interchangeably with faith and is commonly defined as belief concerning supernatural, sacred or divine and the practices, teachings and institution with such beliefs.

Do atheism be considered as religion or faith?

[Cardinal Bunal]

Do atheism be considered as religion or faith?

Actually to complement your points, aetheism is neither but an outright denial of the paranormal, the metaphysical and the supernatural.

Agnosticism is a different thing.

[tolstoi]

it's juz an Ideology for me..nothing more

[arnoldsa]

Atheism cannot be a religion since you do not believe in a supreme being.... the same goes also for some Anti-Christs... They cannot be called atheists because they believe that Satan is god...

Ummm, by the way, I was quite surprised to see an old student publication in USC that featured an article about a student organization that worships Satan... ambot naa pa ba na ron

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Do atheism be considered as religion or faith?

Actually to complement your points, aetheism is neither but an outright denial of the paranormal, the metaphysical and the supernatural. Agnosticism is a different thing.

Well, Atheism or Unbelief, at least the type (which happens to be the dominant and popular one) that professes to be scientific, is ultimately still a belief or a religion, though not according to how the founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution define "Religion" or to how we usually describe it. Atheists would argue with you to their hearts' content that their beliefs (Heck, they don't even want it labelled "beliefs") are not beliefs but "data", not faith but "facts", not religion but "science". Let me explain.

Atheists or unbelievers scoff at theists or believers for "irrationally" and "unscientificically" believing in a Supreme Being, who they don't believe exists. They claimed that Science has "proven" conclusively that there is "no" God. They mistakenly or deceitfully (or both, whatever) claimed that Science has dug up "indisp**able" evidence "disproving" the "non-existence" of God, accused theists or believers of "intellectual dishonesty, if not insanity", and so paraded their atheism or unbelief to be "true" and "correct", because it is "scientifically-proven", because it is "backed up by facts arrived at by science" and "not" by faith. And, oh, how the global media swooned to their pronouncements like some 60's crowd of young ladies gawking at that famous quartet from Liverpool.

But you see, their denial in a Supreme Being, which is the object of Theism or Belief, is also a belief in itself, and therefore a faith and a religion. Why? Because if you think that Science can disprove the existence of God, then you have faith that Science will do what it's not supposed to be doing, can do what it is incapable of doing. For Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Only some atheists think and claim that!

To prove that God does not exists, you have to look everywhere, make experiments everywhere, have those experiments repeated, verified, and be falsified by others in the cosmos. But no one can do that, only God can be anywhere and everywhere, even beyond the cosmos. So the next time somebody says "Science has disproven the existence of God", ask them "Who did the experiments? Have they look everywhere in the cosmos?". Heck, even the statement "Science has disproven the existence of God" is not scientifically testable.

And so here is why I say Atheism or Unbelief is a faith and a religion: In denying the existence of God, atheists or unbelievers accept the eternity of the material, natural universe. Their religion is "Scientific materialism" or "Naturalism": the belief that nature or matter is all there is, that everything can be explained by random physical, natural processes. Ultimately, their religion comes down to the complicated and complex results of the physical interaction of the elements of an arrangements of atoms-- Deo-Atomism (The Atom is God), if you will --like the human brain, for example. That's their religion, but they will never, ever admit it to be such.

I'll leave you with this quote allegedly by G.K. Chesterton, "When men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing-- they'll believe in anything!"

Shalom.

P.S. With the discovery in 1929 that the universe had a beginning, atheism has been in deep trouble. With the refinement of the teleological argument for the existence of God, atheism has taken a deadly blow for which it is now on its death throes. The horror of atheistic dictatorships have not helped either but instead dragged atheism closer to the brink of oblivion. Pity.

[tolstoi]

^^but who do you think is the creator/architect of everything?

[arnoldsa]

Sakto pod ka bai.......... if athiests say they don't believe in God but in Science, then they still believe in something (science).......therefore science itself can still be their god and atheism as their religion....... just like the communists perhaps...

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Sakto pod ka bai.......... if athiests say they don't believe in God but in Science, then they still believe in something (science).......therefore science itself can still be their god and atheism as their religion....... just like the communists perhaps...

Indeed. But the "science" they believe in, the "science" they glorify, the "science" they adore as their god is not even a true and proper science.

Oh, those marxists, leninists, maoists and the rest of the ilk are perfect examples of these. In their religion, the Party ultimately becomes God. Mao was holding back a truth when he said "The masses is God and God is the masses." Of course, he meant "The masses (under the dictatorship of the proletariat that is under the 'leadership' of the Party) is God and God is the masses (under the dictatorship of the proletariat that is under the 'leadership' of the Party)."

I use to embrace the tenets of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism although I could never bring myself to agree with Mao's statement that "The masses is God and God is the masses." Somehow, I retain the truth that God is a being in and of Himself (and, thank God, I never fell into atheism like almost all who embraced this ideology do eventually) that He could never be any or any number of His creatures. It occurred to me back then that to make such an ontological leap would be intellectually, philosophically dishonest of me. Oh, that was the showstopper for me. That marked the line of "this is how absurd it can go". From there, I slowly realized the truth and wisdom behind "Men cannot build a just society without God", which made me reject MLM outrightly and return to the bosom of Mother Church.

Shalom.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

^^but who do you think is the creator/architect of everything?

Um, is that a rhetorical question for me?

If not, of course, the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator and Architect of all things, seen and unseen.