PureX
Veteran Member
I've already posted, several times, that it is not common for atheists to be 'religious' about their atheism. I've only posted is that it's logically possible, and why I think so.
-
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!
Theists: Atheism is a Religion?
- Thread starter JChnsc19
- Start date
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
That was really long.....
There are too many points of here that I couldn't focus on one.
Anyways, the periods of having a false god [1970-85] and having no God [1993-2009] were over for me. During the time I was irreligious, I just drank booze, enjoy life with friends, work day in and day out. But it came to me that sooner or later everything would hit the fan because of what my sweet Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24. The seals have long been opened and the trumpets are about to be blown.
I think the world is not getting better, soon it will pop. The Lord God is my refuge when this happens while the rest of mankind will be thrown into chaos.
Why do I believe in the Lord God? Let me enumerate some of the reasons:
- To continue the life serving the Lord God without major problems amidst the turmoil in the world
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
- To die and enjoy the first resurrection when the last trumpet sounds or
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
- To be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ when the appointed hour comes.
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
I believe in the Almighty God because i want to fulfill the duty given to all humans. A fish, animal, insect, plant or bacteria does not have this duty. The rest of the world is non compliant with this God given duty.
I believe in the Father Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ because I want to be saved on the last day.
There is no planning involved, no brainstorming, and I do not follow blindly.
My knowledge about God is from the bible because following without knowing is fanaticism which isn't the right thing to do and devoid of the truth.
lukethethird
unknown member
An atheist can be just as superstitious as any religious person and adopt such 'tools' as you suggest, such an atheist would merely hold one less superstition, a belief in god/s, that's all, one's so called theological position as it concerns god/s would otherwise have nothing to do with it, and proof of that is that there are atheists that are not superstitious at all.
Last edited:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That doesn't actually answer my question.
It seems you are merely trying to say that you shouldn't have to answer it because it's not common.
Please answer my question.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
This must be your previous post:
Who cares if it's in the Bible?
I do care.
Do you believe in the Easter Bunny or not?
No I do not in Easter and its bunnies or its eggs.
And if you do not, are you then practicing a religion?
Yes I do. I do go to church twice a week and I have a church duty as a member of the Finance Department.
If you're going with that, then you're turning all kinds of non-religious things into religions.
It can make stamp collecting into a religion.
It can make skiing into a religion.
It can make reading into a religion.
It can make cooking into a religion.
It can make singing into a religion.
It would seem to make the word "religion" into something people don't actually mean when they use the word "religion," as well as making it rather meaningless.
Explained it that the word "religion" could be used metaphorically.
What is a metaphor?
met·a·phor
Dictionary result for metaphor
/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/
noun
noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors
- a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
"her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor"
synonyms: figure of speech, figurative expression, image, trope, allegory, parable, analogy, comparison, symbol, emblem, word painting, word picture;
literaryconceit- a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"
- a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
PureX
Veteran Member
There are theists that are not superstitious, as well. Superstition is not a requirement for religion, nor for a theistic position. A theological position is "so called" because that's what it is: a position held in regard to the nature and existence of gods. The position that gods do not exist unless and until they can be proven to exist to the satisfaction of the atheist is a theological position held by that atheist.
PureX
Veteran Member
As I have also already posted, above, an atheist might employ such religious tools as the ideology of "scientism" (the belief that only science can provide humanity with 'the truth' of existence), and the practice of repeatedly arguing for and proselytizing their theological position whenever they perceive disagreement. These are both common aspects of religious theism, and both can be and are also employed 'religiously' by some atheists.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What I'm asking is why should others care when you quote it to them?
Do you care if someone quotes say, the Quran to you?
Okay, so you don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Do you think your lack of belief surrounding the existence of the Easter Bunny is a religion?
Do you worship the non-existence of the Easter Bunny? Does it take faith to lack a belief in the existence of the Easter Bunny? Because that's what we're talking about. Try to stay on point here.
Uh, so you're just using a literary tool when claiming that atheism is a religion? What good does that do?
You've made the word meaningless and useless. Congrats, I guess.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
All theists are superstitious by definition; they believe in supernatural causes. If an atheist held a theological position that atheist would be a theist. Atheists don't even know of the gods that they don't share beliefs in with the theist because it is left up to theists to describe these so called gods, it is not necessarily a pass time of atheists to describe gods. The theist's position is based on a superstitious way of thinking involving the supernatural, many atheists don't think that way and therefor do not hold a theological position.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
I am a theist and I do not presume any "supernatural" causes.
Please explain how you justify presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not a theological position regarding the nature and existence of gods.
Atheists are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what the term "God" means both to themselves, and to the various theists they encounter. And, in fact, it is their presumed meaning of the term that they are asserting does not exist unless and until it can be proven to exist to their satisfaction.
Some are and some are not. Superstition is not a requirement of theism.
Atheism is a theological position, by definition, as it is the antithetical position to theism.
lukethethird
unknown member
God is a supernatural entity by definition so I have know idea how you get around that one.
Atheists can hold a worldview based on physics wherein supernatural entities and therefore superstitions of any sort do not play a role, they are just not mentioned, therefore the atheist's so called position is based on physics rather than a theological position.
All an atheist needs to know is that gods are supernatural entities by definition, beyond that it is left up to the theists for details as to what their gods are capable of.
Like I stated, physics adequately describes our experiences, no need to invoke the supernatural.
Actually it is. Superstition is a prerequisite for theism
Atheism is a position based on physics wherein theology does not even get so much as a mention.
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Presuming that [no gods exist unless and until they can be proven to exist] is not atheism. I asked you before for any reference to this as a definition of atheism and you couldn't provide one. Atheism is not believing in any gods. I have never even knowingly met anybody, either online or in real life, that takes that position. It most certainly isn't my position, and I regard myself as an atheist.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I'd hardly say that the opinion that science is the best tool we have for finding out how the universe works is a belief comparable to religious belief. We have actual results from science to back it up. Science has done more to advance our knowledge of the universe than religion ever has. And science can be checked.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
PureX
Veteran Member
Easy, I don't know what God is, and I don't know what the limits of nature are, so I can determine what is or is not "supernatural". But I see no reason to presume that God and nature are mutually exclusive. I define God as the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence. As do many other theists. And that requires no superstition.
Looks to me like your atheism is entirely dependent upon a false definition of theism: theism = superstition. Thus, I suspect you will refuse to stand corrected, or you'll have to rethink your whole premise. We'll see.
PureX
Veteran Member
It is the position of pretty much every atheist I've ever met. Though I admit many of them try to pretend it's not their position by claiming only "unbelief" (which by itself is not atheism, but agnosticism). But when queried, they all proclaim loudly and with great surety that their "unbelief" is based on there being "no evidence whatever" to cause them to believe in gods. Which is, in fact, a back-handed way of stating that they do not believe that gods exist because they have not been given, nor have they found (if they've ever looked), any evidence to support their believing in the existence of any gods. Thus, they are presuming that if gods did exist, humans could experience and recognize the evidence of it, and to the degree that it would convince even the atheist "to believe".
Please explain where I'm getting this wrong.
Other self-proclaimed atheists, here: please explain how I've gotten this wrong.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Neither would I. But believing that it's the ONLY possible method of gaining truth, is. Just consider how many theists would say the exact same thing about 'divine revelation'. And yet there are a significant number of atheists that believe this, and quite adamantly, too. They blindly presume that "how the universe works" is the sum total of the truth of existence. Just as some theists believe that their God is the sum total of the 'truth of existence'.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I suspect it's more what you want to think atheists believe because it's easier to criticise.
Lacking a belief in god(s) is actually a perfectly normal, everyday definition of atheism (unlike yours): atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
All of which is perfectly rational.
That doesn't follow at all.
Look, if, before the formulation and testing of general relativity, somebody had suggested that space and time were aspects of the same thing and that space-time could curve, it would have been perfectly rational to disbelieve it on the basis that there was no evidence that this was the case. Later, when both a rational argument and evidence was available, it was rational to accept it.
God(s) may exit despite the lack of evidence or reasoning to suggest that it/they do. Nevertheless, the total lack of evidence (that I have so far encountered) is sufficient reason to not believe that they/it do, until and unless evidence or reasoning is forthcoming.
This isn't complicated and is exactly the same approach I (and many others) take to all sorts of other things, like ghosts, vampires, alien abductions, and so on.
Edited for typos.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
Atheism very narrowly defines belief systems that are based on physics. A much broader definition of such a belief system would be skeptic, which incidentally happens to include the rejection of theism along with many beliefs that people hold such as the belief in ghosts, chem trails, a flat earth, astrology, and, well, the list is virtually endless. A non belief in theism is merely incidental and insignificant to all the things skeptics reject for the very same reasons, that is why atheism is far too narrow a definition for the belief system of a skeptic.
Your belief in God and meaning is personal and has nothing to do with objective reality, it is meaningless to describe reality on those terms to anyone else.
Last edited: