Whatever your understanding is what you understood. That's what you reject.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism does not exist
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
In other words, atheism is the default?
Almustafa
Member
atheist, i feel are opposed to abrahamic religions and superimpose their perceived faults on all faiths...
eastern religions are often (but not always) based on mystical experiences and "OBE" which is seen as a tool for gathering information about the true nature of reality...
unlike in most western religions eastern religion is based mainly on shamanism, which is experiential religion.
the same things Atheists use to disprove God, are the same things Mystics use to Prove God, on account of the Pantheist & monist elements that run strong in mystic traditions...
with the dawning on quantom mechanics and similar fields of study, it has proved both the atheist and the pantheist correct. But to accept this is to dissolve both philosophies as untrue, which ego will not allow.(no one wants to be wrong)
Atheism is rejecting whatever it was you understood "god" to be, just as theism is accepting whatever it is you understood "god" to be.
Neither would seem to be a significant default.
Quite so.
This, however, is wrong.
Theism is all-out impossible without a concept of god, because you can't accept as true what it never occurred to you might exist.
Atheism, on its turn, is indeed the default without a concept of god, because you can't possibly support the existence of what you can't conceive to exist.
Similarly, you can't reject as improbable what it never occurs to you others believe might exist.
Yep. It is a good thing that atheism does not need that.
The desire to have neat, symmetrical cathegories for atheism and theism certainly does have such a need, but it is an arbitrary, perhaps esthetical choice. Not a logical one.
Uh? I don't think so. Atheism is nearly meaningless, truth be told. Why do you say that?
To some atheists, it is quite meaningful.
To push it as meaningless is (literally) demeaning.
Titanic
Well-Known Member
Well actually cause Atheist's do not believe in "God's" or a "afterlife" So I guess what I am saying is that there is alway's that chance "god's" do exist and well there could be a punishment for atheist's in the afterlife. Atheist's are bold cause they still do not care. I of course am pretty much a Apatheist so it's all pretty much of little concern to me.
No less arbitrary than the desire to neatly deny category and aesthetic judgements.
But I wasn't talking about a desire to categorize.
Last edited:
Atheism is neither accepting nor rejecting. The pendulum is straight down. If you accept "god" you become a theist and the pendulum swings one way, if you reject "god" you become a strong/hard atheist and the pendulum swings the other way. Really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
It's not hard to understand that you give two distinct definitions of atheism, but promote only one.
You are ill informed. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and Nirvana.
There is only one distinct definition of atheism, namely "absence of belief in gods". No more, no less. You can start believing in the existence of gods and become a theist, you can stay an atheist having "an absence of belief in gods" or you can become a strong/hard atheist having a belief in the non-existence of gods. The distinct default definition of "atheism" covers "absence of belief in gods" and covers all atheists. The distinct definition of "hard/strong atheist" is "an atheist who believes in the non-existence of gods."
Last edited:
And yet you give another definition of both/either "rejecting a 'god'" and "believing in the non-existence of gods." So unless you are promoting only one definition, it really is more, no less.
Not all Buddhists are atheists.