Atheism cannot be discounted as a belief system
James Mack, Jr.
Issue date: 1/20/06 Section: Ed-Op
Hell hath no fury like that of an atheist in federal court. Oh, the humanity when they find crosses on the side of federal highways - because you know that cross imposes religion on others unduly. There's many different kinds of atheism, from agnostics to liberal quakers. But the focus I would like to make is on the strong atheists - those who know for certain a higher deity does not exist. Interestingly enough, I do not debate the merits of their belief that God does not exist. That's just as silly as trying to debate the divinity of Christ with a Christian. Instead, I debate their classification in our culture. Whether they admit it or not, these atheists act like any other religion and have the same reliance on faith any other religion possesses.
Rationalism uses science, instead of theology, to obtain and discover knowledge. Using some forms of rationalism, answers to questions can come about entirely out of empirical, worldly evidence. They believe spiritual faith is not appropriate in knowledge. This very belief, though, is simply a belief. They cannot prove God doesn't exist; they can only infer it through rationalization. Rationalization is a popular tool among strong atheists. Although they can claim any religion needs to prove God exists, they are under an equal burden to point out every possible location of God and then say with certainty that God does not exist. Maybe they can do that; maybe they can't. In the end, they have as much faith God is not involved as, say, Christians have faith God is indeed involved.
One tenant of some atheists is secular humanism. The name is self-descriptive, but it basically entails the belief that there is no proof for anything supernatural, and humans are capable of solving human problems. It effectively places mankind at the top of the theological scale. In the end, though, it is a belief. They have as much proof humans are responsible for our betterment as Christians say God is responsible. Atheists using secular humanism, however, believe that their faith in secular humanism excludes them from the category of religions because it denies godly explanations. The reality is quite the opposite.
Rationalism uses science, instead of theology, to obtain and discover knowledge. Using some forms of rationalism, answers to questions can come about entirely out of empirical, worldly evidence. They believe spiritual faith is not appropriate in knowledge. This very belief, though, is simply a belief. They cannot prove God doesn't exist; they can only infer it through rationalization. Rationalization is a popular tool among strong atheists. Although they can claim any religion needs to prove God exists, they are under an equal burden to point out every possible location of God and then say with certainty that God does not exist. Maybe they can do that; maybe they can't. In the end, they have as much faith God is not involved as, say, Christians have faith God is indeed involved.
One tenant of some atheists is secular humanism. The name is self-descriptive, but it basically entails the belief that there is no proof for anything supernatural, and humans are capable of solving human problems. It effectively places mankind at the top of the theological scale. In the end, though, it is a belief. They have as much proof humans are responsible for our betterment as Christians say God is responsible. Atheists using secular humanism, however, believe that their faith in secular humanism excludes them from the category of religions because it denies godly explanations. The reality is quite the opposite.
is a member of the 
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Matt V
posted 2/01/09 @ 3:07 PM EST
"One tenant of some atheists is secular humanism".
I stopeed reading after this sentence as your opinion suddenly became null!
1) I imagine you mean tenet, not tenant. (Continued…)
Sunjay R
posted 2/06/09 @ 5:56 PM EST
add "combative" as the 2nd tenet
John Q
posted 6/09/10 @ 9:27 PM EST
"There is as much of a duty to prove religious objects exist as there is a duty to prove they do not exist."
This is wrong. You cannot put forth an unfalsifiable claim and put responsibility on someone else to prove you wrong. (Continued…)
Post a Comment