• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion and Atheism

ecco

Veteran Member
1. God is undefined.

No. Gods, or even just the "God of Abraham" has many different definitions.

2. Do you agree/disagree with the following: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent supernatural theistic deity does not possibly exist in a universe where children suffer.


Several more concise alternatives...
An omnipotent deity does not possibly exist.
An omnipresent deity does not possibly exist.
An omniscient deity does not possibly exist.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Atheism and theism are worldviews, but they are not religions. Religions require tenants, rituals, etc, plural. Neither theism or atheism has more than just one tenant, no rituals, etc. Just the one answer to one question: do you believe in at least one god?
There are atheistic and theistic religions, but they are not, in of themselves, religions.

Besides, I think the question sidesteps the common ground of exploring moral and ethical solutions to problems, which is definitely not exclusive to religion.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Hi ecco.. our paths cross again, it seems. ;)

Not me. I want to embrace my fellow wanderers and seekers of truth on this lonely planet. We are in this together, and i am inclusive in seeing my atheist brethren as fellow human beings, groping alone in the dark, looking for answers for our existence.

Maybe its all for naught, and we'll all die in a meaningless , godless universe, with no soul, no purpose, and no hope.

But maybe there is a spark of Awareness.. a glimmer of sight in a world of blindness.

We're all blind men groping for the elephant. Perhaps each of our perspectives will bring Enlightenment.
You ignored the main question:
I've often wondered why religious folk, especially Christian Conservatives, are so keen on trying to equate atheism with religion.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
many atheists? Is it not just another opinion about the nature of man, God, and the universe?
Because they are accepting what they aren't in order to have those protections. Accepting such rubbish only serves to confirm their views that of course everyone knows god is real and even atheism as a religion acknowledges it (typically so they can all hate a god they dont believe in).
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
If 'Religious' only applies to theistic beliefs, why are there so many atheists haggling about definitions, in a forum titled, 'Religious Forums?'

I see clearly the inclusion of atheism as a 'religious opinion', in the public discourse, and cannot understand the great lengths some atheists go to to evade the descriptor.

Any 'religious' forum and open public discourse about religious beliefs, includes atheism.

Polls, that categorize religious beliefs ALWAYS include 'atheism', or some kind of 'no God' option.

It is clear to me, in actual practice, that atheism is a religious opinion, and deserves to be included with other religious opinions as beliefs about the nature of the universe. Denying this obvious reality is a game of semantics, for some agenda.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
You ignored the main question:
I've often wondered why religious folk, especially Christian Conservatives, are so keen on trying to equate atheism with religion.
I think that's because they realize that their ethics and world views are irrational and incoherent. By describing atheism as a religion they imply the non-theism is also irrational and incoherent.
Tom
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Now, now.. let's be civil and real, here. I implied nor said anything of the sort..

You want me to delve into the Question of Suffering with a one liner? :)

Shirley, you jest. ;)
Now, now.. let's be civil and real, here. I implied nor said anything of the sort..

You want me to delve into the Question of Suffering with a one liner? :)

Shirley, you jest. ;)

Please, can you answer the question: Is the suffering of children indicative of the non-existence of a highly powerful, knowing, caring theistic deity? ....;)
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Atheism and theism are worldviews, but they are not religions. Religions require tenants, rituals, etc, plural. Neither theism or atheism has more than just one tenant, no rituals, etc. Just the one answer to one question: do you believe in at least one god?
There are atheistic and theistic religions, but they are not, in of themselves, religions.

Besides, I think the question sidesteps the common ground of exploring moral and ethical solutions to problems, which is definitely not exclusive to religion.
If 'Religion!' ONLY meant institutions, then i would agree. But there are many, diverse opinions about the universe, that do not fit neatly into 'tenets' of a religious institution.

Atheism, likely, has more homogeneity of belief than other religious opinions.

The first amendment, common usage, and the dictionary does not limit 'religion!', to organized institutions, with rituals, dogma, and rules.

Why do so many atheists insist on the limited, 'institutions only!' definition of religion?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

Is this only about institutions? Hardly. It about belief.. freedom of conscience.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
You ignored the main question:
I've often wondered why religious folk, especially Christian Conservatives, are so keen on trying to equate atheism with religion.
I didn't ignore it at all. I reject the notion that atheists are on some higher plane of existence, or awareness, just because they are atheists.

I affirm that atheism is a religious opinion/belief/speculation, and is freely expressed in the public discourse along with other religious beliefs (and maybe more so!).

I INCLUDE atheists as fellow human beings, with religious opinions, like all other human beings.

The elitist fantasy that some atheists have is a problem. Some seem to think that aligning themselves with this groupthink ideal automatically makes them superior.. intellectually, and morally.

That is one possible conclusion, anyway.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If 'Religion!' ONLY meant institutions, then i would agree. But there are many, diverse opinions about the universe, that do not fit neatly into 'tenets' of a religious institution.

Atheism, likely, has more homogeneity of belief than other religious opinions.

The first amendment, common usage, and the dictionary does not limit 'religion!', to organized institutions, with rituals, dogma, and rules.

Why do so many atheists insist on the limited, 'institutions only!' definition of religion?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

Is this only about institutions? Hardly. It about belief.. freedom of conscience.
I am absolutely not suggesting institutions are part of the definition of religion. But a *series* of beliefs and rituals. A plurality of belief, not necessarily a plurality of individuals or organization heads et all that make an institution
Neither theism nor atheism qualify because they are an answer to only one question and only that answer unifies them under one group. That some fraction of them can have other similarities is of no more consequence than Seahawks fans also do. But being a Seahawks fan is not enough foundation to become an official religion, and neither is theism or atheism. As I said, there are theistic and atheistic religions, but they require more tenants and rituals.

The only way to make theism and atheism in of themselves religion is to make the word religion so vapid as to be unintelligible, and any label could be a religious one.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Please, can you answer the question: Is the suffering of children indicative of the non-existence of a highly powerful, knowing, caring theistic deity? ....;)
No. How can you make that correlation or assumption?

'I slammed my thumb in the door, therefore, 'no God'.

'The neighbor's cat killed a songbird. Therefore, 'no God.'

'A child died of cancer, therefore 'no God!'

Really?
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
No. Gods, or even just the "God of Abraham" has many different definitions.

Several more concise alternatives...
An omnipotent deity does not possibly exist.
An omnipresent deity does not possibly exist.
An omniscient deity does not possibly exist.

All mighty, all knowing, all encompassing, pure good are attributes outside the realm of possibilities.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
No. How can you make that correlation or assumption?

'I slammed my thumb in the door, therefore, 'no God'.

'The neighbor's cat killed a songbird. Therefore, 'no God.'

'A child died of cancer, therefore 'no God!'

Really?

Anybody caring person/theistic deity who could prevent a child from getting raped, would indeed not allow a child to be raped. Therefore, there is no mighty caring theistic deity.

Think about this: Each human being is ca, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 percent the size of the observable universe. So then, there'd be little reason why any all encompassing powerful being should significantly care about any of us little ole' human beings.
 
Last edited:

usfan

Well-Known Member
All mighty, all knowing, all encompassing, pure good are attributes outside the realm of possibilities.

Anybody caring person/theistic deity who could prevent a child from getting raped, would indeed not allow a child to be raped. Therefore, there is no mighty caring theistic deity.

..good examples of religious opinions. Some likely have different opinions, but that is the nature of religious/philosophical beliefs.

How do your beliefs NOT reflect your 'religious' worldview?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
The only way to make theism and atheism in of themselves religion is to make the word religion so vapid as to be unintelligible, and any label could be a religious one.
I prefer 'philosophical belief', as it loses the negative connotations of 'religion!'

And it seems to me that the term has become a pejorative, to demean the opposition.

What does it mean, to call someone, 'Religious!'? Do they bow to mecca 5 times a day? Go to mass? Believe in Wiccan ideas? Hold to a vegan diet? Practice yoga? Type daily on opinion forums?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It is clear to me, in actual practice, that atheism is a religious opinion,

Atheism is not a religious opinion. Atheism is not even an opinion about religions. Atheism has to do with gods, not religions. You really should understand the difference between gods and religion.

Atheism is not a religious opinion. Atheism is not an opinion. You really should understand the difference between opinions and beliefs.


and deserves to be included with other religious opinions as beliefs about the nature of the universe. Denying this obvious reality is a game of semantics, for some agenda.

Your views are only reality in your own mind because you are playing semantic games or because you truly are ignorant of basic word usages and definitions.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
..good examples of religious opinions. Some likely have different opinions, but that is the nature of religious/philosophical beliefs.

How do your beliefs NOT reflect your 'religious' worldview?

I know God as being our genetic code's Creator. The numeric and semantic message of "037" that's been embedded in our genetic coding by our Creator gets conveyed to me who computes with a base 10 numeric system.

This is evident to me by how each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us present day Earthling human beings with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .
Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing

https://www.researchgate.net/public...m_037_as_a_Base_of_Biological_CodingComputing

 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Atheism is not a religious opinion. Atheism is not even an opinion about religions. Atheism has to do with gods, not religions. You really should understand the difference between gods and religion.

Atheism is not a religious opinion. Atheism is not an opinion. You really should understand the difference between opinions and beliefs.




Your views are only reality in your own mind because you are playing semantic games or because you truly are ignorant of basic word usages and definitions.
Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinions.. ;)

No real need for the snark or indignation. :shrug:
 
Top