Is religion correct or atheism

Answer 1

If we knew that then there wouldn't be any religion or atheists, depending on the answer. However, some definitions might be useful:

Strong atheists are certain there is no god

Atheists believe there is no god but accept there is no certain proof.

Agnostics believe the question of the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved

Theists believe there is a god but accept there is no certain proof.

Strong theists are certain there is a god.

Most people who call themselves atheists are probably in the second group; Richard Dawkins, who may be the most famous living atheist, puts himself in this category. Most theists are probably in the 4th group - as the Bishop of Oxford said, "There's usually a mutual agreement between me and parishioners not to say what we actually believe; they think I'd be shocked and I think they'd be shocked."

Based on this, it's clear that the vast majority of people put themselves in the "not really sure" category.

Answer 2

The term "correct" doesn't provide a good context for an answer. Correct to most people implies "better" however a more exact definition would be "capable of being proved"Atheism is based on a world view that sees mathematical and scientific processes being the base causative method for all things. There is no need or room for "magic" as a source. This view is supported by a rigorous definition of the tests that must be applied to information to determine its trustworthiness and validity.

Religions world view is based on the existence of a invisible an d unknowable world of magic run by supernatural beings and inflicted on inhabitants of this world without explanation.No proof is provided or expected.

None of the standard methods of examination developed by the secular sciences have ever demonstrated the existence of the invisible world postulated by religion.

It mst be concluded that the atheist view is more in alignment with reality.

Answer 3

You'll have to make up your own mind about this. As far as I know, you can't conclusively prove the existence, or the non-existence, of God. You can check the Wikipedia for arguments for both points of view. Check the article "Existence of God".

Answer 4

Different people will answer differently.

Opinion: Belief in God is the more sensible of the two.

There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.
Here are a few.
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.Is there evidence against Evolution

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Professor Russel Stannard (a particle physicist) states: "The universe has been bent over backwards in order that intelligent life should exist...must have known we were coming."

3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient societyever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.

4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.

5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.

6) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.

c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.

d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are not minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?

- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the real chances of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."

Answer 5

A worldview is correct for an individual if it satisfies a need. Judaism satisfies a need for Jews; Christianitysatisfies a need for Christians; Islam satisfies a need for Muslims; Hinduism satisfies a need for Hindus, and so on. Each religion is correct for its followers, even though they can not all be true.

Presumably, atheists and agnostics do not have a need that requires belief in religion. For them, a religion can only be 'correct' if its God or gods actually exist. On this basis, an atheist will judge atheism to be correct, while an agnostic will suspend judgement.