Are religious people atheists to other religions

[ChristineES]

This still doesn't make much sense to me. It probably never will, because I really can't comprehend the rationality of wholesale dismissal of any god-concept. Dismissal of my god-concept has the following implications:

1) Disbelief in the universe/reality
2) Belief that you are the highest/greatest power in existence (extreme hubris and narcissism)
3) Inability to experience awe, a sense of sacredness, happiness, or joy

This is why I say as far as I'm concerned, if we don't hit all of these three points you believe in some sort of god-concept even if we don't use the label 'god' for it. There are simply too many ways of thinking about god for it to make any sense to say we disbelieve in all of them. It may not play a significant role in our life and we may not think about it as "god," but that doesn't mean it isn't there or that you don't "believe" in it so long as it doesn't have that "god" label on it.

I don't know. Is it really that "god" label that atheists are taking issue with? I try to understand, but as is demonstrated above, atheism in my theology has extremely absurd implications and makes it hard for me to get a grasp of their position unless it's relative to a specific religion or god-concept. I like to ask them "specifically, what god-concepts do you have issue with" for this reason. >_<;

I see an atheist as someone who totally rejects any kind of God concept. If someone believes in any kind of God, under any kind of name, etc. that person is not an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see an atheist as someone who totally rejects any kind of God concept. If someone believes in any kind of God, under any kind of name, etc. that person is not an atheist.

I disagree with the "totally rejects" part. It would probably be impossible for a single person to find out about every god concept, which I woukd say is a necessary step before rejecting all of them.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "any kind of god concept". Would "the sun is my go"-type beliefs mean that the sun is a god concept? If so, then I'm a theist and you're a polytheist.

 

[ArtieE]

This still doesn't make much sense to me. It probably never will, because I really can't comprehend the rationality of wholesale dismissal of any god-concept. Dismissal of my god-concept has the following implications:

1) Disbelief in the universe/reality
2) Belief that you are the highest/greatest power in existence (extreme hubris and narcissism)
3) Inability to experience awe, a sense of sacredness, happiness, or joy

1. I don't see how the universe/reality could possibly be more or less real depending on whether there are gods or not? What does belief have to do with the existence of the universe and reality?

2. To me extreme hubris and narcissism is the belief that we have been especially created by a deity and are the pinnacle of creation.

3. I have no problems experiencing awe looking at pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope, what does it matter if I don't believe that the universe was personally crafted by some deity? Isn't it impressive enough in itself? I have never heard of an atheist incapable of experiencing the emotions you speak of just because he's an atheist.

Is it really that "god" label that atheists are taking issue with? I try to understand, but as is demonstrated above, atheism in my theology has extremely absurd implications and makes it hard for me to get a grasp of their position unless it's relative to a specific religion or god-concept. I like to ask them "specifically, what god-concepts do you have issue with" for this reason. >_<;

Personally I don't have any issue with god concepts. It's just that we don't need gods as explanations anymore. Once upon a time people believed that thunder was caused by Thor the Thundergod. Now we have meteorology and few people believe in Thor anymore. Our brains are wired in such a way as to encourage belief in higher forces. It's an evolutionary asset to ensure survival. A brain that projects a belief in something bigger and better and more moral etc automatically aspires to interact with or even become this higher force. Which keeps us evolving. Evolution evolves morals to ensure cooperation and survival. When we developed enough to contemplate the future what became paramount? Future survival of course. Even after death. So we conjure up a being who lives forever because that's what we want. So we project our evolved morals that helped us survive onto this being and say that if we follow these evolved morals we will survive forever. But how can an animal survive forever? Just say that we are made in the image of the being that survives forever and we're secured. Simple yet complex.

 

[idav]

The meaning of the term "Atheism" is a bit muddy,

Only to some theists.

 

[ChristineES]

I disagree with the "totally rejects" part. It would probably be impossible for a single person to find out about every god concept, which I would say is a necessary step before rejecting all of them.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "any kind of god concept". Would "the sun is my go"-type beliefs mean that the sun is a god concept? If so, then I'm a theist and you're a polytheist.

I admit I didn't explain this well. What I mean is that if you reject any kind of God at all-I mean as Supreme Being, not things such as money, power, etc.- those can be worshiped and can be considered almost god-like to some, but they are not some separate entity. I don't know what to say about those who believe in a spirit world, but not a God- as "theist" is believing in a God or Gods.
I am still not sure if this is explained well, but that is the best I can do right now.

 

[HerDotness]

Any atheist I know rejects all supernatural beings, ghosts, poltergeists, nature spirits, gods, God...any and all of them. That's how most most people understand the term, seems to me.

Penguin is describing how an agnostic might react, I'd say. An agnostic might well say, "Well, I don't believe in any of the deities I've heard about, but maybe some exist somewhere that I haven't yet heard of. I'm not sure."

An agnostic might believe in some kinds of spirits such as ghosts possibly, believing they're just collections of energy or something of the sort. Agnostics have more leeway, I think.

 

[Quintessence]

And it's good that atheism seems absurd to you, because it's an absurd universe. Humans have all kinds of ingenious ways to make sense of it all, some more honest than others. To believe we make sense of things merely by putting a label like "god" on them demonstrates more hubris than I could muster.

Well, atheism only feels absurd with respect to certain ways of looking at the term "god." As someone with an unconventional god-concept, I actually find myself agreeing with many of the atheistic criticisms of the most widely understood god-concepts in my culture. The absurdity comes in when the strokes are made with too broad a brush; generalizations that fail to give religious diversity its proper credit.

Regardless, I don't see putting the label "god" on something as an endpoint of understanding. That's not why I use the term. It's largely a title of respect and honor. I call the sun "god" because without it, I don't exist. I call it "god" because I think it's awesome and beautiful. A bunch of people who call themselves atheists have similar sentiments, but don't use the word "god." Heck, a bunch of non-Pagan theists do as well. Labels get in the way sometimes. Beneath it all, we each have things we honor and revere in our lives; things that guide our purpose and inspire us. That's all "god" is to some people; it's why atheism sounds particularly bizarre to people like me who use the word "god" in this fashion. Terms like "atheist" and "theist" make sense in certain narrower contexts, but when considering the entire religious landscape they quickly become nebulous because of the diverse ways of thinking about "god." It's why I like the points raised in the OP of this thread.

I mean, I know there are some people out there who will say things like "the sun is my god"; when I say that I don't believe in any gods, I'm not saying that I don't believe that the sun exists; I'm saying that I don't consider the sun to be a god.

If the label "god" can apply to anything, then it's meaningless. Conversely, if it does have meaning, then this implies that there are criteria we can look at to say "yes, this is a god" or "no, this isn't a god."

How would you, personally define what it means to be a "god?" I suppose this is tangential to the thread, but what can I say, I'm curious.

I can see why some would feel that universalizing "god" to apply to everything in the universe can dilute its meaning. Certainly this is true to people who aren't pantheists, but to me, it's precisely the application of it to everything that has profound meaning. It's me saying "everything is sacred" and "I depend on the universe for existing, therefore I honor and revere it with the equivalence of 'god' in other religions."

1. I don't see how the universe/reality could possibly be more or less real depending on whether there are gods or not? What does belief have to do with the existence of the universe and reality?

2. To me extreme hubris and narcissism is the belief that we have been especially created by a deity and are the pinnacle of creation.

3. I have no problems experiencing awe looking at pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope, what does it matter if I don't believe that the universe was personally crafted by some deity? Isn't it impressive enough in itself? I have never heard of an atheist incapable of experiencing the emotions you speak of just because he's an atheist.

I might have not explained well some of my reasoning behind this list; I was simplifying for ease of read.

On the first one, it's hopefully apparent by now that I have a pantheistic streak; I see "god" within all things of the universe/reality/nature, so for me, belief in "god" is linked to believing in the universe/reality/nature. I'll grant I don't have to use the word "god" as some others have pointed out, but I do because it expresses awe and reverence.

On the second one, not all theists have that idea about the gods. I don't accept the idea that humans were "specially created" in part because that kind of language suggests a separation between creation and creator that doesn't exist in pantheism. If we can be said to be "specially created," so was everything else in the universe. We certainly aren't the "pinnacle" of anything in my eyes. No, one of the things my religion does for me is inject a massive dose of humility: the universe is a higher power, it's bigger than I am, and without it I don't exist. Therefore, some respect is due, eh?

I think what I just said probably addresses the third part. The universe wasn't "crafted" by deity, it *IS* deity. Not all god-concepts presume the divine to be separate from the world. Paganism is characterized by a focus on immanent deity-concepts. Our gods either are nature, or directly manifest as nature. There's not the rigid separation of creator-creation that there is in the Abrahamic faiths (though to be fair, even in these faiths there are mystical sects that acknowledge divine immanency).

I hope this clears some things up.

Personally I don't have any issue with god concepts. It's just that we don't need gods as explanations anymore. Once upon a time people believed that thunder was caused by Thor the Thundergod. Now we have meteorology and few people believe in Thor anymore.

The thing is, there's more to believing in Thor than using him as a mere explanation for natural phenomena. Pagan religion is a tad more complex than that: it adds rich layers of meaning through poetry and story that you don't get by looking at dry facts and figures. The world can be understood both by telling stories and by investigating it with meter sticks. I think both are incredibly valuable; we all love a great story, and we all also love the "ah ha!" of scientific discovery. Hence, we both have a massive entertainment industry churning out all sorts of modern mythology as well as an amazing technological wonderworld.

Speaking of Thor, a modern mythological retelling of his nature is going to be in a theater near you coming this May. Woot Avengers!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would you, personally define what it means to be a "god?" I suppose this is tangential to the thread, but what can I say, I'm curious.

Hmm... to a certain extent, I think God may be like pornography, but if I had to give specifics, I'd say that for a couple of the minimum qualifications, a god:

- is an object of worship by human beings
- has agency

There are probably more criteria, but those are a good start. Probably not everything that meets these criteria is a god, but if something doesn't meet both of these, then it's not a god, IMO.

 

[Storm]

(Needless to say that all of them think that their own religion is the "correct one").

I don't. Stereotypes are rarely accurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whoops - forgot to respond to this part:

I can see why some would feel that universalizing "god" to apply to everything in the universe can dilute its meaning. Certainly this is true to people who aren't pantheists, but to me, it's precisely the application of it to everything that has profound meaning. It's me saying "everything is sacred" and "I depend on the universe for existing, therefore I honor and revere it with the equivalence of 'god' in other religions."

I don't necessarily see a problem with saying "the universe is god" as long as the person can explain what about the universe makes it a god.

As for what you said about reverence, it sounds like you're not really saying that you worship a god; it sounds more like you're using an analogy to help others understand your point of view. This is fine, but it's different from saying that you really do consider the universe your god. It's kind of like saying "Justin Bieber is the Frank Sinatra of today's generation" (as a for instance ). Does this mean that Justin Bieber is literally a Frank Sinatra?

 

[F0uad]

If you put all those One-God religions together i think that number will shrink very fast.

And if you put in More-Then-One-God religions together you will have even a smaller number.


First of all we do not reject God (Otherwise we wouldn't call it a religion at the first place) so therefore we are not Atheist, we also do not reject each other's god but only the Concepts of God.

 

[Road Warrior]

I don't speak for all Christians, but to me, an atheist will believe in no God whatsoever. People of different faiths are still theists in my view, although I have heard about some people believing that different religions are "atheists" (which makes no sense to me...).

Agreed on all points.

Thanks for the viewpoint.

 

[Quintessence]

9-10ths:

Your criteria for "god" made me curious about another aspect, namely how "agency" is determined. There are relatively clear ways of doing this when talking about humans, but it seems that it might be more complicated when speaking about non-human entities. I notice that many humans seem to assume other animals don't have agency because from an outsider point of view think they lack consciousness or the ability to make decisions. It's an intriguing way of thinking about "god" that has a number of additional questions to wrestle with.

I guess you could say I use "god" as an analogy, but I do also worship (as in ritualistically honor) certain aspects of reality in my practice. I probably have come across as a naturalistic pantheist here, but there's more to how I practice than that. Much of it comes down to labeling; I've learned how to eschew much of the more metaphysical language when speaking about "god" when I need to. Yay being both a scientist and a mystic?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The meaning of the term "Atheism" is a bit muddy, Socrates was accused of Atheism, but he was definitely a Supernaturalist of sorts, at least of what we know. The term "Atheism" doesn't necessarily imply being against all gods, but in modern usage of the word, it has that connotation. Nonetheless, by the ancient definition of the word, one would in fact be an "Atheist" by disagreeing with any particular god's existence, or even further, refusing to worship or accept dominion from that "god" even by acknowledging it.

And then there's the whole issue of the meaning of the term "god".

The best translation we have for what Socrates was accused of is "Atheism" but the term in the Ancient Greek meant specifically a non-believer of the Greek Pantheon. Not specifically someone who did not believe in god but there is a good chance he may have been that too.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

If atheism is about mere disbelief- I don't believe in the abrahamic god.

 

[paarsurrey]

Are religious people atheists to other religions

Not necessarily, with specific reference to Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
Regards

 

[Unification]

I read that there are about 10,000 religions (The 2001 edition of Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia) out there in the world but this number can be disputed depending how to count but let's say that this number is correct for discussion purposes.

If you are a christian (or any other religion) are you then considered an atheist to all the other 9,999 religions because all of these have different holy figures and many of them say that "if you don't follow our religion you will end up in hell". If you're not considered an atheist to these religions, do you believe in these religions as well.

Therefore, I will conclude my thought with a joke:

Do you know what the difference is between an atheist and a religious person...The atheist think that 10,000 are bullcrap.....the religious person think that 9,999 are bullcrap.

Therefore the number between us (atheists) and religious people is only 1 out of 10,000.....Not that much....

(Needless to say that all of them think that their own religion is the "correct one").

Edit: The 2001 edition of Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity (counted as just one religion), 33,830 different denominations are counted. This would include denominations as large as Catholicism and as small as Shakers.

The "atheist" believes that "God" is not a deity.

The thread is deceptive unless "atheist" is changed to "adeity."

 

[Unification]

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in deities. A Christian is also a person who doesn't believe in deities for the same reason an atheist doesn't, because they don't exist, but a Christian for some unfathomable reason has made a single exception from the rule and claim that although he doesn't believe in deities one actually exists. Where's the logic?

Make a choice, is it "aGod" or "adeity?"

 

[psychoslice]

Are atheist religious to other atheist lol.

 

[Ouroboros]

Is it really that "god" label that atheists are taking issue with?

It surely seems like it at times, especially when criticism against pantheism is that it's just "word games." Atheism seems to be a rejection of the actual usefulness of the label/term "God" rather than rejection of anthropomorphized supernatural beings.

But what surprises me most is that many atheists, who just are lacking belief in God/gods, are very vocal and active about it. Activism of "having a lack of belief" seems rather meaningless. Active atheists must have more interest and thoughts behind their position than just having a non-position. They have views, opinions, arguments, support, and so on for their view (or "non-view"), not indifference. It's not disinterest in the topic about God and belief when they actively engage in a discussion to argue their lack-of-belief.