There is a bit of discussion here about whether religion is the default position at birth. Some say it is, some say it isn't. You are all wrong.

There is a fair amount of evidence that spirituality is both innate and heritable. Innate means we are programmed with a biological bias one way or the other that we can't change (like sexual orientation), and heritable in this case is good evidence for this preference coming from our genes rather than upbringing or other external factors. http://www.acperesearch.net/aug05.html

From what I can tell, this innate inclination towards spirituality is rather weak when to compared to something like sexual orientation, but nonetheless it is there. Weak or not, it is relevant to this discussion. People genetically programmed to prefer spirituality will have religion as their default position when born. And the reminder won't have religion as their default position. Since the world is made up of all types, you can not make a blanket statement about "the" default position.

Whether Atheism is a belief systems seems to be a similar question. As I understand it, disproving the statement "God exists" is impossible. Therefore to absolutely deny god exists is a statement of belief, just as currently absolutely insisting god does exist is a belief. So Atheism as defined by the dictionary (ie a absolute denial of the existence of god), is belief system just like religion.

The only problem is, I don't know of a single person who has adopted that belief system. Even Dawkins doesn't. Instead all adopt the position that they can't see any evidence of god they assume he doesn't exist. This is not much difference to say a persons belief in Einstein's theory relativity. In essence, they would be happy to throw it away if something that was a better fit for the evidence came along. This is a very different position to the absolute position of Theist and the Atheist (as defined by the dictionary).

AJ Phillips
You make a good point, I can see why some theists might view humanism in that way. Generally I don't believe that view is widely held ie. humanism is not to exalt man as a supreme being as some theists might think. But then I cannot really be sure what discussions take place within the Church.

I have read humanism described in different ways one that humanism wishes to advance the wellbing and advancement of humanity; and that humanism places man as supreme to everything else. The second being less flattering and misleading in my opinion. Wishing for the wellbeing and advancement of humanity is not the same as thinking that man is supreme. Indeed man is just one part of a wider ecoystem with the benefit of higher intellectual thought processes.

Other living beings don't seem to concern themselves with spirituality they are more focussed on where the next meal is coming from, or defending their territory, finding a mate and caring for young. It could be seen as both a curse and a privilege.

Christian friends and colleagues have described themselves as secular humanists so the perceptions vary widely.

rstuart for once I can agree with you. :)
Humans do seem to have some innate need for spirituality which manifests itself in many ways, not just via religion.

pft Humanism. It's just a recently trendy way to say I don't believe in god, but I want everyone to know I have morals. It's just the latest trend of the lefties. They made it up while sipping Chardonnay I believe.

To all the atheists here: You're showing how scared you are that you may be wrong.

To all the religious here: You're showing how scared you are that you may be wrong.

Mother is the name for god in the hearts of all children.

Religion is the theft of this love by evil men.

Pelican,

It’s been about 17 years since I stopped going to church, so perhaps things are changing now. But from my experience in a mainstream (Lutheran) church, the Theistic view of Humanism I gave earlier was very much a majority view.

Graham,

I can appreciate that you’d want to save face here being the chief editor and all, but all you’re doing is digging yourself in deeper.

Did you actually read what you linked to (http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/13/karl-marx-religion-2.htm)?

“According to Marx, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom.”

If what you’re saying is true, then you’d think it would read:

“...Religion is not merely a symptom, but the disease.”

<<Atheism is a belief system that holds that all there is to know can be known by scientific inquiry, and because scientific inquiry has not thrown up any evidence of God or gods then he, she or they do not exist.>>

No, again, that’s Materialism. A Materialist is an Atheist, but an Atheist isn’t necessarily a Materialist.

That being said, the following proves nothing...

<<But this goes beyond the claims that science makes for itself, which is what makes Atheism a faith as well as a belief system, because faith pertains to that which you cannot logically prove.>>

You’re inventing attributes to assign to Atheism willy-nilly and presuming to know what Atheists believe, hence the need to go back to the bare-bones definition of ‘Atheism’.

We can’t just re-define reality to suit ourselves.

<<Not all Atheists have a problem with the proposition that Marxism is an Atheistic movement.>>

I admitted earlier that Marxism was an Atheistic “philosophy” (not an actual “movement” as my clarification of your link shows), I then built on that to show that Marxism wasn’t “fundamentally” built on Atheism, but all you’ve done is dodge and weave and continued to make the same assertions without anything to back them.

Not very helpful to the discussion - which coming from the founder of this site - isn’t very encouraging.

I would have to agree with AJ here.

Religion was seen as a tool being used by the capitalists to oppress the masses.

Under Lenin and Stalin all forms of capitalism were ruthlessly stamped out and anyone with dissenting views was eliminated.

The church as an organisation was oppressed and so were many followers, however, if religion was anathema to marxism / communism, the church would have been eliminated not oppressed. The churches would have been levelled or converted, and all the clergy shipped to Siberia.

Ownership of the means of production was the main aim of Marxism, religion was entirely a side issue.

The website about.com is an american religious website whose interests are to tar athiesm with whatever odious associations it can. For unbiased opinion this is not the place to come.

Graham

Did an atheist drive over your pet budgie or something?

Your posts are becoming increasingly absurd - a poor excursion into semantic obfuscation. Despite your 'best' efforts your attempts at religious alchemy will not turn non-belief into belief.

A Marxist is most likely atheist, but an atheist is not necessarily a Marxist.

A Jew may be atheist, but an atheist not necessarily Jewish.

A flying spaghetti monster worshipper is not an atheist.

A Christian is not an atheist.

A Muslim is not an atheist.

A Hindu is not an atheist.

But...

A buddhist can be both atheist and buddhist - no deity but there is the matter of reincarnation.

An Australian can be both atheist and Australian.

A 'Calathumpian' may be atheist and 'Calathumpian'.

A person may not believe in any religion and refuse to label themselves an atheist - because they hate labels. I'm not keen on being labelled an atheist, not because I am anti religious, I just don't believe IN religion and its attendant deities.

Again I ask why is this so important to you? Why can't you just believe in your son of god, virgin births, resurrection and leave the rest of us NOT believing in any of that stuff?

_______________________________________________________

Why do you need to cast aspersions on non-believers?

_______________________________________________________