-
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!
Can An Atheist Believe...
- Thread starter Skeptisch
- Start date
linwood
Well-Known Member
Yes.
The only thing one must not believe in is a god/deity.
I know atheists who believe in ghosts and little green men.
Dharma and Karma, particularly, aren't even necessarily supernatural.
Most can be explained by non-god methods. Angels would be the exception as an angel by definition is a servant of god.
Many people believe in energy aura's. This is how magic, ghosts are explained. Dharma or Karma is an event relation it either exists or doesn't. It is hard to prove either way.
If they aren't testable, then I'd call'm supernatural.
Ideological, perhaps, but hardly supernatural.
Dharma, for instance, is best translated as "teaching". It is quite simply the religious doctrine. It may or may not make supernatural claims, but it is certainly not supernatural in and of itself.
And Karma, poorly used as the word often is, is simply a belief - aproximately, the belief that actions bring consequences and that one should be in guard to know how to deal with those consequences.
Dharma, for instance, is best translated as "teaching". It is quite simply the religious doctrine. It may or may not make supernatural claims, but it is certainly not supernatural in and of itself.
And Karma, poorly used as the word often is, is simply a belief - aproximately, the belief that actions bring consequences and that one should be in guard to know how to deal with those consequences.
Last edited:
Wouldnt you guys agree that atheists feel that there is no scientific evidence for a supernatural god and they would apply the same standard to other supernatural concepts? So while atheists can believe in magic spells, ghosts and little green men, it is very unlikely that they do!
Unlikely, yes. Few do. But it is possible.
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
As theism is from the greek theos (god), it means to believe in some form of deity, and similarly a-theism is the lack of such beliefs. So the term only really describes ones position regarding belief in a deity. Of course defining a deity can be the subject of another debate, but most of us have some general idea or concept of what it means.
So the word permits an atheist to believe in any other 'believable' subjects, But in reality, and in all practical sense, many of the mainstream reasons and justifications for atheism, mostly centred around evidence availability will invariably cause many to not believe in such things as you mentioned, magic, ghosts and the like.
So as i said, one is entitled to believe whatever they want regarding other phenomenon whilst still holding the title and outlook of atheism, its just statistically you might find that many will have a global rule, or outlook that will not only result in them not believing in a deity, but other such supernatural things as well.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, most atheists I know base their rejection of god concepts on empiricism.
Not all however, I really do know atheists who believe in ghosts and little green men.
They are atheists regardless.
So why not call ourselves naturalists or pantheists. Maybe we could even get elected in the US.
"As I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that 'atheist' is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people 'non-astrologers. All we need are words like 'reason' and 'evidence' and 'common sense' and '********' to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion." Sam Harris
In order to be consistent, Harris said those who label themselves atheists would have to waste their time opposing all irrational faith claims equally. Instead he said those who do not believe in god should focus on challenging opposition to issues like stem-cells on the grounds of reason. Identifying as an atheist "squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues."
Last edited:
Definitely, because the only requirement for being an atheist is to lack a belief in a god or gods. Buddhist are technically atheists because they don't have a deity in their religion.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I dunno why you don't call yourselves naturalists. Call yourselves what you want.So why not call ourselves naturalists or pantheists. Maybe we could even get elected in the US.
However, calling yourself pantheist? Hmmm, I dunno. I've met pantheists who believe that God, the Universe, is both sentient and a creator, as well as those who believe neither. I think pantheism is too broad a term.
Then again, so is the term 'God'. I generally consider myself a theist, but I don't think that's quite the correct definition I'm looking for, especially since most people consider 'God' from an Abrahamic perspective, which is a style of deity I don't believe in (you know, flooding the world for sin and stuff like that). shrug
shrug
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
It's up to the individual.
My auntie who was an atheist was buried, my friend's father who was an atheist was cremated.
Agreed, but it lacks the attached stigma of atheism and that would be a huge step ahead in American politics.
Avoiding the stigma by lying outright is not something I long for.