What’s your main reason for being a theist or an atheist?

[Dawnofhope]

You could say it-- you'd be 100% wrong, of course. That's the way it works, though.

The majority of theists appear to paint everyone else, with the same broad brush they paint themselves with: They have faith. Their entire worldview is faith.

They assume everyone else's is too.

Why not find a Non Strawman way to try to engage Rational People? No?

It has been explained to you over and over-- yet you persist on insisting that 'atheism' is 'belief there are no gods'.... It is as if you cannot see beyond that giant Straw Man you built...

When you say theists do you refer to Hindus, Buddhist, pagans, Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Christians or Muslim’s? Its a very broad brush to use. You group them together when it suits you then arbitrarily decide that adherents of Abrahamic Faiths can’t be grouped together because its ‘disingenuous’.

I see there is a range of ways to consider atheism which is why I asked an open ended question in the OP of both atheists and theists.

Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] but has also been contrasted with it.[42][43][44] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anything beyond two thousand plus years of age is often problematic in regards historicity, the origins of Judaism and Hinduism included. Obviously there is a range of opinion about the associations between the origins of these two faiths and any associations they may have had.

The age of Vedas is based on very solid astronomical references (prior to 4,000 BCE).

Will the Baha'i Faith use Military conquest, conversion by coercion and proselytising as did Christianity, Islam, Judaism and probably Hinduism too?

You mean when the mouse become so large to challenge the lion? Hinduism has never used force for conversion. Hindus are not much concerned about the beliefs of other people (Christian evangelism is an exception. Since the arguments put forward are anti-Hindu, converts tend to become anti-Hindu. That creates conflict).

I see there is a range of ways to consider atheism which is why I asked an open ended question in the OP of both atheists and theists.

You are right. That is why I label myself as 'strong atheist', not accepting even the possibility of existence of God/Gods (Goddesses), soul, heaven, hell, judgment and deliverance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When you say theists do you refer to Hindus, Buddhist, pagans, Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Christians or Muslim’s? Its a very broad brush to use. You group them together when it suits you then arbitrarily decide that adherents of Abrahamic Faiths can’t be grouped together because its ‘disingenuous’.

I see there is a range of ways to consider atheism which is why I asked an open ended question in the OP of both atheists and theists.

Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] but has also been contrasted with it.[42][43][44] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Atheism - Wikipedia

I have issues with defining atheism as "belief that there are no gods."

As you just alluded to, religion is diverse. There's no single accepted definition for what a god is. This means that there are only two ways that someone could reject all gods:

- reject some larger category of things so broad that every defintion of "god" is captured by it... but this doesn't work, because it wouldn't acknowledge some atheists as atheists (e.g. people who believe in ghosts but not gods).

- reject the whole list of humanity's gods one by one. Since no human being is even aware of all of humanity's gods, no person is in a position to reject all of humanity's gods rationally, so this ends up implying that a person has to be irrational to be an atheist.

That's if we take the definition at face value, of course. I think that often when theists try to define atheism as "rejection of gods" or "rejection of belief," what they actually mean is "rejection of MY god and mere lack of belief in any others."

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do you live in the matrix? Lol

Have you never had a dream? That would explain a great deal...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When you say theists do you refer to Hindus, Buddhist, pagans, Zoroastrians, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Christians or Muslim’s? Its a very broad brush to use. You group them together when it suits you then arbitrarily decide that adherents of Abrahamic Faiths can’t be grouped together because its ‘disingenuous’..

Pay attention to the words. The words matter-- when we are speaking of humans, it is quite proper to refer to all god-believers as 'theists' and also to lump them into that very diverse group.

But. When speaking of the gods these people have created for themselves? It would be highly disingenuous to put all the extremely diverse gods into one container.

That is the principle difference.

I see your problem: You failed to recognize this fact-- each group of theist has created a god in the image they like best.

You are under the false impression that there is only one (1) god. That would be incorrect.

The correct value is zero-- or -- ~8 billion. It depends on what you mean by "god".

I see there is a range of ways to consider atheism which is why I asked an open ended question in the OP of both atheists and theists..

9 times out of 10? The only confusion comes from Straw Man 'atheism' invented by Theists.

I do find it highly ironic, that theists keep trying to paint 'atheism' as a kind of 'religion'.

In an attempt to insult atheists. It is as if they recognize calling something 'religion' is ... insulting.

Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] but has also been contrasted with it.[42][43][44] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Atheism - Wikipedia

The majority of people on earth are some sort of 'theist'.

Wikipedia is a Popularity Contest.

It is hardly surprising it is often wrong.

 

[Goodman John]

While I believe my method of 'getting right with God' is perfectly acceptable, I don't for one minute condemn anyone else for their own belief or practice of faith (insofar as they don't harm others, that is).

 

[Dawnofhope]

Pay attention to the words. The words matter-

Is this projective identification from someone who doesn't listen and simply wants to argue and be adversarial?

Projective identification - Wikipedia

when we are speaking of humans, it is quite proper to refer to all god-believers as 'theists' and also to lump them into that very diverse group.

But. When speaking of the gods these people have created for themselves? It would be highly disingenuous to put all the extremely diverse gods into one container.

This ‘disingenuous’ word you’ve used many times clearly belongs to you.

When have I ever lumped all the diverse gods together?

Theist is the correct term for one who believes in God or gods.

Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the God of Abraham and so are called Abrahamic Faiths. That is just standard terminology for anyone who studies comparative religion. Some Christians and Jews may have an issue with it. Muslims don't.

Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

Atheist is one who believes there are no gods or disbelieves in any god or however you want to phrase it positively or negatively. What an atheist believes or disbelieves in regards to God or gods is clear.

That is the principle difference.

I see your problem: You failed to recognize this fact-- each group of theist has created a god in the image they like best.

No. That is part of an narrative used by some atheists to explain, dismiss and denigrate theism. It would be much better to say "I don't believe" than "My belief is factual and yours isn't".

You are under the false impression that there is only one (1) god. That would be incorrect.

Why not discuss religion in a way that at least demonstrates a minimal semblance of civility and respect? Your contempt for theism is palpable.

The correct value is zero-- or -- ~8 billion. It depends on what you mean by "god".

Same problem as above. You are stating your opinion as fact.

9 times out of 10? The only confusion comes from Straw Man 'atheism' invented by Theists.

I do find it highly ironic, that theists keep trying to paint 'atheism' as a kind of 'religion'.

In an attempt to insult atheists. It is as if they recognize calling something 'religion' is ... insulting.

It sounds like this is typical of some Christian vs Atheist debates. Why not avoid tarring all theists with the same brush? I'll continue not to tar all atheists with the same brush.

BTW I have never referred to atheism as a religion. It is a belief and part of one's worldview for sure, but definitely not a religion, nor necessarily a significant part of an atheists worldview. Atheism is an accepted philosophy within many religious traditions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and even Christianity in some circles. Some liberal Methodists embrace the concept.

The majority of people on earth are some sort of 'theist'.

Yes. The overwhelming majority of earth's inhabitants are theist. That is a fact.

Wikipedia is a Popularity Contest.

It is hardly surprising it is often wrong.

As far as I'm aware Wikipedia is no better nor worse than your average encyclopedia. At least its more neutral than a site promoting religious apologetics.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have issues with defining atheism as "belief that there are no gods."

As you just alluded to, religion is diverse. There's no single accepted definition for what a god is. This means that there are only two ways that someone could reject all gods:

- reject some larger category of things so broad that every defintion of "god" is captured by it... but this doesn't work, because it wouldn't acknowledge some atheists as atheists (e.g. people who believe in ghosts but not gods).

- reject the whole list of humanity's gods one by one. Since no human being is even aware of all of humanity's gods, no person is in a position to reject all of humanity's gods rationally, so this ends up implying that a person has to be irrational to be an atheist.

That's if we take the definition at face value, of course. I think that often when theists try to define atheism as "rejection of gods" or "rejection of belief," what they actually mean is "rejection of MY god and mere lack of belief in any others."

As mentioned to another, I believe there needs to be mutual respect and courtesy for a dialogue. Both theist and atheist perspectives have merits. There are atheist Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. A Baha'i on this site recently told me he didn't believe in God. I see behaviour on both sides of the debate that's not conducive to a constructive exploration of reality.

It is generally accepted in amongst comparative religion students and scholars the perspective on God in the Abrahamic faiths shares much in common. There are of course important differences.

 

[CG Didymus]

I never said that and the passage I quoted does not say that. It is talking about searching for Truth in general, and not what we find.

Is there any religious or spiritual Truth other than what is taught in the Baha'i writings? Is there some truth in all the other religions but, unfortunately, it is mixed in with things that aren't the Truth as given by God through his messengers? If Baha'is believe these to be true, then a "true" seeker would not settle for a religion that only has partial truth. The "true" seeker would recognize the things in that religion that aren't true and keep searching. No problem now, because we have the Baha'i Faith. But prior to 1844, who had The Truth? If the Baha'i Faith is correct... nobody. Not one religion had The Truth as defined by the Baha'i Faith. All of them had aspects that Baha'is believe are false. Would you agree or disagree? If you do agree, then a True Seeker should recognize only the Baha'i Faith as the truth for today. And God should be faithful to leading a true seeker to His truth for today. So that means that all the rest of us are blind, lost and confused and not truly seeking God?

 

[CG Didymus]

God and yes.

It is indeed our lack of understanding.

This passage is firm and very clear on that issue;

"...To maintain that the testimony of Providence was incomplete, that it hath therefore been the cause of the denial of the people, is but open blasphemy. How far from the grace of the All-Bountiful and from His loving providence and tender mercies it is to single out a soul from amongst all men for the guidance of His creatures, and, on one hand, to withhold from Him the full measure of His divine testimony, and, on the other, inflict severe retribution on His people for having turned away from His chosen One! Nay, the manifold bounties of the Lord of all beings have, at all times, through the Manifestations of His Divine Essence, encompassed the earth and all that dwell therein. Not for a moment hath His grace been withheld, nor have the showers of His loving-kindness ceased to rain upon mankind. Consequently, such behavior can be attributed to naught save the petty-mindedness of such souls as tread the valley of arrogance and pride, are lost in the wilds of remoteness, walk in the ways of their idle fancy, and follow the dictates of the leaders of their faith. Their chief concern is mere opposition; their sole desire is to ignore the truth..."

Regards Tony

So does that mean that the Baha'i Faith knows what the "original" messages were? And anything that doesn't agree with what the Baha'i Faith says about those other religions has been false concepts, creeds and doctrines added in by people... and not in the original teachings of the prophet/founders of the different religions?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The age of Vedas is based on very solid astronomical references (prior to 4,000 BCE).

The astronomy aspect of the Vedas is very interesting and certainly has merit. Especially to date events such as the Kurukshetra war. Most scholars however date the Vedas themselves as no older than 2000 BCE.

You mean when the mouse become so large to challenge the lion? Hinduism has never used force for conversion. Hindus are not much concerned about the beliefs of other people (Christian evangelism is an exception. Since the arguments put forward are anti-Hindu, converts tend to become anti-Hindu. That creates conflict).

Coercion and proselytism are closely linked. So there can be pressures to convert from one religion to the other, but also to remain within a religion. Hinduism is guilty of the latter. In some circles there appears coercive with strong social pressures not to join a religion outside of Hinduism and to vilify others.

I firmly believe there should be freedom in religion. Hindus have often been restricted to move beyond their caste let alone religion.

You are right. That is why I label myself as 'strong atheist', not accepting even the possibility of existence of God/Gods (Goddesses), soul, heaven, hell, judgment and deliverance.

You have told me this many times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there any religious or spiritual Truth other than what is taught in the Baha'i writings?

There is spiritual Truth in all of the great religions and it does not change or alter.

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world,and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

But prior to 1844, who had The Truth? If the Baha'i Faith is correct... nobody. Not one religion had The Truth as defined by the Baha'i Faith.

Islam had the Truth that before Baha'i and before that Christianity and before that Judaism. It is called progressive revelation. ALL these religions had the Truth for the ages in which they were revealed.

All of them had aspects that Baha'is believe are false. Would you agree or disagree?

I disagree. They were not false when they were originally revealed but then later they became distorted and corrupted by the followers.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

If you do agree, then a True Seeker should recognize only the Baha'i Faith as the truth for today. And God should be faithful to leading a true seeker to His truth for today. So that means that all the rest of us are blind, lost and confused and not truly seeking God?

I agree that a True Seeker should recognize only the Baha'i Faith as the truth for today, because it is. But God guides who He chooses to guide. The rest will remain lost and confused. God cannot guide those who rebel against Him because free will is sacrosanct.

"Some were guided by the Light of God, gained admittance into the court of His presence, and quaffed, from the hand of resignation, the waters of everlasting life, and were accounted of them that have truly recognized and believed in Him. Others rebelled against Him, and rejected the signs of God, the Most Powerful, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 145

 

[Aupmanyav]

The astronomy aspect of the Vedas is very interesting and certainly has merit. Especially to date events such as the Kurukshetra war. Most scholars however date the Vedas themselves as no older than 2000 BCE.

Coercion and proselytism are closely linked. So there can be pressures to convert from one religion to the other, but also to remain within a religion. Hinduism is guilty of the latter. In some circles there appears coercive with strong social pressures not to join a religion outside of Hinduism and to vilify others.

I firmly believe there should be freedom in religion. Hindus have often been restricted to move beyond their caste let alone religion.

Myths and myths and trying to date them is wrong. One arrives at absurd dates. The testimony in Vedas is about when the Aryans accepted the beginning of their ritual year (Vernal equinox). In six thousand years, it regressed by three months because of precession of equinox, and each such change is reflected in the scriptures.

I too believe in freedom of religion, but let it be something better than what we have at present. In 21st Century, I would hate to be dragged back to the beliefs of God, Angels, Satan, prophets/sons/messengers/Manifestations/Mahdis, heaven and hell, judgment and deliverance, 'jinnat' and 'maids of heaven'. 2600 years ago, Buddha came up with good arguments and we accepted him. An 'Alim' would/should not go back to 'jahiliyat'.

 

[Aurelius]

Well @adrian009 there is always time to pinpoint another side to a subject, hm?

You mentioned Jainism and Buddhism when speaking of theism.

Jainism isn't theistic- at all. It is a common misunderstanding Jains are theist, but they say the former Tirthankaras deified into Devas were just enlightened humans that people elevated.

Some Buddhists may be theistic, but the movement is hardly so.

Gautama Buddha would have said God is too speculative, per the Kalama Sutta- where he says not to believe things you can't verify by direct insight and experience.

Buddha was teaching ajnanna (agnosticism) as concerns the supernatural like his sister non-Vedic movements Ajivika and Lokayata materialism.

These are all Hindu thought streams- just while we're on the subject.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Is this projective identification from someone who doesn't listen and simply wants to argue and be adversarial?

Projective identification - Wikipedia
.

You begin with an insult and you expect what? People to just roll over? Your previous post and this post were both quite rude and insulting. And yet you complain .... ??

Interesting. It would seem you expect everyone BUT you to play nice-nice...

This ‘disingenuous’ word you’ve used many times clearly belongs to you..

See? Hypocrisy is thy middle name.

When have I ever lumped all the diverse gods together?.

When you were Arguing From Popularity Logical Fallacy.

You attempted to inflate the value of one of your presumptive claims, by saying "most people XXX" or "These religion think so-- so it must be so" and other fallacies.

Theist is the correct term for one who believes in God or gods..

Quote me where I disagree. Again-- you are being insulting.

Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the God of Abraham .

DING! DING! DING! "When have I ever lumped all the diverse gods together?" YOU JUST DID!

If these diverse and often at-odds-with-each-other really are the "same" as you claim? Why are they all describing Vastly Different Attributes, Commandments and Attitudes to Their "Abrahamic" god?

The simplest answer is that it's hardly the same god-- is it? IF it WAS THE SAME? WHY DID IT MALICIOUSLY PERMIT THE WRONG DESCRIPTIONS TO FLOURISH?

Either it is NOT THERE? Or? It is a DIFFERENT GOD.

You cannot claim it is the SAME-- when the TESTABLE OUTCOME: it's FOLLOWERS-- ARE SO DIFFERENT.

EACH GROUP DESCRIBES A DIFFERENT GOD.

.... and so are called Abrahamic Faiths. That is just standard terminology for anyone who studies comparative religion. Some Christians and Jews may have an issue with it. Muslims don't..

See above.

Atheist is one who believes there are no gods or disbelieves in any god or however you want to phrase it positively or negatively. What an atheist believes or disbelieves in regards to God or gods is clear..

Highly Insulting Straw Man. Again.

Being an atheist isn't belief. You keep saying that-- and it's wrong.

No. That is part of an narrative used by some atheists to explain, dismiss and denigrate theism. It would be much better to say "I don't believe" than "My belief is factual and yours isn't"..

If the shoe fits-- I notice that you make no attempt to prove my statements false. You belittle me, personally, instead.

Nice.

Why not discuss religion in a way that at least demonstrates a minimal semblance of civility and respect? Your contempt for theism is palpable..

Irony. See above.

Same problem as above. You are stating your opinion as fact.
.

Opinion? Prove me wrong. Have your god ring us up on the telephone or something. No?

Until you prove any of your god-claims? My statements remain unrefuted.

It sounds like this is typical of some Christian vs Atheist debates. Why not avoid tarring all theists with the same brush? I'll continue not to tar all atheists with the same brush..

See above: you keep painting all atheists as believers.

BTW I have never referred to atheism as a religion. It is a belief and part of one's worldview for sure, but definitely not a religion, nor necessarily a significant part of an atheists worldview. i.

The first sentence is directly contradicted by the second sentence-- you keep doing that again and again-- ATHEISM IS NOT BELIEF. YOU KEEP LYING, EVEN AFTER YOU ARE CORRECTED. AND YOU WONDER WHY YOU GET HARSH REPLIES?

Atheism is an accepted philosophy .

NO. IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. YOU KEEP SAYING THAT-- AND IT'S PATENTLY NOT FACTUAL.

Yes. The overwhelming majority of earth's inhabitants are theist. That is a fact..

So what? The overwhelming majority of the planet once thought Lightning was a Message From The Gods. The majority are often idiots.

As far as I'm aware Wikipedia is no better nor worse than your average encyclopedia. At least its more neutral than a site promoting religious apologetics.

LOL! Wow... that explains... a LOT. If the issue is mundane? Like, how are hurricanes formed? Or why is the sky Blue? Wikipedia is modestly useful.

If the issue is contentious-- even a little? Like, say, how many assassins shot Kennedy? Or is tЯump a good president? It is usually garbage-- count on it being garbage.

THIS IS WHY WIKI IS NEVER VALID IN UNIVERSITY CLASSES AS A REFERENCE.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So does that mean that the Baha'i Faith knows what the "original" messages were? And anything that doesn't agree with what the Baha'i Faith says about those other religions has been false concepts, creeds and doctrines added in by people... and not in the original teachings of the prophet/founders of the different religions?

I see what it means is that Baha'u'llah knows all the Messengers, their Messages and their intent, as the Message of Baha'u'llah was their intent.

I see that Everything that tries to prove any of Gods Messengers as false, or that their Message are false, is False.

Regards Tony

 

[paarsurrey]

Both sides see their side as being reasonable.

But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I see what it means is that Baha'u'llah knows all the Messengers, their Messages and their intent, as the Message of Baha'u'llah was their intent.

I see that Everything that tries to prove any of Gods Messengers as false, or that their Message are false, is False.

Regards Tony

The term you are looking for here? Is "rose colored glasses".

It's also a Logical Fallacy, but I forget which one. Sorry.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The term you are looking for here? Is "rose colored glasses".

It's also a Logical Fallacy, but I forget which one. Sorry.

Actually I see it as white light where there is no refractive light.

No glasses needed.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

But the non-believers have never given any even "one" positive reason for non-existence of G-d, so their position/no-position is most unreasonable to me. Right, please?

Regards

Not unreasonable to me at all. In fact, I find it makes a ton more sense than the Abrahamic God idea. I'm an atheist to that version of God. If that God actually existed, he'd do something about the conditions of this planet. But he never does.