Do atheists actually exist?

[Ingledsva]

Believer doesn't mean religion, you really don't know these differences, but you argue as if you do.

Actually you very obviously are not just a Monotheist, or a Deist, etc.


You have been arguing as a Christian.


Perhaps a non-conformist Christian, - but still as a Christian, - and that is a religion.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually you very obviously are not just a Monotheist, or a Deist, etc.


You have been arguing as a Christian.


Perhaps a non-conformist Christian, - but still as a Christian, - and that is a religion.


*

I do argue Christian doctrine, but that is inaccurate. You argue from a Jewish standpoint all the time, does that mean you practice Judaism?

Btw, 'christian' is not an insult to me, but a misrepresentation, so don't do that, it isn't even fair to other Christians here.

Hm I'm a secular Christian to an extent, but that is merely cause for confusion, as I recognize the actual beliefs of Christianity.

 

[Desert Snake]

btw against forum rules to accuse others of lying about their beliefs

 

[s2a]

=Hay85;3822368
Well, I think that Atheistic philosophers have a tendentiously anthropocentric vision.

Ok, well that's one interpretation.

If I right understood, by saying that Atheism is not anthropocentric, you mean that for an Atheist, the sense (or purpose) of life is not man's welfare. There is no sense of life. Right?

No, you DO misunderstand.

Life (any) has no "purpose" (as assigned by any anthropomorphic deity). "Life" exists, and only others (so inclined) assign a relative value (worth) to "existence" within a religious context.

"Life" is not an anthropocentric "concept", except for those that attribute a "purposed existence" derived from a Theistic view.

"Man's welfare" is not the responsibility of atheists alone...nor is the welfare of all living things that exist in our moment in time. WE retain the lone capacity of reason, but beyond emotion or instinct. We can choose to give a damn, or not

Atheists would like to think that our species has more to offer upon the direction of evolution than say, a cockroach, but we shall see. Homo sapiens has been here but a blink of an eye, cosmologically speaking...yet dinosaurs and roaches have been around for millions of years...but that too may be a "biased" view for some.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok, well that's one interpretation.

No, you DO misunderstand.

Life (any) has no "purpose" (as assigned by any anthropomorphic deity). "Life" exists, and only others (so inclined) assign a relative value (worth) to "existence" within a religious context.

"Life" is not an anthropocentric "concept", except for those that attribute a "purposed existence" derived from a Theistic view.

If we are going to be intellectually honest here, atheism usually goes hand in hand with evolutionism, so there often is an inherent belief in 'purpose'.

 

[Ingledsva]

111

EDIT Wrong post.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

LOL! And you even threaten me!


Do you forget what you actually post?


You created the "'Man was created in the image of G-d'" thread.


And you said THIS ---





That makes YOU a CHRISTIAN believer - a follower of their religion!



*

I just explained to you that I argue from A Christian viewpoint much of the time. No idea why you are having trouble with that.
Btw, not sure why you imagine I would be dishonest about that.

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually you very obviously are not just a Monotheist, or a Deist, etc.


You have been arguing as a Christian.


Perhaps a non-conformist Christian, - but still as a Christian, - and that is a religion.

I do argue Christian doctrine, but that is inaccurate. You argue from a Jewish standpoint all the time, does that mean you practice Judaism?

Btw, 'christian' is not an insult to me, but a misrepresentation, so don't do that, it isn't even fair to other Christians here.

Hm I'm a secular Christian to an extent, but that is merely cause for confusion, as I recognize the actual beliefs of Christianity.

Do you forget what you actually post?


You created the "'Man was created in the image of G-d'" thread.


And you said THIS ---

'Man was created in the image of G-d'.
The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god

Jesus is The Creator G-d.

That makes YOU a CHRISTIAN believer - a follower of their religion!


EDIT - This is NOT a Christian viewpoint - You believe Jesus is the image of God, not an invisible God, etc, Christian doctrine


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you forget what you actually post?


You created the "'Man was created in the image of G-d'" thread.


And you said THIS ---





That makes YOU a CHRISTIAN believer - a follower of their religion!


*

I don't think Christians believe that, actually.:spit:

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you forget what you actually post?



EDIT - This is NOT a Christian viewpoint - You believe Jesus is the image of God, not an invisible God, etc, Christian doctrine


*

I wrote that Jesus is the Creator God.
Christians believe that? Wow you are making things up.
/edit/ most Christians don't believe that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, unlike unicorns & the mythical free lunch, we atheists really do exist.

Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but unicorns do exist, and free lunches exist in theory, or debatable.

 

[s2a]

If we are going to be intellectually honest here, atheism usually goes hand in hand with evolutionism, so there often is an inherent belief in 'purpose'.

Evolution happens. This is not a scientific conclusion exclusive to atheists (in all honesty after all). Catholics accept Evolution as FACT. "Evolutionism" is NOT a belief...it's an observable, testable, and repeatable/predictive phenomena. Just to be intellectually honest.

"Faith(aka "belief")

:Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil 1:27 ; 2 th 2:13 ). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.
Faith is the result of teaching ( Romans 10:14-17 ). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith ( John 10:38 ; 1 John 2:3 ). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.
Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history.
Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit.



OnlineBibleStudies.com
Easton's Bible Dictionary

*skritch*


Still an atheist...sorry,

 

[Desert Snake]

Evolution happens. This is not a scientific conclusion exclusive to atheists (in all honesty after all). Catholics accept Evolution as FACT. "Evolutionism" is NOT a belief...it's an observable, testable, and repeatable/predictive phenomena. Just to be intellectually honest.



*skritch*


Still an atheist...sorry,

Eh, we use faith in the secular world all the time. We are constantly employing faith in any meaningful study, we'd never get anywhere without it.

 

[Parsimony]

If we are going to be intellectually honest here, atheism usually goes hand in hand with evolutionism, so there often is an inherent belief in 'purpose'.

Acceptance of evolution is not unique to atheists. Rejection of evolution isn't always by theists, either. There is/was an atheist on this same board that didn't find evolutionary theory compelling. Can't remember his or her name, unfortunately.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't think Christians believe that, actually.:spit:

You said this -


"The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god"


You also said this -


"Personally I would just say Jesus is God, no trinity, also known as the Father. Same Deity, different names/titles in essence. Therefore no trinity."


And this -

"I'm not trying to be confusing, I think when Jesus said 'the Father and I are one', He meant the Deity Jesus, and also that He was representing God in human form.

If Jesus had meant that statement literally, you would be reading it as Jesus calling himself God, That doesn't make sense to me."


And this -

"The Son is the Father. It's different aspects of the same Godhead.

Therefore, since God created man, so did Jesus.

I don't even have to present the Genesis inference, we still would have Jesus as Creator God.

/The OP is just something of interest/"


These are things you have written. You definitely come across as Christian.


If this is not the case - you might want to say so, and word your posts differently, so people don't think that you are. :yes:



*

 

[Sir Doom]

Hm this is a doozie.

No, its quite simple actually. I have actually been reading along, and just now refreshed myself to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious.

You are saying that 'religious' is being implied towards religion in a non-trolling context, but monotheism technically isn't a religion.

First of all, I have said absolutely nothing about monotheism.

I am saying that you are taking the word 'religious' in a metaphoric sense and it is being used in a literal sense.

I'm actually not trolling,

I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you simply do not understand the difference instead.
The literal definition of 'religious' (paraphrased of course) is: of or pertaining to religion.
The metaphoric definition is: dedicated to it like a religious person to their religion.

Do you see? When you talk about being 'religious' about a soccer team (as you did) in the same context of being 'religious' about atheism or monotheism you are only making a comparison to the literal definition as opposed to using a different definition. The fact still remains that monotheism is was and always will be a religious idea by the literal definition totally independent of anyone's dedication to it. Thus, you being a monotheist are by definition a religious person meaning you hold a religious idea as true, nothing about your level of dedication in that regard.

but the argument led into the very broad definitions of religion & religious, which I actually opposed earlier as making definitions too vague.

No, what you opposed is the actual definition which Bunyip used in his response at one point:

Believer doesn't mean religion, you really don't know these differences, but you argue as if you do.

You identified yourself as a monotheist on a poll here just today.

Monotheism is a religious apprehension.

Hmm you're stretching word definition here. I don't think that really is indicative to similarity with 'religion'. If you do that, then various other descriptive words pertaining to belief would become 'religion' in definition as well.

You are saying that monotheism isn't something you are dedicated to, necessarily. But that doesn't change the fact that it is, in itself specifically an idea that is of or pertaining to religion and is therefore religious. Monotheism is specifically a religious idea. Atheism is specifically a non-religious idea in the literal context for the same exact reason.

Both athesim and monotheism can be thought about/acted upon as frequently and vigorously as any individual might want to, thus it is also correct to say that any monotheist or atheist can be religious (metaphoric) about the idea. This is not to say either idea necessarily is religious because of this. Only that the person is.

It seems you are agreeing with me yet again, without realizing it.

I really don't think that I am. I think I'm identifying where communication broke down.

I can accept the broad definitions for discussion, but then we can't pick and choose where to apply broad and narrow definitions.

In fact we always can. As long as the words are taken in the context they are meant communication should be easy.

 

[Desert Snake]

You said this -


"The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god"


You also said this -


"Personally I would just say Jesus is God, no trinity, also known as the Father. Same Deity, different names/titles in essence. Therefore no trinity."


And this -

"I'm not trying to be confusing, I think when Jesus said 'the Father and I are one', He meant the Deity Jesus, and also that He was representing God in human form.

If Jesus had meant that statement literally, you would be reading it as Jesus calling himself God, That doesn't make sense to me."


And this -

"The Son is the Father. It's different aspects of the same Godhead.

Therefore, since God created man, so did Jesus.

I don't even have to present the Genesis inference, we still would have Jesus as Creator God.

/The OP is just something of interest/"


These are things you have written. You definitely come across as Christian.


If this is not the case - you might want to say so, and word your posts differently, so people don't think that you are. :yes:



*

That isn't common Christian belief, and that makes me monotheistic as well, which you plainly stated I wasn't, according to you. If you want to call me a Christian, fine, but get my beliefs straight, at least.

 

[Ingledsva]

That isn't common Christian belief, and that makes me monotheistic as well, which you plainly stated I wasn't, according to you. If you want to call me a Christian, fine, but get my beliefs straight, at least.

Dude - you say in that list - that Jesus is God!


If you believe that - then you are a believer in the Christian religion.


They are the ONLY religion that believes Jesus is God.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

Dude - you say in that list - that Jesus is God!


If you believe that - then you are a believer in the Christian religion.


They are the ONLY religion that believes Jesus is God.



*

Not sure what you mean here. Some of us believe that, if you read the forums you'll see it isn't as common as you think, with many (most?) Christians making a clear distinction between 'God' and Jesus, either as the trinity, or the Son of God but separate, or even just a teacher of divine nature. Some traditional doctrine is very against what I espouse, actually.

 

[Ingledsva]

Dude - you say in that list - that Jesus is God!


If you believe that - then you are a believer in the Christian religion.


They are the ONLY religion that believes Jesus is God.

Not sure what you mean here. Some of us believe that, if you read the forums you'll see it isn't as common as you think, with many (most?) Christians making a clear distinction between 'God' and Jesus, either as the trinity, or the Son of God but separate, or even just a teacher of divine nature. Some traditional doctrine is very against what I espouse, actually.

I mean exactly what I said.


You had to read Christian documents - and then believe what they say about Jesus - to believe Jesus is God.


That would make you a believer in the Christian religion.


Also - Trinitarians believe Jesus is God.



*