Everyone has a religion

[Unveiled Artist]

If someone calls the sun "god", I don't have to say I don't believe in "the sun" in order to say I don't believe that the sun qualifies as a god.

In my opinion, someone pointing to something like that and saying "everyone believes" is an even more disingenuous/dishonest method of trying to cast everyone as "believers" than the classic monotheistic statements along the lines of "everyone believes in my God, they're just in denial."

Hmm. Maybe deities is a better word since gods can mean anything, really

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hmm. Maybe deities is a better word since gods can mean anything, really

I guess my point is more that, if we have an accepted term for something (like "sun") then someone else calling that thing both "god" and "sun" is rather pointless. If we're both referring to the exact same object, with no supernatural characteristics attributed to it, and it is just "the sun" to both of us, then why not just call it "the sun?" What sense does it make to also attribute it (and any number of other things) the term "god?"

If, however, someone does attribute supernatural qualities to the sun, and wants to call it a "god", and believe it has some acting, intelligent aspect to it or something, then that's another matter (and set of beliefs) entirely, and that object is no longer "the sun" as I know it.

In the end, I don't believe in the supernatural attributed to anything that anyone wants to ascribe the term "god" or "deity," nor do I feel at all inclined to humor people who want to ascribe the word "god" or "deity" to naturally-occurring objects that they also understand and use the everyday terms for. You have an excuse if the only word you have for "sun" in your culture is "god" - otherwise I don't have to accept the usage "god" in those contexts whatsoever. One could respectfully ask me to, and I would respectfully decline. You're going to hear "the sun" from my lips day in and day out. And I would do nothing but apologize for not being apologetic.

Believer: "Do you believe in gods?"
Me: "No."
Believer: "Do you believe in the sun?"
Me: "Yes."
Believer: "Ha! I got you! I believe the sun IS a god!"
Me: *eyes roll back into my head so quickly there is a sonic boom as they break the sound barrier and fly out of the back of my skull*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess my point is more that, if we have an accepted term for something (like "sun") then someone else calling that thing both "god" and "sun" is rather pointless. If we're both referring to the exact same object, with no supernatural characteristics attributed to it, and it is just "the sun" to both of us, then why not just call it "the sun?" What sense does it make to also attribute it (and any number of other things) the term "god?"

If, however, someone does attribute supernatural qualities to the sun, and wants to call it a "god", and believe it has some acting, intelligent aspect to it or something, then that's another matter (and set of beliefs) entirely, and that object is no longer "the sun" as I know it.

In the end, I don't believe in the supernatural attributed to anything that anyone wants to ascribe the term "god" or "deity," nor do I feel at all inclined to humor people who want to ascribe the word "god" or "deity" to naturally-occurring objects that they also understand and use the everyday terms for. You have an excuse if the only word you have for "sun" in your culture is "god" - otherwise I don't have to accept the usage "god" in those contexts whatsoever. One could respectfully ask me to, and I would respectfully decline. You're going to hear "the sun" from my lips day in and day out. And I would do nothing but apologize for not being apologetic.

Believer: "Do you believe in gods?"
Me: "No."
Believer: "Do you believe in the sun?"
Me: "Yes."
Believer: "Ha! I got you! I believe the sun IS a god!"
Me: *eyes roll back into my head so quickly there is a sonic boom as they break the sound barrier and fly out of the back of my skull*

I rarely 100℅ degree on RF but I agree. That's probably why some atheist are put in an agnostic pool because people have so many definitions of god that if you don't fit into one mole you should in another.

That, and yes, it's annoying to talk about the same thing (the sun) without deifying it.

On a different note, I'd say it's better for an atheist to say they don't believe in deities rather than god. It takes out the vague bias definition associated with Gods and it's less realistic since deity sounds more like Zues. But then people do believe in Zues but few and in between.

 

[KT Shamim]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?
Everyone has a religion of some sort.
We all come up with some idea of how it all started
and how it will all end.
We all seek a purpose and meaning for our lives.

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever. The latter is the real miracle - a creation without space,
or time, or matter or energy, or physical laws or even mathematics,
bursting forth in the ultimate act of pointlessness.

Religion is the path you choose in life. In that sense yes everyone has a religion.

 

[Milton Platt]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?
Everyone has a religion of some sort

No, they don't


We all come up with some idea of how it all started
and how it will all end.

Maybe, I haven't talked to everyone on the planet, have you?

We all seek a purpose and meaning for our lives.

Sure, I find lots of purpose in my life without a big daddy in the sky.

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever. The latter is the real miracle - a creation without space,
or time, or matter or energy, or physical laws or even mathematics,
bursting forth in the ultimate act of pointlessness.

Define "Miracle".

You are misrepresenting the big bang theory completely. When you do this, it invalidates your argument. You need to read up on what the theory actually states and not erect a straw man to knock down.
One also does not have to believe in the big band theory just because one does not believe in a god. And you have to remember that many religious people also believe in the big bang theory.

 

[Milton Platt]

Religion is the path you choose in life. In that sense yes everyone has a religion.

That is not a valid definition of the word "religion". to use the word so broadly makes it virtually useless.

 

[blü 2]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?
Everyone has a religion of some sort.

How do you define a 'religion' here? What exactly are we talking about?

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever.

Or, mass-energy pre-existed the universe and led to the Big Bang; and time and space are properties of mass-energy, so that time is a consequence of mass-energy, and mass-energy is not within time and space but the generator of them.

As you see, that would do away with time having a beginning ─ time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa ─ and physics accounts for the universe, and chemistry, and biochemistry; and evolution accounts for us.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's not even every religion. Like you noted, the history of the universe could just be circular.


But if history is circular, you don't need a First Cause. The end of one thing segues into the next thing. Even the usual Biblical God, Yahweh, is the Son or Son-in-law of El, who Himself was Son of Earth and Sky. Just plopping down at an arbitrary point in the story doesn't prove that nothing came before it.

It's not even every religion. Like you noted, the history of the universe could just be circular.


But if history is circular, you don't need a First Cause. The end of one thing segues into the next thing. Even the usual Biblical God, Yahweh, is the Son or Son-in-law of El, who Himself was Son of Earth and Sky. Just plopping down at an arbitrary point in the story doesn't prove that nothing came before it.

Yes
Atheism : The disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Nothing more, nothing less, anything else is misrepresentation.



I never gave you permission to dictate my mind



Can i rewrite that from the perspective of reality

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle was god magic or natural processes created the universe, possibly out of nothing (* see below), possibly by some other cause including spawning from an existing universe, colliding quantum membranes etc.

* https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207


"for no reason whatsoever", ask the universe if it cares.




You lack of understanding apparently means fill the gaps with god.

This "God" of the gaps" sucks.
People use God to explain something. When a scientific explanation is found

How do you define a 'religion' here? What exactly are we talking about?
Or, mass-energy pre-existed the universe and led to the Big Bang; and time and space are properties of mass-energy, so that time is a consequence of mass-energy, and mass-energy is not within time and space but the generator of them.

As you see, that would do away with time having a beginning ─ time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa ─ and physics accounts for the universe, and chemistry, and biochemistry; and evolution accounts for us.

I take the "universe" in its traditional meaning of "everything"
And by definition mass-energy is a part of the universe, not something which preceded it. We don't know what time is - is it a property or does it emerge from other things "happening."

You ask people "where did it all start" and they say, "Well there was this energy..."
No... where did it ALL start, before energy, before everything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion is the path you choose in life. In that sense yes everyone has a religion.

“A car is the way you get around, so everybody has a car.” - makes about as much sense as what you’re saying.

 

[blü 2]

I take the "universe" in its traditional meaning of "everything"

Before we go any further, you forgot to tell me what, exactly, you mean by 'religion' here.

And by definition mass-energy is a part of the universe, not something which preceded it.

I don't follow. While the hypothesized singularity which was the Big Bang cut us off from knowledge of any preceding physics, it didn't rule out any preceding physics. The hypothesis I proposed, that mass-energy preceded and caused the Big Bang, is as legitimate as any other.

We don't know what time is - is it a property or does it emerge from other things "happening."

Time is that dimension through which the spatial dimensions move, making possible sequences of events in those spatial dimensions.

You ask people "where did it all start" and they say, "Well there was this energy..."
No... where did it ALL start, before energy, before everything.

Other way round. If (as I said) time is a property of mass-energy then time exists because mass-energy exists, not vice versa. In that case the fact that mass-energy exists would account for why time exists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?

Yes.

Everyone has a religion of some sort.

Depends entirely on how you define "religion". Based on the most commonly accepted definition, this isn't true. You may adopt a broader definition.

We all come up with some idea of how it all started
and how it will all end.

Not true. Some people are content to admit that they don't know.

We all seek a purpose and meaning for our lives.

Which isn't a necessarily religious process.

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever.

False dichotomy and equivocation. The Universe needn't have "come from nothing" - it could merely be the inevitable result of space and time functioning in a particular way, and nothing about it may necessarily be miraculous - especially if there isn't a God.

The latter is the real miracle - a creation without space,
or time, or matter or energy, or physical laws or even mathematics,
bursting forth in the ultimate act of pointlessness.

No, it's not. It can simply be the natural way things are.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion is the path you choose in life. In that sense yes everyone has a religion.

That's an unnecessarily broad definition. The other day, I chose a path through a park to reach the University. Was that a religious act?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take the "universe" in its traditional meaning of "everything"

So in your definition of "universe," God is part of the universe?

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes.


Depends entirely on how you define "religion". Based on the most commonly accepted definition, this isn't true. You may adopt a broader definition.


Not true. Some people are content to admit that they don't know.


Which isn't a necessarily religious process.


False dichotomy and equivocation. The Universe needn't have "come from nothing" - it could merely be the inevitable result of space and time functioning in a particular way, and nothing about it may necessarily be miraculous - especially if there isn't a God.


No, it's not. It can simply be the natural way things are.

The problem is that there was no space, nor time.
BEFORE the universe means just that - before everything, even mathematics and the laws of physics, let alone time or space or energy.
Now that's a miracle on another plane altogether to God.

 

[PruePhillip]

So in your definition of "universe," God is part of the universe?

Everything in the natural world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everything in the natural world.

So you think people generally take "the universe" to mean "everything in the natural world?" IOW, the universe necessarily has nothing "non-natural?"

 

[Audie]

Religion is the path you choose in life. In that sense yes everyone has a religion.

In that sense the word looses virtually all meaning. I dont think
it is useful to do that to language.

 

[Audie]

So you think people generally take "the universe" to mean "everything in the natural world?" IOW, the universe necessarily has nothing "non-natural?"

(non existent)

 

[ChristineM]

This "God" of the gaps" sucks.
People use God to explain something. When a scientific explanation is found

Could you elucidate please? Not sure what you are saying here.

""God" of the gaps" sucks." Are you dissing the concept or useage?

"People use God to explain something." Is that something they don't understand so "god" or an affirmative statement.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that there was no space, nor time.
BEFORE the universe means just that - before everything, even mathematics and the laws of physics, let alone time or space or energy.
Now that's a miracle on another plane altogether to God.

I dont think that is so, about "before everything".
I dont think there was a "before everything".
Also, seems to me math would be the same
whether there were a universe of not.