I'm talking about people who practice a religion but don't believe in any gods: non-theist Buddhists, non-theist Quakers, non-theist UUs, Raelians, etc. I think RF has even had a Hindu atheist or two.
-
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 True Definition Of Atheism?
- Thread starter Euronymous
- Start date
You were saying that religion is fiction. Religion isn't fiction. That there is such a thing as religion is a fact. So when you said "meaning for the word atheist is "believes that religion is fiction" that is wrong since no atheists believe that religion is fiction. Some atheists believe that gods are fictional.
And the secular Jews...
Wisdom of Ages
Member
ATHEISM ? a meaningless word....invented by psychotics who are HYPNOTIZED into Religious CULTS and are conditioned to attack and condemn those who do not accept their idiotic GOD and the idiotic DOGMA these hypnotized parasite humans attach to it...(sometimes female GOD but most of them have been trashed)....
....Take Zeus and Odin...Gods of different cultures yet GODS regardless... both were worshipped..both had temples built for them, both had DOGMA to OBEY and Priests...if you were TRUE BELIEVER....
So what happened to Zeus and Odin ? are YOU an ATHEIST for NOT BELIEVING ? in their time perhaps...but many Ancient Cultures had MANY GODS...and were tolerant of others who did not accept them...
and where is ZEUS and ODIN NOW ? oh, relegated to MYTHOLOGY...children's entertainment only stories ! and movies !
Oh, but that can't happen with JESUS or ALLAH...or the Moses JEW GOD ....( the JEWS like to use his name !)... BUT WAIT !
What of the Sumerian GODS. ASSYRIAN GODS, EGYPTIAN GODS ++++ thousands of others 4000 years before JESUS showed up ?
.....NO NO NO NO...they are all FAKE...all LIES..all HERETICS...says who...ZEUS ? ODIN? .....NO NO NO says the Clown in the Halloween Glory Gown that plays GOD ! these HUMANS say so...so YOU must agree and OBEY...they speak the only TRUTH and only they have the REAL GOD ?
So IF YOU do not accept the JEW GOD..YOU are an ATHEIST...got it....ATHEIST...SHHhhh..if YOU arent a TRUE bllodline JEW you can't believe in their GOD...he is for the JEW only...OK ATHEIST...
BUT
You can accept JESUS...oh, wait..then the Muslim says YOU are an ATHEIST ? OK
You can accept ALLAH..oh, wait..the Christian says YOu are an ATHEIST and will go to HELL .....? now what....
Simple..flush the Middle east GOD garbage down a TOILET and go for BUDDHISM... no GOD no PROBLEM..no ATHEIST !
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
As the person right above me so aptly demonstrates, much like King Saul, people either have the spirit of God or are demon-possessed. This is not a slam against atheism, so much as an expression of the sort of irrational paranoia against religion.
"Political correctness" came about as a result of Marxist cultural experimentation. When finding that despite trying to implement their (crackpot) theories, people weren't in fact suddenly on board with communism, they blamed for the preserved Christian traditions. (Actually, it's because Marxism of all forms, even socialism cannot really be imposed without basically forcing people to work against human nature, that is, people are able to share but to do it for complete strangers must be forced at gunpoint, and will always fail) With the secularization of Europe, it appears they are right, doesn't it? But atheism is effectively a form of powerful mental illness (a "demon"), for one must make logical absurdity in order to assert it.
Evidence God Is
You have to deny anything in nature, in the universe, in your own existence that might possibly prove an existence of God or other spiritual entities just to assert no such thing. And from what I've seen, atheist moral system is basically borrowed from Judaism (and wrongly understood Christianity, for it contains no grace), that is, atheist morality is firmly attached to a world the exists fully as part of Christianity (since God is in everything), yet tries to separate itself from this reality. That's insane.
"Political correctness" came about as a result of Marxist cultural experimentation. When finding that despite trying to implement their (crackpot) theories, people weren't in fact suddenly on board with communism, they blamed for the preserved Christian traditions. (Actually, it's because Marxism of all forms, even socialism cannot really be imposed without basically forcing people to work against human nature, that is, people are able to share but to do it for complete strangers must be forced at gunpoint, and will always fail) With the secularization of Europe, it appears they are right, doesn't it? But atheism is effectively a form of powerful mental illness (a "demon"), for one must make logical absurdity in order to assert it.
Evidence God Is
You have to deny anything in nature, in the universe, in your own existence that might possibly prove an existence of God or other spiritual entities just to assert no such thing. And from what I've seen, atheist moral system is basically borrowed from Judaism (and wrongly understood Christianity, for it contains no grace), that is, atheist morality is firmly attached to a world the exists fully as part of Christianity (since God is in everything), yet tries to separate itself from this reality. That's insane.
Last edited:
Poppa
Member
Samantha... interesting post. If i understand you correctly, you are saying that there is an irrational paranoia against religion when theists define someone as a demon for not believing in their god? wouldn't that be justified paranoia?
"... atheism is effectively a form of powerful mental illness (a "demon"), for one must make logical absurdity in order to assert it."
What absurdity? I feel my own decision is very logical and well thought out, yet i hardly feel insane. care to elaborate? please do it without links. That's cheating.
"You have to deny anything in nature, in the universe, in your own existence that might possibly prove an existence of God or other spiritual entities just to assert no such thing."
No, you just have to accept that everything in nature is natural and came about by natural means of eons. I think you just have to accept that evolution/natural selection are two basic and powerful tools and natures arsenal and its not very far fetched to look at any complex organism as a series of minute steps that took many steps to get to present day. it seems simple enough a process. I take it you do not view it that way?
"... atheism is effectively a form of powerful mental illness (a "demon"), for one must make logical absurdity in order to assert it."
What absurdity? I feel my own decision is very logical and well thought out, yet i hardly feel insane. care to elaborate? please do it without links. That's cheating.
"You have to deny anything in nature, in the universe, in your own existence that might possibly prove an existence of God or other spiritual entities just to assert no such thing."
No, you just have to accept that everything in nature is natural and came about by natural means of eons. I think you just have to accept that evolution/natural selection are two basic and powerful tools and natures arsenal and its not very far fetched to look at any complex organism as a series of minute steps that took many steps to get to present day. it seems simple enough a process. I take it you do not view it that way?
An Atheist is a person who does not believe the claims theists make concerning whatever it is they choose to call God.
PureX
Veteran Member
Since every theist begins with the proposition that God/gods exist in some way, the atheist rejection of that position is that God/gods do not exist in any way. Otherwise, the atheist would not be an atheist, but simply 'undecided', or 'undetermined'. And this is clearly not the case. Yet atheists constantly lie about their holding this position when they're asked to defend it because they know they cannot defend it with the same "objective evidence" that they demand the theist defend his position (that God/gods exist).
It is this fundamental dishonesty and double standard that often allows the theist to wrongly perceive atheism as an overall rejection of morality. And it's the huge flaw in the common atheist's meme that destroys it's intellectual integrity. I think honest atheists everywhere really need to address this problem.
I disagree! Does the Sun exist? Does nature exist? There are theists who worship those things. There is a sect of Rastafarian that deify Halle Selassie (previous president of Ethiopia), in Hindu Kumari of Nepal is worshipped as God; and these people are as real as you and I. Now wouldn’t it be foolish for an atheist to claim those people do not exist simply because there are those who choose to call them God? As an Atheist, I recognize those things exist, but I don’t call them God; I call the Sun a star, Nature our environment, and Selassie & Kumari, people; regardless of what their worshippers choose to call them. In theory I can even accept the idea that what Muslims call Allah, and Christians call Yahweh, existing as evolved beings from another planet that came here when mankind was primitive, and the stories of them changed over the years from beings from a space ship, to God’s that created the Universe.
I don’t think you have to claim God does not exist to be atheists because people can choose to call all sorts of real things God; as long as there is nothing you call God, you are called Atheist.
Do you agree? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong
K
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The same is the position of other Atheists' people about their ism, I understand . Right?
Regards
PureX
Veteran Member
Where you went wrong is that you confused religion with theism. Worshipping idols and icons and symbols and natural phenomena and so on are expressions of religion, not requirements of theism. Theism is a philosophical proposition, not a religious practice. Theism is the proposition that God/gods exist in a way that profoundly effects humanity. So the atheistic (counter) position is that God/gods do not exist is any way that profoundly effects humanity. 'Worshipping' the representations of some divine entity doesn't have anything to do with it, really. That's just something people do when they become frightened and confused.
Theism is the belief that at least one god exists, period.
A god is an object of worship. AFAICT, that's the only trait common to all gods.
Edit: a Sun worshipper and I may agree across the board on every empirical fact about the universe, but the thing that makes him a theist and me an atheist is that he considers the Sun a god (i.e. an object of worship) and I don't.
PureX
Veteran Member
As a belief it's irrelevant to anyone but the believer. Which is why "belief" is not the criteria defining theism. Neither is "worship", or prayer, or any other religious activity. What defines theism is the truth proposal that God/gods of some kind have an existential effect on humanity. And the study of what gods and what effect is the study of theism. One does not have to believe anything to pose the theist proposition as being true, or to study it in detail. Because belief is not a requirement of philosophy.
That's not a common trait at all. There are many theists that don't worship any gods. And there are many theists that worship what they consider to me the manifestations of God.
No I specifically said Theism; I didn’t even mention religion.
That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about people having an interpretation of God that is as real to them as your God is to you.
No; theism is the belief in one God, regardless of if he has an effect on humanity.
Definition of THEISM
If we were to go by your definition, there would be no such a thing as theism because none of them has ever had a profound effect on humanity. Yeah; believers say this or that, my Rastafarian friend claims when Haile Selassie stepped off the plane and waived his hand across the sky ending the drought, that miracle was a profound effect on humanity witnessed by people still alive today, but I don't believe him.
You might claim Jesus walked on water, fed the hungry and healed the sick, but I won’t believe you either. Your claims of your God are no more credible than his claims of his.
This noise you keep bringing up about God having to have a profound effect on humanity sounds like something you’ve just made up to me. Can you provide an outside source to support this claim? Otherwise I will be forced to assume you’re just making stuff up as you go along
It’s not good enough for you to just proclaim something to be true, you need to provide an outside source supporting this claim. I challenge you to provide a definition of theism that has nothing to do with believing in God
Who are these theists who don’t worship any God/Gods?
PureX
Veteran Member
You said theism, and then attacked religion, because you are not differentiating between them. You think theism is religion. But it's not. Religion is just a result of theism. And not an inevitable result, either.
When one person hears music without words, they 'interpret' it as their imagination leads them to. When another person hears the same music, they will interpret it differently, as their imagination leads them to. The music is still the same music, but without the words to dictate a narrative, the imagination will make one up. Claiming that the song doesn't exist, or that it's irrelevant, because each listener imagines a different narrative for it when they hear it is illogical, and is missing the whole point of the music. Which is to INVITE those different and unique individual narratives.
You don't like the way other people's imaginations have interpreted the philosophical proposition of the existence of 'God' because you have rejected the idea all together. But that has no real bearing on anything. And the proposition was never intended to result in one interpretation or 'narrative'. Nor must it, logically. Religions, then, are collections of people who's individual interpretations of the God proposition are similar, (though not the same,) and so lead them to choose to behave in a similar manner.
Theism is only the proposition that God exists and effects our existence. "Belief" is an individual, relative interpretation of that proposition that is always changing.
The proposition that God/gods exist, itself, has had a profound effect on humanity, and it still is, BECAUSE it is open to multiple and individual interpretation, and those interpretations effect who we are and how we live.
Buddhism is a religion even though they don’t have a Deity. Many consider Secular Humanism a religion; even though atheism is at the heart of it. I know the difference between believing in God vs practicing a religion. If you want to know what I believe, just ask; your assumptions of what I believe based on what I say is failing miserably.
The reason your analogy fails is because (unlike your music analogy) theism is not without words; believers are given instructions via their unsubstantiated Holy Text that gives details on how and what they are to believe about God. In Christianity, Jesus is the Son of God who was executed and eventually rose from the dead. In Islam, Jesus is a Prophet of Allah and was never executed; but brought directly up to Heaven. These are two very different teachings that are not left up to interpretation of the individual believer.
A proposition is a statement of what you believe to be true. Such a statement is not required for theism; many theists propose nothing; they keep their beliefs to themselves. All that is necessary for theism is belief.
Definition of THEISM
If you disagree, provide as I have, an outside source that supports your claim.
PureX
Veteran Member
What one "believes" is not relevant. This is what you can't seem to grasp. If we were discussing nihilism, we would be discussing a philosophical proposition, not your, or mine, or anyone's belief in it. We could believe in it, or we could not believe in it, and it would make no difference at all to the subject at hand. Because the subject at hand would be the philosophical proposition, not who believes it. And who does or does not believe in it would give the proposition no credibility at all, nor would it discredit it. Belief is simply not relevant to the idea being presented as truth. I don't know how many more times I can say that or how I can say it any more clearly. Your rejecting and dismissing people's religious beliefs has no logical bearing at all on the validity of the theist proposition. And yet this seems to be the only argument that you can formulate, or offer.
"God" as an ideal is as abstract as music. Here is a good general working definition of God that would comport with almost any religious ideology: God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Now, how do those words define a narrative for you? What do those words tell you about about what God is, or how God functions relative to our existence? They don't. Which is why when people accept the ideal of a "God", they still conceptualize that God in all kinds of different ways, unique to them. You keep attacking those individual conceptualizations as if they were the ideal. And they aren't.
No, it is not.
What people believe, when they believe it, and when they don't, and how intently they believe it has nothing to do with the validity of the idea they attach their belief to. Theism is not defined by belief in it any more than mathematics or science is defined by belief in it.
And dictionaries don't dictate logic, or truth, they only record the use of words, both logical and illogical. The dictionary will tell you that "gay" means homosexual, when we all know this is not logical, or even true. And yet because people commonly misuse the term in this way, you will find it in the dictionary.
What does all of that have to do with what I said? You accused me of not knowing the difference between theism and religion, and I explained I do; using non-theistic religions as an example. Care to try again, Or is this an attempt to change the subject?
We’re not talking about God as an idea, we’re talking about God as a living being. Is this another attempt at changing the subject? If you want to talk about God as an idea, I’m perfectly fine with that, but that is a completely different conversation and I would like to complete this discussion first before moving to something else.
People don’t believe in “theism” they believe in God! Belief in God is called theism. C’mon you're supposed to be better than this!. Well at least you didn’t attempt to change the subject this time.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, YOU'RE talking about God as a living being (as a specific religious conception/depiction of the God ideal). And still you cannot seem to grasp the difference, or why it matters. I'm talking about the God ideal. The philosophical proposition that a God exists and exists in a way that significantly effects humanity. The basis for that proposed ideal, then, being that significant effect on humanity.
I am not interested in arguing with you or anyone else about the many various personal and religious conceptions people choose to hold about the possible nature and existence of 'God'. I don't care what you or anyone else "believes in" regarding the 'God' proposal. Neither theism nor atheism are dependent upon any such arguments or debates. Theism and atheism are about the existential proposition of 'God', generally defined as being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.
I DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IN! I only care about the validity of what they assert to be true, and why. I care only about the assertion that God effectively exists, NOT the assertion that God is a giant pink bunny rabbit with glittery wings (or whatever other conceptualization of God someone chooses to hold). I don't care how they choose to imagine God existing, for themselves, and I don't care how much or how little they, or you, "believe in" it or "disbelieve in" it.
Do you agree with the proposition that a God of some kind likely exists, and does significantly effect humanity? If so, you are a 'theist'. If you reject this proposition as being unlikely, then you are an atheist. It's really just that simple. If you want to argue and debate with people about the way they choose to imagine this God existing, and effecting them, then go seek them out and argue all you like. But all that defines you as being, is a religious antagonist. You may be an atheist, too, or you may not be. Because rejecting religion is not the same as rejecting theism.