Atheism VS Theism?

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Ball

Both faith, not both religion.

To be fair, theism doesn't necessarily entail religion any more than atheism does.

[BucephalusBB]

Originally Posted by Revasser

To be fair, theism doesn't necessarily entail religion any more than atheism does.

you are totally right.

It's just that theism can contain religion and atheism can't

My bad..

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Ball

you are totally right.

It's just that theism can contain religion and atheism can't

My bad..

What do you mean when say "contain religion"?

[BucephalusBB]

Originally Posted by Revasser

What do you mean when say "contain religion"?

Being part of.. Not that I really care, it's only a use of words..

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Ball

Being part of.. Not that I really care, it's only a use of words..

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, really, there's no reason atheism couldn't be part of a religion. There are a number of atheistic religions about the place. Or is that not what you meant?

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Greetings!

I'm very much a theist, and as to science and religion, I see them both as important/necessary and, properly viewed, as dovetailing very nicely!

Science explains the HOW of existence, and religion tells WHO and WHY. Different but complimentary roles and domains.

As I said, BOTH are needed!

Science without religion is gross materialism--bigger and better nukes. Religion without science is superstition and witch-burning.

And the quickest way to get into trouble is to try to use one in the place of the other!

Best,

Bruce

Frubals to you for a most excellent post!:

OK..to answer the OP...the reason I believe in God is that there are many things that science cannot explain, and the reason I believe in science is that there are many things that religion cannot explain.

[Elvendon]

To the OP: I believe in God because I must. I have been close to atheism and I was shrouded in despair as a result. I would still have faith even if the evidence appeared to contradict it. However, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor do I believe that science has no place in the modern world. Just as religion doesn't make aeroplanes, science doesn't bring spiritual happiness.

[Rejected]

I do not believe in a sentient supernatural deity.

"God" is a human construct used since antiquity to do a number of things.

Some of these things were benign, like explaining natural phenomena such as earthquakes and lightening.

Some were not, like justifying wars, subjugation and genocide.

I do not believe that morals are dependant on a personified deity, but that each of us are inherently divine in our own right, and are part of a larger divinity that is composed of the whole of existence. The universe was not called into being upon the will of a creator, but has always been existent in one form or another.

Today we have techniques of testing and observation that continually unravel the mysteries of the universe. Science has become God to an extent but the downfall is that science cannot satisfy the human hunger for the spiritual. This , I beleive, should be an individul journey for each person. Even though there are still unexplained anomalies I believe it is a mistake to attribute those things we do not understand to "God" instead of simply stating, "We don't know"

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by Mystic-als

So we can then say that both Athiesm and Thiesm are faiths. Or not?

I do not think of atheism as a faith since atheism is not a way of life, and since atheism does not refer to a complete worldview, but rather only a position on one issue.

However, there are atheistic philosophies to which one may have a commitment, perhaps in a similar way that one may have a commitment to a religion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Comet

PS- I would really love to hear from Pantheists and those that don't really fit the category of "Atheist or Theist" as defined by most.

For me it is all just a matter of perspective, and to some extent we can choose what perspective we are going to have.

Think about a person. You can choose to seem them as an individual, and this is useful in understanding things like rights and responsibilities. You can see them as a collection of organs and tissues, and this can be useful if you are a surgeon. You can see them as a series of chemical systems, and that is useful for prescribing drugs or deciding on a proper diet. You can see them as a total mass, or you can break that down into cells, molecules, atoms and even sub atomic particles. It is all in how you choose to look at it.

When it comes to religious/spiritual ideas I choose to see a person as a part of a whole, along with everything else. I choose to view everything as being a interconnected whole. The whole that I am referring to is of course the universe, which I sometimes refer to as “God” (note the “” that I almost always use). I find this useful both in developing a attitude of reverence for all things, and also for avoiding egotism. But it is no more true than any of the other perspectives. All perspectives are true.


I do not believe in a personal God as understood by most Abrahamic religions. I do not believe in a God that is anything like a limited human being, that has desires and intentions, or has human values and speaks to humans in a human language. This kind of deity is logically inconsistent with the universe, as I understand it. Of course my understanding may be (and almost certainly is) completely wrong, but I can only go with what I have.