atheism is a (religious position)

[Starise]

Hi

Back at ya. How did you come by "Mock Turtle"? Just curious.

Well of course it isn't universal, and in many of the more progressive countries there is less emphasis on religion so as it to be more a parental consideration or simply being a nominal education, but worldwide it seems to be very much what happens to the majority - so getting the religion dependent upon where they were born. Parents of course should want the best for their children, and hence no doubt why they want the religion they believe in to be passed on, but given that no religion has proof of its truthfulness - and often might cause an allegiance/conflict issue - I personally would want children to choose a religion based on sufficient knowledge and maturity rather than simply being taught to them because it is 'culture'. I'm grateful that my parents had no insistence as to this, but in my case I doubt it would have made any difference as to my ultimate position.

That's seems to be rather convenient - don't ask, don't get - and which might be applied to any religion. Also, one can love one's neighbour as oneself without a religious belief - as so many before Christianity seemed to prescribe (like Confucius).

Well here in our public schools students are taught that we all came from one single organism over billions of years, but this has never been conclusively set as anything other than a theory, and yes I believe in what some might call evolution if such evolution is only about adaptations. Reams have been argued over this suffice it to say the public system is probably more predominant in what they are taught at home. We would definitely see progressive differently if progressive in your mind is not even entertaining the existence of god. We also have religion based education here such as catholic school. Maybe you are from 'here' and are fully aware. It isn't really a good thing to have an exclusive religion IMO, but it is a disservice to exclude any possibility of god to them. The teaching is loss of god by teaching that would seem to exclude Him.So not overtly anti religion. I mean science is science, but properly done I believe it can lead them to a god.

All a bit convenient to me - that whatever one asks of God (of whichever sort) one will be provided as to what is necessary, and where a lot might be down to wishful thinking.

Well, since I am Chistian in belief that narrows it substantially for me. The rest of the gods are wishful thinking if we are talking all mighty beings here.

The evidence seems to show that the religious are not necessarily any more moral than the non-religious though, even if so many might live more happily. And I can see at least one reason why this might be - the religious (or leadership of such) causing a lot of the troubles in the world - so why wouldn't the non-religious be less happy, especially when they probably have far less impact on what the religious do.

I would rather never set foot in a religious place that's corrupted if that was my only option. The leadership in many of these organizations is corrupt to the core, and if that's all some have seen no wonder they are unbelievers. Once again through my lense, morality is important but not ultimately as important as Christ. If Christ is there the rest will fall in line eventually. The connection is God to man in my belief not miscellaneous religious fluff>man. I don't believe any of us has the potential to be perfectly good in and of ourselves. So we are both really non religious here. It's just that I believe in the Christian god as my saviour and you apparently don't.

And I have to ask your opinion on this. If this is a religious web site, then why are atheists even here?..that is unless it IS a religion or correlates closely to one, By the same token, why am I here? I'm not searching because I have already found what I was looking for in addition to not being religious. I have my reasons. I do think it's interesting to talk to people like you and try to see how or why you get your leanings. I am interested in psychology and why people do the things they do..............and the server crashed on another site I frequented and a friend led me here. The server is now back up and running, but I think the detour might have been helpful in various ways. I mean I would have never come into contact with the likes of you guys

Same here, as I don't see it as my job to convert people.

I am supposed to me me which isn't a tough thing to do. That's about it.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem is that this has nothing to do with the actual (possible) existence of God. So labeling religious/god myths, mythical, for the people that choose to believe in them is mostly just an arrogant waste of time. Nor does it make anyone an 'atheist'. All it makes them is anti-religious.

You seem to be reading a lot into my comments that wasn't there. Stating my position that there is good reason to believe that gods are mythical is not actually an attempt into arguing you or anyone else into becoming an atheist. Nor is it even anti-religious. Most theists would agree that at least some gods are mythical, if not the overwhelming majority of gods that scholars are aware of. Monotheists believe that all but one are mythical.

No, you misapplied it because you could think of a way of countering theism (the God proposition) directly. Atheists LOVE to try and equate God with unicorns and fairies and Sasquatch to create an air of absurdity regarding theism. Mostly because they neither understand theism, nor can they offer any sort of viable intelligent rebuttal to the theist proposition.

OK, that's your opinion. I disagree. This thread is about whether atheism is a religious position, not whether atheists are generally mean or rude to theists. Theists can also be rude to other theists, so I'm not going to waste time trying to disabuse you of your biases against atheists. My view is that atheists and theists aren't really that different from each other when it comes to abusive behavior. You may disagree, of course.

I use the term they way it most universally applies. Atheists don't like that, though, because they really want to pit all the various god myths against each other to create the illusion that the diversity destroys credibility.

Here is the proper definition of "God": the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. That includes to various degrees nearly all the gods we humans have conceptualized.

And please keep in mind that common usage has very little to do with proper word definition. Gay = homosexual, for example.

Please don't try to lecture me about definitions and word meanings. I've been a professional linguist for well over half a century now, and I've been lectured about word meanings by lots of people who know even less than you do about the subject. If you have some individual ideas and concepts of the word "God", that's your affair. Language, however, is a group project within a speech community, so common usage is a basic requirement of intelligent discourse on the subject.

There is no "sophistry gambit". This is a philosophical subject that involves philosophical debate. If you can't handle that you probably shouldn't be engaging is this discussion. You can just stay home and pretend you have all the answers lready.

Well you were the one that posed the silly proposition that unicorns don't exist. Maybe next time you'll think a little harder and word your propositions more precisely.

Good. I'm not going to argue with you over whether unicorns or gods exist. My opinion is that there are good reasons to reject belief in both unicorns and gods. I don't feel it necessary to get in a philosophical debate with you over the existence of either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Back at ya. How did you come by "Mock Turtle"? Just curious.

Not too serious (a bit mocking perhaps) and I can take a fair bit of flack (like water off a turtle's back).

Well here in our public schools students are taught that we all came from one single organism over billions of years, but this has never been conclusively set as anything other than a theory, and yes I believe in what some might call evolution if such evolution is only about adaptations. Reams have been argued over this suffice it to say the public system is probably more predominant in what they are taught at home. We would definitely see progressive differently if progressive in your mind is not even entertaining the existence of god. We also have religion based education here such as catholic school. Maybe you are from 'here' and are fully aware. It isn't really a good thing to have an exclusive religion IMO, but it is a disservice to exclude any possibility of god to them. The teaching is loss of god by teaching that would seem to exclude Him.So not overtly anti religion. I mean science is science, but properly done I believe it can lead them to a god.

I'm from the UK, and where religions are mostly not too important to people I suspect - as to what they believe. My beef is with religion in schooling only, given that what happens in the home environment is the affair of parents and can hardly be legislated for, but we can at least give children a more general education in schools regarding such beliefs - and which might lead to more empathy and less conflict when any do decide to choose one religion over another when they are mature enough. So it is mainly about one religion being taught in schools that I don't like, and especially to younger children who don't really have much say in this.

I would rather never set foot in a religious place that's corrupted if that was my only option. The leadership in many of these organizations is corrupt to the core, and if that's all some have seen no wonder they are unbelievers. Once again through my lense, morality is important but not ultimately as important as Christ. If Christ is there the rest will fall in line eventually. The connection is God to man in my belief not miscellaneous religious fluff>man. I don't believe any of us has the potential to be perfectly good in and of ourselves. So we are both really non religious here. It's just that I believe in the Christian god as my saviour and you apparently don't.

I'm sure that most people, of whatever religious belief, are likely to be tolerant and as less likely to be causing conflict as many who have no such beliefs. It's just a shame that so many conflicts still around today seem to be tied ultimately to religious beliefs - as per the current one in the Middle East.

And I have to ask your opinion on this. If this is a religious web site, then why are atheists even here?..that is unless it IS a religion or correlates closely to one, By the same token, why am I here? I'm not searching because I have already found what I was looking for in addition to not being religious. I have my reasons. I do think it's interesting to talk to people like you and try to see how or why you get your leanings. I am interested in psychology and why people do the things they do..............and the server crashed on another site I frequented and a friend led me here. The server is now back up and running, but I think the detour might have been helpful in various ways. I mean I would have never come into contact with the likes of you guys

I suspect what attracts those without religious beliefs to RF, as it probably did for me, was that there were/are many here with expertise in so many areas, and not necessarily religious ones - with which to gain from - and that there was no overwhelming preponderance of religious views - no proselytising allowed per the Rules but this is stretched a bit it seems. And many of us without religious beliefs do actually want to know why and where people get their beliefs, given that although religions are perhaps not the major causes of conflict, they certainly still do cause much conflict and have done so throughout history. It often seems that the non-religious are the most vocal here though - so might appear as being more proselytising by their mere presence. And for me, I liked the format too - allowing input of much that is not related to religion.

I too am interested in psychology, along with so many other subjects, and is why I tended not to delve into religions too deeply once I had decided that religions were not for me.

 

[PureX]

You seem to be reading a lot into my comments that wasn't there. Stating my position that there is good reason to believe that gods are mythical is not actually an attempt into arguing you or anyone else into becoming an atheist.

Well, that's not exactly true, though, is it. The atheists around here expend a great deal of time and energy telling us all that God myths are mythical. Why? Because they think that by discrediting the God myths, they are discrediting the divine mystery that all those myths were created to represent. As atheists, they have already discredited and rejected the divine mystery in their own minds, and apparently now they want everyone else to do so, as well.

Nor is it even anti-religious. Most theists would agree that at least some gods are mythical, if not the overwhelming majority of gods that scholars are aware of. Monotheists believe that all but one are mythical.

Theism is not about what people believe about God. That's theology, and then, religion. Theism is simply the philosophical recognition and proposition of a 'divine agency'.

OK, that's your opinion. I disagree. This thread is about whether atheism is a religious position,

Atheism is very clearly an anti-religious position as it is being expressed by most of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site. So, in that sense it is a "religious position". The problem is that religion is not theism. So being anti-religious does not make anyone an 'atheist', and almost none of the self-proclaimed atheists here understand this. So the confusion abounds, and nothing I post will change that because such vehement biases like those involving religion are very auto-defensive. The eyes and ears close and the mouth opens, and the knees jerk, and no one learns a thing.

My view is that atheists and theists aren't really that different from each other when it comes to abusive behavior. You may disagree, of course.

I would agree fully if you would please stop confusing theists with the adherents of religion. Religious zealots and anti-religious zealots are indeed very similar, and for many of the same reasons. But they do not define theism nor atheism.

Please don't try to lecture me about definitions and word meanings.

Then stop claiming I am inventing definitions of words because you don't like what they are telling you but you can't think how to rebut it.

I've been a professional linguist for well over half a century now, and I've been lectured about word meanings by lots of people who know even less than you do about the subject. If you have some individual ideas and concepts of the word "God", that's your affair. Language, however, is a group project within a speech community, so common usage is a basic requirement of intelligent discourse on the subject.

Then you ought to know that words are used to convey ideas. And not to blame the words when you don't like the ideas they are conveying to you.

Good. I'm not going to argue with you over whether unicorns or gods exist.

That's because you can't. The answer is self-evident.

My opinion is that there are good reasons to reject belief in both unicorns and gods.

And you are welcome to your opinions. But opinions are like .... well, you know the rest.

I don't feel it necessary to get in a philosophical debate with you over the existence of either.

Theism is a philosophical subject. If you want to argue about religion, go find someone that's religious. I am not.

 

[Starise]

Not too serious (a bit mocking perhaps) and I can take a fair bit of flack (like water off a turtle's back).

Oh I see. That makes sense.

I'm from the UK, and where religions are mostly not too important to people I suspect - as to what they believe. My beef is with religion in schooling only, given that what happens in the home environment is the affair of parents and can hardly be legislated for, but we can at least give children a more general education in schools regarding such beliefs - and which might lead to more empathy and less conflict when any do decide to choose one religion over another when they are mature enough. So it is mainly about one religion being taught in schools that I don't like, and especially to younger children who don't really have much say in this.

I totally agree.

I'm sure that most people, of whatever religious belief, are likely to be tolerant and as less likely to be causing conflict as many who have no such beliefs. It's just a shame that so many conflicts still around today seem to be tied ultimately to religious beliefs - as per the current one in the Middle East.

While I agree, I also see it going both ways so far as some aspects of some religions, which if applied make the world a better place, so I don't always associate religions with wars if they have shown themselves to be stabilizing features as those in the west have shown. In contrast, areas of the world that have discouraged any religion i.e. the CCP are not good places to live and have restricted freedoms. In yet another example which you raised, the MIddle East. Clearly some sectors of the Muslim faith are radical and violent. Not to single them out there, but I think it has to be said because it's an observable fact. Part of their training is hate if they happen to be in those offshoots. Freedoms are also disouraged and women especially mistreated.

I suspect what attracts those without religious beliefs to RF, as it probably did for me, was that there were/are many here with expertise in so many areas, and not necessarily religious ones - with which to gain from - and that there was no overwhelming preponderance of religious views - no proselytising allowed per the Rules but this is stretched a bit it seems. And many of us without religious beliefs do actually want to know why and where people get their beliefs, given that although religions are perhaps not the major causes of conflict, they certainly still do cause much conflict and have done so throughout history. It often seems that the non-religious are the most vocal here though - so might appear as being more proselytising by their mere presence. And for me, I liked the format too - allowing input of much that is not related to religion.

I too am interested in psychology, along with so many other subjects, and is why I tended not to delve into religions too deeply once I had decided that religions were not for me.

Well one feature of my religion is loving my neighbor and not just superficially. That can wear many masks, so while I won't ram anything ever I am concerned from my perspective for the futures of those who seem to think there are no repercussions. Free will figures in here and I think most atheists are aware of my position, so in this case it's enough.
As a newcomer it doesn't really look like a religious forum it mostly looks like an atheist forum. Not sure who the site owner is or what their goals are. The format here is ok, some areas I won't visit because I don't see how they are in keeping with the goal or in any way wholesome to me..
I can imagine a searching soul ending up here looking for something that means something and being greatly disappointed.

I never could get on with the apparent acceptance of only the observable knowing so many things we do and rely on are indeed invisible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I agree, I also see it going both ways so far as some aspects of some religions, which if applied make the world a better place, so I don't always associate religions with wars if they have shown themselves to be stabilizing features as those in the west have shown.

Where has religion "shown itself to be a stabilizing feature"?

In contrast, areas of the world that have discouraged any religion i.e. the CCP are not good places to live and have restricted freedoms.

The anti-clerical stance of the Soviet Union was largely a response to abuses and oppression by the state church under the Tsar. In terms of freedom and quality of life, things were much worse under a religious framework that supported serfdom than they were under communism; religion was the impulse that pushed the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

In yet another example which you raised, the MIddle East. Clearly some sectors of the Muslim faith are radical and violent. Not to single them out there, but I think it has to be said because it's an observable fact. Part of their training is hate if they happen to be in those offshoots. Freedoms are also disouraged and women especially mistreated.

Something that I've found to be generally true: religion is fairly benign when it's in the minority in a secular state, and oppressive when it's in the majority or gains access to the levers of power.

It doesn’t seem to matter too much what the actual doctrines of the religion are... or maybe there's a self-selection thing: only the religions with the potential to be oppressive are the ones that are ever in a position to be the dominant religion of a state.

But we have examples of oppressive Christian, Muslim, and even Buddhist regimes. Smaller religious groups manage to oppress their followers without dominating a state if they exert enough control on their members (e.g. "ultra-Orthodox" Judaism or the more extreme Mennonites).

The key to religion being a force for good seems to be ensuring that people are free to leave it.

 

[shunyadragon]

While I agree, I also see it going both ways so far as some aspects of some religions, which if applied make the world a better place, so I don't always associate religions with wars if they have shown themselves to be stabilizing features as those in the west have shown. In contrast, areas of the world that have discouraged any religion i.e. the CCP are not good places to live and have restricted freedoms. In yet another example which you raised, the MIddle East. Clearly some sectors of the Muslim faith are radical and violent. Not to single them out there, but I think it has to be said because it's an observable fact. Part of their training is hate if they happen to be in those offshoots. Freedoms are also discouraged and women especially mistreated.

Jews and Christians have been as much involved with religious tribal wars in history as Muslims. Being selective of what time or the other different religions and beliefs are at war or more or less tolerant of different beliefs is a subjective judgement. Russia in history is ORthodox Christian and despite superficial atheism in recent history Putin has evoked a Orthodox Manifest Destiny purpose to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

You must realize that Israel is a Jewish only state, immigration is Jews only, and they are slowly ethnically cleansing Muslims from Israel, which they include Palestine They do not support the two state solution. This slow and methodical removal pf muslims is what in part motivated the current war. There is no question the Hamas war was brutal violent assault on Israel, but history as a witness there are no angel here.

I lived in China for nine years recently, and yes there is not much to admire in their Dynasty form of government. The dominant beliefs in China are not atheist.

I do not believe you can extend the generalization and stereotyping atheism on this forum and in the USA with the issues in China and Russia, There history is dominated by ruthless Dynasties in China and Czarist governments in Russia regardless of religious beliefs.

Well one feature of my religion is loving my neighbor and not just superficially.

I believe, though idealistic, is the goal of everyone regardless of belief. Our view from an egocentric perspective is not a good measure.

That can wear many masks, so while I won't ram anything ever I am concerned from my perspective for the futures of those who seem to think there are no repercussions. Free will figures in here and I think most atheists are aware of my position, so in this case it's enough.

Is your view of Free Will Libertarian? The extremes of Libertarian and Hard Determinism are difficult to justify.

As a newcomer it doesn't really look like a religious forum it mostly looks like an atheist forum. Not sure who the site owner is or what their goals are. The format here is ok, some areas I won't visit because I don't see how they are in keeping with the goal or in any way wholesome to me..

Atheists are indeed a minority here with a diversity of beliefs on board. If anything the Conservative side of Christianity has a significant voice here. Like many Christians on this forum I find your attitude toward atheists unsettling, and does not encourage constructive dialogue.

I am a Theist, and I find the atheist/agnostic the better perspective of reality than the Jewish, Christian and Islamic ancient perspective of reality.

I can imagine a searching soul ending up here looking for something that means something and being greatly disappointed.

If your looking for a place where everyone agrees with you an open forum like RF is not for you. There are other forums that t are tougher trying to run the gauntlet if you are sensitive to opposing views,

I never could get on with the apparent acceptance of only the observable knowing so many things we do and rely on are indeed invisible.

The invisible beyond the physical world is indeed unknowable in any consistent predicable way. Acknowledging the subjective basis for the many diverse and conflicting beliefs is important to keep in touch with reality,

 

[Starise]

Where has religion "shown itself to be a stabilizing feature"?

Anywhere there is a stable Judeo Christian underpinning. Notice I said stable. Not all are.

he anti-clerical stance of the Soviet Union was largely a response to abuses and oppression by the state church under the Tsar. In terms of freedom and quality of life, things were much worse under a religious framework that supported serfdom than they were under communism; religion was the impulse that pushed the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

There was this guy.....Stalin. Killed more people than Hitler. Do you have a background from there?

Something that I've found to be generally true: religion is fairly benign when it's in the minority in a secular state, and oppressive when it's in the majority or gains access to the levers of power.

When good religion is adopted by the people we have stability IMO. Notice I said 'good". Almost never has anything to do with the government if the outcome is good. It makes positive changes in people. Not control.

Religion as a control mechanism is employed by embedded religious institutions in bed with governments. They practically ruined Christianity in this way, at least during those times. The undercurrent was the real thing. The more apparent state endorsed version was the hypocritical one.

It doesn’t seem to matter too much what the actual doctrines of the religion are... or maybe there's a self-selection thing: only the religions with the potential to be oppressive are the ones that are ever in a position to be the dominant religion of a state.

But we have examples of oppressive Christian, Muslim, and even Buddhist regimes. Smaller religious groups manage to oppress their followers without dominating a state if they exert enough control on their members (e.g. "ultra-Orthodox" Judaism or the more extreme Mennonites).

The key to religion being a force for good seems to be ensuring that people are free to leave it.

Yes I would agree, only to add I seen those nationalistic religions calling themselves christian as the aped versions. There may be others who see Musim the same or Buddism.

If religion is supposed to improve man then it would not oppress him unless they skewed the vision for it and think oppression is good for men.

 

[Mock Turtle]

While I agree, I also see it going both ways so far as some aspects of some religions, which if applied make the world a better place, so I don't always associate religions with wars if they have shown themselves to be stabilizing features as those in the west have shown. In contrast, areas of the world that have discouraged any religion i.e. the CCP are not good places to live and have restricted freedoms. In yet another example which you raised, the MIddle East. Clearly some sectors of the Muslim faith are radical and violent. Not to single them out there, but I think it has to be said because it's an observable fact. Part of their training is hate if they happen to be in those offshoots. Freedoms are also disouraged and women especially mistreated.

Many of the most intractable disputes seem to be related to religions but conflicts also might come from authoritarian regimes and their aims - as per Russia at the moment and China. There also are concerns as to freedoms with regards to religious influence - as per LGBT issues, for example, and it is often religions which are holding back societies in this regard. If one saw ultimate freedoms this way of course, but with morality laid out in some particular religious text it is not so easy to change attitudes and/or dogma. I suspect most in Europe, for example, are simply appalled that so many (about a third apparently) in the USA do accept the YEC doctrine and mostly because they believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

Well one feature of my religion is loving my neighbor and not just superficially. That can wear many masks, so while I won't ram anything ever I am concerned from my perspective for the futures of those who seem to think there are no repercussions. Free will figures in here and I think most atheists are aware of my position, so in this case it's enough.
As a newcomer it doesn't really look like a religious forum it mostly looks like an atheist forum. Not sure who the site owner is or what their goals are. The format here is ok, some areas I won't visit because I don't see how they are in keeping with the goal or in any way wholesome to me..
I can imagine a searching soul ending up here looking for something that means something and being greatly disappointed.

I never could get on with the apparent acceptance of only the observable knowing so many things we do and rely on are indeed invisible.

My mind is open to things other than the material world but the issue for me is how to tell the difference from a reality involving such (whatever that might be) from one created within the mind of whoever experiences something so as for them to believe this. So I suppose I am naturally more on the skeptical end of the scale for much where whatever relies upon myself actually experiencing something or where I have to take the word of others as to their experiences.

 

[shunyadragon]

Anywhere there is a stable Judeo Christian underpinning. Notice I said stable. Not all are.



There was this guy.....Stalin. Killed more people than Hitler. Do you have a background from there?

These accusations are clearly bogus with an anti-atheist agenda. The generalization can be extended to Christian pogroms and attempts to ethnically cleanse Jews from Europe.

The atheists, agnostics, and Christians debating here do not have blood on their hands from past atrocities.

I consider your agenda against atheists toxic.

When good religion is adopted by the people we have stability IMO. Notice I said 'good". Almost never has anything to do with the government if the outcome is good. It makes positive changes in people. Not control.

As ar as history goes. none of the religions have been consistently good, particularly to non-believers.

Religion as a control mechanism is employed by embedded religious institutions in bed with governments. They practically ruined Christianity in this way, at least during those times. The undercurrent was the real thing. The more apparent state endorsed version was the hypocritical one.

I do not believe you can be that selective in advocating for Christianity given its history than you can associate the atheists today with cruel dictators of the past.

Yes I would agree, only to add I seen those nationalistic religions calling themselves christian as the aped versions. There may be others who see Muslim the same or Buddhism.

Your comparison of religions has a very strong biased agenda especially your standard as to who is the true Christian and whi is not.

Actually Buddhism has been the least violent, and warlike in history, and would a good example of what is consistently "good"

If religion is supposed to improve man . . .

True, but each different diverse and conflicting religions and churches all claim to be the only one who achieves this.

 

[Starise]

Jews and Christians have been as much involved with religious tribal wars in history as Muslims. Being selective of what time or the other different religions and beliefs are at war or more or less tolerant of different beliefs is a subjective judgement. Russia in history is ORthodox Christian and despite superficial atheism in recent history Putin has evoked a Orthodox Manifest Destiny purpose to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

Nice to meet you @shunyadragon.

You are attempting to cover a lot of territory historically in a short few sentences. You did a decent job of it IMO.
Still a lot of things I would insert to make it more rounded which I understand is difficult to do in this format. You would probably call my view biased, but maybe not. I see two threads in Christianity since the papal Roman origins, and for me this changes some of the dynamic.

Breaking this down, to me it seems there are really only two views. Religion is good or religion is bad and much like wine it depends on the kind and vintage. It seems grey to say there are both good and bad characteristics and I would only say it depends. If the ultimate goal is to balance and control society,it seems a short throw for something that might have more potential, and this is looking out for society not men on a more personal level. If religion is for personal growth and fulfillment, or the betterment of man not just in the material but in the spiritual and onward, then the sights are set for nobler use. Whether this is ever achieved or not also depends.

ou must realize that Israel is a Jewish only state, immigration is Jews only, and they are slowly ethnically cleansing Muslims from Israel, which they include Palestine They do not support the two state solution. This slow and methodical removal pf muslims is what in part motivated the current war. There is no question the Hamas war was brutal violent assault on Israel, but history as a witness there are no angel here.

I can't personally comment on all of those dynamics. I am in contact with a Jewish person who is Orthodox and I am told Israel lets in others besides Jews, athough at a heightened state of alert this could have changed, neither can I confirm or deny those comments. My gut feeling is that things were at least manageable until those initial attacks. I feel for Palestinians and Jews caught up in this who had no thoughts of hate or war. They were just living their lives trying to be peacful.

I lived in China for nine years recently, and yes there is not much to admire in their Dynasty form of government. The dominant beliefs in China are not atheist.

While not atheist, I would say the general government is humanist, at least it surely looks that way to me. Humanism and atheism look like kissing cousins to me. If there are churches the state seems to run them which means they have limitations and controls. Maybe you can shed more light on this?

I do not believe you can extend the generalization and stereotyping atheism on this forum and in the USA with the issues in China and Russia, There history is dominated by ruthless Dynasties in China and Czarist governments in Russia regardless of religious beliefs.

I do not believe you can extend the generalization and stereotyping atheism on this forum and in the USA with the issues in China and Russia, There history is dominated by ruthless Dynasties in China and Czarist governments in Russia regardless of religious beliefs.

I'm always open to learn more. At the core atheism is atheism, so I think that would be difficult to generalize. If some of those dynasties are pushing out the freedom to talk about and worship god what would you call them?

I believe, though idealistic, is the goal of everyone regardless of belief. Our view from an egocentric perspective is not a good measure.

I wish I could agree with that one. I simply can't. If it were true in function we would have no war, but I believe the majority of wars are contructed for elite benefit. There are some beams of light here and there, but not nearly enough.

Atheists are indeed a minority here with a diversity of beliefs on board. If anything the Conservative side of Christianity has a significant voice here. Like many Christians on this forum I find your attitude toward atheists unsettling, and does not encourage constructive dialogue.

I am a Theist, and I find the atheist/agnostic the better perspective of reality than the Jewish, Christian and Islamic ancient perspective of reality.

I haven't been around long enough to make a good determination. How can you say my attitude toward atheists is unsettling when I show no animosity towards any of you? That statement really begs an answer. I think you need to be more specific please.
Why do you feel more attracted to atheist/agnotic than the others? How would you describe your belief in Theism on a personal level?

If your looking for a place where everyone agrees with you an open forum like RF is not for you. There are other forums that t are tougher trying to run the gauntlet if you are sensitive to opposing views,

This was never my expectation.

Is your view of Free Will Libertarian? The extremes of Libertarian and Hard Determinism are difficult to justify.

No I'm a Christian that is mostly Libertarian, but like anything else I need a reference point.

The invisible beyond the physical world is indeed unknowable in any consistent predicable way. Acknowledging the subjective basis for the many diverse and conflicting beliefs is important to keep in touch with reality,

Wait, you stated that as if it's a fact. It isn't. It's your opinion. How can you ever know what my experiences were/are? Or anyone else's ?

 

[Starise]

Many of the most intractable disputes seem to be related to religions but conflicts also might come from authoritarian regimes and their aims - as per Russia at the moment and China. There also are concerns as to freedoms with regards to religious influence - as per LGBT issues, for example, and it is often religions which are holding back societies in this regard. If one saw ultimate freedoms this way of course, but with morality laid out in some particular religious text it is not so easy to change attitudes and/or dogma. I suspect most in Europe, for example, are simply appalled that so many (about a third apparently) in the USA do accept the YEC doctrine and mostly because they believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

I see a lot of the things you think are holding back as degradations, mainly in the area of personal freedoms that others don't infringe on. i.e. I want to use a bathroom for my sex and I should have that freedom. Women competing against men with sex changes isn't a fair shake either. In the same way some governments have wanted to mandate religions, this has carried over into mandated rules for those who want nothing to do with any of it. If a belief system's book is against same sex marriage then I think they should be allowed to hold that belief. Neither should they interfere with what anyone decided to do in their bedroom.
There are only two choices in interpretations for some of the passages. If you take the original word one must either take it for what it says or reject it altogether. blue letter bible is a great tool for this. I think the original books are inspired, but there are typos that need to be reckoned with in some of the later translations. If I didn't think the bible was true I wouldn't be a Christian.

My mind is open to things other than the material world but the issue for me is how to tell the difference from a reality involving such (whatever that might be) from one created within the mind of whoever experiences something so as for them to believe this. So I suppose I am naturally more on the skeptical end of the scale for much where whatever relies upon myself actually experiencing something or where I have to take the word of others as to their experiences.

That makes perfect sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I see a lot of the things you think are holding back as degradations, mainly in the area of personal freedoms that others don't infringe on. i.e. I want to use a bathroom for my sex and I should have that freedom. Women competing against men with sex changes isn't a fair shake either. In the same way some governments have wanted to mandate religions, this has carried over into mandated rules for those who want nothing to do with any of it. If a belief system's book is against same sex marriage then I think they should be allowed to hold that belief. Neither should they interfere with what anyone decided to do in their bedroom.
There are only two choices in interpretations for some of the passages. If you take the original word one must either take it for what it says or reject it altogether. blue letter bible is a great tool for this. I think the original books are inspired, but there are typos that need to be reckoned with in some of the later translations. If I didn't think the bible was true I wouldn't be a Christian.

As do so many other religious beliefs. I suppose one can only live what one believes to be best for us all. Personally, as someone who has seen the changes within the UK (where homosexuality once was illegal), life is better for all now and much more open. And basing one's morality upon a religious text, in my view, is one of the things holding back societies - given one can't go back in time and rewrite the texts, even when they are wrong. Not much one can do as to debating this given neither side is likely to budge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice to meet you @shunyadragon.

Breaking this down, to me it seems there are really only two views. Religion is good or religion is bad and much like wine it depends on the kind and vintage. It seems grey to say there are both good and bad characteristics and I would only say it depends. If the ultimate goal is to balance and control society,it seems a short throw for something that might have more potential, and this is looking out for society not men on a more personal level. If religion is for personal growth and fulfillment, or the betterment of man not just in the material but in the spiritual and onward, then the sights are set for nobler use. Whether this is ever achieved or not also depends.

Far too much of a naive generalization good and bad.

I can't personally comment on all of those dynamics. I am in contact with a Jewish person who is Orthodox and I am told Israel lets in others besides Jews, athough at a heightened state of alert this could have changed, neither can I confirm or deny those comments. My gut feeling is that things were at least manageable until those initial attacks. I feel for Palestinians and Jews caught up in this who had no thoughts of hate or war. They were just living their lives trying to be peacful.

Take off the rose colored glasses concerning Israel. Immigration into Israel is JEWS ONLY by law. The Declaration of Independence declares it is a Jewish State. I will provide references concerning Jewish ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Israel to follow.

While not atheist, I would say the general government is humanist, at least it surely looks that way to me. Humanism and atheism look like kissing cousins to me. If there are churches the state seems to run them which means they have limitations and controls. Maybe you can shed more light on this?

Humanism is most definitely NOT atheism. It is best to describe the USA government as secular. I hope the Christian Nationalists do not manage to change our government to a Theonomy.

I'm always open to learn more. At the core atheism is atheism, so I think that would be difficult to generalize. If some of those dynasties are pushing out the freedom to talk about and worship god what would you call them?

So?? Atheism is atheism, Theism is Theism, and agnosticism is agnosticism. I believe you have generalized in the negative concerning atheism.

Despotic cruel dictators whether they are Christian, atheist, Muslim or whatever.

I wish I could agree with that one. I simply can't. If it were true in function we would have no war, but I believe the majority of wars are constructed for elite benefit. There are some beams of light here and there, but not nearly enough.

Elite benefit?: In this view it would be the same regardless of atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever

I haven't been around long enough to make a good determination. How can you say my attitude toward atheists is unsettling when I show no animosity towards any of you? That statement really begs an answer. I think you need to be more specific please.
Why do you feel more attracted to atheist/agnotic than the others? How would you describe your belief in Theism on a personal level?

I am not attracted to atheists. I treat them as equal humans with different beliefs.

Some of your statements concerning atheists today in this debate have been toxic as comparing Stalin and other cruel despots with atheists today. In reality the Czarist rulers of the Orthodox Church were no less cruel than Stalin.

This was never my expectation.



No I'm a Christian that is mostly Libertarian, but like anything else I need a reference point.

Reference point???? Needs an explanation. In other words you believe in Libertarian Free Will.?

Wait, you stated that as if it's a fact. It isn't. It's your opinion. How can you ever know what my experiences were/are? Or anyone else's ?

You would have to explain how invisible subjective things and beliefs on your part regardless of what you believe as opposed to what anyone else believes.

By definition the 'jnvisible' is by definition subjective and not confirmable by objective methods whether it applies to you or anyone else.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please don't tell me you don't think evolution is one of the primary bedrocks of atheism. I mean in any discussion with an atheist it's about 80% of the discussion.

Your acrid toxic agenda against atheism and science is revealed in spades without a polite cover.

The objective evidence of science is the bullwork of evolution without any regard for religious beliefs including atheism.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, that's not exactly true, though, is it. The atheists around here expend a great deal of time and energy telling us all that God myths are mythical. Why? Because they think that by discrediting the God myths, they are discrediting the divine mystery that all those myths were created to represent. As atheists, they have already discredited and rejected the divine mystery in their own minds, and apparently now they want everyone else to do so, as well.

Theism is not about what people believe about God. That's theology, and then, religion. Theism is simply the philosophical recognition and proposition of a 'divine agency'.

Atheism is very clearly an anti-religious position as it is being expressed by most of the self-proclaimed atheists on this site. So, in that sense it is a "religious position". The problem is that religion is not theism. So being anti-religious does not make anyone an 'atheist', and almost none of the self-proclaimed atheists here understand this. So the confusion abounds, and nothing I post will change that because such vehement biases like those involving religion are very auto-defensive. The eyes and ears close and the mouth opens, and the knees jerk, and no one learns a thing.

The expression "religious position" can be construed to mean different things in different contexts, but Eddi's OP made clear what he meant by the expression and then walked it back in a way that left his intent somewhat muddled:

"Conclusion: Atheism is a religion​

​

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions"​

IOW, he was trying to make some equivalence between atheism and a religion, but he wasn't quite sure how to make it. Why is it so important to some who advocate for theism to try to make that equivalence? That's a question you might want to think about. As for your general opinions about atheists on this website, I consider that an irrelevance in this discussion. Everyone has attitudes. I try not to take them personally.

I would agree fully if you would please stop confusing theists with the adherents of religion. Religious zealots and anti-religious zealots are indeed very similar, and for many of the same reasons. But they do not define theism nor atheism.

I never said they did. I don't confuse theism with religion, so I don't know why you keep accusing me of that. I think it's fair to say that most theists are religious in that they embed their beliefs about god(s) in some kind of doctrinal position. Like any word meaning, the meaning of "god" is complicated. So dictionaries typically provide several senses that the word can have, but people who argue about the existence of their gods tend to have a much narrower concept of what they are talking about.

Then stop claiming I am inventing definitions of words because you don't like what they are telling you but you can't think how to rebut it.

I'm not trying to rebut your personal definitions. You can assume anything you like about how you would like to use words, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to believe that others share your meaning or agree with it. To the extent that you want to depart from common usage, I am disinclined to accept your opinions.

Then you ought to know that words are used to convey ideas. And not to blame the words when you don't like the ideas they are conveying to you.

This kind of silly comment is what I mean when I accuse you of reading things into my posts. I have never said or implied that words were not used to convey ideas or blamed words for conveying ideas I didn't like.

...Good. I'm not going to argue with you over whether unicorns or gods exist.

That's because you can't. The answer is self-evident.

It's because that isn't what the discussion is about. If the answer is self-evident to you, then why do you keep bringing up the question?

And you are welcome to your opinions. But opinions are like .... well, you know the rest.

Theism is a philosophical subject. If you want to argue about religion, go find someone that's religious. I am not.

I am trying to discuss the thread topic, not get pulled off into an argument over your problems with atheists. That seems to be all you want to talk about--the people making the arguments rather than the argument itself.

 

[DNB]

Whoever "makes up" the most sense. What makes sense is a subjective judgement and cannot measure accuracy., and your extreme egocentric bias and judgement eliminates any possibility of accuracy.

You can't distinguish nonsense from truth when you hear it? What's your intellect and wisdom for?

 

[DNB]

Everyone has faith.

Yes, but, again, one's faith can be wrong. A person may believe in the reliability of another, and become disappointed - their faith was mislead - they lack wisdom.

 

[DNB]

You are obviously a part of the 'blindness appears to be a disease that has affected the majority of the populace' clinging egocentrically to ancient tribal mythological belief.

God is real and good, and man is wicked - Christ was sent by God to offer redemption.
What's mythological about that?

 

[DNB]

You fall back on obsolete religious assumptions. That's not good enough for critical thinkers.

Oh the irony. Theists like yourself continually repeat obsolete religious belief and ignore what science has learned about nature and psychology. You call knowledge a "disease" yet your computer use tells us you rely on the modern technology that the "disease" has created. What else in the modern world do you use and rely on, but consider the knowledge that makes it all possible and real a "disease"? This is why religious extremist views are laughable and heavily criticized.

You don't know how I used the word 'blind' to mean?