dallas1125
Covert Operative
Thats exactly what I think you are! Although I doubt anyone would consider your arguments winning...
-
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!
Why do you come here? (To atheists)
- Thread starter AntEmpire
- Start date
Because that is my sincere opinion from what I know of them. Most Dharma practicioners don't even give much of a hint if they believe in deities, if they see them as metaphors, or somewhere in between. It is simply not important.
Well, that is the only way of giving the concepts of theism and atheism any true meaning, isn't it?
Faith relates to choice of goals and is best supported by facts, while belief is a choice of conviction and destroys itself when supported or negated by facts.
They may intermesh, but don't really need to.
Or maybe of establishing clear definitions?
Many, many Dharmic practitioners I've talked to believe in gods. Some of them use them as metaphors for purely philosophical talk, others use them as metaphors for supernatural things that are on the fuzzy line regarding the definition of gods, and some (many) of them use them as actual gods, with a consciousness that does things, and so forth.
No, as I've said. Theism and atheism are applicable to any gods.
That's not the definition. Gods have held a huge variety of places in Dharmic religions for thousands of years. And for the ones that don't, the term atheism applies.
If you say so. I wonder how you avoid a circular definition, however.
Which circular definition?
If Theism is simply belief in Gods, and Gods are what Theists believe in, we enter in a deadlock until and unless some further definition criteria are introduced.
It's not circular.
Theism applies to gods, while gods do not derive their definition from the word theism. Gods have a variety of definitions. Here are some:
noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. ( lowercase
4. ( often lowercase
5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. ( lowercase
7. ( lowercase
8. ( often lowercase
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
The first four definitions are particularly relevant here.
openyourmind
Active Member
My question is why can't they come here? Why would a faithful come here what's for the to debate? Everyone has a reason, if your a true believer in god then the rational thinking about the unrational notions lead to questionable thinking of we all answered a call to be here, right?
waitasec
Veteran Member
wait a second
right there you have set yourself to be closed minded...
is that being rational?
AntEmpire
Active Member
It's not circular.
Theism applies to gods, while gods do not derive their definition from the word theism. Gods have a variety of definitions. Here are some:
noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. ( lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. ( often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. ( lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. ( lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. ( often lowercase) Gods, Theater . a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
The first four definitions are particularly relevant here.
Generally (besides the theater definitions) god or gods are a supernatual being.
AntEmpire
Active Member
Can you grammar this so i know what you're trying to say please
Calling theists "true believers" or "faithful" is such a loaded habit, come to think of it.
Disbelief in God is just that. It is not a moral, spiritual, religious or psychological defect. We don't call right-handed people "true handers", we shouldn't call theists "true believers".
Disbelief in God is just that. It is not a moral, spiritual, religious or psychological defect. We don't call right-handed people "true handers", we shouldn't call theists "true believers".
blackout
Violet.
But you see Luis,
only SOME theists are the "true believers".
(they're usually the selfrighteous ones as well)
AntEmpire
Active Member
Esp. since alot of theists are bat sheet crazy. (mind you a in no higher percentage than non-theists, but there are 85% theists to 15% non-theist, so most of the crazies in the world believe in some sort of god)
openyourmind
Active Member
You read to much into my words. I used the words "true believer" to illistrate a person. One that has been said to me and I quote his words to me "If you were a true believer like me than you could see that god sent you here." My comment back was, "What? What in the hell does that mean? That's no answer to my question." So when I say "true believer" I don't refer to all or any particular religon. Simply the ones that say they believe and can't give any other reason than, because he said so. Am I the only person that hates when someone critizes your beliefs because they don't understand it when they don't even understand thier own?
AntEmpire
Active Member
zinger! (for i am an agnostic atheist, and very interested in the topics)
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Actually, I thought this was a porn site. I was typing in RF for ... Well, I'll forego describing what I was looking for at the time, but suffice it to say that I was surprised when I landed here. Ehh, I thought I'd hang out and read some debates. Besides, let's face it, that porn ain't going nowhere. I'll continue my search later.
waitasec
Veteran Member
fair enough, but it would be helpful if you underlined this notion by using italics or quotation marks or something to let us know you what you mean...
"then the rational thinking about the unrational notions lead to questionable thinking"
so your rationale about your beliefs is subjective because it's your personal interpretation. how about when the apostle paul degrades women, for example? would the believer take what he says at face value or question why he would make such statements? and then come to the conclusion that he is speaking from a time that condoned such things and shouldn't be applied for today...like most reasonable people have decided.