Religion and Atheism

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't mean "without", it means 'the antithetical of'. To mean "without" would make it a meaningless tern, as it would designate an infinite state. The rain would be "without theism". The color blue would be "without theism". The number 5 would be "without theism". It would be a meaningless designation. But that's not what the a- designates. It designates the subject's antithetical. And the antithetical to the proposition that God exists, its that God does not exist.
"Belief" has nothing to do with it. Theism is not a "belief in the existence of God. Theism is the category of philosophy predicated on the proposition that God/gods exist. Philosophy isn't about what anyone believes or doesn't believe. It's about what one proposes to be true, and about debating the proposition, logically. One can believe in or not believe in a given truth proposition, and still debate it, logically, for or against it.
Well, that's what's best for you, I'm sure. Because that way you can attack the theist's proposition without ever having to defend your own. But no honest, discerning human is going to buy into that kind of intellectual ploy, nor let you get away with it.

Find a reliable source. You don't get to put your own spin on definitions of words that you do not understand.

 

[PureX]

Find a reliable source. You don't get to put your own spin on definitions of words that you do not understand.

I have explained the reasoning behind my definitive interpretation. I'm not seeing you doing this. Nor do I see you explaining to me how my interpretation is illogical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have explained the reasoning behind my definitive interpretation. I'm not seeing you doing this. Nor do I see you explaining to me how my interpretation is illogical.

That is just your opinion. I could "explain" the opposite. If you can't find a reliable source that supports you, especially in a matter like this, then your explanation is probably wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That's exactly what God is, TO US. But what God is or is not apart from us anyone guess, and no one's knowledge. Yet the same can be said of "existence". And of "objectivity". And of a nearly everything else we humans perceive/conceive of as being "real".

But this admittance of yours drains the concept of "god" of all practical utility while also making his/her/its existence or non-existence completely unimportant. What God is or is not isn't even a discussion worth having, at all, under your statement above, because no one has knowledge nor can have knowledge. And because no one has or can have knowledge - it puts "god" in a category of "who in their right mind would even care?".

It would be like if I insisted that there were something just beyond the periphery of each of our senses, that stayed there for each of us individually at all times, but was extremely important (for whatever reasons I devised). Let's say it's something like the ideas about human "soul" - and that without it, you perish. So, I tell you that you have to protect this thing and keep it safe:

"But I can't see/feel/taste/smell/detect it!" you might say.
"That doesn't mean it isn't there." I reply.
"How do I protect it?" you ask.
"No one has knowledge and no one can have knowledge!" I state proudly, smiling, with broccoli stuck in my front teeth.
"So, I just have to act as if it is there, even though I don't know what it means exactly that it is there, and considering that you're the only one telling me this, that it may not even be there at all? Not to mention the fact that people have been getting on just fine for thousands of years before this revelation of yours?" you ask.
"Yes." I reply as I exit the bathroom, toilet-paper stuck to my shoe.​

And afterward we can all attend the ceremony where I congratulate myself for being a complete and utter moron.

And for the record... the importance of your examples - "existence" and "objective" things within it -completely goes without saying. The importance of God? Is zero importance less than the importance of which particular molecules of oxygen one breathes in after a good, hearty laugh do you think? Yeah... we'll go with zero.

 

[wandering peacefully]

50 years ago, an atheist was someone who did not believe in God.

Still is! However some people get their jollies out of trying to make something more of it. You certainly are an atheist when it comes to Hindu gods. Do you have a set of rituals you practice to your atheism towards Hindu gods? Is you non-Hinduism a religion to you? Do you pray the Hindu gods you don't believe in?

 

[ecco]

1. There are millennia of human testimony, to the existence of God.

No. There are millennia of human testimony, to the existence of gods, not God.

No one believes in Atlas or Athena any more. You do not believe in Shiva or Allah. Muslims do not believe in your God.

Nobody seriously believes in the tooth fairy.

At least in this Country, the young are told about God, the Tooth Fairy and Santa. When they get older, their peers, their siblings, their families tell them the Tooth Fairy and Santa are not real. No one tells them God is not real. Every day the existence of an actual God is reinforced. Kids are taken to churches and Sunday Schools. There are constant references to God. People living through tornadoes, fires and floods are blessed and thank God. In a car accident, it is a miracle that Sally lived. Constant reinforcement.

 

[ecco]

3. Ignorance or denial of a spiritual/supernatural realm does not make it go away.

Denial doesn't make it go away for long. Religious people who stray because of personal tragedies usually return to belief in a God. It may not be the same "God" they left, but it's a return anyway. A Baptist may become a JW but essentially there is not much difference.

What does make it go away is a rational outlook. The realization that all gods are the creation of man's imaginings.

 

[ecco]

4. This 'sense', or awareness of the supernatural crosses all time, region, race, and culture.

What you call a sense of awareness of the supernatural comes from tens of thousands of years of man telling man the answer to the unknown is "GodDidIt". That was never a true reason but it was the best they had.

Today, there is no excuse for such ignorance.

 

[ecco]

6. The human mind/soul/essence is not satisfied with a godless, naturalistic explanation of our existence, but innately senses a spiritual reality.. in general.

Ten per cent and growing as more and more people realize "GodDidIt" is nonsense.

 

[ecco]

7. Minority, crackpot, and outlier opinions have always come and gone, in man's quest for Truth about our existence. The poem 'Blind Men and the Elephant', is a good word picture of this.

Every god other than "Mine" is a crackpot outlier opinion.
Every religion other than "Mine" is a crackpot outlier opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, the above could be said about anything that doesn't exist, or exists but is never presented in any way within your reality - and therefore may as well not exist. And because it can be said of anything like that, it means you are just speaking nonsense. It means that it is entirely arbitrary what you insert into the sentences you write, because it would all make just as much sense.

That does not mean "it" -- whatever it is -- does not exist; it might exist or not exist.
The mere fact that God is not visible in our world does not mean God does not exist...
It does not mean that God exists either. God either exists or not. What we beleive about God has absolutely nothing to do with it.
So either believers are right or atheists are right. We cannot both be right.

You say "it" may as well not exist, but if the "it" that is God exists, that is pretty important.

I know you have seen this kind of thing dozens of times before, but it is no less applicable in this situation:

The emoji at the end just rounds it all out perfectly, don't you think?

Cute, very cute, but if God exists it is a serious matter.
Then again, since you cannot prove that God exists you are willing to gamble with your eternal life...

To me it makes no sense to think that if God exists it could ever be proven so it is logical for me to accept that God exists without proof.... However, I probably wouldn't believe that God exists if there was no evidence because a God that does not provide any evidence is not worthy of belief.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That does not mean "it" -- whatever it is -- does not exist; it might exist or not exist.
The mere fact that God is not visible in our world does not mean God does not exist...
It does not mean that God exists either. God either exists or not. What we beleive about God has absolutely nothing to do with it.
So either believers are right or atheists are right. We cannot both be right.

That's just it... as an atheist I have nothing to be "right" about. I just don't believe. This isn't the same as making the claim that God doesn't exist. One of the best examples I have ever heard covering the difference involves taking stock of a jar of gumballs. Let's say I tell you that the number of gumballs in the jar is "even." Do you believe me? And if you DON'T necessarily believe me, does that mean you think that the number of gumballs is "odd?" Or do you refrain from making ANY claim as to even/odd until you have more evidence? i.e. you count the number and then KNOW. And therein lies the difference. I do not make the claim that no god exists. I simply don't believe your claim, and will withhold belief until such time as belief is warranted by the presentation of sufficient evidence.

You say "it" may as well not exist, but if the "it" that is God exists, that is pretty important.

Cute, very cute, but if God exists it is a serious matter.
Then again, since you cannot prove that God exists you are willing to gamble with your eternal life...

But a god of any description made by human beings is just as arbitrary as any claim I made about the "Smegglebarbs." Exactly as arbitrary. You just call it "god" and not "Smegglebarbs." There is just as much good evidence for either... the words of someone else. So what makes them any different?

 

[Trailblazer]

Wave energy, Dark energy, and Potential energy are all immaterial. Yet we can clearly demonstrate their existence, directly, indirectly, and objectively. Also, these energies can be easily falsified. So being immaterial is no excuse to finding evidence to confirm God's existence.

No, immateriality alone is not the reason we cannot prove that God exists. The reason is because God does not want us to be able to prove He exists, and since God is Omnipotent, God calls the shots.

If a God had, in any way, interacted with our 4 dimensional reality, there would be some evidence of that interaction. There isn't. And, I believe there can't be, without completely destroying all of the natural laws of physics.

God could interact with this world without affecting the laws of physics. For example, God could communicate to our minds and cause us to take a course of action. Of course there is no way to prove that. Nothing God does can ever be proven, but that does not mean God does not do anything; we just cannot state it as a fact, and that is why it is a belief.

I find it rather silly when Christians go on about what God is "doing" in their lives, as if they could ever know that God was involved in whatever happened... I coined the phrase "naive believer syndrome" several years ago on a Baha'i forum and they got up in arms. Believers like to think they know what God is doing but that is so naive. We can believe that God did something in our life but we can never know it.

Saying that I believe that God exists because I believe that a Messenger of God exists, does not evidence either.

I do not believe God exists because a Messenger of God exists; rather I believe that the Messenger of God is the evidence that God exists. God simply exists and would exist even if there were no Messengers. Of course there would be no way to know that God exists if God never sent Messengers, which is one reason God sends them.

Convincing myself to believe that something exists, that I can't demonstrate exists, just because others believe exists, is even worse than delusional. It is just gullible.

I agree. You should never believe that something exists just because other people believe it exists. That is the worst possible reason to believe in God. Baha'u'llah said that.

What is this way to prove to myself that God exists, since no one else can prove it for me("There is a way to prove to yourself that God exists..")? Never mind, I feel that it will be just another vacuous dangling participle, that promises something but will in the end deliver nothing.

In principle, it means that it has to come from within you, something you discovered yourself, not someone else's truth. If it does not ring true for you you should not accept it as true.

I am not God, so I do not know why it is so much more difficult for some people than for others to believe in God, and there might be reasons why it is not God's intention that everyone believes in Him.

Baha'u'llah wrote that those who make efforts will surely be guided. Motivation is very important in anything we do, it is what drives us, so if someone is not motivated they are not going to make that effort. For many decades I had no motivation so I was not guided. I still believed God existed but it meant nothing to me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

He has a point though; modern atheism largely arose in response to Classical Monotheism; it may be said to be a product of Abrahamic religion. You only have to listen to how most atheists phrase themselves, I don't believe in God. Only on here have I seen them include 'or gods'.

Check local listings.

I don’t think atheism in...say...India arose in response to Abrahamic religion.

Even if your point was generally accepted, it still ludicrous to call atheism an “Abrahamic religion.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still is! However some people get their jollies out of trying to make something more of it. You certainly are an atheist when it comes to Hindu gods. Do you have a set of rituals you practice to your atheism towards Hindu gods? Is you non-Hinduism a religion to you? Do you pray the Hindu gods you don't believe in?

I have an incredibly busy day due to my atheism. I get up in the morning and do not put fresh flowers and fruit on my altar to Buddha. I spend hours not praying at mealtimes, not praying five times a day to Allah, not repeating Sutras. With all of the constant religious rituals that I am not doing it is amazing that I don't do anything all day long.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Tao

Let’s find out...

Atheists: Do You Acknowledge the Tao As a God?

 

[Rival]

Check local listings.

I don’t think atheism in...say...India arose in response to Abrahamic religion.

I'd be interested to find out if Indian atheists tend to hold to the same progressivism and enlightenment ideals as Western ones generally do. That most atheists tend to be more liberal in this area is pretty much a given in Europe. Are Indian atheists like this? Because it seems to me that not only do Western atheists reject the Classic Monotheistic God, they also stand against most of the moral values such believers espouse, i.e, marriage between a man and a woman and not two same sexes.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Western atheists reject the Classic Monotheistic God, they also stand against most of the moral values such believers espouse, i.e, marriage between a man and a woman and not two same sexes.

There is a laundry list of "moral values" some religions espouse which atheists find repulsive. Marriage, sexual preferences, and other personal aspects of human's lives which the religious like to busy themselves with is just a sampling of rejected religious "values".

 

[Rival]

There is a laundry list of "moral values" some religions espouse which atheists find repulsive. Marriage, sexual preferences, and other personal aspects of human's lives which the religious like to busy themselves with is just a sampling of rejected religious "values".

Yes, which makes atheism look like not so much a reaction to a God belief, but to religious values. I am not quite sure what makes atheists this way though. One can reject those values and believe in a God, or not reject those values and not believe in a God, or.....

 

[Trailblazer]

That's just it... as an atheist I have nothing to be "right" about. I just don't believe. This isn't the same as making the claim that God doesn't exist. One of the best examples I have ever heard covering the difference involves taking stock of a jar of gumballs. Let's say I tell you that the number of gumballs in the jar is "even." Do you believe me? And if you DON'T necessarily believe me, does that mean you think that the number of gumballs is "odd?" Or do you refrain from making ANY claim as to even/odd until you have more evidence? i.e. you count the number and then KNOW. And therein lies the difference. I do not make the claim that no god exists. I simply don't believe your claim, and will withhold belief until such time as belief is warranted by the presentation of sufficient evidence.

There are not really only two positions, I believe God exists or I believe God does not exist. The third position is "I don't know" and I consider that agnosticism, not atheism.

Fair enough. You should not believe in anything you do not see sufficient evidence for.

But a god of any description made by human beings is just as arbitrary as any claim I made about the "Smegglebarbs." Exactly as arbitrary. You just call it "god" and not "Smegglebarbs." There is just as much good evidence for either... the words of someone else. So what makes them any different?

I think there is more evidence for God than there is for Smegglebarbs. Religion is the evidence.

Of course it is the words of someone, because that is how God communicates to humans, through Messengers.
The reason why Messengers can found a religion that endures throughout time is because they are more than just ordinary men, they are divine and human.