• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then it fell away a long time a go. The primary mode of expansion of Christianity has been imperialism, colonialism, and force conversion since Constantine converted the Roman Empire. Then the expansion across Europe, the Americas, Africa, etc.
I don't think its been all about imperialism and colonialism for the church or even the western nations. There have been many Christians who have gone and helped other poorer nations without having a hand in denying or oppressing people.

You can look up a long history for this just like it was Christians who were mopping up the mess in our own societies from a long time with the Slavos and St Vinnies being the main ones going back over a 150 years or more.

I mean humans are explorers and we discovered these nations. What were they to do just leave them. Its natural that the explorers who dicovered these lands would inhabit them. Its being going on for millenia even with natives moving from place to place. But the west also brough health, education and legal systems, equal rights, human worth ect to these people. It wasn't all doom and gloom.

The church is often in the background to all this mucking in and helping the most needy and often cleaning up the mess caused by western governments. Thousands and thousands of good Christians go into these nations helping people today and have done for a long time. If it wasn't for the church society would be in big trouble today.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have no idea how prevalent the God/Godess you reference is practiced in Paganism. But what I look for is not the outer form which is where your hanging out, but the inner side of things in how a religion is practiced by it's believers.
I am also talking about the inner workings of paganism which isn't necessarily obvious to many. Paganism is basically worshipping the natural instincts of humans and nature. The worship of sex can be expressed in modern ways that express pagan ideology. For example how Woke society worships sex and gender identity as a divine force that trumps all else even objective reality.

All the hallmarks of paganism are there, having to pay homage to identities and if one doesn't they are shamed and ostrisized. Abortion is a form of child sacrifice on the alter of individual freedom and choice. Society must pay tribute to these ideological beliefs in honor of the gods they create out of them.
We could take your own religion as an example. Here we have your God impregnating a 14 your old child.
In the practice by the believers it's a sacred act. Personally I go with the sacred. But if one were to focus only on the outer, which is what your doing, your God might sound pretty questionable because of that act.
Actually I think your focusing on the outer by attributing what happened to modern day conventions and moralizing it. Your looking at the outside and not what the spiritual aspect represents.

The truth is we don't know how old Mary was. Mant say around 16. But that was the practice back then and no one thought it wrong. Women are able to get pregnant at around 14 so why would God and evolution allow for this capability.

But Mary was not impregnated by any human, she did not have sexual intercourse. It was a hold conception which is completely different. So it kept things sacred in that Christ was not born of flesh but of the spirit just as sex should be with Christianity.
Your God also has a history of violence and teaching/encouraging violence and all sorts of really nasty thing.
God does not teach or encourage violence. That He is judged some and inflicted punishment is not different to how humans judge and inflict punishment for evil. God is the ultimate judge and worthy and rightous in doing so.
On top of that, when it comes to sexual issues, Christians do not have a sparkly clean history in that regard.
Yes even the Church is human. They should know better but as throughout history whether church or State in the name of good have done evil things. But none of this negates the many good Christians quietly going about doing Gods work. The true Church of Christ. It was and is the church that often picks up the pieces of what happens in society.
These are the outward side that anyone could look at and use as examples in the same sorts ways your doing with Pagans.
Yes you could almost say that aspects of the church became pagan in the way they persued their sexual and selfish desires over God. They gave in to their base human flesh rather than live in the spirit of Christ.

But all your doing is looking at one aspect of the outward appearence, the negative stuff because thats all you want to see to bring Christians down. Which shows your bias. There are a multitude of good works done by Christians throughout history and if it wasn't for the CHurch then society would have been in a much worse place.
The point being, what are the believers themselves doing in their spiritual trajectory. In my experience with Pagan friends I've never seen what your projecting onto the Pagan community. You may not like how they experience the Divine, I get that, but you clearly are, at least to my eyes, projecting things that are not generally practiced by the Pagan community as your point of argument. In seeing that is why I knew you have no experience with Paganism and don't really know what your talking about.
The point is there may be many good pagans who are harmless but paganism by its very nature is not about anything really, its ambigious as to what exactly it is. Primarily its about making human desires, feelings, instincts, and nature divine or spiritual. So in that sense it can be anything from harmless practices to debauchery.

There is no clear restrictions on human desires and there is not clear moral code which is usually subjective and relative. Whereas Christianity has a clear objective standard which makes the persuit of the flesh, human desires against the spirit of God and is discouraged. This is done through GOds laws and being born again in the spirit of Christ.

BUt its even more than that. The other point is that despite secular ideas that society can exist without religion and belief the rise of paganism and other new age mystical ideas or even demonic beliefs are all replacing God and Christianity and yet society is no better off and perhaps just as bad in a different way if not worse and heading for worse.

The worship of the fleshly desires has lead to many problems. Materialism has become a god and people and the earth are being pilaged without regard. Many nations are buckling under so called economic reforms that are supposed to make everyone better off and yet a small group of elites have all the power while more and more people suffer.

Addiction and mental health epidemics, society divided along identity lines all warring at each other to the point of antisemetism. While the world is on the brink of war and climate catastrophe while many people are disillusioned and fearing whats going to happen especially young people..

Things anit getting better but worse. The DEI Utopia that the Woke religion promised is not happening but making it worse.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We were talking about *belief* in a deity or spiritual thing, not morality. That is not universal. Do pay attention. (Of course core morals are "universal", that's the only way we could evolve to live in cooperative groups just like the other apes.)
You didn't see the link to how humans are predisposed to believe in gods and the afterlife. please do pay attention lol.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think its been all about imperialism and colonialism for the church or even the western nations. There have been many Christians who have gone and helped other poorer nations without having a hand in denying or oppressing people.

Do you maximalize everything? You keep taking statements, construct maximal versions of them, and then argue against your construction.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
All the hallmarks of paganism are there, having to pay homage to identities and if one doesn't they are shamed and ostrisized. Abortion is a form of child sacrifice on the alter of individual freedom and choice. Society must pay tribute to these ideological beliefs in honor of the gods they create out of them.

An abortion is a medical procedure for the termination of a pregnancy. Think of it as a sin, immoral, or murder all you like, but it IS NOT a religious ritual or a a sacrifice to a god of any kind. Your statements are getting more and more hyperbolic and disconnected from reality with each post.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What "cup of tea and chat" afterward? When Mass was over, we left. (Sing-a-longs? Do you mean the music during the service?)
lol Often theres a gathering after the service and some have refreshments and people socialise. Its not all formal stuff. The Salvos are famous for their biscuits and tea after events.
But that's not what "belief" or religion is. It is not "community".
Of course it is its called fellowship. Its an important part of being a Christian and I would say for any organised religion or even secular groups. Getting to know each other, sharing experiences, strengthening bonds, offering a helping hand, consoling, ect.

I know with rugby league which I follow the Bulldogs and a big issue with them has been the culture rather than on the field. Building culture by developing the off field bonds with players and their families and making them feel a part of the club. This is a powerful aspect that creates the spirit of a group which can overcome adversity.
What's you point? I don't see one.
The point is there is no physical or material phenomena in the world that is just as powerful and real as anything objective which can influence and give knowledge of reality. Taking a purely physical and material view of life is only part of reality and making it everything is more about belief that fact.
Testimony of experiences about what? Religious feelings? Miracles? Contact with the beyond? If you want me to believe such things happen or exist you are going to have to do better than "something weird happened in a dream last night" or "my husband's new job is a miracle from god".
It could be anything, even testimony in court from an eye witness. Your friend tells you of an experience they had, may be nothing supernatural but still hard to believe. How do you disprove it if it happened just to them. It may be real to them but not to you. But how do you prove it is not real to them. Experiential phenomena is real but cannot be verified scientifically. It can actually change people and the world.

There are millions of testimony about conscious experiences beyond this world such as you mentioned. Some being verified. But how does one disprove this. The experiencers claim its as real as you or I sitting behind our computers writing. Many have their lives changed as a result of its powerful impact on their lives. How do you say its all in their imagination when they see it as real as everyday reality. You can'y just say they are deluded.
Yes, I am. I have no reason to doubt that someone else believes something no matter how unfounded I may find their belief.
So how do you prove they are deluded. What if it comes down to your word against theirs. What if these people show no sssigns of a persoanlity type that is supceptible to delusion and are quite matter of fact. You just tell them its all lies. On what basis do you do this.
I'm not trying to disprove the existence of anyone's belief.
Yes you are when you say that anyone who believes in something beyond what you think are deluded. Your more or less saying such beliefs are not true, don't have any connection with reality.
And now you dip into insults. Quit telling me I don't exist. I do. I do not believe any of that supernatural stuff and haven't for quite some time. I do not believe in any god, therefore I *am* an atheist. It is that simple.
Your taking things personally. I said the research shows theres no such thing as a true athiest. Not there no such thing as you or your beliefs. Its no more personalised than saying obesity is bad for your health in having a go at obese people. Its just a fact and facts have no feelings.
Oh yes you have been saying it. You just said it in the previous sentence.
No your have misinterpreted what this actually means because you have not researched it but taken it personally. Saying theres no such thing as a true atheism is not saying there are no atheists. Its saying that atheism is itself a belief. So when atheists claim that they don't believe in gods they are expressing a belief position.
I don't care what you call it, I don't believe in it and as you already know I don't think the "detached mind" kind of "soul" is physically possible. Count me as not one of the "many" atheists and scientists .(And be careful not to conflate the two groups just because I am in both.)
Ok your in the minority then. But heres the point. Your claiming that the majority are deluded and yet when someone points out that the minority may actually be the odd ones out as belief in a natural part of being human then I think its calling the kettle black.
There is no accounting for the number of irrational things without evidence that people will believe in. Ghosts are certainly one of them.
Who says their irrational. See this is the thing that you can claim its all irrational without direct evidence. Your proconcieved bias is getting in the way. You cannot claim to know the ontological truth and when you do that it is more about belief than reality of fact.
\
Your saying to Indigenous people who have practiced their spirituality for thousands of years that they are deluded and yet western scientism has only been around for a fraction of that time. Your say the majority of the world is deluded and yet they believe they are not. Your saying rational and intelligent people even scientists who believe are deluded. Yet you cannot verify this.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You didn't see the link to how humans are predisposed to believe in gods and the afterlife. please do pay attention lol.

The common predisposition to supernatural beliefs is well known and many writers have devoted much writing to it. I am well aware of it and didn't deny it. That does not mean that *everyone* has supernatural beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
lol Often theres a gathering after the service and some have refreshments and people socialise. Its not all formal stuff.
I've heard of such things, but our church almost never had such things.
The Salvos are famous for their biscuits and tea after events.
Don't even know what a "salvo" is (other than a group of projectiles).
Of course it is its called fellowship. Its an important part of being a Christian and I would say for any organised religion or even secular groups. Getting to know each other, sharing experiences, strengthening bonds, offering a helping hand, consoling, ect.
I didn't go to a church to "socialize" with people. Why would I want to spend time with people because they have the same religion as me.
I know with rugby league which I follow the Bulldogs and a big issue with them has been the culture rather than on the field. Building culture by developing the off field bonds with players and their families and making them feel a part of the club. This is a powerful aspect that creates the spirit of a group which can overcome adversity.
That's cool if you want to do it. Church was church. Why should I want to have it take more than one hour of my week? (I didn't.)
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So how do you prove they are deluded. What if it comes down to your word against theirs. What if these people show no sssigns of a persoanlity type that is supceptible to delusion and are quite matter of fact. You just tell them its all lies. On what basis do you do this.

I didn't say anything about "deluded". I said that their beliefs were unfounded.
Yes you are when you say that anyone who believes in something beyond what you think are deluded. Your more or less saying such beliefs are not true, don't have any connection with reality.
I didn't say anything about "deluded". I said that their beliefs were unfounded.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your taking things personally.
Of course I am taking your statements personally...
I said the research shows theres no such thing as a true athiest.

...you just said that I don't exist. I am an atheist, even what you probably think is a "true atheist". (Though a definition from you might be useful here in case you are talking about something else.)
Not there no such thing as you or your beliefs. Its no more personalised than saying obesity is bad for your health in having a go at obese people. Its just a fact and facts have no feelings.
No your have misinterpreted what this actually means because you have not researched it but taken it personally. Saying theres no such thing as a true atheism is not saying there are no atheists. Its saying that atheism is itself a belief.
"Atheism" isn't even a real "ism". "Atheist" and "theist" are categories of people based on their belief (or non-belief) in a god of some sort. If you believe in a god you are a theist if you don't, you are an atheist. It's really quite simple. There is not "atheism" just as there is no "theism". Being categorized as a "theist" tells you nothing about what you actually believe.
So when atheists claim that they don't believe in gods they are expressing a belief position.
No, we are expressing a non-belief position.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,212
10,099
✟282,398.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I mean humans are explorers and we discovered these nations. What were they to do just leave them. Its natural that the explorers who dicovered these lands would inhabit them. Its being going on for millenia even with natives moving from place to place. But the west also brough health, education and legal systems, equal rights, human worth ect to these people. It wasn't all doom and gloom.
This is a dangerously misguided perception of colonisation. I'm sorry Steve, it reeks of the arrogance and patronising posture that was used to justify the exploitation, an exploitation often carried out with the complicity and active support of the churches.

We didn't discover these nations. They knew perfectly well that they existed and had done so with cultures and civilisations of long standing. You ask "what were we to do, just leave them?" Yes, a resounding yes. Better to leave them than subjugate, exploit, commit genocide (accidental and deliberate) and allow millions to perish as a consequence of our actions, or inactions.

Of course we could have sought mutual benefit in trade, but not - for example - as the British did in China, by selling drugs, then invading when the locals objected.

Sure there were some upsides, but at what catastrophic costs for the lives of the natives and the integrity of the exploiters.

The reason you see through such rose coloured spectacles is that they are tinted by the blood of the dead, disenfranchised, exploited masses.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is a dangerously misguided perception of colonisation. I'm sorry Steve, it reeks of the arrogance and patronising posture that was used to justify the exploitation, an exploitation often carried out with the complicity and active support of the churches.
That is where you are assuming that what I am saying is justifying the bad stuff that colonisation did. I qualified this in my previous posts so perhaps you should go back and read them.

I was trying to add some balance that yes the west did a lot of harm to indigenous peoples and theres no excuse. But they also brought many good aspects as well.
We didn't discover these nations. They knew perfectly well that they existed and had done so with cultures and civilisations of long standing. You ask "what were we to do, just leave them?" Yes, a resounding yes. Better to leave them than subjugate, exploit, commit genocide (accidental and deliberate) and allow millions to perish as a consequence of our actions, or inactions.
So are you saying that the America, South America, New Zealand, Australia and many other nations around the pacific ocean that were only occupied by indigenous peoples and natives should have been left while the rest of civilized world were confined and crowded into maybe half the world around Europe. Every nation at one stage has been settled by outside people.

The ironic thing the Indigenous peoples of Australia today settled Australia from Africa and Papua New Guinea who then explored and settled the South America's so they too were explorers and settlers in other lands. The American Indians are not the first to settle North America, migrations came from Asia and Siberia. This has been going on since we came out of Africa.

The early pioneer explorers were like our astronauts today exploing our solar system. They wondered what was out there so of course they set out to explore the world. They mapped our world, they brought travel and connections between all parts of the world.

I disgree that they should have left the rest of the world like it was back then. It is unreal to say that we should have restricted exploration and settlement back in a time when the populations in these parts was small with vast lands and the need for human populations to grow.

What they should have done is to have been more cooperative and shared the land respecting the locals as equals. This was already happening where natives moved between lands and were accepted and integrated. In fact most indigenous peoples welcomed the new arrivals of Europeans and were willing to share.
Of course we could have sought mutual benefit in trade, but not - for example - as the British did in China, by selling drugs, then invading when the locals objected.
Yes I agree. But more than share. Just about every nation on earth has been settled by someone from outside. The majority of the world was within Europe and there was a vast virtually empty world out there to be dicovered. Just as we today are becoming a mixed of ethnic groups we should share the lands. I mean who wants a world full of China's where no one different is allowed.
Sure there were some upsides, but at what catastrophic costs for the lives of the natives and the integrity of the exploiters.

The reason you see through such rose coloured spectacles is that they are tinted by the blood of the dead, disenfranchised, exploited masses.
Its a pity you didn't read my previous posts where I have already qualified that colonisation and imperialism has done much damage. So its not rose coloured glasses by clear ones that give a balanced view of both the benefits and negatives.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So are you saying that the America, South America, New Zealand, Australia and many other nations around the pacific ocean that were only occupied by indigenous peoples and natives should have been left while the rest of civilized world were confined and crowded into maybe half the world around Europe.
This is what's known as the lebansraum theory.
Every nation at one stage has been settled by outside people.
The issue was not "explorers and settlers" it was "colonialism and imperialism".
The ironic thing the Indigenous peoples of Australia today settled Australia from Africa and Papua New Guinea who then explored and settled the South America's so they too were explorers and settlers in other lands.
The American Indians are not the first to settle North America, migrations came from Asia and Siberia.
Yes they were. The American Indians come from that expansion from Asia ~15000 years ago in to empty land. (The native peoples of Arctic North America arrive later, more like 5000 years ago, from post-glacial eastern Siberia.)
This has been going on since we came out of Africa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sif
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,212
10,099
✟282,398.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
So are you saying that the America, South America, New Zealand, Australia and many other nations around the pacific ocean that were only occupied by indigenous peoples and natives should have been left while the rest of civilized world were confined and crowded into maybe half the world around Europe. Every nation at one stage has been settled by outside people
So the inconvenience of their overcrowding gave the European a right to take over other countries, with not so much as a by-your-leave.? And your justification is "that's the way we've always done it".
The ironic thing the Indigenous peoples of Australia today settled Australia from Africa and Papua New Guinea who then explored and settled the South America's so they too were explorers and settlers in other lands. The American Indians are not the first to settle North America, migrations came from Asia and Siberia. This has been going on since we came out of Africa.
There is nothing ironic about any of that, but I thought your claim was that Christianity brought enlightment to human behaviour, yet here you are quite happy to defend the adoption of the brutal takeover of a people and their land by the Christian based western nations, of which you seem so proud.
I disgree that they should have left the rest of the world like it was back then. It is unreal to say that we should have restricted exploration and settlement back in a time when the populations in these parts was small with vast lands and the need for human populations to grow.
That sounds very much like the old "Might is Right" argument. And stop equating exploration and its motives with exploitation and its motives. There is some overlap, there is certainly not identity.
What they should have done is to have been more cooperative and shared the land respecting the locals as equals. This was already happening where natives moved between lands and were accepted and integrated. In fact most indigenous peoples welcomed the new arrivals of Europeans and were willing to share.
No! No! No! It was not their land to share! And acceptance of the incomers was in ignorance of the diseases, attitudes and numbers that would follow.

I cannot do anything other than view your stance on this as gravely immoral. I cannot give such a stance one iota of respect.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,846
1,700
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,482.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Of course I am taking your statements personally...
But it was not personal. I stated a fact of research not directed at you but just a fact.
...you just said that I don't exist. I am an atheist, even what you probably think is a "true atheist". (Though a definition from you might be useful here in case you are talking about something else.)
Yes it always pays to clarify what the messager is saying before you make accusations. I am I mean the studies I am referring to that say there is no such thing as a true atheist are talking about belief. Its not that there are no atheists but that atheism is itself a form of belief. The belief in no belief in God or gods and/or the belief that there is no God or gods.

Depending on how strong your atheism is as some not only believe in no gods but also no supernaturalism at all. That is a stronger belief.

But what these all have in common is that they are making an assertion that cannot be scientifically and objectively verified. Therefore its beyond being an open question of possibilities and more an ontological claim about what is the case without evidence. That makes it more a belief. So there are atheist but they to base their position on a belief about reality.
"Atheism" isn't even a real "ism". "Atheist" and "theist" are categories of people based on their belief (or non-belief) in a god of some sort. If you believe in a god you are a theist if you don't, you are an atheist. It's really quite simple. There is not "atheism" just as there is no "theism". Being categorized as a "theist" tells you nothing about what you actually believe.
I think being a theist does categorize you as believing in some god like entity behind the universe or what we see. So an atheist would be the opposite I would imagine and not believe in some god like entity beyond what we see.

As opposed to some atheist who may not believe in a god like entity but perhaps some other spiritual idea like nature or a mind beyond brain or someone who does not believe in anything supernatural or beyond the physical and material world.

I always though most atheist were more on the materialist side as if you believe in something beyond the physical more transcendent then your sort of contradicting not believeing in a god like entity. Maybe the difference is between a supernatural force of nature and a intervening creator god. But it seems that atheists would be more scientfically inclinded and see the world within the closure of the physical world and be more materialistic.
No, we are expressing a non-belief position.
Yes a belief in a non-belief position. You can't verify that position so its a belief. Thats if you want to defend it or attack those who do believe.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But it was not personal. I stated a fact of research not directed at you but just a fact.

Yes it always pays to clarify what the messager is saying before you make accusations.
That would be nice if you did...
I am I mean the studies I am referring to that say there is no such thing as a true atheist are talking about belief.
I doubt they use the term "true atheist" in those studies. It sounds too much like "true Scotsman". (And I definitely ain't one of those.)
Its not that there are no atheists but that atheism is itself a form of belief. The belief in no belief in God or gods and/or the belief that there is no God or gods.
I thought I explained this. Do I need to do it again?

Not believing in a god is not a belief, just like:

not playing a sport is not a sport;
not having a job is not a job;
not having a hobby is not a hobby;
and not having a religion is not a religion.

Atheism (non-belief) is not a kind of belief. (or even a proper term at all. There is not "ism" here.)
Depending on how strong your atheism is as some not only believe in no gods but also no supernaturalism at all. That is a stronger belief.
There is no strength to non-belief. You either don't believe or your do believe. It's not possible to "not believe" more strongly.
But what these all have in common is that they are making an assertion that cannot be scientifically and objectively verified. Therefore its beyond being an open question of possibilities and more an ontological claim about what is the case without evidence. That makes it more a belief. So there are atheist but they to base their position on a belief about reality.

The only "assertion" I am making is that I assert that I don't believe in your god or any of the other gods. The only reason I have to "assert" it is because it is a description of an internal mental state and the only way to properly communicate it is to tell you what I don't believe. It is the same for you belief in your god. You must assert it so that we may be informed of your internal mental state.
I think being a theist does categorize you as believing in some god like entity behind the universe or what we see. So an atheist would be the opposite I would imagine and not believe in some god like entity beyond what we see.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. A category.
As opposed to some atheist who may not believe in a god like entity but perhaps some other spiritual idea like nature or a mind beyond brain or someone who does not believe in anything supernatural or beyond the physical and material world.

All atheists (no belief in a god = atheist). None more "true" than any other.

I always though most atheist were more on the materialist side as if you believe in something beyond the physical more transcendent then your sort of contradicting not believeing in a god like entity. Maybe the difference is between a supernatural force of nature and a intervening creator god. But it seems that atheists would be more scientfically inclinded and see the world within the closure of the physical world and be more materialistic.
It's just about not believing in god, nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea how many are philosophical naturalists (a term I much prefer to "materialist" which sounds like someone motivated by wealth and greed.) Most people are not scientifically inclined including atheists. [I did not become a philosophical naturalist because I was an atheist, but the opposite, I became an atheist because I was a philosophical naturalist.]
Yes a belief in a non-belief position. You can't verify that position so its a belief. Thats if you want to defend it or attack those who do believe.
It is a position *on belief* but not a belief.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,490
4,252
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Lol, what about MacDonalds, thats quite a famous icon of the west that has spread even to communist China lol.

Yes like I said those aspects that were mixed with Christainity were not Christian ideals. Like they say never mix religion and politics. But that is the nature of humans that they rebel against God and think they know better. Power and money are a bad mix and especially when people get into positions of power even the Church it goes to their head.

This has happened time and time again throughout history where the church as strayed away and then come back to its roots.
And the "roots" are in the Gospel of Christ and the "strayed away" part is the Western Christian Culture you are pushing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,490
4,252
82
Goldsboro NC
✟258,859.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
What "cup of tea and chat" afterward? When Mass was over, we left. (Sing-a-longs? Do you mean the music during the service?)
Just a side note: It is customary in Protestant Churches to have a social hour after the main Sunday (get dressed up to the nines) service where people can drink weak coffee and eat stale cake while strutting their piety.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,624
16,321
55
USA
✟410,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Just a side note: It is customary in Protestant Churches to have a social hour after the main Sunday (get dressed up to the nines) service where people can drink weak coffee and eat stale cake while strutting their piety.
Sounds like torture. I've only been to a protestant church 3 times (2 weddings, 1 funeral) so I couldn't confirm the practice.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,212
10,099
✟282,398.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Sounds like torture. I've only been to a protestant church 3 times (2 weddings, 1 funeral) so I couldn't confirm the practice.
Sound like you may have the makings of a film script there. Let me know how it turms out.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: stevevw
Upvote 0