atheism is a (religious position)

[DNB]

So we agree. This god couldn’t figure out a less violent way to punish people who made it mad. And what sense does it make to claim that an ‘all knowing’ god was so oblivious that it didn’t KNOW that its creation would continue to sin? Are you admitting that it wasn’t omniscient either?

God reveals things for our sake, not His.
We have to learn how rebellious and obstinate that we are, not Him.
If it wasn't for the tests that God allows us to undergo, we'd all think that we were pretty good people

 

[DNB]

And you are probably beyond redemption - as to understanding a different reality.

Feel free to offer a more accurate perspective, if you can?

 

[DNB]

If that god were real he is wicked. If he was real I would not be thankful, I would say save one of the 10,000 children who starve every day instead.
But I don't believe folk tales in books without evidence.

Claiming that there's no evidence simply because you can't discern it, is a self-incriminating accusation

 

[DNB]

And your God made humans how he wanted. How is creating wicked humans merciful when that design hurts children?

The more Bible literalists assert their interpretation is correct the more God is either inept or a sociopath. Or both.


So you are claiming to be righteous only because you interpret the Bible literally? It’s righteous to make God look like a total idiot or criminal with that sort of interpretation?


This interpretation is still a bad look for God because everything is how God crested it.

If God wanted a permanent Eden don’t you think God would have succeeded? Humans can be moral with free will, but God sabotaged Eden by making Adam and Eve naive and unable to resist temptation. Remember God created Satan and allowed him to tempt A&E. God knew they weren’t capable of resisting.

We blame God, not the naive.

You're delusional esteem of man, is going to affect your own stability

 

[F1fan]

God reveals things for our sake, not His.

This isn’t a factual statement. It’s religious dogma.

We have to learn how rebellious and obstinate that we are, not Him.

No we don’t because nothing you claim has any basis in reality.

If it wasn't for the tests that God allows us to undergo, we'd all think that we were pretty good people

I don’t think Christians really take much of this seriously. Too many disagreements and not enough truth.

Claiming that there's no evidence simply because you can't discern it, is a self-incriminating accusation

False. Believers struggle to verify their beliefs. That’s because the claims are absurd and lack evidence.

You're delusional esteem of man, is going to affect your own stability

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. I made no such assertion. And it’s interesting that you bring up stability as a judgment towards me. Perhaps you’re struggling with stability and projecting?

 

[Nakosis]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

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

I suppose only if you see a non-position as a position.
And, I'm not saying that all atheists don't have a God concept they disbelieve just that having a disbelief in a particular God concept is necessary to being an atheist.

I simply see the existence of any Gods beyond my knowledge. Such not being a position I've chosen just a self awareness of where I find myself to be. Better defined as an agnostic atheist.

A gnostic atheist on the other hand has a definite position on the God concept though I couldn't really find anyone who is a famous gnostic atheist. Not sure if any actually exist.

 

[Bthoth]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

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

I have found that the majority of athiest are evolved or grown up theist, across the board.

Many atheist are labeled with the term, by theist.

And finally, most atheist have no issue with any god, just the people that tell them how to think.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Feel free to offer a more accurate perspective, if you can?

If you want - as to Adam and Eve being a mythical tale, as to Noah's Ark being so too, as to humans being closely related to other primates, as to life on Earth being driven by evolution rather than design, etc. So mostly what the evidence tends to show rather than literally believing what any particular religious text might say - such as the Bible - and where some discrimination is necessary to sift the myths from any truths that might exist in said text(s).

And some news in - which isn't really that much news - as to many primates exhibiting the same behaviours as humans but seemingly dismissed as of no relevance by so many who refuse to see the connections between these primates and humans - and watch the accompanying video in the article:

Juvenile great apes love to tease and annoy their elders, study finds

Young chimps, orangutans, bonobos and gorillas show wide range of playful and sometimes aggressive behaviours

www.theguardian.com

Footage of great apes has revealed that humans are not the only ones to endure seemingly endless bouts of teasing dished out by their smaller and weaker young who appear intent on pushing their luck. Recordings of chimps, orangutans, bonobos and gorillas found the animals to be masters of the dubious art, embarking on an impressive range of playful and occasionally somewhat aggressive acts ranging from the cheeky and plain silly to the fabulously irritating. From 75 hours of footage taken at San Diego and Leipzig zoos, scientists documented 142 clear instances of great apes teasing their compadres, with most instigated by juveniles aged three to five years old. The apes poked, prodded and ran away, offered objects and then pulled them back, body-slammed one other, stuck their faces in others’ faces, pulled on wisps of hair – a move particularly common in orangutans whose hair is amply long enough – tugged on body parts, tickled, and dangled things in front of each other. And that was only for starters. In all, the researchers in Germany and the US counted 18 different varieties of teasing in the footage. More than a fifth employed an element of surprise, with an ape approaching its target from behind or while it was looking the other way. “We cannot really say why they are doing it, but we can observe that they are doing it,” said Dr Isabelle Laumer at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Konstanz, Germany. “This playful teasing is provocative, intentional, and typically one-sided. It comes very much from the teaser and it often remains that way throughout the interaction.” As with all the best teasing, a failure to respond to an unexpected poke, or an ape’s face suddenly looming into view, was met with more of the same, with apes repeating their chosen move in 84% of cases or escalating the situation with more elaborate acts of annoyance.

No surprise, and much will be simple attention-seeking perhaps just as with human children.

The study of nine bonobos, four orangutans, four gorillas and 17 chimps was too small to find major differences between the species, but adults and juveniles had different strategies. Poking was the most common form of teasing for both adults and juveniles, but while juveniles engaged in hitting and waving body parts at others, adults were gentler and favoured tickling and stealing. “What’s interesting is we found similarities with human infant teasing,” said Laumer. “When human infants tease their mother, they tend to look to their mother’s face for a reaction. We see that in these great apes too.” Human infants engage in playful teasing as early as eight months and before they can produce words. Scientists believe the behaviour may help test social boundaries and strengthen relationships.

 

[Firenze]

God reveals things for our sake, not His.
We have to learn how rebellious and obstinate that we are, not Him.
If it wasn't for the tests that God allows us to undergo, we'd all think that we were pretty good people

The tests?? Children suffering in terror and pain, and eventually dying of cancer because this god refuses to answer their desperate prayers..... is a test?? How exactly does that horrible, rebellious and obstinate 6 year old pass this test? Beg their parents to tithe more?

Perhaps if Christians had more self respect instead of self loathing, and chose not to abrogate their gift of Reason in favor of their self-absorbed craving for 'eternal life' - they might actually BE pretty good people.....

 

[joelr]

Claiming that there's no evidence simply because you can't discern it, is a self-incriminating accusation

Yes I discern the evidence quite well. It's no better than evidence for Mormonism, Islam, Krishna or any other myth.

Please, cite some evidence that is good evidence. Not evidence that you buy into from your religion and reject from all others.
If the Mormon Bible si not evidence neither is yours.
But I am familiar with the historicity and archaeology of the Bible and that evidence is almost 100% certain that its' a syncretic mythology.

I'm going to guess you have read zero historians on the OT or NT.

 

[joelr]

The Bible is true, your fairy tales are not

LOL, is that some of your "evidence"!!!

"It's true because it says it's true"

Ok, off to a bad start. I do believe the Epic of Gilamesh is a folk tale and Noah is also a folk tale inspired by those older flood stories.
This is the consensus opinion in historical scholarship. The people who study the source material in the original languages and have no doubt of this. We also have strong evidence from geology there was no world flood which you can explain to me how you debunk. Since you seem to be the expert in evidence and I'm unable to discern it. I'm waiting. First provide people in the historical field, who have PhD and peer-reviewed work on your flood myth being real.

In fact, these are all textbooks used in University courses:

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.

2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”

The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction t
o the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

 

[paarsurrey]

atheism is a (religious position)

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

They themselves pegged it with theism, so surely it is, this they had to do, one understands, as they don't have any basis of their own (own legs to stand), and also the Western Atheism (et al) got its philosophical existence in reaction to the Hellenist-Paulines aka "Christendom", so in this sense, one could certainly say, they are the flip side of Hellenist-Paulism, please, right?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

atheism is a (religious position)

They themselves pegged it with theism, so surely it is, this they had to do,

one understands, as they don't have any basis of their own (own legs to stand), and also the Western Atheism (et al) got its philosophical existence in reaction to the Hellenist-Paulines aka "Christendom", so in this sense, one could certainly say, they are the flip side of Hellenist-Paulism, please, right?

No, because atheists see no reason to believe in Gods from the Theist, Deist, Polytheist, or any other spiritual realms with spiritual beings of any sort such as dragons, unicorns or tooth fairies. Hellenist or Paulist is simply a version of Christianity or Theism as such, and atheism existed before as in the Naturalistic philosophy of the Roman philosopher Lucretius. In fact Lucretius made no mention of religion or God he just present a a rational scenario of a Natural existence,

It is much easier to believe Islam formed in opposition to the Hellenist Paulist Roman Christianity to claim to restore the true Monotheistic religion of Judaism.

It is not difficult for them to conclude that the ancient religion are the creation f human imagination based on fears of what they did not know in the ancient world without science.

Atheism and agnosticism have very good legs to stand on based simple on science with no objective evidence of Gods or spiritual realms inhabited by other beings. There are also abundant reasons do to the grounds of ancient religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam in ancient mythology and created history of the Pentateuch without provenance or known authorship.

To ground one's belief in the simple objective natural reality revealed by science is preferable to clinging to ancient religions in making admirable tough independent decisions and taking heat from ancient religions.

 

[anotherneil]

I agree that atheism by definition is inherently a religiously based position; that's why I refer to myself as non-religious rather than something like atheist.

I'd say it may even be a word that was invented by theistic vanguards as a means of control, via our means of communication, over both folks who are their religious followers and those who aren't their religious followers; it sort of creates this false dichotomy about where people stand religiously, and it seems effective.

The false dichotomy is either you're a religious follower, or you're not a religious follower yet because you haven't been persuaded; for example, you do believe in God (a supernatural being who created the universe and is going to judge you after you die to determine whether your soul gets to go to heaven or hell), or you don't believe in God (yet), because you haven't been persuaded so far, and you're open to being persuaded.

In reality, there's more than that; there are those who are not interested at a fundamental level in believing anything religious or supernatural. They're not religious, or I suppose one could say that the have religious apathy - they don't care to the point that they're not interested in exploring religious belief, or far more likely it's that they are very familiar with religious material - the doctrine, dogma, rituals, etc. and see them as useless and pointless.

I was raised by religious parents, and am familiar with the doctrine, dogma, rituals, etc. For a while I was a believer, but eventually I decided to drop it as I don't see it as useful, beneficial, or practical for anything. I don't see myself as going from theist to atheist, but rather as having gone from being religious to non-religious.

Some atheists seem to take the approach that they're open to persuasion, but in practice I don't think that's what they really want to do; it could be that their goal is to try to break people who are religious believers and get them to stop believing, but from what I can tell they're usually don't have much of any success.

Some individuals who claim to be atheists might actually be religious believers or religious vanguard types pretending to be non-believers or atheists, to try to first get some atheist or non-religious individuals to become their followers in the hopes of eventually converting them to their religious beliefs; they're playing a con game.

I think many individuals who identify as atheist do so because they're simply not interested in being religious, but haven't put enough effort into making the distinction between someone who has fallen into that religious trap that the religious theists have lured them into, and realizing that "atheist" may not be the correct term; they should, instead, just say that they're not religious; this way it won't attract folks who are religious to them to try to convert them to their religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree that atheism by definition is inherently a religiously based position; that's why I refer to myself as non-religious rather than something like atheist.

The word religion is kicked around like a scapegoat no one wants to handle, Religion is simply a word that describes what people believe. It is best simply to deal with what people believe and why, which generally people have a negative biased view of what other people believe. It is best to let atheists explain what they believe in why as with all the diverse conflicting subjective beliefs instead to trying to peg their beliefs to the wall.

In reality, there's more than that; there are those who are not interested at a fundamental level in believing anything religious or supernatural. They're not religious, or I suppose one could say that the have religious apathy - they don't care to the point that they're not interested in exploring religious belief, or far more likely it's that they are very familiar with religious material - the doctrine, dogma, rituals, etc. and see them as useless and pointless.

I was raised by religious parents, and am familiar with the doctrine, dogma, rituals, etc. For a while I was a believer, but eventually I decided to drop it as I don't see it as useful, beneficial, or practical for anything. I don't see myself as going from theist to atheist, but rather as having gone from being religious to non-religious.

Some atheists seem to take the approach that they're open to persuasion, but in practice I don't think that's what they really want to do; it could be that their goal is to try to break people who are religious believers and get them to stop believing, but from what I can tell they're usually don't have much of any success.

Some individuals who claim to be atheists might actually be religious believers or religious vanguard types pretending to be non-believers or atheists, to try to first get some atheist or non-religious individuals to become their followers in the hopes of eventually converting them to their religious beliefs; they're playing a con game.

This is an unnecessary projection of a negative generalization of motives atheists toward those who believe in Gods or the spiritual realms,

I think many individuals who identify as atheist do so because they're simply not interested in being religious, but haven't put enough effort into making the distinction between someone who has fallen into that religious trap that the religious theists have lured them into, and realizing that "atheist" may not be the correct term; they should, instead, just say that they're not religious; this way it won't attract folks who are religious to them to try to convert them to their religion.

Sounds more like passive agnosticism, or carelesscism