I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!!

[Shad]

What was one's religion before being Deist? Later I understand one became a type of Christianity. Please
Regards

Read the comment....

 

[paarsurrey]

"Directly before I was a Deist. The last religion I was part of was Christianity."

Read the comment....

It is not clear.
Regards

 

[Shad]

"Directly before I was a Deist. The last religion I was part of was Christianity."

It is not clear.
Regards

It is crystal clear.Your understanding of English is the problem.

"The last religion I was part of was Christianity"

 

[paarsurrey]

It is crystal clear.Your understanding of English is the problem.
"The last religion I was part of was Christianity"

And your first one ? Please
Regards

 

[Shad]

And your first one ? Please
Regards

Christianity. Keep in mind you are asking for the religions I was part of. This will not include religions I entertained but never joined.

 

[paarsurrey]

Christianity. Keep in mind you are asking for the religions I was part of. This will not include religions I entertained but never joined.

Did you find some good evidence that "G-d does not exist" in Christianity term, God-the-Father? Please present that evidence.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Did you find some good evidence that "G-d does not exist" in Christianity term, God-the-Father? Please present that evidence.
Regards

No I found the evidence for the claims of Christianity lacking.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!!

Is it an acknowledgement from an Atheist that Atheism is a function of ignorance?
Regards

Faith is far closer to ignorance than prudence in not "buying into" anything that can't be supported with verifiable evidence. Subjective experience is severely flawed and unreliable. Which is why the scientific method is used to counteract the inherent bias of personal experience.

 

[leibowde84]

Would without a god be adeist?

"Atheism" is the lack of a belief in the existence of any deities. If "being without a God" means that one doesn't believe in the existence of any gods, then yes.

 

[leibowde84]

No...your confusing the word belief , in this context, for a counterpoint word to 'knowing'; which, it doesn't actually imply. Theism is 'belief', however, belief can be based on any evidence, /or lack thereof/. Ie you still label it 'belief'; //the belief

Ok, but how is that relevant?

 

[Muffled]

I address Him as Allah.
I used to write on a Jewish forum. The moderator/owner of the forum once informed that a lot many people who say that "God does not exist" mean that Jesus is not God, they are Christians and don't believe in the mythical God of Christianity. I noted that to differentiate from this, there, people spelled God as G-d, omitting the vowel yet keeping the constants intact. I liked the idea.
Allah may be addressed with any good attributes/names in any language:

[7:181] And to Allah alone belong all perfect attributes. So call on Him by these. And leave alone those who deviate from the right way with respect to His attributes. They shall be repaid for what they do.​

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=7&verse=180
Regards

I believe our God is real and present rather than stuck in a book like Allah.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My theism comes from this:

1) Let us define "gods" as that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship
2) Let us understand "worship" to be showing respect and gratitude for something; holding something in high regard, in a position of honor, or as sacred
3) There are many things in this world that I find worthy of worth-ship, that I consider valued and sacred
4) Therefore, these things are my gods, and my gods are an expression of my values

Well, that's thick with equivocation.

1) Let us define "white whale" as the greatest adversary a person has.
2) Let us understand "greatest adversary" as the thing a person hates most.
3) Therefore, the thing everyone hates most is a whale.
4) Therefore, everyone hates whales more than anything else.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, that's thick with equivocation.

1) Let us define "white whale" as the greatest adversary a person has.
2) Let us understand "greatest adversary" as the thing a person hates most.
3) Therefore, the thing everyone hates most is a whale.
4) Therefore, everyone hates whales more than anything else.

I'm sorry, is there a point to this other than mocking me and misrepresenting how I feel?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, is there a point to this other than mocking me and misrepresenting how I feel?

Just that the approach you describe doesn't really work, so it doesn't address the issues described in the OP.

How do you think I've misrepresented you?

 

[Quintessence]

Just that the approach you describe doesn't really work, so it doesn't address the issues described in the OP.

How do you think I've misrepresented you?

The purpose of that post (which was made way back in the summer of 2015, by the by) was to describe my approach towards theism. It obviously works for me (and some other theists, by happenstance) just fine. It was an observation (the first part, that you didn't quote, pointing out that one's status as an (a)theist is not necessarily related to what one thinks about cosmogony) and a personal statement. Calling it an "equivocation" and then posting a "parallel" that misrepresents and parodies the spirit of that post is something I found offensive and unnecessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The purpose of that post (which was made way back in the summer of 2015, by the by)

Yeah - sorry for that. It came up as a trending topic. I'd been mostly away for the weekend, so when I saw a whole unread thread, I assumed it was all new without checking the dates of the posts in it.

was to describe

my approach towards theism. It obviously works for me (and some other theists, by happenstance) just fine.

I meant that it's not a reasonable path to theism. I have no doubt that you can find many people who have adopted unreasonable views.

It was an observation (the first part, that you didn't quote, pointing out that one's status as an (a)theist is not necessarily related to what one thinks about cosmogony) and a

personal statement.

So it wasn't offered as an approach for consideration? It read like one.

Calling it an "equivocation" and then posting a "parallel" that misrepresents and parodies the spirit of that post is something I found offensive and unnecessary.

It wasn't *all* equivocation; for the record, these were the specific equivocations I was referring to:

- equivocating "God" with any object of worship.
- equivocating "worship" with finding worth in a thing (and before you say anything: I'm aware of the etymology of "worship". Etymology does not dictate definition).

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah - sorry for that. It came up as a trending topic. I'd been mostly away for the weekend, so when I saw a whole unread thread, I assumed it was all new without checking the dates of the posts in it.

I figured. I wager you know that moment of awkward when someone quotes something so old.

I meant that it's not a reasonable path to theism. I have no doubt that you can find many people who have adopted unreasonable views.

I find it perfectly reasonable, as do some other theists. If it is not reasonable in your opinion, that's fine.

So it wasn't offered as an approach for consideration? It read like one.

Sure, it can be an approach for consideration, and people can take it or leave it. I like it because it's far more culturally-neutral than what I'd been taught by my classical monotheist overculture. Realizing that gods are whatever a culture deifies - and that cultures deify things because they consider that thing of great worth, value, importance, etc - was both personally liberating and helped me understand and respect theological diversity. This approach it isn't for everyone, hence people can take it or leave it. I'd prefer that accusations of being "reasonable" or "unreasonable" based on this personal preference be left at the table, as they are unnecessarily judgmental.