Not really, i go by the definition of what atheism is.
However, there are as many different flavors of atheism as there are atheists, i for example consider myself through atheism and out the other side.
-
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!
Atheistic Double Standard?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
Not really, i go by the definition of what atheism is.
However, there are as many different flavors of atheism as there are atheists, i for example consider myself through atheism and out the other side.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
That is actually pretty interesting. It's a shame however, that now I'm going to have to disavow the Big Bang Theory altogether. Oh well, they say you win some and you lose some. One day that may be true for me as well.
james bond
Well-Known Member
>>If you cannot see that a god who is claimed as compassionate could not produce such suffering, leukemia, in an innocent child then there is a problem with your morality<<
I'll let most of it go since we're discussing double standards, but the above statement is typical fault finding or blaming by negative people of God the Creator. Thus, it is evidence for their God is evil or not compassionate in your case. Also, it is evidence that I am not compassionate nor moral for failing to agree with you. Another irrefutable double standard of quick judgment in your mind. It's a double standard for people who are ignorant to say that when they do not accept the circumstances that led to it.
Instead of ascertaining blame, why not explain how this leukemia develops in children and adults and how we can help these people? Since you're a nurse, do you work in this area? I understand and have helped their cause for many years through promoting bone marrow donations.
Ricktheheretic
"Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"
'sm
I would say that it's possible for an agnostic to believe in the supernatural, or what would seem supernatural. Maybe some of the "miracles" that people experienced that made them start this or that religion were really manifestations of the unconscious mind, there is a lot of documented evidence for psychic phenomenon and some scientists take it very seriously. Miracles are not unique to just one culture or religion, so how could just one religion be right? There is also evidence that man has at some point been visited by beings of higher intelligence with powers beyond our understanding. Could a "god" or "deity" be just a human interpretation of something we don't fully understand? If time travel was possible a man of today could seem like a god to people in the middle ages. People are limited by their own perceptions. Think about books like The Spaceships of Ezekiel and Chariots of the Gods, and no I don't being agnostic or atheist means you have to reject anything that can't be completely confirmed by science.
I would say that it's possible for an agnostic to believe in the supernatural, or what would seem supernatural. Maybe some of the "miracles" that people experienced that made them start this or that religion were really manifestations of the unconscious mind, there is a lot of documented evidence for psychic phenomenon and some scientists take it very seriously. Miracles are not unique to just one culture or religion, so how could just one religion be right? There is also evidence that man has at some point been visited by beings of higher intelligence with powers beyond our understanding. Could a "god" or "deity" be just a human interpretation of something we don't fully understand? If time travel was possible a man of today could seem like a god to people in the middle ages. People are limited by their own perceptions. Think about books like The Spaceships of Ezekiel and Chariots of the Gods, and no I don't being agnostic or atheist means you have to reject anything that can't be completely confirmed by science.
Last edited:
But what does claiming a scripture to be false have to do with atheism? I daresay most people claiming this or that scripture is false are not atheists.
The veracity of a scripture has nothing to do with religious views of the commentator.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Well, in my comment I put forth a few beliefs. I'll just try to go through them all, not exactly knowing which belief you are referring to.
You had asked me:
And my answer was:
1. "Honestly, I have no idea." - I am including this statement in my current response because it seems like a belief to me. As I was pondering the question, I realized that answering the question honestly and thoroughly wasn't going to be as easy as I thought it would be. In fact, I realized that it would be impossible. It was getting very late, and I was feeling somewhat pressed for time. Initially I had thought this would be my answer, and I'd just have to leave it at that. But then I realized that this was an over-simplistic answer and not even very honest at that. And that is what this belief was founded on. I think it would be good to point out here that describing one's beliefs is not so easy. And even when we state our beliefs, we rarely are able to clearly state what we believe in its entirety. Hopefully you understand. Even now, trying to describe what each of these beliefs were founded on will seem very incomplete. There just isn't enough time to do that. Allow me to take a moment to provide what I hope will be a simple example of what I mean.
Imagine that I was a member of some debate forum, and I was debating with some guy. Let us suppose that for some time the discussion was going well, and the two of us were having an open and fair debate as true gentlemen. You could have asked me at that moment how I felt about the guy, or in other words, if I believed that he was a fair and decent guy. I'd have said sure, he seems all right to me. But as time progressed in my debate with this fellow, he begins to lie in his arguments, and/or even to lie about me. What would I say if you should as me then what I thought about him? Well, I believe my opinion of the guy would have changed somewhat. Perhaps I'd tell you he was a liar. Perhaps I'd want to reserve judgment until a later time when I have more information about the guy. Maybe he'll apologize. Maybe he won't.
You see sometimes we have sketchy beliefs about things, and we know that our beliefs are sometimes a little sketchy. And I think that makes us feel a bit uneasy. You can ask what someone believes, but I'm not sure you can ever get an honest and complete answer from anyone. Obviously, there are some topics wherein the beliefs we have concerning them are not so difficult to formulate and express. Do you believe in butter? Of course I do. Do you believe that butter is good for you? Now its getting more difficult to answer. So allow me to say this. I have beliefs surrounding the existence of these entities that you asked about, but they are incomplete, and not formulated in a way that I feel comfortable expressing. I tried, but even to my own dissatisfaction.
2. "It could very well be that all of these entities (for lack of a better word that fits my situation) are the same entity." Who is Zeus? Is this someone I've met? Is Zeus the Creator of the universe? Is Zeus God? I believe that a God exists. And I do believe that this God that I believe exists is the Creator of the universe. If Zeus is the creator of the universe then I believe that Zeus is God. But what do I believe right now? I believe that if Zeus is the creator of the universe then I believe that Zeus exists and is God. And the same goes for the others. Who are they? The answer to your question is that this particular stated belief that I have is founded in a lack of information regarding these three entities, and requires more input to be completely formulated.
3. "But if they are not all the same entity, then I do not believe they ever existed." This belief is founded on the fact that I only believe that one God exists, that there can be only one Supreme being. Now we may have somewhat of a conundrum (maybe not the right word, but I'll stick with it). As you see I have a belief that is founded upon two other beliefs. That number is probably a lot more, but for times sake lets just assume that there are just two. Will you now be asking me what these two beliefs are founded on?
Understand that this statement of belief is incomplete, and connected to the following statement of belief.
4. "Or, if they all did exist, they weren't the Creator, and not the same entity that I believe is God." Again I believe that there exists only one Supreme Being, who is the Creator of the universe, and who is God. According to this belief of mine, even if they existed they couldn't be God, but something much lesser. All of my beliefs could be wrong of course, and well, there's not a whole lot I can do about that...maybe dedicate more and more time to formulate and establish a stronger and more coherent belief; but that can take a lot of time. It must be so easy to be an atheist...never having beliefs and thereby never having cause or need to justify them...never needing to dig a little deeper. Nevertheless, that's another story.
5. The problem lies in the rhetoric and the doctrine. If the message is not the same, then the god is not the same. For me Genesis 6 suggests that the Greeks were calling entities gods when they were not gods at all. When I think of the Greek gods and demi-gods I am reminded of Genesis chapter 6. I suggest reading the first paragraph or two of that chapter of the Bible, and you may see what I mean. Not a great deal is said, but it kinda confirms to a very slight degree what we find in Greek mythology. I'd like you to read it, and tell me what you think.
Anyway, I guess that's it. I hope I have answered your question.
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
To be honest, I also felt that my beliefs where sketchy when I was not a skeptic. It is what caused me to do some introspection about why I believe what I believe.
Frankly it seems to come down to: "I don't believe in other gods because I believe in Christianity."
This begs the question of why do you believe in Christianity.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Here's the trouble. I have had quite a few experiences in my life, and I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on those experiences, employing logic and reason along the way, and I have come to the conclusion pretty much on my own that there is indeed a God. My connection with God occurred before I began to explore Christianity. So I read a few books. I will admit that most of the books I read were Christian oriented, but I also read books on Eastern religions as well. I have to admit there is a great deal of truth to be found in many of the Eastern religions, But Christianity felt right to me. And so I became convinced that I had to read the Bible as well. When I would read some well written Christian message I would become overwhelmed with this feeling of Truth. It wasn't just emotional, it was physical as well. I would feel as though I was being immersed in the love of God. It made my faith strong. The stronger my faith became, the more I desired to please God. And the more I did that, the more that feeling would overwhelm me. I now know what it was. It was the Holy Spirit. Well, that is what I believe it was. And then I would read verses like this:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:15-17)
The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, The Comforter. And I became overwhelmed. A promise that Jesus made came true for me because I believed and trusted in God, not Jesus. And so a new connection was being made, and that was that Jesus was in on it the whole time.
I do not believe in other Gods because it is unreasonable to me that there are or even could be. It makes absolutely no sense to me that there is a gang of Gods up there all responsible for being the Creator of the Universe. Something is not right. If there are many gods, and some gods are subordinate to other gods, it isn't right. They are no gods at all. There is only one God. It could be that there are names of God that I do not know that are called upon by believers in other religions, but the messages are not the same...at least they don't seem so to me. Christianity feels right to me. I know God exists. The fact is I don't think it would be possible for me to think any differently. Its like this: I know the sun exists, so don't try to convince me it doesn't. There is nothing anyone could say that could change my mind. God could strike my entire family dead, and I would still believe in Him. I'd probably be pretty mad, but I could not dis-believe. You know, it'd be like the strong atheist position. They know God exists...they just hate Him.
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
I am particularly interested in how this came to pass.
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
That is incorrect. An atheist does not believe in any gods by definition.
The word you are looking for is misotheist.
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
If your god was all good and existed then you wouldn't have to.
You can't make the distinction between those two? There are three basic doxastic positions: I believe it is, I belief it isn't, and I reserve judgment until I know more. The last two positions are the ones that you are calling the same.
Isn't it about time for you to ask an atheist what he believes? I'm an atheist that makes no such assertion.
Your analysis is incomplete, probably because you cannot understand the difference between "I assert as fact that gods do not and cannot exist" and "I reserve judgment on the matter at this time." When you master that, you'll stop calling people that you cannot understand "dishonest" or "vacuous."
Do you recommend that we wait for the theists to understand us before moving on?
This could descend into a semantic debate very quickly, but if the meaning of"god" includes something about a god being an object of human worship, then if all human belief in gods is unjustified, then gods do no exist.
If gods are objects of human worship, then nothing that's completely outside the knowledge of humanity qualifies as a god, since nothing outside the knowledge of humanity has ever been worshipped by humans.
IOW, if there really is no evidence for gods, then I think we can say that gods do not exist.
However, I'm not sure I agree that there's no evidence for gods. I think there's evidence both for and against, and that the evidence for the existence of gods is uncompelling, and outweighed by the evidence against.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Learn how to read.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
No, there is not, as I never meant theist as an insult. I do find it odd; however, you took it as an insult and you do seem to be generally wounded by being compared to a theist. Do you really have that much contempt for theists, that it insults you to be called one?
I used to, until every answer was a dishonest twist of logic.
Lol I often get the same silly rejection. Please understand the difference between an asserted fact and simple belief.
I think your biggest problem is that theists DO understand you
I'm an atheist because I have no god belief, yet I do not make that claim. If I did, it would be an unsupportable claim implying knowledge that everybody reading knows that I cannot possibly have.
That position is sometimes called "weak atheism," a term I avoid because frankly, the weaker position is to take the leap of faith and assert that you know that gods cannot or do not exist. "Agnostic atheist" is more descriptive.