# Is Atheism a "religion"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2000, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743 "2000-03-10T14:55:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/141 "2000-03-16T06:51:00Z")
OK, let’s see what I can do here. (And believe me, this is NOT easy.) **WhiteNight** said that I had a hole in my “atheism=arrogance” argument 'round about here: > [@](#): > > And if one needs no god, one must then believe oneself to be “too good” for God. **WhiteNight** asserts: > [@](#): > > The hole is that someone is capable of not needing something without being better than that thing. (and then confesses to a very odd eggplant fetish :)) True enough,as afar as it goes, but an eggplant _doesn’t have any power over you_. As a more accurate example, try this: For a child to say he doesn’t need a parent is for that child to say he is as capable as his parents. This (ideally) occurs when the child reaches a maturity level roughly equal to the parents (18, 20, after college, whatever). Now it’s true that as a child matures, his parents will allow more and more liberty. At almost any age, there will be some things that a kid can do without a parent’s help and supervision. But until he reaches the point of majority (ostensibly a point of equal capability for responsibility), the child will continue to need a parent. For a kid to say at age 11 (for example)that he doesn’t need a parent at all is silly and foolishly arrogant. By Christian definition, God is everyone’s parent, and mankind can NEVER reach His level of maturity and responsibility. Therefore we will ALWAYS need Him, therefore to say we don’t is arrogance. QED, and neener-neener. Now, then. **Spiritus** also saw a problem: > [@](#): > > Saying there is no god implies nothing about what an individual needs. Lou Gherig needed a cure for ALS. There is no cure for ALS. That does not negate his need. True. It is the Christian viewpoint that _everyone_ needs God. But I can’t imagine an atheist saying “There is no God, it’s all a sham, but you need Him anyway.” Certainly, some might say that people might need _faith_–fine and good. But are you, as a non-believer in God, going to tell me that anyone _needs_ an imaginary deity? How about this, then: “For an atheist to say that there is no god is to say that _God is meaningless and nonexistent_. And if _God is irrelevant_, one must then believe oneself to be “too good” for God. Ergo, arrogant.\*” Any holes in that one? -andros- (man, this is fun, but I don’t know how long I can keep it up) ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/142 "2000-03-15T19:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > but I don’t think Atheism as a school of thought lacks morality; and being a school of thought, doesn’t that make it a philosophy? Atheism says nothing at all about a moral system. The atheist will have a moral system of their own, of course, but it’s not a feature included in the atheism package. Nor is atheism a philosophy, or really a “school of thought”; it is a statement about the lack of belief in a single premise. If you don’t believe in X, whether X is God, Santa, quarks or true love, that does not give you a moral code or a philosophy; nor would I consider any one of those lack-of-belief statements to be an entire “school of thought”. All people have some sort of philosophy and moral code, including atheists; the question is, are these a part of the atheism package or are they independent of it? I could certainly not be able to state anything about what a person’s philosophy or moral code would be based on the knowledge that s/he is an atheist. Now, on the other hand, a person who is a Christian gets a belief in J.C. as a supernatural supreme being, a moral code based on Him, and a pretty extensive philosophy about what the world is like and how it’s put together (including metaphysics) all from Christianity. Do you see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/143 "2000-03-15T19:13:00Z")
I will trust the CGI. I will trust the CGI. I will trust the CGI. I will trust the CGI. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/144 "2000-03-15T19:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I will trust the CGI. And see? No multi-post for you. 🙂 Now I have to go off and delete the posts from those who were not so wise. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/145 "2000-03-15T19:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > “For an atheist to say that there is no god is to say that God is meaningless and nonexistent. And if God is irrelevant, one must then believe oneself to be “too good” for God. Ergo, arrogant.” > > Any holes in that one? Yes. 1. To say a thing is non-existent is not to say it is meaningless, though the two categories often overlap. the perfect human society does not exist, but it is not a meaningless concept. 2. If God is irrelevant, then I need think nothing at all about God. It is certainly not required that I think I am “too good” for a thing which does not exist. 3. If I did believe myself “too good” for a particular fictitious belief, how does that equate to arrogance? Are you arrogant because you do not believe that babies are delivered to parents in the mouths of storks? Also: There is no God, it’s all a sham, but **you** need Him anyway. Perhaps you can imagine an atheist saying that now. > [@](#): > > It is the Christian viewpoint that everyone needs God. Why does that have any relevance to the question at hand? Shall we also consider the Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Shinto, Taoist, Gnostic, etc. positions when speaking about what _atheism_ means and implies? * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/146 "2000-03-15T19:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Nen: > > Perhaps all the atheists you know are UUs, but one can’t extrapolate that all atheists are UUs; therefore, it is not necessary for all atheists to have a religion. Um, I didn’t. I was pointing out the coloring I discovered in my own thinking. > [@](#): > > Atheism is not equivalent to having faith in logic and/or science. Not having a belief in one thing does not necessitate a belief in something typically viewed as the only other option. Hmmm, ok… {thinking} > [@](#): > > Moreover, if you insist on declaring that atheist have “faith” in logic and science, all frames of thought become religions and the term becomes both all-encompassing and useless. OK, now, Nen? Deep breath - I’m not baiting or bashing anyone. I’m just talking out loud. OK? 🙂 I’m getting your point here, really! As I explained, the only Atheists I know are UU’s, so I’m getting this straightened out here. I’m finding this discussion very interesting and educational. > [@](#): > > Precisely what would an atheist worship in a church? I suppose there could be an Atheists Anonymous somewhere… Well, “church” is the wrong word, then, I guess. I’m thinking along the lines of Ethical Societies and things like that. Is there an Atheist Association of America or somesuch? I really have no idea. > [@](#): > > Interesting indeed, you’re walking on both sides of the fence now. No, no, I’m seeing everyone’s point here. I’m just playing Devil’s advocate for the sake of my own enlightenment… 🙂 > [@](#): > > Esprix said: The bottom line for me personally is that if I meet an Atheist and he considers it a religion, then I will, too; if not, I’ll work with whatever he wants to call it. > > I suppose that’s an amiable way to handle an encounter, but isn’t the pupose of this thread establishing the truth? Well, if one Atheist believes he has a religion and the other one doesn’t, which one is the truth? I think it’s a relative term. Out of curiosity, and this might have been done before, I pulled up the following from Merriam-Webster: > [@](#): > > b]athe·ism\*\* > 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity > > **doc·trine** > 2 b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA > > **re·li·gion** > 1 b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith I dunno - still seems to fit the technical def. of “religion” to me, but I do see everyone’s point, I really do. I guess the other reason I would still regard Atheism as a religion is that it is only talked about in a religious context - Atheism is the disbelief of a god, so it is always _related by context_ to religion. Does that make sense? (Dumb question to ask on this board!) > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Gaudere: > > Nor is atheism a philosophy, or really a “school of thought”; it is a statement about the lack of belief in a single premise… All people have some sort of philosophy and moral code, including atheists; the question is, are these a part of the atheism package or are they independent of it?.. Do you see the difference?\*\* I do. 🙂 Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/147 "2000-03-15T19:55:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by andros: > As a more accurate example, try this: > > For a child to say he doesn’t need a parent is for that child to say he is as capable as his parents… For a kid to say at age 11 (for example)that he doesn’t need a parent at all is silly and foolishly arrogant. I don’t think this is type of statement would be deemed arrogant, but ignorant instead. The child is simply unaware of the responsibilies of the parent. > [@](#): > > By Christian definition, God is everyone’s parent, and mankind can NEVER reach His level of maturity and responsibility. Therefore we will ALWAYS need Him, therefore to say we don’t is arrogance. QED, and neener-neener. Likewise, from the Christian perspective, this should be labeled a proof of ignorance, not arrogance. The Christian perspective, thus far, has not offered a reasonable arguement for attributing the quality of arrogance to atheists. It does, however, state that atheists ignore the power of that in which they hold no belief! > [@](#): > > How about this, then: “For an atheist to say that there is no god is to say that _God is meaningless and nonexistent_. And if _God is irrelevant_, one must then believe oneself to be “too good” for God. Ergo, arrogant.” The atheistic perspective: First of all, to say there is no god is to say the _term_ god is meaningless. To specify a relative and subjective ethical rank of oneself in relation to something which cannot be given a position on the same scale is also meaningless. How can one posit a meaningful relationship between something which has meaning and something which does not? IMHO, recognizing that one is merely a speck in the universe, rather than assuming the universe was made for one, is less egocentric. ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/148 "2000-03-15T20:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Esprix: > OK, now, Nen? Deep breath - I’m not baiting or bashing anyone. I’m just talking out loud. OK? Fine with me. I suppose that statement did come off a bit harsh…sorry. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/149 "2000-03-15T20:30:00Z")
**Spiritus** : > [@](#): > > 1. . . .the perfect human society does not exist, but it is not a meaningless concept. Only because some people hold a perfect society, or the hope of attaining such, as a goal. While only the most naive and diehard of romantics will claim that a perfect society is attainable, most every romantic will look (and often work) towards _elements_ of that perfect society. It can be broken into components. Ain’t the case with God. God is either/or, and either exists in some form or is irrelevant. Again, the _idea_ of God might be useful in society or whatever, but how is a nonexistent God meaningful to an atheist? > [@](#): > > 1. If God is irrelevant, then I need think nothing at all about God. It is certainly not required that I think I am “too good” for a thing which does not exist. It’s not a matter of how you feel about it, or think consciously about it, it’s a matter of your actions. By denying God, you have claimed that you find useless and meaningless faith in God, His Love, and His guidance. You have asserted that you are “too good” for God by your very denial of Him. > [@](#): > > 1. If I did believe myself “too good” for a particular fictitious belief, how does that equate to arrogance? I think I covered this a little in my last post (responding to **WhiteNight** ). God is your parent. He is Infinite and all-encompassing. For you to deny his existence is the height of arrogance. Further: > [@](#): > > Why does [the Christian viewpoint] have any relevance to the question at hand? It has every relevance, as I’m arguing the Christian viewpoint _advocatus diaboli_ in response to **nen** ’s challenge, “would anybody else care to seriously postulate a response on pashley’s behalf” near the top of this page. If you like I could argue the same from a I’m not talking in terms of Absolute Truth ™ here, just trying to form a coherent argument for a Christian belief in inherent egotism and arrogance in atheism. You do realize I’m not a Christian, right? -andros- ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/150 "2000-03-15T20:34:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Nen: > > Fine with me. I suppose that statement did come off a bit harsh…sorry. Pish-posh, no apology necessary. I could just tell that in the heat of the argument and me asking off-the-wall questions you thought I was arguing against you. No problem. 🙂 Esprix * * * [Ask the Gay Guy!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001376.html) ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/151 "2000-03-15T20:46:00Z")
**andros:** > [@](#): > > Originally posted by andros: > …I’m arguing the Christian viewpoint _advocatus diaboli_ in response to **nen** ’s challenge, “would anybody else care to seriously postulate a response on pashley’s behalf” near the top of this page. Thank you for rising to the challenge. I wouldn’t mind expanding that task to encompass other religions as well, but I think you may have your hands full at the moment. In regards to a response to your latest post, please refer to two posts above your last. The rebuttal stands unanswered. ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/152 "2000-03-15T20:56:00Z")
Damn error messages…I have an idea! I will trick the CGI. I will trick the CGI. I will trick the CGI. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/153 "2000-03-15T23:01:00Z")
Andros: The arguments you are making all rely upon several specific assumptions about the nature and characteristics of God. It is quite simple to say, “You deny the Christian god and by definition are thus arrogantly saying you are too good for him.” However, if you cannot defend those positions without reference to your own assumptions then you find yourself arguing a tautology. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/154 "2000-03-15T23:02:00Z")
I’m getting there, **Nen**! 🙂 > [@](#): > > I don’t think this is type of statement would be deemed arrogant, but ignorant instead. The child is simply unaware of the responsibilies of the parent. . . > > Likewise, from the Christian perspective, this should be labeled a proof of ignorance, not arrogance. But, **Nen** , ignorance and arrogance and egotism are not exclusive. In fact, some of the more egotistical and arrogant people I know are very ignorant. Further, the perspective from which I’m coming holds that arrogance does not necessarily imply malice, or even intent. The arrogant often do not realize their arrogance. So the issue of an atheist marking himself on a scale alongside God is moot. It’s not that the _atheist_ believes himself to be arrogant, it’s that the Christian _perceives_ him to be. Bear in mind that I’m trying to posit some reasons why a Christian might _believe_ an atheist to be arrogant or ego-driven–not reasons why atheists actually _are_ that way (which is obviously not an objective thing and one I cannot even pretend to argue). More to the point, ignorance is not an excuse, especially when dealing with Christianity. It’s all there, in the book. I think it’s safe to say that very nearly everyone in the “Western world” has been exposed to Christianity at some point or other. So the Christian view toward atheists is that they have been offered the Truth and have rejected it. They have been offered a relationship with God and have decided that they don’t want Him. They have been offered unflagging love and everlasting life and decided to make their own way. They have, in effect, decided they can make their own way in the world without Him. Remember, the Christian accepts certain defaults that an atheist obviously does not, to wit: God exists, He is all-compassionate, He offers eternal life, and _no one can succeed without Him_. So the Christian looks at someone who refuses God and sees someone who was offered everything and decided he could do as well on his own. Anyone who thinks they can do as well without God as with Him is both deluded and egotistical. If it’ll work better, let’s try this (and remember, we’re going from the premise that God exists): “An atheist who has had the chance to accept God and has refused that chance has chosen the Self over God, and believes the individual to be superior to Him.” It doesn’t matter to the Christian that the atheist doesn’t even believe God exists–the Christian does and that’s the only position from which they can judge. I had a post earlier to **Spiritus** which I didn’t finish. I’d be happy to argue from an Islamic perspective or a Jewish one, but my main knowledge is with Christianity. With the exception of Buddhism, which I feel to be more philosophy than religion, I think many of the ideas I’ve put forth hold for most religions. -andros- (disclaimer: I use “he,” “him,” and “his” as non-gender-specific pronouns. Please understand that I mean no insult or disrespect by it–I’m just lazy and don’t want to type “him or her” everywhere.) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/155 "2000-03-15T23:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi: > \*\*Andros: > The arguments you are making all rely upon several specific assumptions about the nature and characteristics of God. It is quite simple to say, “You deny the Christian god and by definition are thus arrogantly saying you are too good for him.” However, if you cannot defend those positions without reference to your own assumptions then you find yourself arguing a tautology. > \*\* Again, **Spiritus** , I’m only arguing why a Christian **might perceive an atheist to be arrogant.** I didn’t say it was necessarily logical objectively, just internally consistent. The Christian, like everyone, begins from certain premises. The Christian, like everyone, makes judgements based on those premises. In this case the main premise is that God exists. To deny that existence is stupid, because, well, God exists. So anyone who doesn’t believe that God exists is either ignorant (thus we get proselytizing and evangelizing) or severely deluded (thinking they have the Answers without God). I’m only trying to explain how some Christians think. I’m not trying to prove anything. -andros- ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/156 "2000-03-15T23:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, the idea of God might be useful in society or whatever, but how is a nonexistent God meaningful to an atheist? If an object does not exist, then that **object** has no meaning. However, the idea which that object would embody does have a meaning. This might be an issue of interpretation. I read “God is meaningless” to refer to the idea(s) which a hypothetical God would fulfill. If you meant the metaphysical object itself, then that object has no meaning if it does not exist. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of how you feel about it, or think consciously about it, it’s a matter of your actions. By denying God, you have claimed that you find useless and meaningless faith in God, His Love, and His guidance. You have asserted that you are “too good” for God by your very denial of Him. Let me see if I understand you. What I feel has no bearing on what I feel? I have asserted my “feeling” by making a rational decision and what I actually feel is not relevant? > [@](#): > > By denying God, you have claimed that you find useless and meaningless faith in God, His Love, and His guidance. No. I deny the existence of God. I do not deny that faith in God exists. I do not claim that faith in God is meaningless; in fact I consider it a profound influence on human events. And – one more time since you did not anser, are you too good for babies that are delivered to their parents in teh mouths of storks? > [@](#): > > God is your parent. He is Infinite and all-encompassing. For you to deny his existence is the height of arrogance. This argument is indistinguishable from, “It is arrogant of you to deny the existence Prometheus and Epimetheus.” It is far more arrogant for you to presume you know the characteristics of an infinite metaphysical being than it is for me to make a decision on a statement of fact. \*yes, I realize you are playing devil’s advocate. I am simply continuing teh “performance” in the same vein. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![WhiteNight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b38774/32.png) [@WhiteNight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhiteNight)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2000, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/157 "2000-03-15T23:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Andros: (and then confesses to a very odd eggplant fetish ) ROFL. Well, eggplants are very very sensuous, with that smooth black skin, and light, yeilding flesh. Ohhhh, drool! 🙂 > [@](#): > > True enough,as afar as it goes, but an eggplant doesn’t have any power over you. As a more accurate example, try this: > For a child to say he doesn’t need a parent is for that child to say he is as capable as his parents. This (ideally) occurs when the child reaches a maturity level roughly equal to the parents (18, 20, after college, whatever). Now it’s true that as a child matures, his parents will allow more and more liberty. At almost any age, there will be some things that a kid can do without a parent’s help and supervision. But until he reaches the point of majority (ostensibly a point of equal capability for responsibility), the child will continue to need a parent. For a kid to say at age 11 (for example)that he doesn’t need a parent at all is silly and foolishly arrogant. > > By Christian definition, God is everyone’s parent, and mankind can NEVER reach His level of maturity and responsibility. Therefore we will ALWAYS need Him, therefore to say we don’t is arrogance. QED, and neener-neener. If you define god as something we can’t live without, then someone who says we can live without it is wrong, if we assume you’re right. But, athiests survive and prosper, which must mean that they don’t need that god, thus he can’t be all that useful, thus not needing him isn’t that big of a deal. I need water to live, I tried to live without this, and found very quickly that I do need it. I’ve tried to live without god, and have discovered no need within myself, or externally, for god, thus I have decided that I don’t need god. Thus water is more important than god. You could say either that god made the water, or that I’ve only lived my mortal life without god, that I’ll burn in hell for it later, but both of those are outside the scope of this, because they assume faith in that god and all supporting works. Your argument falls apart in the end, where you assert that god is something we need, or that a lack of something implies a lack of need, etc. But, not bad, from trying to prove something that’s fairly obviously wrong, you got further than I would have. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2000, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/158 "2000-03-16T00:53:00Z")
Quote: > [@](#): > > If you define god as something we can’t live without, then someone who says we can live without it is wrong, if we assume you’re right. > > But, athiests survive and prosper, which must mean that they don’t need that god, thus he can’t be all that useful, thus not needing him isn’t that big of a deal. From a christian’s POV, You do need God. A true christian will depend on the “support of God” during certain times of his life. The athiest would depend on another source of support. Example-" Well, it was the support of God that allowed me to get through being kidnapped." ,something that is completely real to that individual, VS. " It was planning how I was going to turn the tables and kill my kidnapper that got me through the ordeal.", a completely different source of strength that is none the less just as real to that person. The point is, that to a christian, Support of God is indeed a necessity **TO THEM**. Many find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine life without it- thus to them it is just as important as air, water or food. ## The other answer to that question would be that corporal life is just a fraction of eternal life, and while God might not be necessary for that part of it, he sure is for the rest. Tell ya what. I’ll meet you 10 minutes after the last one of us dies, and we’ll see who’s right. Deal? Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2000, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/159 "2000-03-16T01:10:00Z")
OK, kids, one more round and I’ll have to pick up tomorrow or Friday. **Spiritus** : > [@](#): > > Let me see if I understand you. What I feel has no bearing on what I feel? I have asserted my “feeling” by making a rational decision and what I actually feel is not relevant? I think you did misunderstand me a little. I was trying to establish that “arrogance” does not of necessity connote intent. Regardless of whether you are _trying_ to be egotistical, you are succeeding. Whether you believe in God or not, He believes in you. Sure it’s trite, but the fact remains that if I am arguing from a Christian perspective, whether you “think about God” or not is irrelevant. You have turned your back on Him. > [@](#): > > If an object does not exist, then that object has no meaning. However, the idea which that object would embody does have a meaning . . . > I deny the existence of God. I do not deny that faith in God exists. I do not claim that faith in God is meaningless; in fact I consider it a profound influence on human events. As I’ve said, that’s all well and good. Obviously beliefs influence behavior. But it’s irrelevant. _God_ exists. You deny that, you are wrong, you believe you don’t need Him. Let me rephrase the statement in question: “By denying God, you have claimed that you find useless and meaningless faith in God, His Love, and His guidance _in your personal life_. That is, you find God irrelevant and useless to you personally.” I think that’s a little stronger. > [@](#): > > one more time since you did not anser, are you too good for babies that are delivered to their parents in teh mouths of storks? Apologies, I missed it. You could well use that argument about the Tooth Fairy, Mithras, or the IPU. It’s a strawman–God provides the Answers, not a stork. It’s not egotism to disbelieve in a stork bringing babies–the stork isn’t God. (Yes, yes, I know that’s weak, and tautological. Deal with it. ;)) > [@](#): > > It is far more arrogant for you to presume you know the characteristics of an infinite metaphysical being than it is for me to make a decision on a statement of fact. Well, I could argue that we’re discussing _your_ arrogance, not mine, but I won’t. I _do_ know the characteristics of God–it’s all in the manual. Again, by abandoning Him you claim that you can go it alone, which is patently false. **WhiteNight** : > [@](#): > > athiests survive and prosper In this world, perhaps. But they are dead spiritually. > [@](#): > > both of those are outside the scope of this, because they assume faith in that god and all supporting works. Well, yes. If you believed, you would know that nothing is without the scope of God. > [@](#): > > Your argument falls apart in the end, where you assert that god is something we need Not at all. I contend that the need for God is a central tenet of Christianity. > [@](#): > > trying to prove something that’s fairly obviously wrong Hey, I’m not trying to prove anything. We’ve proven all we can prove–that some Christians think atheists are arrogant and egotistical. I’m just demonstrating the reasoning behind that belief. And all, I never said it was _good_ reasoning . . . 😃 -andros- ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2000, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743/160 "2000-03-16T01:11:00Z")
er, what **weirddave** said, too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-atheism-a-religion/17743.md?page=9)