Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Because what I think is reality doesn't make reality.
God's existence is having an effect on me whether I believe in him or not.
-
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!
The religion you rejected - why did you reject it?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
God's existence is having an effect on me whether I believe in him or not.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Ps 95:3 For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Ex 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
1 Kings 11:8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
Ps 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
None of those indicate that the other gods actually exist.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Not to mention the first commandment of the Ten Commandments, which is, “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me” (Exo. 20:2-3). Was God lying about other gods?
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
There are scriptures from other cultures about these gods, just as there are scriptures about yours.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
So? What is that supposed to mean to me?
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Why is only your deity real when other cultures had deities before yours?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Greedy rich men. Who in church told me off as a child making new friends talking.
As we couldn't understand their language.
I think it's symbolic.
As we couldn't understand their language.
I think it's symbolic.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
In my opinion, no one, not me, you, or anyone else, can empirically or independently demonstrate whether God or any kind of deity is real or not. No human being has ever searched across all of space and time to give verifiable and empirical proof for the existence of deities, since humans lack omniscience, omnipotence, and the capacity to exist everywhere at once. In my opinion, we, meaning you, me, and everyone else (including Christians), make decisions on whether or not to believe in God, or in other gods, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. Moreover, I believe that any claims made by Christians that "God saved me and changed my life" or "I sense God's hand in my life, so I know he is real" are anecdotal evidence and doesn't meet the criteria for empirical and verifiable proof, just as my belief in multiple deities is only supported by anecdotal evidence and doesn't satisfy the criteria for empirical and verifiable evidence either. I choose to believe in many gods while Christians choose to believe in one God.
As a Wiccan and polytheist, I believe in multiple gods and goddesses, but I am unable to provide empirical and verifiable evidence of their existence. I can't prove their existence because I'm not omniscient and omnipotent and I can't be ever-present everywhere to know without a doubt that they actually exist. And while I can't prove that these gods and goddesses exist, I still choose to believe because I believe in the supernatural and I have personal reasons for my beliefs. By the same token, I cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, just as when I was a Christian, I could not provide empirical and verifiable evidence that God exists. And this is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist when it concerns the existence of the Christian God.
Last edited:
I have already explained how it in fact does. What is it you don't understand about your own subjective reality? If you are unaware of something, it's not part of your reality. Once you are aware of it, it is. You now think about it, consider it, have a relationship with it, etc. Your world now includes it. Prior to your knowledge of whatever that is, it was nothing in your life and reality. It didn't exist - to YOU.
Do you understand now? I'm talking about your experience of reality. Your experience of reality, is reality to you. It's what you believe reality to be. And if something isn't in your awareness, it doesn't exist in your reality. It's that simple.
In what ways? If someone is unaware of God as a reality, how God affecting their lives then? Are you speaking of subtle influences environmentally? Sort of like how we may not be aware of the humidity level of the air on a conscious level, yet it affects us still?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Seriously? God created all reality. He sustains reality. There's literally nothing that happens that God doesn't effect. Every breath is a gift from God.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Well if I didn't believe mine was the real one, he would not be my deity, would he?
The point still remains, to the person that doesn't believe in God, God doesn't exist. They just see all that as nature.
Back to this. "The god you don't believe in, doesn't exist". Does the one thousand armed Avalokiteshvara exist to you? No? It certainly does in a Buddhist's reality.
Again, the point you continue to miss here, is I am talking about your subjective reality. Not objective reality. To you, Avalokiteshvara doesn't exist because it's not part of what you believe to be real.
That's my point. To you, what you don't believe in doesn't exist to you. To you, what you do believe it does exist to you. That's pretty simple to understand. What is it you cannot understand about this?
Last edited:
The problem with calling something like secularism a religion, when you are meaning to say you as an individual treated it as it it were a religion, is that you are declaring that it is objectively understood as a religion, and those who agree or participate within it as a system are practicing a religion. And that is patently false.
If you or anyone means to say, they were personally religious about their belief in something, like a fanatic for model cars calls modeling "his religion", then it needs to be stated in terms of "as if" it were a religion to to them, subjectively speaking. To call it a religion in the proper sense is misleading and misguided. That is factually untrue. It is not considered "a religion".
Sure it has a common belief. I'll agree with this. But that still doesn't make Atheism a religion. Americans, at least 50% of them still believe in Democracy as opposed to an authoritarian fascism, for instance. They share that common belief. But this doesn't make Democracy a religion, does it? Similarly, that specific shared belief of atheism, that God doesn't exist, doesn't automatically make that therefore a religion either.
He would be wrong to say it is a religion for others, in the objective sense of the word religion. That's why people disputed what he claimed. They were right to dispute that.
A personal religion, really isn't a religion in the proper sense. This is just a loose use of the word religion to describe one's own cherished or sacred beliefs, or to describe fantanatism and overly zealous beliefs one might hold.
It's using the word religion poetically, such as "true religion is of the heart". I agree with that sentiment and would say that myself of course, but I don't call that "a religion" when speaking with others. That would just confusing and lead to dispute.
If it's a personal religion, then that is up to the person to call it their religion. Not you calling it that for them. And it's not a "core belief" either, necessarily. By core belief, that means that there are many associated beliefs with that religion as a system. A core belief in that context, means central to a system of beliefs.
Atheism is not a system of beliefs. If it is, then what are those? Simply saying one doesn't believe in the existence of God, is not a cornerstone belief for system of associated beliefs. It's simply a belief, or a position on the single question regarding the existence of God.
Yes, and this is my point. Apart from disbelief in the existence of God, there is no common value system, such as you see taught in Christianity, for instance. Humanism however does come closer to that as a philosophy, but Atheism is not a philosophy.
Again you make my point here. There is no central, or at least no commonly held philosophy that it teaches about the meaning and purpose of life. Non-theism can go in many directions, from nihilistic anarchists, to Buddhism (I consider Buddhism non-theistic as opposed to atheistic, as they don't declare a belief that God doesn't exist. They simply omit a creator deity in their religion is all).
Point is, there is no teaching of Atheism, because Atheism is not a philosophy or a religion. Religions and philosophies by contrast, do have teachings. That's what makes them a system of belief. Atheism is not a system of belief, therefore it is not a religion or a philosophy.
But that doesn't make them recognized as religions. You won't find Bob's love of fly-fishing, under a list of world religions.
To clarify. In the post just now before this one, I explained how atheism is not a system of beliefs, so it does not qualify as a philosophy or a religion. So when I spoke earlier of a central authority, that would mean things like core teachings or a teacher, or philosopher, or sage that one points to in questions regarding it as a philosophy or belief system (religion).
If you were to call yourself an Existentialist, for example you may cite Sartre, or Camus, or Kierkegaard. You certainly would be speaking of core beliefs that make you identify with Existentialism as a philosophy. Same thing with Christianity as a religion. You may cite the scripture, quote from Jesus or Paul. You may cite church traditions. You may speak of the teachings of great Christian leaders of history. And so forth.
But when it comes to Atheism, where is any of this found? Not only is there no system of beliefs or philosophies, no core teachings, there are no central figures common to any religion or philosophy. (Again, I am excluding the poetic sense of "personal religion" here, as that is just a metaphor, and not a properly recognized religion in any objective sense. You can't call Atheism "a religion" if you mean personal religion, like one's love of bird-watching.
What do you mean there are religions that have no core teachings or philosophies? Can you name some? And I do not mean the poetic use of the word religion to mean one's subjective passions about something. I'm talking about something we recognize as religion that more than one person identifies with. I'm talking about things like Christianity, or Buddhism, or philosophies like Existentialism, or Humanism, and so forth. Things that people ascribe to an identify with as a system of beliefs and teachings.
Because a "personal religion" is not really a religion in the objective sense of a common system of beliefs and practices. That's just one's personal philosophy and worldview, or personal devotion. I'm not speaking of subjective religion, but objective common religion in a "we space" that includes more than just one person.
I'll allow for the poetic use of personal religion, such as to describe one's own devotion to certain beliefs and values or transcendent goals in a sacred context, but you cannot call Atheism "a religion", because you are declaring it a religion in the objective sense for all who identify as an atheist and say it is "their religion". (Same thing for secularism or democratic principles, and so forth).
At that moment, it is you who is not any longer speaking in the poetic sense of personal religion. You are now speaking of a commonly recognized system of shared beliefs and practices. You shift the conversation away from personal subjective religiousness, into objective organized systems of beliefs that others participate in.
If you can agree that one can treat their atheism as a religion to them subjectively, like any other strongly held belief or passion, I won't dispute that. But when you call it a religion objectively speaking, and those who identify as atheist are part of that as a religion de facto, than you simply cannot support that. It doesn't not qualify as a religion in any objective sense as a shared system of beliefs, practices, values, teachings, etc. Those simply don't exist.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I understand it fine....I just don't believe in subjective reality.
No, you don't believe in it per se. That is correct. It is simply what we understand as reality. Reality to you, is your subjective experience of it. It's nothing you think about. It is just assumed to be reality, because it is how it is to you. Whether you believe in subjective reality or not, does not change the fact that that is what reality is to you.
In other words, subjective reality is assumed de facto to be actual reality. We don't question it. It is the eyes which are doing the seeing, not realizing that it is the eyes themselves which are defining what is perceived as reality in the first place. We don't see the eyes which do the seeing. But those are are our own subjectivity. The world we see, is seen through our subjectivity. That's just the way it is.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Okay, so you know that others' gods are as real to them as yours is to you.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Personally, I believe Christians are rude and arrogant for saying that their God is the only real one and the only true God, and that all other gods are either false or are not real. I'm ashamed to say that I was once one of these Christians when I was still an evangelical Christian. However, I no longer hold that Christianity is superior to other religions and is the only authentic religion or that the Bible is "God's Word" and is infallible and inerrant. Contrarily, after careful examination, study, and research, I now believe that the Bible not only contains numerous inconsistencies but also contains stories—particularly the stories about Jesus—that have been adapted from ancient paganism and Greek mythology, which predate the Bible and Christianity. I realized that Christianity isn't unique in its beliefs.
I regret how I used to treat non-Christians and other Christians who had different beliefs from mine. If I've learned anything since leaving Christianity, it's that I should be more sympathetic and not be judgmental towards someone who's trapped in a religious cult and who can't see the forest for the trees. I seriously doubt that any of the people I tried to proselytize when I was an evangelical Christian benefited from me trying to shove my Christian beliefs down their throat while I warned them of hellfire and "God's wrath against sinners." I certainly don't benefit from Christians accusing me of worshiping the devil because I'm a Wiccan or telling me that I'm conversing with demons instead of the spirits of dead people. I don't benefit from their trying to convert me back to Christianity either, and then, when I don't comply, they resort to threatening me with hellfire. I guess what goes around comes around. I've told them that their tactics won't work on me because I know how this game is played because I used to play it too. I have told them that I never want to be a Christian again. I believe that letting go of my belief in God and quitting Christianity was the best thing I have ever done for my mental health. My life has significantly improved since I let go of my belief in God and disavowed my Christian faith.
Last edited:
