Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[LuisDantas]

Pretty much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I equate God with many ideas, one of those being Life.

Do you desire for me to present further how you use/experience Life everyday you've walked this planet?

Wait - I thought you said you believe that God is love.

If:

- God = love, and
- God = life, then
- love = life

... which strikes me as nonsensical.

 

[McBell]

If a person has a fully functional moral compass, they do not need to have faith in a religion.

What does that even mean, "fully functional moral compass"?

 

[Acim]

And how many of those would agree with: '...everyone is a theist about something (and arguably all the time).' ?

I would estimate a few thousand, probably under 10,000. Again, estimating conservatively. I do think if explained better than the sound bite form I'm (currently) running with, it would be substantially higher, but not sure I have the long form explanation in me currently. I'd like to believe I do.

The notion that everyone experiences God, I think would find higher agreement than the notion that intellectually everyone is a theist of something, but might depend on how each is explained, or elaborated upon.

 

[Acim]

Do you believe that the word "God" refers to nothing more than love? If I listed off some things that are commonly attributed to God but that love can't do on its own, would you respond with "love can't do these things, so God didn't do them"?

I understand God is foremost Love.

Parsing what you are asking (me), I would argue there is nothing more than Love, but intellectually I would say that God is referenced with other terms. For sure by me. Such as: Creator, supreme being, Life, I am, Peace, Me, You, and perhaps more.

Then there are esoteric, intellectual understandings of which I would be hard pressed to draw a line. Such that ideas of "not-God" are God, or perhaps better / more commonly referenced as God is Alpha and Omega, or similar intellectual notions. I intellectually draw a line between God and illusion, yet understand myself that this is in reference to Creator God and what extension/children of God have manifested. Adding this on because you bring up doing, or as you said "that love can't do on its own" which I see / understand as (only) regarding the illusion, rather than Being. But as I said, I'd be hard pressed on this point, such that I anticipate the intellectual would challenge thoughts I've experienced that are not easy to express into words. Yet, because I understand it is actually a challenge to (my version of) the intellect, I'd at least wish to try and express it.

Given the esoteric, I currently think there is nothing you could conceive of that God didn't do. I understand that as implausible. Yet, very much concede to the point that I may not explain or respond to such inquiries in sufficient manner. But I'd like to try.

 

[Notanumber]

What does that even mean, "fully functional moral compass"?

It means that you should not need any religion to tell you whether you are doing good or not.

 

[Acim]

when I say God, I mean an Entity that is beyond our natural existence and has the ability to manipulate our universe in a way that might "break" the knowledge we have today regarding how the universe works.

Wouldn't science or even nature fit with the latter? I mean, you did say the knowledge we have today, and unless you think that knowledge as complete, then whatever it is that would "break" the knowledge would plausibly be that entity (or, excuse me, Entity) for you.

 

[Acim]

I am glad
Its your right, Yet I am the only one who can claim truth about my beliefs

I disbelieve that you think the latter. In fact, I'm sure I could show otherwise.

 

[Acim]

Wait - I thought you said you believe that God is love.

If:

- God = love, and
- God = life, then
- love = life

... which strikes me as nonsensical.

Would depend on what you mean by equals and nonsensical. But can't really argue that it strikes you that way. At one point (when I was agnostic), I would've said same/similar thing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's no part of the definition of "atheism," but as an epistemological term it defines an outlook of disbelief, specifically "disbelief in God or gods."

I'm unsure what your point is. I understand what atheism is. I'm explaining why I reserve the right to be miffed when people make more of it than it is. Nothing more.

Each individual may bear the responsibilty for assessing their own private epistemic state. It needn't be about anyone else.

How else could it possibly work? Still not sure what you're driving at, sorry.

 

[Segev Moran]

Not excluding that, as that's all that really matters. A "god" is said to be omnipresent.

And what is Omnipresent? Can you give another example for Omnipresence?

 

[Segev Moran]

Wouldn't science or even nature fit with the latter? I mean, you did say the knowledge we have today, and unless you think that knowledge as complete, then whatever it is that would "break" the knowledge would plausibly be that entity (or, excuse me, Entity) for you.

No it is not. I didn't say "break " the way things work for thing we don't yet know how they work..
I Said for thing we know the way they work.
For example The sun... We Know the sun is dying.
We know the sun is very very far from us.
We know that if the sun was "paused", earth as we know it will end.
We know that if the rotation of the earth around the sun will stop, earth will end.
I Meant the notion of God defies the natural way of how things work.

 

[Segev Moran]

I disbelieve that you think the latter. In fact, I'm sure I could show otherwise.

Please do

 

[Willamena]

And what is Omnipresent? Can you give another example for Omnipresence?

Omnipresent means present everywhere.

 

[Acim]

No it is not. I didn't say "break " the way things work for thing we don't yet know how they work..
I Said for thing we know the way they work.
For example The sun... We Know the sun is dying.
We know the sun is very very far from us.
We know that if the sun was "paused", earth as we know it will end.
We know that if the rotation of the earth around the sun will stop, earth will end.

Not sure I agree with how you are using "know" but eh, let's go with it. From all this, we also know the earth is dying, and therefore all things in the (material) universe are temporal. Dying may not be the best word, but eh, let's go with it.

I Meant the notion of God defies the natural way of how things work.

And thus far you aren't describing how things work. You have pointed out what is working and how long (very roughly speaking) it'll appear to work. I think you could guesstimate how long to a more narrow reference point, which is, from what we know well well well beyond plausible existence of humanity. Thus our estimates on such things are based on a knowledge that if sticking strictly to the physical is not very likely to ever by observed by us. But hey, it could be. We could pretend like it for sure might be. And we can even make believe that to be knowledge.

IMO, you actually changed the goal posts a bit with what you wrote here. So, I'll go back and quote what you previously said:

when I say God, I mean an Entity that is beyond our natural existence and has the ability to manipulate our universe in a way that might "break" the knowledge we have today regarding how the universe works.

So, you don't accept science or nature as that which can break the knowledge of what we have about what is working (while also dying), but do think if there is a god, it is an Entity that is beyond our natural existence. To me, that is science. Not only science, but is not observable in our 'natural existence' and has the ability to manipulate our universe in a way that broke from 'knowledge' we had of old. Understood (I would say well understood) to be incomplete in its current scope, so what other breaks (revolutions) it might provide are not known to our current natural existence. I added Nature, cause well, "beyond our natural existence" is, IMO, just vague enough to say Nature (with a capital N) may deliver into our collective experience, that which is significant enough break away from our current understandings. Such that, "natural existence" itself would plausibly need some serious updating to make sense going forward.

My spiritual self, would simply and rhetorically ask: what if this Entity that is beyond our (rather ambiguous) natural existence is within our Being, here and now? What if that ability is within you now, and always has been, always will be?

 

[Acim]

Please do

If my beliefs are that you are extension of God, could you claim truth (or non-truth) to that?
If my belief is that 2 plus 2 does actually equal 4, could you claim truth (or falsehood) to that?
If my belief is that atheism is no different than agnosticism, could you claim truth (or lies) to that?

 

[ArtieE]

excluding the fact that you can observe your entire room and not see the African elephant..
We can't observe the entire universe and beyond and see that there is no God.

I just realized that that depends on which god one is talking about. If we were looking for Zeus that would be true. But the Christian God is said to be omnipresent which means he must exist everywhere, in every atom and molecule. He must be everything. So a person calling himself a Christian is really a pantheist or a panentheist or something and part God. A rock would be part God.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

They have faith in doubt. Right? Please

Regards

In relationship to my atheism the only thing i really have faith in are the logical absolutes.

I am more than happy to discuss rationally, openly and honestly how the logical absolutes are flawed if you would like.

 

[Augustus]

Why should small a atheists (in your terms) be happy to have some sort of ideological position described using the exact same word? You can do it, for sure. And your intention here makes sense to me. But the original comment I responded to was from @Augustus around not understanding why atheists got miffed at this. From my position, it's pretty obvious. You don't have to agree, and you can think it's silly, but I reserve the right to be miffed. Making more of atheism than it is seems counter-productive on many levels, regardless of who is doing it.

It's not making more of atheism though. Using a term like New Atheist no more applies to atheism in general than the Young Turks applies to the youth in Istanbul.

Atheists get annoyed at people misusing the term atheist, which does happen and is fair enough. My point was about people still getting miffed when it is perfectly clear from context and usage that the user is not talking about atheism in general, but a easily identifiable sub-group of atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not making more of atheism though. Using a term like New Atheist no more applies to atheism in general than the Young Turks applies to the youth in Istanbul.

The expression is an attempt at lending meaning (or if you want to be very technical, difference of meaning) without justification.

It creates a phantom, a distraction. It misleads people into mistaking the current rise in awareness of atheism with an ideology - which is all the more grave a mistake because the original so-called New Atheists are not even very homogeneous in ideological tendencies.

But perhaps most mistaken of all is the very idea behind the use of the name. That of a "new movement" with "leaders". It is a full lie, but an attractive one for those craving convenient targets for their fear and hate.

Atheists get annoyed at people misusing the term atheist, which does happen and is fair enough. My point was about people still getting miffed when it is perfectly clear from context and usage that the user is not talking about atheism in general, but a easily identifiable sub-group of atheists.

"Easily identifiable" is the troublesome part.