Your talking about atheist as opposed to atheism, but amounts to the same.
-
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 reject atheism?
- Thread starter beenherebeforeagain
- Start date
siti
Well-Known Member
I presume by this you are asking me to say how I think "rejecting atheism" is different to affirming "theism"?
If I say "I don't disbelieve" is that the same as saying "I believe"?
If I say "I'm not sure" is that the same as saying "I believe"?
If I say "I believe it is impossible to know" is that the same as saying "I believe"?
If I say "who gives a flying ..." is that the same as saying "I believe"?
And that is without even discussing the nuances that people of different beliefs put on the word "theist".
It would be really nice to have a crystal clear taxonomy of beliefs but we don't and "theism" means different things to different people and even means "non-theism" to some people who are definitely not atheists either. Pantheism, for example, comes in theistic, atheistic and agnostic flavours.
Rejecting atheism and affirming theism are definitely two different things. I believe.
No, I'm talking about atheism. Atheist is the person who is without deity.
Right you said, 'without deity" which I said is atheist. Maybe you can elaborate. Are you saying absence of belief? (I didn't want to go there
)
Frater Sisyphus
Contradiction, irrationality and disorder
Atheism as a general idea is very neutral but I find 'hard atheism' to be highly obnoxious and bloated with assumptions.
Otherwise, someone would reject the notion of a lack of deity or higher power, for obvious reasons.
Personally - I'm still very agnostic, technically speaking (despite my pantheistic leanings)
Otherwise, someone would reject the notion of a lack of deity or higher power, for obvious reasons.
Personally - I'm still very agnostic, technically speaking (despite my pantheistic leanings)
Nope. Atheism isn't in any way as meaningful as Catholicism for example.
I see non-theism as compared to non-dualism. @crossfire used the term transtheism which is appropriate. Yes or no there is a god can be seen as a false dichotomy.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Transcending the question doesn't equate to rejection. It's just seeing the question as irrelevant and ignoring the commonly ticked answer boxes.
syo
Well-Known Member
atheism is impossible to be true. gods exist. so atheism is wrong.
What is the purpose or aim of human civilization under atheism?
Sounds like you have some wonky ideas about what “atheism” means.
Well, no. A person who believes in a god that is everywhere believes in a god and therefore a theist and not an atheist.
Agnosticism is about a separate but related question. It’s not some sort of midpoint between theism and atheism.
And yet you still haven’t clearly said how you think they’re different.
How so? If Catholicism is meaningful, it’s rejection needs to be even more meaningful. No? Or I may not be following your point.
I second this.
PureX
Veteran Member
Atheism isn't "a failure to believe", so perhaps one good reason to reject it might be for the sake of honestly and clarity.
Atheism is the rejection of theistic possibility based on nothing. So perhaps another good reason to reject it might be for it's deliberate and pointless dysfunction.
Atheism is the rejection of theistic possibility based on nothing. So perhaps another good reason to reject it might be for it's deliberate and pointless dysfunction.
Last edited:
What’s the purpose or aim of human civilization under non-smoking?
Atheism is just not believing in any gods. If we want to narrow it down to explicit atheism, then it’s just saying “I’m not convinced” in relation to god-claims.
I suppose you could divide people’s worldviews into theistic (i.e. ones that include gods) and atheistic (i.e. ones that don’t), but atheism by itself doesn’t suggest any sort of purpose, except that it’s incompatible with purposes that require a god or gods.
Atheism isn’t necessarily the rejection of Catholicism. Atheism is just not accepting Catholicism (along with any other theistic beliefs). “Not accepting” runs the gamut from “what’s Catholicism?” through “I don’t find Catholicism convincing” to “Catholicism is absolutely, entirely wrong” and everything in between.
Is atheism compatible with any sort of purpose for human civilization?
I’m not sure I’d call atheism a “failure” at all.
I look at it in terms of mental models or worldviews: we each have a mental model of the world where we try to understand what we see around us and make predictions about what will happen based on what we believe exists and how we believe these things behave.
If someone includes at least one god in their mental model, then they’re a theist. If someone includes no gods in their mental model, then they’re an atheist.
Not including something in your mental model is different from consciously rejecting it. For a belief to be included, we have to be aware of the belief and accept it as true. Concluding “I see no reason to accept or reject this thing because it has no measurable impact on anything in my worldview” still means that the thing isn’t going to be included in your worldview/mental model.
Does that make sense to you?
It’s not compatible with the purposes that require belief in a god or gods.
Where are you going with this?