Religious Atheists?

[PureX]

I think a lot of people get confused in this area of discussion because they think religion is about 'belief', or 'unbelief', when it's really about faith. Faith does not require belief, even though both atheists and theists often wrongly presume so. We don't have to 'believe' that God exists to make the choice to trust in that idea, and act accordingly. There are a number of other legitimate reasons that one would make this choice even though they don;t "believe in" the proposition that the choice is based upon.

They might do so because they simply hope that the proposition is true. Or they may do so because their loved ones believe in the proposition and they don't want to frustrate their belief, or contradict their intentions. They may do so because they find that in following the religious proscriptions, their life is being improved. Or they may decide that this religion and it's proscriptions align with their own philosophical position of life, and so choose to follow them for that reason.

Too many people put way too much emphasis on 'belief', and then overlook all the other, and often more grounded reasons for why someone would choose to adhere to a religion. Just as an example, there are many different "beliefs" being held about God among professing Christians. And there are a lot more Christians who do not believe God exists among them, than one might think. Belief is not the only criteria defines people as Christians. It is one criteria, but faith and function are just as important, and are often more likely.

 

[crossfire]

Buddhism is a human philosophy because it comes entirely from inside of a human.
Hinduism cannot be placed in history and so I see it as philosophy also.
Judaism and Christianity are based on the actions of God in history and so are not philosophies.

Separation of the sacred from the profane is usually a sign of religion. The practice in Buddhism is to withdraw from the bustle of everyday life (secular-profane) for a bit to meditate in the sacred space of your mind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In a couple of Dharmic religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, it's acceptable to be a follower of that religion and to identify as an atheist at the same time depending on the school of philosophy one follows

Questions like this are settled by how words like religion are defined. In my mind, if you don't believe in a god or gods, you don't have a religion. I don't consider atheistic philosophies to be religions, even if others use the word that way.

Atheistic Christians, for example aren't Christians to me except culturally. If they don't believe that Jesus died for their sins or that there is even a god, they aren't considered Christians to me, just as if they do hold those beliefs, however much other Christians want to deny them if their behavior is repellant, they're still Christian to me. It's very helpful to begin with a clear idea of what one means when using a word so that it's easy to see what things are included in its (lexical) extension. If one does that, so much of the semantic confusion in these types of discussions goes right out the window.

 

[nPeace]

I think a lot of people get confused in this area of discussion because they think religion is about 'belief', or 'unbelief', when it's really about faith. Faith does not require belief, even though both atheists and theists often wrongly presume so. We don't have to 'believe' that God exists to make the choice to trust in that idea, and act accordingly. There are a number of other legitimate reasons that one would make this choice even though they don;t "believe in" the proposition that the choice is based upon.

They might do so because they simply hope that the proposition is true. Or they may do so because their loved ones believe in the proposition and they don't want to frustrate their belief, or contradict their intentions. They may do so because they find that in following the religious proscriptions, their life is being improved. Or they may decide that this religion and it's proscriptions align with their own philosophical position of life, and so choose to follow them for that reason.

Too many people put way too much emphasis on 'belief', and then overlook all the other, and often more grounded reasons for why someone would choose to adhere to a religion. Just as an example, there are many different "beliefs" being held about God among professing Christians. And there are a lot more Christians who do not believe God exists among them, than one might think. Belief is not the only criteria defines people as Christians. It is one criteria, but faith and function are just as important, and are often more likely.

In my experience, there are a good many people who have ideas, but these ideas do not seem to be tired to any 'holy' writings, but seem to stem from their own thinking.
It does cause me to wonder why people think that they know the answers, when God has not inspired them... Or perhaps they feel that way.
I don't think I have ever asked anyone why they feel they know the things they are saying, I wonder if I might ask you Pure. Why do you think the idea that your idea is correct?

I tend to follow the writings of the holy scriptures, because they give evidence of being the inspired word of God, and those who wrote them were part of the history of God's people who claim to write under inspiration.
In there, I read at Hebrews 11:6 . . .Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

Hundreds of other parts of the Bible also give the same thought.
In fact, in discussing faith, James said... "You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith apart from works is inactive? " (James 2:19, 20)

 

[Dawnofhope]

In a couple of Dharmic religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, it's acceptable to be a follower of that religion and to identify as an atheist at the same time depending on the school of philosophy one follows, and doing so is generally accepted by followers of these religions (not that debate between the schools of philosophy isn't all that uncommon). We have followers of these religions who are atheists on this very forum.

My question is this: Is it possible in your religion to be a member of or follow your religion and identify as atheist? Why or why not?

We have atheist Baha’is and had one on the forum a while back. Its a matter of personal belief and really no one’s business. God could be seen as a symbol or metaphor as with the existence of the soul after death. I personally don’t hold that view and disagree with it, but wouldn’t oppose a Baha’i who did, nor see a role for the institutions of the faith in opposing. Muhammad said “Let there be no coercion in religion”.

 

[PureX]

In my experience, there are a good many people who have ideas, but these ideas do not seem to be tired to any 'holy' writings, but seem to stem from their own thinking.
It does cause me to wonder why people think that they know the answers, when God has not inspired them... Or perhaps they feel that way.
I don't think I have ever asked anyone why they feel they know the things they are saying, I wonder if I might ask you Pure. Why do you think the idea that your idea is correct?

I don't. And I don't think I'm at all alone in feeling that way. I have no idea what "God" is or even IF God is. And I know a whole lot of Christians, and people of other religions, that feel the same way I do about it. For them, and for me, none of this is about what we think we know. None of this is about "believing in" some religious depiction of "God". What it's about is NOT KNOWING, ... and so choosing to trust in an idea and ideal that we, personally, hope to be true, even though we can't know it to be so, or not so. And then trying to live accordingly because we find that doing so gives our lives more value and purpose.

I understand that you often run into theists who claim they "know God". But mostly they're just saying that because that's how they've been taught to speak about faith. Once you get to know them, and they speak more honestly and personally about it, you realize they don't "know" anything. And they know they don't. "Believing in" it is really just a manner of speaking. It's how they've learned to "live as if".

I tend to follow the writings of the holy scriptures, because they give evidence of being the inspired word of God, and those who wrote them were part of the history of God's people who claim to write under inspiration.
In there, I read at Hebrews 11:6 . . .Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

Hundreds of other parts of the Bible also give the same thought.
In fact, in discussing faith, James said... "You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith apart from works is inactive? " (James 2:19, 20)

Like it or not there are many ways of interpreting those quotes other than the way you've chosen. And those other ways of interpreting them are just as logical from their perspective. But the real point is that we each have to interpret the words to mean what matters to us. And then choose how we are going to respond to their significance. "God" comes to people on their terms, or God doesn't come to them at all. Because people can only understand God by their own means and in their own way. God is bigger than any "right or wrong" interpretation. And bigger than "our" interpretation. God must be able to be many things to many people. Or God is mostly going to be useless.

 

[nPeace]

I don't. And I don't think I'm at all alone in feeling that way. I have no idea what "God" is or even IF God is. And I know a whole lot of Christians, and people of other religions, that feel the same way I do about it. For them, and for me, none of this is about what we think we know. None of this is about "believing in" some religious depiction of "God". What it's about is NOT KNOWING, ... and so choosing to trust in an idea and ideal that we, personally, hope to be true, even though we can't know it to be so, or not so. And then trying to live accordingly because we find that doing so gives our lives more value and purpose.

I understand that you often run into theists who claim they "know God". But mostly they're just saying that because that's how they've been taught to speak about faith. Once you get to know them, and they speak more honestly and personally about it, you realize they don't "know" anything. And they know they don't. "Believing in" it is really just a manner of speaking. It's how they've learned to "live as if".
Like it or not there are many ways of interpreting those quotes other than the way you've chosen. And those other ways of interpreting them are just as logical from their perspective. But the real point is that we each have to interpret the words to mean what matters to us. And then choose how we are going to respond to their significance. "God" comes to people on their terms, or God doesn't come to them at all. Because people can only understand God by their own means and in their own way. God is bigger than any "right or wrong" interpretation. And bigger than "our" interpretation. God must be able to be many things to many people. Or God is mostly going to be useless.

Would it not be better in that case to start your comments with, "I don't know... but really my feelings / belief on the matter is..."?
I think that would be better for persons feeling that way, rather than say "People think XYZ but really that is not the case" when you really don't know that, and don't believe it's true, but just think it.
That way, it does not come over as though you are speaking as though you have knowledge on the subject.
At least that's the way I see it.

 

[PureX]

Would it not be better in that case to start your comments with, "I don't know... but really my feelings / belief on the matter is..."?

Yes, but that isn't how religion teach people to think or behave. Religions are man-made, and so tend to want obedience and control. So they demand this false pretense of surety, and "knowledge". And people comply with that jargon even though they do not really feel so convinced because they want to hope and trust in the God and salvation of their limited understanding. And the religion does help them "act as if". So they often "talk as if" they believe/know even when they don't.

I think that would be better for persons feeling that way, rather than say "People think XYZ but really that is not the case" when you really don't know that, and don't believe it's true, but just think it.

We ALL "really don't know that, but just think it", when it comes to what's going on in the minds and hearts of others. I'm simply sharing what I have heard and observed of them.

That way, it does not come over as though you are speaking as though you have knowledge on the subject.
At least that's the way I see it.

Humans are human. They are often confused and inarticulate about the difference between what they can actually 'know', and what they 'believe' they know. Especially when they are deliberately taught to be confused in that regard, by others, and when our egos are always insisting, within us, that we be 'right' even when we're wrong.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, but that isn't how religion teach people to think or behave. Religions are man-made, and so tend to want obedience and control. So they demand this false pretense of surety, and "knowledge". And people comply with that jargon even though they do not really feel so convinced because they want to hope and trust in the God and salvation of their limited understanding. And the religion does help them "act as if". So they often "talk as if" they believe/know even when they don't.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that that is not true, because I was with a religion from very young. Whe I was in my very late teens, although I belonged to a religion, I did not feel that way. Many persons I talk to have the same experience, and they were in their late 20s and 30s.
So that would not be the case, if what you say is true.

After studying the Bible, and seeing things for myself, I became convinced based on what I read in the Bible, that what I understood was true, and it took time - even to this day, I am still gaining more understanding.
It is because of the Bible - not religion, that I, as well as other persons, have the view that what the Bible teaches is true, and therefore there is an organized group of believers... religion if you prefer, that is following the Bible's teachings, and as stated in the Bible, Jesus is with them, as promised.

We ALL "really don't know that, but just think it", when it comes to what's going on in the minds and hearts of others. I'm simply sharing what I have heard and observed of them.

I don't think it's fair, or reasonable that because I don't know something, then it means that automatically everyone else is in the same boat as I am.
That does not follow. That is not reasonable.
Does that really sound reasonable to you?

The apostle John said,
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error.
We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one. 1 John 4:6 ; 1 John 5:19 

Unless you are of the opinion that there were never representative of God - namely prophets, and Jesus and his apostles, who knew the truth about God, and taught it, I would have a hard time understanding why you don't accept that there are people on earth who know, while others don't know.
Do you think that God did not deal with anyone on earth - including Abraham, Moses, David, Hezekiah, Jesus...?

Humans are human. They are often confused and inarticulate about the difference between what they can actually 'know', and what they 'believe' they know. Especially when they are deliberately taught to be confused in that regard, by others, and when our egos are always insisting, within us, that we be 'right' even when we're wrong.

Not all humans
Some humans can't swim. Does not mean that humans can't swim. Some human don't bathe. Does not mean that all don't.
Some humans are ignorant, Does not mean that all humans are.
Because most humans do not know something, does not mean that all humans don't know it.

For example, because Richard Dawkins, and others don't believe God had anything to do with the universe, and our home, does not mean that all humans are in the same boat as them.
They can never prove or disprove it, but what would be the case when it is proven? Those who knew... knew.
Not true?

 

[PureX]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that that is not true, because I was with a religion from very young. Whe I was in my very late teens, although I belonged to a religion, I did not feel that way. Many persons I talk to have the same experience, and they were in their late 20s and 30s.
So that would not be the case, if what you say is true.

After studying the Bible, and seeing things for myself, I became convinced based on what I read in the Bible, that what I understood was true, and it took time - even to this day, I am still gaining more understanding.
It is because of the Bible - not religion, that I, as well as other persons, have the view that what the Bible teaches is true, and therefore there is an organized group of believers... religion if you prefer, that is following the Bible's teachings, and as stated in the Bible, Jesus is with them, as promised.


I don't think it's fair, or reasonable that because I don't know something, then it means that automatically everyone else is in the same boat as I am.
That does not follow. That is not reasonable.
Does that really sound reasonable to you?

And yet, isn't that exactly what you just posted, above?

The apostle John said,
We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error.

Sounds more like a cult of "correctness" than a spiritual pathway to God

Unless you are of the opinion that there were never representative of God - namely prophets, and Jesus and his apostles, who knew the truth about God, and taught it, I would have a hard time understanding why you don't accept that there are people on earth who know, while others don't know.

We are all "representatives" of God. We all have equal access to God's truth through Creation.

Do you think that God did not deal with anyone on earth - including Abraham, Moses, David, Hezekiah, Jesus...?

I think those are characters in religious stories intended to represent man's relationship with God as the people who created them understood it. To presume them to be more than that is to invite idolatry.

Because most humans do not know something, does not mean that all humans don't know it.

There are a great many things that NO human can know, or do. And pretending and 'believing' that we can know or do them does not change the reality of that fact. It just makes us liars.

For example, because Richard Dawkins, and others don't believe God had anything to do with the universe, and our home, does not mean that all humans are in the same boat as them.
They can never prove or disprove it, but what would be the case when it is proven? Those who knew... knew.
Not true?

What is true is that no human knows the origin, nature, or purpose of the universe. Not Richard Dawkins, and not you (or me). And pretending to know is just as dishonest of you as it is of Dawkins, or anyone else.

 

[capumetu]

In a couple of Dharmic religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, it's acceptable to be a follower of that religion and to identify as an atheist at the same time depending on the school of philosophy one follows, and doing so is generally accepted by followers of these religions (not that debate between the schools of philosophy isn't all that uncommon). We have followers of these religions who are atheists on this very forum.

My question is this: Is it possible in your religion to be a member of or follow your religion and identify as atheist? Why or why not?

It is kindof an oxymoron isn't it sir. Why would someone who does not believe in God be religious. I do have a possible answer. It is because of being created in God's image. We are the only species on earth to perform religious rituals, the reason is because of it being created in us to worship.

Interestingly Paul ran into a group like this in his travels, it can be read in your Bible at:
(Acts 17:22-28) . . .Paul now stood in the midst of the Ar·e·opʹa·gus and said: “Men of Athens, I see that in all things you seem to be more given to the fear of the deities than others are. 23 For instance, while passing along and carefully observing your objects of veneration, I found even an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’ Therefore, what you are unknowingly worshipping, this I am declaring to you. 24 The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples; 25 nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things. 26 And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27 so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28 For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’

 

[Brian2]

Your ideas of what makes something a religion or philosophy are quite...idiosyncratic.

Maybe, I,m not sure.

I would also argue that many of the "stories, people and events" in the Bible are "hard to place in history."

The stories in the Bible are becoming easier to place in history all the time as archaeologists keep finding new material from those days. The secular view of the veracity of the Biblical history seems to an obfuscation of what has actually been discovered by archaeologists.

Lastly, a Christian does have a right to participate in secular government, but not to impose her religious ideas on others. Though that's another topic.

I would say that Christians should not impose their morality on to all the people. But of course it is hard to draw the line at times at times. Christians see their morality as good for society just as other people see their's as good for society. The source of the philosophy should not matter.
Interestingly people want to keep religion out of politics but are happy to let anybody else with any philosophies impose those philosophies onto them as long as it is not overtly religious.
These days many are saying that religion has oppressed people and they don't want to be oppressed. There is a throwing off of the shackles of what the Bible tells us.
But that is another topic as you say.

 

[nPeace]

And yet, isn't that exactly what you just posted, above?

No. There was a misunderstanding.

Sounds more like a cult of "correctness" than a spiritual pathway to God

We are all "representatives" of God. We all have equal access to God's truth through Creation.

I can't represent something I don't know. Can you?

I think those are characters in religious stories intended to represent man's relationship with God as the people who created them understood it. To presume them to be more than that is to invite idolatry.

As I said above. I can't represent something I don't know.
If you think the grass is green and the sky is blue (not being technical), and I think the sky is green and the grass is blue, we can't both be representing the same thing.
So I can't see how your previous statement that we are all representatives of God can be true, when you think people presume things which can be known, and you think something completely different to others.

There are a great many things that NO human can know, or do. And pretending and 'believing' that we can know or do them does not change the reality of that fact. It just makes us liars.

Just the same, the opposite is true.

What is true is that no human knows the origin, nature, or purpose of the universe. Not Richard Dawkins, and not you (or me). And pretending to know is just as dishonest of you as it is of Dawkins, or anyone else.

I don't want you to miss the point of what I said.
What is true, is true, whether one knows it or not, but one who believes what is true, is believing what is true, regardless of who does not believe it.

 

[PureX]

I can't represent something I don't know. Can you?

Yes, ... Taoism.

If you think the grass is green and the sky is blue (not being technical), and I think the sky is green and the grass is blue, we can't both be representing the same thing.

Of course we can, and are. The grass and the sky still are what they are, even if we see them differently.

So I can't see how your previous statement that we are all representatives of God can be true, when you think people presume things which can be known, and you think something completely different to others.

"God" is bigger than what any of us thinks. And includes us all.

"Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it.
That is why every being
spontaneously honors the Tao.

The Tao gives birth to all beings,
nourishes them, maintains them,
cares for them, comforts them, protects them,
takes them back to itself,
creating without possessing,
acting without expecting,
guiding without interfering.
That is why love of the Tao
is in the very nature of things."
- from the Tao Te Ching​

I don't want you to miss the point of what I said.
What is true, is true, whether one knows it or not, but one who believes what is true, is believing what is true, regardless of who does not believe it.

The truth is 'what is'.

There is no "untruth". Only different experiences of truth.

 

[Brian2]

After studying the Bible, and seeing things for myself, I became convinced based on what I read in the Bible, that what I understood was true, and it took time - even to this day, I am still gaining more understanding.
It is because of the Bible - not religion, that I, as well as other persons, have the view that what the Bible teaches is true, and therefore there is an organized group of believers... religion if you prefer, that is following the Bible's teachings, and as stated in the Bible, Jesus is with them, as promised.

I really find it hard to believe that anyone who studied the Bible without the Watchtower literature to "help" could end up with the same doctrines that the WT has. The Watchtower has said as much in their publications in the past.
You Can't Read The Bible Without The Watchtower!!!!

 

[paarsurrey]

In a couple of Dharmic religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, it's acceptable to be a follower of that religion and to identify as an atheist at the same time depending on the school of philosophy one follows, and doing so is generally accepted by followers of these religions (not that debate between the schools of philosophy isn't all that uncommon). We have followers of these religions who are atheists on this very forum.

My question is this: Is it possible in your religion to be a member of or follow your religion and identify as atheist? Why or why not?

It is a sign of confusion, I understand. One wants to ride two boats at a time, isn't it, please?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a sign of confusion, I understand. One wants to ride two boats at a time, isn't it, please?

Regards

Yeah, everybody else than you are confused. I mean, I am so confused that I didn't write this. It is truly a miracle that all these confused humans have a life.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is a sign of confusion, I understand. One wants to ride two boats at a time, isn't it, please?

Regards

Are you saying that one is not permitted to ride more than one boat in your religion?

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you saying that one is not permitted to ride more than one boat in your religion?

The "rider of two boats (a proverb in Urdu language) has his one leg in one boat and his other leg in another boat is sure to fall in the water and to drown. In Revealed Religions there is reasonably no place for this "ism" called Atheism etc. Either one believes in G-d and is a believer, or one doesn't believes in G-d and one is a disbeliever. Right?
In man-made religions one can combine or not combine any number of them, as confusion + confusion+ confusion is more and more confusion. Right?
Why not research and resolve this situation with Religious Method and find the Truth, please? Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yeah, everybody else than you are confused. I mean, I am so confused that I didn't write this. It is truly a miracle that all these confused humans have a life.

But one has not combined Atheism with any Revealed Religions, at least I don't see it displayed as such, one has only "the Wrong one", but still "One" not two of them. Right?

Regards