god help: Is Atheism a religion? - Help.com

I read the link that you included in your reply. I have a few questions though. I have met a lot of atheists that are very adamant that God does not exist rather than simply not believing that a God does exist. Furthermore, there is an argument that believers of certain religions are atheists towards the deities of other religions and therefore are part of another separate religion. However, I think that isn’t really true, instead atheism of other deities is rather simply a part of the religion that is already followed by these believers. (if that makes any sense! :D)

The only significant difference that I can find between Atheism and Religions is that religions prescribe/allow or do not allow certain practices upon their followers whereas Atheism permits/allows any and all practices.

I’m not really sure! I’ve gotta admit that the arguments for/against Atheism being a religion are both quite convincing!

New American Atheist wrote:
http://help.com/user/243882-new-ameri…

I saw your profile earlier but I think it doesn’t present a very good reason as to why Atheism is not a religion. The link that Miss Jessica Bunny provided, I think, argues the point more strongly.

I’ve got a another question, though! Why do some Atheists make it a sort of mission to prove to all believers that God does not exist? Isn’t it just as bad as some followers of religions who make it there mission to convert people?

Miss Jessica Bunny wrote:
Personally, I don’t care what people believe in, if anything at all, it’s when they try and shove it down my throat that gets my back up. If someone asks (and I’m in a mood to debate/converse about it) then I’m game for a good argument but 9 times out of 10 it’s more trouble than it’s worth, I prefer to steer clear of confrontation and ‘religious crazies’ do my head in…

I think I’m with you on this one. I’m frustrated by both “religious crazies” that keep trying to get me to convert to their religion (I follow a religion why should I have to convert to theirs). I’m equally frustrated by some Atheists that keep telling me that their is no God and that no one will hear my prayers (If that’s what you believe fine but why are you dissuading me from following my religion).

On many occasions I’ve expressed my opinions and why they are so but I haven’t forced upon others that my opinions are the be all and end all of any argument.

But the question remains, are those who “believe that a God does not exist” as opposed to those who “do not believe that a God does exist” (the latter seems more like Agnosticism than Atheism to me), followers of a separate religion altogether (whether that religion is called Atheism or something else)?

Firstly, I think I may not have been very clear when I wrote about Agnostics. In my opinion, Agnostics are unsure as to which religion they should follow because they are unsure as to whether God exists or not (therefore, the decision really only consists of two paths - existence or non-existence). If I’ve understood correctly, you are saying that you neither believe in God’s existence nor His non-existence because you do not see the need to believe in either. That’s fair enough but I find it hard to believe that the majority of Agnostics follow the same logic.

My reasoning for the above stems from our concept of time. I think that you may be looking at the issue of God’s existence/non-existence from the wrong perspective. I believe everything in the universe has a reason or cause as it is one big system (the entire universe is bound by time and space) but it is what is outside of this universe (which is not bound by parameters, as in God) that does not require a reason or cause. Therefore, the existence of anything outside the universe cannot be proven or disproven as we live within the universe and ultimately cannot comprehend that which is not bound by parameters that apply to us. So, when we look at concepts such as existence/non-existence, we can only see/understand them through our perspective (a perspective which is hampered since we are bound by time). Thus when we apply such concepts to God, we tend to place everything in the framework of time and create a sort of timeline of events.

In my opinion, it’s necessary to remove time out of the equation. Although nothing predates God, nothing postdates/comes after God either. Everything begins with God and ends with God.

Once we have eliminated time, it’s easier to understand that even if non-existence came from God (ie He created non-existence), it does not mean that He is non-existent. Similarly, God is existent but not because he created existence. For example, if a child comes up with an idea, that idea does not become part of the child on the virtue that he predates the idea as it came from him.

This all may be better expressed as follows:
God created non-existence … therefore, non-existence (as a creation) became existent but was separate from God and remains separate from God during its existence … when non-existence (ie the creation) rejoins God it becomes non-existent … therefore, non-existence becomes non-existent. God is present the entire time, it is the creation (non-existence) that is present and is not present.

PS This is all very complex and rather convoluted but I hope it makes some sense and is at least somewhat helpful!

And just to add some words for thought (Stated by Ali ibn Abu Talib):

“Whoever said in what is He(God), held that He is limited; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical closeness. He is detached from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and apparatus. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in its absence.”

Interesting response but I think you have to bear in mind the following:
1) In order to follow the logic above we must assume that God exists or is present from the beginning till the end as this is inherent in the claim that God precludes the ideas of existence and non-existence.
2) It is essential to understand that a creation cannot affect the Creator (ie God) despite the vice versa being true (The Creator can affect the creation). Creations can only affect other creations. So, for example, human beings can affect one another but they cannot affect God although God can affect them.
3) When existence becomes non-existent, this existence is in relation to other creations not the Creator. So, a particular creation (or all creations) cease(s) to exist when their existence becomes non-existent but God remains unaffected as he always has from the beginning till the end.
4) The above is also applicable to non-existence which is also in relation to other creations but not the Creator.

Hope this helps explain some points!