It is normal in that people don’t start out believing in a god. Like illiteracy is normal for humans. I’m not suggesting a value judgment, just that it isn’t a religion. Religions are the things that move people from being Atheists to Theists. Like learning to read is something that moves people from being illiterate to literate.
Except in the case of theism, it generally makes you stupider. 
I think people believe in Christianity (or any other religion) for a number of reasons, the biggest, of course, being that they were raised that way and continue to live in a society that encourages that belief.
But humans needed to invent gods for two very important things. One is to deal with the idea of death. We can’t really deal with the idea of not existing at all, and we certainly don’t want to. The other is to deal with the basic uncontrollable nature of things, and the lack of purpose in our existence and actions.
Those, I think, are the reasons people believe. But then there are the pushers: the people who actively promote their particular religion and are high-level within it. And that, I believe, almost always comes down to power. Religion in general, and certainly Christianity, is a wonderful tool for gaining and retaining control of others. What better authority and authorization can you have than an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-present god?
Without this motivation to promote specific and less-intuitive religions, I suspect that people would still believe, insofar as people believed at all, in nature spirits. But then, I also suspect our population would be much smaller and our technology much less advanced. Religion has been an enormous force for organization, and I question whether any early agricultural civilizations could have really made it big without it.
Finally I have a philosophical proof for compelling people to do the horizontal monster mash with me! Mijin you’re my hero.
No it isn’t.
Are some atheists fervent? Of course. So are some Red Sox fans, Star Wars fans, Libertarians, fly-fishers, fitness buffs, and any other hobby/belief/lifestyle/fandom you’d care to name. Does that make them religions? Of course not, not unless you stretch the definition of relgion so broadly that the word loses all meaning.
As far as dogmatism goes, atheists all believe that there is no evidence for a God. If they didn’t believe this they would by definition not be atheists. But anyone who believes something believes what they believe. Therefore, by your logic, anyone who believes anything at all is dogmatic. Again you stretch the word so that it loses all meaning.
Christians don’t, in fact, believe this.
Or this. At least not the vast majority of them.
Kind of an unfair way to describe the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Of course, if you get to define all the terms, you can make anything seem pretty silly.
Nope, Christians don’t believe this either.
Wrong. People who lack a belief in [God aren’t acting on any kind of faith - since they have not been provided with convincing evidence (remember, those who claim that something exists bear the burden of proof), they see no reason to assert that God exists. Absence of a belief in X is not the same as belief that X does not exist.
Now, if someone were to assert, “God does not exist” as an absolute truth, I’d expect to see them either provide some backing or allow that they’re claiming to have proved a negative. But “I don’t believe that God exists” is not a statement of faith.
I wanted to believe. Believing meant that things weren’t my problem. Believing meant that if someone’s life sucked, well, they could look forward to better later. Believing meant that I was loved even if everyone hated me, and that I couldn’t do anything bad enough to turn God against me. Believing meant that I belonged. Believing meant that there was structure and purpose. Believing meant that I was right and I could point to how right I was.
Believing met the problem of evil and got its ass kicked.
I completely agree with what you posted. But… you are NOT disagreeing with ME. You are disagreeing with what I would have said, IF I had said “agnostic” instead of “atheist.” Agnostics don’t take a stand, because they have no data, and they are being logical. Atheists DO take a stand without data or evidence, so that IS a belief system.
Nope.
Atheists take a stand because there is no data or evidence and thus, no belief system.
You do realize there is a place between “absolute truth”, which is a ridiculous concept that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world and “no data”? Both the atheist and agnostic position is that the data indicate that there is no god with a level of certainty so high it literally defies human comprehension, but obviously not “absolute” in the The Matrix sense, no.
monstro I forgot to give you props on your post, really well put.
And there are few people that grow up in an environment as religious as yours apparently was, and yet can be honest with themselves about what they believe.
It would be quite interesting to see someone undertake an experiment. No audible praise for one year. They can pray as usual, go to church, etc… Just no audible praising. I wonder how they’d handle that?
I’ve often found the compulsive praise to be evidence of a lack of faith as far as I can tell.
So absence of proof is proof of absence? I guess I wasted all that tuition money on logic courses in college.
(I’m glad I started this thread in the Pit…)
For fuck’s sake, No, you moron!
That’s your strawman / misconception of atheism that you keep repeating. No-one is claiming to have proven that there’s no god.
I begin to think you did, yes.
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.
Why do you eat? Do you eat because you have an intellectual understanding of your body’s requirement of nutrients, and of how ingesting material will satisfy that need, and so you make a decision to fulfill that need? Or do you eat because you’re hungry?
Religious belief and religious social activity satisfy needs, emotional and otherwise, in humans. Asking “why Christianity?” is akin to asking “why corn?” or “why beef?”
Does that make peg-legged a style of gait?
Next time you pay for a logic course, you might try actually going to class.
You sure as hell did if you’re bringing up Pascal’s Wager as any kind of compelling argument.