I am no longer a *blank* because *blank*

[idea]

I am no longer dogmatic/binary/polarized because of travel, diverse friendships, and education.

When I was a child I followed others, was dependent, uneducated, with limited experience...

When I grew up, I put groupthink, and the supposed authority of others behind me.

We're all just humans, no group the authority to another, all with good and evil, none knowing any more answers than another.

 

[Colt]

I am now religious because I can't do the world without a base axiom of blind faith.

I no longer ignore God, I stopped wandering in the valley of indecision! God wasn’t lost, I was. Uncommon sense became common sense. I was reborn.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What is an atheist worldview?

The lack of belief in a god/s. Either through absolutely denying that a God exists at all or, as an agnostic atheist, saying that we cannot know if a god/s exists or not, therefore we cannot come to any conclusions about them because we do not have enough supporting evidence.

 

[Sirona]

I'm no longer a (Tantric) Buddhist because I had to learn the hard way that the soul does indeed exist and that Tantric Buddhist imagery can have a heavy impact on the subconscious despite atheists claiming that "it's all made up" and therefore "bogus".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From a religious perspective, what are you not anymore, and why?

I'm no longer a Christian because I was able to see that the religion was false, and so left it. As I continued learning, eventually, I evolved into a humanist, and then an anti-theist, by which I mean somebody who considers Christianity (and possibly Islam) a net harm to the world, but my perspective is American. I would likely not be nearly as opposed to organized, politicized religion were I raised in one of the other Western democracies.

Is it fair for one to judge a religion based on it's adherents?

What else can you judge it by? How do you judge a university or a recommended weight loss diet if not by its fruit?

You've heard the phrase 'true Christian,' which means a good Christian by Christian standards. They mean to look to the book. But what value is that to an outsider? Look at what people who practice that religion actually do to understand what a true Christian is. It's an actual Christian - the man on the street.

We all need something to lean on.

I think I hear a Bill Withers song coming on.

I remain a Christian because of critical thinking

That's an interesting comment. I say the opposite about myself.

Critical thought is prescribed and proscribed like addition. It is a set of rules that, if followed faithfully takes one from evidence to sound conclusions (or addends to correct sums). The point is that if two people start from the same premises and apply the same rules, they must end up in the same place. If they don't - if one get the sum 11780 and the other 11870, at least one must be wrong. Likewise with critical thought. If two people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, at least one isn't as critical a thinker as he or she claims to be.

Since I claim that I'm not a Christian because I'm a critical thinker, at least one of us didn't do it correctly.

The lack of belief in a god/s. Either through absolutely denying that a God exists at all or, as an agnostic atheist, saying that we cannot know if a god/s exists or not, therefore we cannot come to any conclusions about them because we do not have enough supporting evidence.

That's my definition of atheist as well, although I leave out the denying versus agnostic part and stop at having no god belief, since those don't define atheism, and neither is essential to being atheist.

I don't consider my atheism a world view. It's not even a belief. It is the result of two beliefs - skepticism (nothing should be believed on faith) and empiricism (there is insufficient evidence to support a god belief) - but no other belief derives from that conclusion besides there being no point in going to churches, tithing, praying, or reading holy books. My worldview is (atheistic) humanism. Its metaphysics is naturalistic (godless), its epistemology is skeptical, empirical, and rational, and its ethics is based in human moral intuition, not received dos and don'ts. That's a worldview, not just having no god belief. I also have no leprechaun or vampire belief, and also don't consider those worldviews.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm no longer a Christian because I was able to see that the religion was false, and so left it. As I continued learning, eventually, I evolved into a humanist, and then an anti-theist, by which I mean somebody who considers Christianity (and possibly Islam) a net harm to the world, but my perspective is American. I would likely not be nearly as opposed to organized, politicized religion were I raised in one of the other Western democracies.



What else can you judge it by? How do you judge a university or a recommended weight loss diet if not by its fruit?

You've heard the phrase 'true Christian,' which means a good Christian by Christian standards. They mean to look to the book. But what value is that to an outsider? Look at what people who practice that religion actually do to understand what a true Christian is. It's an actual Christian - the man on the street.



I think I hear a Bill Withers song coming on.



That's an interesting comment. I say the opposite about myself.

Critical thought is prescribed and proscribed like addition. It is a set of rules that, if followed faithfully takes one from evidence to sound conclusions (or addends to correct sums). The point is that if two people start from the same premises and apply the same rules, they must end up in the same place. If they don't - if one get the sum 11780 and the other 11870, at least one must be wrong. Likewise with critical thought. If two people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, at least one isn't as critical a thinker as he or she claims to be.

Since I claim that I'm not a Christian because I'm a critical thinker, at least one of us didn't do it correctly.



That's my definition of atheist as well, although I leave out the denying versus agnostic part and stop at having no god belief, since those don't define atheism, and neither is essential to being atheist.

I don't consider my atheism a world view. It's not even a belief. It is the result of two beliefs - skepticism (nothing should be believed on faith) and empiricism (there is insufficient evidence to support a god belief) - but no other belief derives from that conclusion besides there being no point in going to churches, tithing, praying, or reading holy books. My worldview is (atheistic) humanism. Its metaphysics is naturalistic (godless), its epistemology is skeptical, empirical, and rational, and its ethics is based in human moral intuition, not received dos and don'ts. That's a worldview, not just having no god belief. I also have no leprechaun or vampire belief, and also don't consider those worldviews.

In my experience, not believing in a god and believing in a god affects your worldview quite a bit, because the base premise of the world will be different. Lack of belief in something still affects a persons worldview. It is just that in both cases, they usually become part of larger contexts that expand the worldview even more.

 

[pearl]

Critical thought is prescribed and proscribed like addition. It is a set of rules that, if followed faithfully takes one from evidence to sound conclusions (or addends to correct sums). The point is that if two people start from the same premises and apply the same rules, they must end up in the same place. If they don't - if one get the sum 11780 and the other 11870, at least one must be wrong. Likewise with critical thought. If two people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, at least one isn't as critical a thinker as he or she claims to be.

Take for instance the evidence of historicity, critical thought does not assume what is presented as history is actual history. But considering the past cannot be made present, the best hoped for conclusion is no more than hypotheses. A consensus of which presents a hypothesis as the most probable solution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In my experience, not believing in a god and believing in a god affects your worldview quite a bit, because the base premise of the world will be different. Lack of belief in something still affects a persons worldview.

You were asked what an atheist world view was, and answered, "The lack of belief in a god/s." I agreed that that was a good definition of an atheist, but doesn't rise to the level of a world view. As I explained, unlike theism, which says that there is a god, it's not even a belief. It doesn't say that there is no god, merely that there is insufficient reason to conclude that there is - one of the two beliefs I mentioned that lead to atheism, the other being to not believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support.

Yes, being an atheist can have an effect on one's world view - in my case by making room for mine, humanism. But atheism is not my worldview. Humanism is.

As an atheist, I could be a Stalinist, which would then be my worldview, one supporting brutal, authoritarian regimes. But that's not this atheist's worldview. It's humanism. I could also be an astrologer who imagines a godless world controlled by the positions of stars at birth. Then that would be my worldview, as faith-based as religions, but atheistic. Atheism isn't a worldview.

Take for instance the evidence of historicity, critical thought does not assume what is presented as history is actual history. But considering the past cannot be made present, the best hoped for conclusion is no more than hypotheses. A consensus of which presents a hypothesis as the most probable solution.

I don't see a rebuttal there. If you disagree with my comment, please tell me specifically what and why it can't be correct in your opinion. Or perhaps you thought that my comment was correct and are just adding to it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A consensus of which presents a hypothesis as the most probable solution.

You mean you would accept that God and all things connected with him are only hypotheses and not unalterable truths?

 

[DNB]

Neither nor though it only speaks of yourself
that you choose or ask such questions.

I praise a Deity that is the quintessence of mercy and love, and a man ordained by Him who equally exemplified such characteristics.
I consider myself to be unworthy in regard to the gift of life and love that the Father has offered me. Therefore, I ascribe the appellation of sinner to myself, and embrace the gracious forgiveness that God has bestowed on those who accept His son as lord and saviour (not God).

Do these sentiments sound perverse or misguided to you?

 

[DNB]

As a Unitarian Universalist I was never a Christian, so there is nothing to renounce. I do believe that Jesus held on to the most amount of divinity of any person ... but he is not the only person who is divine. I see all people as prophets of their own religions. Some of those prophets just happen to think that Jesus is also the son of God. That is just not the belief I take.

...sorry, got the wrong guy then - I thought that Unitarian Universalism was strictly Christian. But, I just briefly read up on it, and I wasn't even close, maybe 5-10%.

 

[Kfox]

The lack of belief in a god/s. Either through absolutely denying that a God exists at all or, as an agnostic atheist, saying that we cannot know if a god/s exists or not, therefore we cannot come to any conclusions about them because we do not have enough supporting evidence.

A worldview is a comprehensive philosophy of life, encompassing a wide range of beliefs on morality, epistemology, methodology and so forth. Note that the word world is right there in the term itself.

Atheism is philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God/Gods. While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, or color one's worldview in any number of ways, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.

As a point of comparison, a person can be a communist in the question of economics, but 'communism isn't their 'worldview', just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their worldview

 

[Audie]

I praise a Deity that is the quintessence of mercy and love, and a man ordained by Him who equally exemplified such characteristics.
I consider myself to be unworthy in regard to the gift of life and love that the Father has offered me. Therefore, I ascribe the appellation of sinner to myself, and embrace the gracious forgiveness that God has bestowed on those who accept His son as lord and saviour (not God).

Do these sentiments sound perverse or misguided to you?

Neither.
Its just that its all a fantasy.

Same as the personality or behaviour
of my kitchen God.
I just don't take it seriously.
That's where the foolishness comes in.

 

[rational experiences]

I no longer believe in any scientist.

As all humans are humans born by sex. Theists don't use their own natural reason why they exist. Baby adult human.

Theists who by science all choices proved man had destroyed all life on earth himself by machine parts in snap fusion. Back to ashes dusts carbon.

He theoried as same mind agrees says life ended as carbon now life began from carbon.

Yet he already owns technology metals chemicals machine functions not carbon as one God...just carbon.

I believe his name in title is destroyer not creator Inventor man god as his man's words lie.

I believe he says life begins as carbon by his machine gods reaction not carbon. As he's inventing the causes himself.

 

[Samael_Khan]

A worldview is a comprehensive philosophy of life, encompassing a wide range of beliefs on morality, epistemology, methodology and so forth. Note that the word world is right there in the term itself.

Atheism is philosophical position pertaining to one particular belief - the existence of God/Gods. While it may or may not be encompassed within one's worldview, or color one's worldview in any number of ways, it is definitionally insufficient in and of itself to be called a worldview.

As a point of comparison, a person can be a communist in the question of economics, but 'communism isn't their 'worldview', just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their worldview

This makes sense.

Then @It Aint Necessarily So is right.

I will change my point to saying that there was a set of materialistic beliefs and methods that I had, but I hanged my positions on my beliefs and methods of understanding the world, so that they include more experiential and metaphysical phenomena.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You were asked what an atheist world view was, and answered, "The lack of belief in a god/s." I agreed that that was a good definition of an atheist, but doesn't rise to the level of a world view. As I explained, unlike theism, which says that there is a god, it's not even a belief. It doesn't say that there is no god, merely that there is insufficient reason to conclude that there is - one of the two beliefs I mentioned that lead to atheism, the other being to not believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support.

Yes, being an atheist can have an effect on one's world view - in my case by making room for mine, humanism. But atheism is not my worldview. Humanism is.

As an atheist, I could be a Stalinist, which would then be my worldview, one supporting brutal, authoritarian regimes. But that's not this atheist's worldview. It's humanism. I could also be an astrologer who imagines a godless world controlled by the positions of stars at birth. Then that would be my worldview, as faith-based as religions, but atheistic. Atheism isn't a worldview.

I concede. Your point makes sense. My atheism was the result of a certain method of understanding the world which I had which I now don't value as much.

 

[rational experiences]

This makes sense.

Then @It Aint Necessarily So is right.

I will change my point to saying that there was a set of materialistic beliefs and methods that I had, but I hanged my positions on my beliefs and methods of understanding the world, so that they include more experiential and metaphysical phenomena.

When men say life is carbon based they don't mean their machine yet impose biologicals creation to transmitters as carbon themselves..

In AI many times I was threatened with hanging.

Is that why you said it?

 

[pearl]

I don't see a rebuttal there. If you disagree with my comment, please tell me specifically what and why it can't be correct in your opinion. Or perhaps you thought that my comment was correct and are just adding to it.

Maybe the difference concerns what is meant by evidence, in this case there is no 'tangible' evidence.
It's hypothetical.

 

[pearl]

You mean you would accept that God and all things connected with him are only hypotheses and not unalterable truths?

First, there is no actual 'proof' of the existence of God, its a matter of faith. Truth continues to unfold.

 

[Aštra’el]

I am no longer atheist, or antitheist, or antichristian… because forces Above and Below and Within reached out and helped me appreciate the power of God(s).

I am no longer a Christian… because I must go my own way and be my own conduit.

I no longer describe myself as “Satanist”, or a “Luciferian”, because too many among them lack the essential attributes I once associated with those paths. They speak as if they do… they live as though they do not. I am sure many can relate.

I am no longer an agent of Chaos. I am now an advocate of Order, because it is who I choose to be in this moment, and feels most natural in this time and place.

If I am “pagan”, or LHP, or any other of these spiritual/ religious labels, it is not because I try to be, or because I seek to imitate another person, or follow in their footsteps. That is not in my Nature. I operate in harmony with my True Will, and what I perceive to be is the Will of my God(s). If that makes me something, then so be it. I consider myself free to draw strength, power, wisdom, beauty, motivation and inspiration from any religion or culture I wish, while proceeding and developing in my own way, with no regrets.