Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Acim]

I didn't realize the word "religion" was up for debate. I don't understand your difficulty. It's almost as if you have a different definition of what it means to be religious than does everyone else. I use the Oxford Dictionary of English definition: "religion, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion." How does your approach differ from this?

If we're (constantly) questioning terms like atheism, God(s) and the like, I can easily understand how 'belief in superhuman controlling power' would be a matter of debate. But this definition does say belief in AND worship of. And so that is possibly added to the debate, for what does worship mean?

My computer's dictionary says worship is: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity

I don't right now feel like going through all the philosophical steps to establish the point of: if I believe and worship gravity as a god, and you tell me gravity for you is just a 'powerful force of nature' and then I view some scientific program talking about the great appreciation that science has for gravity, and how we all ought to really appreciate, and respect the force of gravity and yada yada yada, it is a wonderful great thing worthy of a full hour of TV viewing to mention just how great and awesome it is, one might think that is a bit worshipful in what it is conveying. That any branch of human study would spend a lifetime understanding and talking reverently about this powerful force would just make it seem all the more like it is treated like a god, but denied it is god - simply (perhaps only) because of the connotations associated with 'belief in god(s).'

Wouldn't help that gravity is invisible to the body's eyes and spoken about as something that to science has many mysterious aspects which we don't yet understand. But all of which (allegedly) make it more compelling as something to study, learn about.

If you have a belief in gravity as an exceptional, awesome force (of nature), impacting all of humanity and speak as if you have great reverence for it as a force, willing to devote your life to learning more about it, I'm thinking you done just made a religion around gravity - even if you wish to claim otherwise.

 

[Marsh]

We did start a debate somewhere on page 2 or 3. I don’t know what happened and we stopped...

I think I may have gotten sidetracked with a book.

Anyway, I do believe you are an atheist, when talking about god with the popular western perspective of what is “god”. Under that definition, I’m also an atheist.

But, if we step away from that perspective, you are not an atheist. You just don’t know it. Hence the OP

Except, I don't see myself as an atheist only in terms of the Judaeo-Christian god. I reject the existence of all gods, including the ones I have never heard of. As Dawkins has said, atheists stand with Christians in rejecting the existence of all other gods, we just go one god further. You see, I no longer accept the existence of anything supernatural. All gods are by definition supernatural, so I reject all gods.

 

[Marsh]

Perhaps if one defines atheism as "the lack of belief that anything which exists qualifies as a god" that would get around the broad range of interpretations of the god concept. Everyone has their own personal definition of what counts as a god, so if they don't think anything that exists fits their personal definition, that makes them at least an agnostic atheist.

Parsimony, that's clever. I like that.

 

[Jabar]

bold empty claims are not proof.

I just gave you evidence. You deny it and call it Forer Effect. You are just being arrogant. It is truth.

 

[Demonslayer]

just gave you evidence. You deny it and call it Forer Effect. You are just being arrogant. It is truth.

Call me crazy but I don't think the way to address a post accusing you of making bold, arrogant claims is to answer the criticism with a bold, arrogant claim.

I said the creation story about Nyx the bird was truth. Are you arrogant for not recognizing the truth of Nyx as the creator of the universe?

 

[Jabar]

Call me crazy but I don't think the way to address a post accusing you of making bold, arrogant claims is to answer the criticism with a bold, arrogant claim.

I said the creation story about Nyx the bird was truth. Are you arrogant for not recognizing the truth of Nyx as the creator of the universe?

But did you give me evidence?

 

[Marsh]

Superstition is the inclination to accept the supernatural as a real thing. It predisposes people towards theism and to odd, often unhealthy perceptions of cause and effect.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you superstitious belief in the popular perception is tied to notions that certain actions can bring about good or bad luck. Indeed, people who are not at all religious can still hold superstitious beliefs. While you might want to call belief in God superstitious, belief in the stories of Genesis don't really qualify as superstitious beliefs in this same sense, but Catholics in the action of crossing themselves may be superstitious. I would still consider those Christians who thought I was lying about not believing in God deeply religious, not necessarily deeply superstitious. Perhaps some of them, in the popular parlance, were not superstitious at all.

 

[Nefelie]

But did you give me evidence?

Orpheus said so.
And he was gods' favorite.
Is that good enough for you?

.

 

[Jabar]

Orpheus said so.
And he was gods' favorite.
Is that good enough for you?

.

Nope.

 

[Nefelie]

Nope.

Why not?

.

 

[Nefelie]

You see, I no longer accept the existence of anything supernatural. All gods are by definition supernatural, so I reject all gods.

Why do we always involve the supernatural? There is no such thing as “supernatural”. Everything is just natural. God/s is no exemption. It/they can’t be. It’s illogical to be.


.

 

[Demonslayer]

But did you give me evidence?

There's a website, does that count?

 

[Demonslayer]

There is no such thing as “supernatural”.

Untrue, "Supernatural" is an excellent album by Carlos Santana!

Here's my evidence!

 

[Jabar]

Why not?

.

I do not play around.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He was never in a mad rush, look you are making false accusations.

Pretty sure I said he was in no mad rush. We seem to agree on this. Allah took his time creating the world, and again in correcting the mistakes of the earlier prophets. Ialways get confused why the earlier prophets made mistakes, but whatevs. Live and learn I expect.

Exactly, prophets were brought to fix the polytheist believers and non believers. When Muhammad never existed, Islam was different. This is all that has happened, Islam evolved.

Oh heck, I'll bite. Explain to me how Islam, as opposed to garden variety submission to God, existed pre-Muhammed.

 

[Jabar]

Pretty sure I said he was in no mad rush. We seem to agree on this. Allah took his time creating the world, and again in correcting the mistakes of the earlier prophets. Ialways get confused why the earlier prophets made mistakes, but whatevs. Live and learn I expect.




Oh heck, I'll bite. Explain to me how Islam, as opposed to garden variety submission to God, existed pre-Muhammed.

What mistakes do you speak of? Also, to find out how Islam is pre-Muhammad, it is a matter of just reading the Qur'an. Earlier prophets like you mentioned were followers of Islam.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What mistakes do you speak of?

This time it is me being presumptive, so apologies. Rather than assume, I'll just ask;
Why have there been multiple prophets, according to Islam? And why is Muhammad the final prophet?

Also, to find out how Islam is pre-Muhammad, it is a matter of just reading the Qur'an. Earlier prophets like you mentioned were followers of Islam.

In a very literal sense, that is correct. To find out how Islam is, pre-Muhammed, it is a matter of just reading the Quran. And none of the other source documents that actually existed in pre-Muhammedan times. Rely on a post-Muhammed recount of what had occurred, rather than actual accounts of life taken in the actual time periods under question.
I read a lot of history, and whilst I'd be the first to admit that ancient history is not an exact science, I find no reason to believe anyone was Islamic. Is your only reason for believing this documentation which was written many hundreds of years later than the actual time of which we speak?

 

[Blastcat]

~~~
Just a friendly question to all Atheists:

Is your belief of God’s non-existence based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),

or,

it also covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

Thanks for your responces

~~~

I don't know every possible god concept that there is to know. So.. if you have a new one, bring it..
It's a case by case thing with me.

So far, no gods seem real.

 

[Blastcat]

Think "AGNOSTIC" here.


.

Well, that's a misunderstanding of the term Agnostic.
It's close, but no cigar.

Agnosticism was coined to mean NO KNOWLEDGE.. A gnosis... gnosis being knowledge.. about GOD.
So, an agnostic is someone who doesn't know or thinks that he cant know anything about a god.

And I would say that if we have NO KNOWLEDGE of something, we can't BELIEVE in it, so we are atheists, too.
There are degrees of atheism and agnosticism.. people are all over the map.

A LOT of people misconstrue agnostic to mean something like "sitting on the fence" or 50/50. but that's just a misuse.

 

[Jabar]

This time it is me being presumptive, so apologies. Rather than assume, I'll just ask;
Why have there been multiple prophets, according to Islam? And why is Muhammad the final prophet?




In a very literal sense, that is correct. To find out how Islam is, pre-Muhammed, it is a matter of just reading the Quran. And none of the other source documents that actually existed in pre-Muhammedan times. Rely on a post-Muhammed recount of what had occurred, rather than actual accounts of life taken in the actual time periods under question.
I read a lot of history, and whilst I'd be the first to admit that ancient history is not an exact science, I find no reason to believe anyone was Islamic. Is your only reason for believing this documentation which was written many hundreds of years later than the actual time of which we speak?

To give people the message. Muhammad is the final prophet because he spread the message best, there are nobody coming after him. Allah is All-Knowing, he knows technology will become better on Earth, so a prophet would not be needed whilst you have the last revelation the Qur'an and technology in front of you. Yes, i believe the Qur'an is truth as it is divine. Besides, they have his burial place, narrations of thousands of things he has said, and documents.