Does Atheism exist only because religion also exists?

Question

In other words, is it human nature to invent concepts that seem to give us life energy, a reason to be, and for these concepts to exist only because they have something to oppose? Like socialism opposes capitalism? Like Islamic fundamentalism opposes western democratic reform? Say you were born in a utopia, a place where people live in harmony with their environment and each other. No crime, no politics, no lies, no money and most importantly, no religion. Technically, you would be an Atheist, but the word would have no meaning, wouldn’t it?

Answer 1

Words can only be defined in terms of what they are not. We have green because it isn't red, blue or yellow. So atheists need the concept, and the word, because there are so many theists. They define themselves against the status quo. Most people are also a-goblinists, but we have no use for the word or concept, because there is no culture of goblinism opposing us.

But not everything is dichotomous, and some of those dichotomies you list don't even seem to work against one another.

Answer 2

Nope. You're incorrectly inverting modus ponens. It boils down to simple propositional logic. if you start with the proposition if P then Q and you assert that P is true then it follows logically that Q is true. It's written like this: if P then Q P hence Q An example could be P="I have the flu" and Q="I have a sore throat" giving us "If I have the flu then I have a sore throat." - a true statement, let's assume for the purposes of this argument. This will always produce true outcomes as long as the propositions P and Q are valid and the causal link is legitimate. This is known as modus ponens. You can perform some simple (and not so simple) transformations on it, and as long as you do this correctly the end result will also be true. For example, it's possible to arrive at the following: if P then Q not(Q) hence not(P) This is modus tollens. "If I have the flu then I have a sore throat." "I do not have a sore throat" "Therefore I do not have the flu." Again, a true statement. What you're not allowed to do, but you did anyway, is attempt this: if P then Q Q hence P This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent and there's no way to tell if it's true or not. If I have the flu then I have a sore throat I have a sore throat therefore I have the flu This is not necessarily true - there are other reasons you might have a sore throat. This is most commonly used (incorrectly) in arguments that go as follows: John: All republicans are against gun control Joe: That's not true. My uncle's against gun control and he's not a republican. Joe seems to think he's drawing a conclusion here but he's not, because John didn't make a statement about non-republicans. Joe's statement is meaningless in the context of this argument. And that's what you did. You affirmed the consequent, so what you said has zero importance and adds zero information to the conversation. You can't conclude that god exists from your premise. I hope you won't continue to make the same mistake. It's a very common one here among theists.

Answer 3

Actually it's biological. Most are engineered to experience God. Some of us are not.

Many Christians will argue this point. They say God would never create someone who couldn't experience him. Why not? Is he incapable of a miracle?

Atheists will say that since science can now reproduce the "God experience" in a lab then God does not exist. However, they can also reproduce the experience of eating apple pie and we all know that exists.

In fact, the basis of "true science" is that it becomes fact, and is no longer theory, when it can be reproduced in a lab.

Fundamentalism is not religion. It is a human flaw that we have to take anything too far. There are fanatics in every walk of life. Not just religion.

Friend Pamie: Quite the opposite. Science most often supports religion. Science does not spawn Atheists.

Answer 4

The state of being an Atheist is something all humans are born into. It is only when they are influenced by the society around them that they become indoctrinated into a particular religious doctrine.

In a society with no religion, there would be no Atheists, per se, because it is how everyone would be, therefore there would be no reason to name it.

Answer 5

Sophistry is rampant. It is the work of the devil to distort the truth of God's Word. This spiritual battle began long before humans existed, when God's most coveted cherub Lucifer fell from grace, along with other corrupted angels, and was banished into the abyss. And his defeat was sealed with Christ's death and resurrection. The devil's been working nonstop ever since to hide the fact that he's been defeated long ago by distorting this truth in the Word of God. Skepticism about God and His Word is growing because the enemy does a good job inserting doubt in the minds of people who sincerely want to seek His truth.

1 Samuel 15:23, Job 34:37

Honestly, the last part of your question really describes Heaven. And the way to get there is through Jesus.

Not sure if I answered your question.

Answer 6

Atheism really doesn't have any meaning besides that which it opposes. There could be no A-theism, without there first having been a Theism.

I don't think this necessarily implies that religion is born out of a need or wishful thinking. I am not religious because I NEED to be, or because I WISH it were true. I just happen to believe it is true. I do realize many probably are religious out of need or wishful thinking, but I don't think that applies to me.

Answer 7

Animals are atheists too - they don't know the concept of religion.

None of us have heard of wooblemurfens... (no such thing, btw) - but we ARE a-wooblemurfenists. We all have the absence of belief in wooblemurfens.

The word "atheist" probably wouldn't exist if no theists (aka, religions) existed... but the meaning of it is essentially there.

Answer 8

No, atheism would be the norm if religion didn't exist. It just might not have a name, just like no one really says they're "asolipsistic."

The word "atheist" would still have meaning, though, because even if NO ONE is theist, "atheist" still has the same meaning. Just like even though there are no aliens on this planet, it's not meaningless to say that we're earthlings.

Answer 9

The term atheist as I believe it is suppose to be a name not sure if it suppose to be an attack for those that oppose their belief in their god and or religion.

Answer 10

I can see your point. If there had not been religions that believe in gods in the first place, we would not have a position. True for many other philosophies, as well as religions.