Christian thoughts on atheism

[Non sequitur]

Now you're just being facetious. I'm not saying that you do or do not have to believe in vanilla ice cream, nor am I saying that a belief or belief system is wrong. Belief is wonderful, whether you are religious or not. Belief is hard-wired into the human brain to allow us to function.

You used a system of beliefs to come to your current conclusion. You believe that current religions do not offer an accurate revelation of the Divine.

While I understand what you are talking about when you say "the Divine", I disagree that there is even such a thing to agree or disagree with.

There is no "Divine".

If you mean conceptually, then ok. If you mean literally, but my interpretation of it is different, then you are begging he question.

To conclude that, you use a particular system of logic to come to your supporting reasons. That is - in the very essence and defintion of the term - a "belief system". This is so incredibly easy to test that I'm amazed atheists still spout it.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Then you hop to belief system. Again I have no distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice.

If you are going to be that vague, then everything is a belief system and we have just diluted the term.

Now, you mind as well be saying, "We are everything and everything is us," and start burning some patchouli incense and start making out with trees.

Let me theoretically declare that I'm an atheist. Okay. Now, let me also declare that I believe in Allah and everything that Allah teaches in the Quran. "Well, then you're not an atheist", a clever observer would note. No, I am not, because I do not adhere to the atheistic system of belief.

"No, I am not, because I believe in a deity." is the more appropriate.

You'd get funny looks and be asked to wear a silly hat, if you said that.

You are just adding words and phrases, unnecessarily.

Now, this isn't your fault. You are not the first atheist, and you are certainly not the first atheist to stomp his feet and demand that atheism is not actually a "belief system".

I'm not stomping my feet and I'm not demanding anything.

I'm just suggesting you don't go adding deeper meanings and taking things out of context, for some reason, to things that don't need them.

But perhaps a better term would be "organized religion". In this point, I agree with you. But then let's call atheism for what it is: a belief system that is does not adhere to the tenants of an organized religion. See? That wasn't so hard. Now you can go discuss Richard Dawkins quotes with your buddies and no one will reject you.

It's not a religion.

I don't even know what that "rejecting" bit had to do with anything.

Seems to be some sophomoric attempt an insult. Correct me if I am wrong.


Let's not call it a "belief system", because it isn't. See?

That wasn't so hard

Now you can discuss Ken Ham quotes with your bu- wait, you probably don't want to do that...

 

[chaotic_rayne]

We are not a belief system.... We do not follow anything that tells us what to believe or how... or even how to live our lives. We reject the concept of any god/s/ess and rely heavily on science. We don't rely on faith, we go with what is proven and speculate on what is not and do our best to find the answer. If we don't know something for a fact, we don't rely on any faith to explain it to us.
All in all, what faith is, is simply believing in a deity. A belief system is a religion based on a deity.... in wich we are not.

I, personally, don't "hate" what I do not believe in. I do, however, get angry at what RELIGION (Not a faith in a deity) can do to a person.

 

[Non sequitur]

Why? You're just playing a game. Deliberately putting God on the same level as something that is by definition an imaginary creature does not prove anything except that you believe God is imaginary.

And I also believe unicorns are, too.

They are both on the same level, as they are both imaginary.

If you take the personal emotions out of things, how are they no different?

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

And I also believe unicorns are, too.

They are both on the same level, as they are both imaginary.

If you take the personal emotions out of things, how are they no different?

My belief in God's existence is no more emotionally based than your belief that God is imaginary.

 

[mrmccormo]

While I understand what you are talking about when you say "the Divine", I disagree that there is even such a thing to agree or disagree with.

There is no "Divine".

You really could use a crash course in rationalism. When you make a statement such as "There is no Divine", you are stating a belief, since you cannot empirically or rationally prove it.

And your statement is based on your belief, which is underpinned by a belief system.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

According to the very same defintion, belief is:

"Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction"

By this definition, atheism is in every sense of the word a "belief". Of course, you might disagree, but then we would have to throw our your own definition of belief.

Then you hop to belief system. Again I have no distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice.

This is another oft-used but empty excuse. Atheism has distinct doctrine (God has not been defines/It does not exist), theory (rationalism/empiricism), system (the methods of rationalism/empiricism), and practice (the rejection of organized religion and the espousing of one's beliefs).

You are confusing "belief system" with "organized religion". I agree that you have no organized religion, but your terror and fright over anything with the label "belief" slapped on it does not make it any less of a label that accurately describes what you hold as true.

If you are going to be that vague, then everything is a belief system and we have just diluted the term.

Now, you mind as well be saying, "We are everything and everything is us," and start burning some patchouli incense and start making out with trees.

Ah, so perhaps you are coming closer to reality. Is everything a belief system? At what point do we leave the realm of subjective, finite empiricism and enter the realm of objective truth?

"No, I am not, because I believe in a deity." is the more appropriate.

You'd get funny looks and be asked to wear a silly hat, if you said that.

You are just adding words and phrases, unnecessarily.

It's not unnecessary at all. In fact, you are spouting the belief that your opinion on the matter is superior to mine, without proving it. I have offered a rationale that atheism is a strictly-defined belief system and all you can say is "no, no it's not". Sorry, but no cigar.

I'm not stomping my feet and I'm not demanding anything.

But the atheists from which you learned your belief system certainly did. And your refusal to accept that your belief system is indeed a belief system is another inherited trait from the atheists who laid down the beliefs you now hold.

I'm just suggesting you don't go adding deeper meanings and taking things out of context, for some reason, to things that don't need them.

Who defines what things do or do not "need" deeper meanings? You have deemed it necessary to add "deeper meaning" to words like "belief", so why is no one else allowed to also define words? Indeed, I am helping you, because I am using the very same rationalism/empiricism that forms the foundation of your belief system.

It's not a religion.

I don't even know what that "rejecting" bit had to do with anything.

Seems to be some sophomoric attempt an insult. Correct me if I am wrong.

No, I agree with you that it isn't a religion.

Let's not call it a "belief system", because it isn't. See?

That wasn't so hard

So atheism isn't a belief system because...it isn't? Gee, that actually IS pretty hard to accept. I think I would have to exercise a lot of faith in order to take that non-proven, non-quantified defintion as truth.

Now you can discuss Ken Ham quotes with your bu- wait, you probably don't want to do that...

I don't know who that is. Sorry.

 

[Non sequitur]

My belief in God's existence is no more emotionally based than your belief that God is imaginary.

It most certainly is.

I care neither way if a god/gods are real or not.

I don't need the lack of a god/gods to "help me in my time of need".

There is zero emotion invested in it. It's not even an emotional idea or concept.

Or are you saying you have no emotional base for your god?

 

[Non sequitur]

You really could use a crash course in rationalism. When you make a statement such as "There is no Divine", you are stating a belief, since you cannot empirically or rationally prove it.

And your statement is based on your belief, which is underpinned by a belief system.

Argh.

First, we have to collectively and accurately establish what this "Divine" thing is, before I even attempt to believe to not-believe.

But I suppose, "There is no Ghulibort" is also a belief, even though I just made it up...

According to the very same defintion, belief is:

"Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction"

By this definition, atheism is in every sense of the word a "belief". Of course, you might disagree, but then we would have to throw our your own definition of belief.

I agree with that, but "belief system" has never been used to talk about beliefs in that way.

Belief Systems:
Bacon is the Best
Dogs are Better than Cats
Coke is the Real Thing, not Pepsi

Do you not see how this can get ridiculous, and dilute the intentional meaning, if we follow your "definition"?

This is another oft-used but empty excuse. Atheism has distinct doctrine (God has not been defines/It does not exist), theory (rationalism/empiricism), system (the methods of rationalism/empiricism), and practice (the rejection of organized religion and the espousing of one's beliefs).

You are confusing "belief system" with "organized religion". I agree that you have no organized religion, but your terror and fright over anything with the label "belief" slapped on it does not make it any less of a label that accurately describes what you hold as true.

And where are these doctrines and theories found, specific to "Atheism"? They don't apply to anything, but Atheism?

Ah, so perhaps you are coming closer to reality. Is everything a belief system? At what point do we leave the realm of subjective, finite empiricism and enter the realm of objective truth?

If that is coming closer to reality, then any gods move farther away, as they are less distinct.

Which I would be, personally, thrilled with.

It's not unnecessary at all. In fact, you are spouting the belief that your opinion on the matter is superior to mine, without proving it. I have offered a rationale that atheism is a strictly-defined belief system and all you can say is "no, no it's not". Sorry, but no cigar.

I'm saying you take things that have a specific connotation, and broaden it out to be able to classify it with anything.

All you did was dilute things.

If we get to go with that, then we should start removing specific and defined traits of your god.

No more, "God is Love"; too specific.
No more, "God is the Truth."; too specific.

"God is God."

There we go.

Now we are left with, everything is everything, and you have no god.

But the atheists from which you learned your belief system certainly did. And your refusal to accept that your belief system is indeed a belief system is another inherited trait from the atheists who laid down the beliefs you now hold.

I didn't "learn" any beliefs from any atheists.

Nobody has to tell me about what it means to be an atheist.

If I didn't believe in any science, I'd still be right where I am.

Without a Christ, with all his specificity, there is no Christianity.

Who defines what things do or do not "need" deeper meanings? You have deemed it necessary to add "deeper meaning" to words like "belief", so why is no one else allowed to also define words? Indeed, I am helping you, because I am using the very same rationalism/empiricism that forms the foundation of your belief system.

Because the accepted understanding of "belief system", which I'd wager is held by about 90%+ of the population, is different from your definition.

If you want to go add your own twist, be my guest.

It just seems rather pointless.

So atheism isn't a belief system because...it isn't? Gee, that actually IS pretty hard to accept.

I've already established, you can't have a "belief system" about a negative. (Well you could, but it'd be silly.)

It's not that it doesn't want to be, it simply isn't.

I'm sorry you find this unsettling.

I think I would have to exercise a lot of faith in order to take that non-proven, non-quantified defintion as truth.

I find faith comes easy, in other areas, when one wants to believe.

Give it a shot

I don't know who that is. Sorry.

Thank goodness.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

It most certainly is.

I care neither way if a god/gods are real or not.

I don't need the lack of a god/gods to "help me in my time of need".

There is zero emotion invested in it. It's not even an emotional idea or concept.

Or are you saying you have no emotional base for your god?

I find what you're saying very hard to believe simply by your presence here debating the existence of God in general, and the Christian God in particular. It's my general observation of atheists who like to debate Christians that there is quite a lot of negative emotion against the Christian God (although I haven't noticed the same feeling toward gods of other religions so much). But I will take you at your word that this isn't the case for you.

Speaking from personal experience, I was very emotionally adamant that the Christian God was not real (and if He was real, then He was a monster) when I was not a Christian, which was 17 years of my adult life. I wasn't an atheist the entire time, but I was during the period I felt the most hatred for Christianity.

So even if you don't feel that you personally need god/gods in your time of need, I don't buy the idea that atheism is not an emotional concept in general. And I would say that my personal atheism was much more emotionally charged than my faith in God is now, which is one reason why I don't trust emotions when it comes to matters of faith.

 

[Non sequitur]

I find what you're saying very hard to believe simply by your presence here debating the existence of God in general, and the Christian God in particular. It's my general observation of atheists who like to debate Christians that there is quite a lot of negative emotion against the Christian God (although I haven't noticed the same feeling toward gods of other religions so much). But I will take you at your word that this isn't the case for you.

Thanks.

I suppose people don't mention other religions, because this is a religion specific forum

(Plus, for me, being in a predominately Christian nation, the only things you hear about are Christianity, so you have "more to go off of".)

Speaking from personal experience, I was very emotionally adamant that the Christian God was not real (and if He was real, then He was a monster) when I was not a Christian, which was 17 years of my adult life. I wasn't an atheist the entire time, but I was during the period I felt the most hatred for Christianity.

While I can play out the hypothetical idea, I wouldn't conclude "monster", but more immature to mature... ish.

Kind of like changing the oil in your car, having no experience or instructions on how to do so.

And you might get upset in the process.

So even if you don't feel that you personally need god/gods in your time of need, I don't buy the idea that atheism is not an emotional concept in general. And I would say that my personal atheism was much more emotionally charged than my faith in God is now, which is one reason why I don't trust emotions when it comes to matters of faith.

I would make a parallel to "The Punisher", in the comic books, who is an anti-hero.

I feel no emotions, in regards to him, his actions or decisions.

Now if I could quickly swap analogies to, say, Star Trek.

People can get emotionally charged about the reality of the characters and actions taken within the fictitious works.

I suppose it can be difficult for some, who find themselves living in a "Star Trek" world and mentality.

I hope that all made sense.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Thanks.

I suppose people don't mention other religions, because this is a religion specific forum

(Plus, for me, being in a predominately Christian nation, the only things you hear about are Christianity, so you have "more to go off of".)

I'm a long-time member of another forum that is not a Christian board where people like to debate religion (it's not a board specifically about religion), and most people I know are not Christians since I'm a recent convert and now the odd-man-out in my circle of friends and acquaintances. So that's what I'm basing my observation on, not this particular forum.

And I'm not so sure about the US being predominantly Christian. Perhaps nominally Christian, but I'd say it's predominantly secular.

While I can play out the hypothetical idea, I wouldn't conclude "monster", but more immature to mature... ish.

Kind of like changing the oil in your car, having no experience or instructions on how to do so.

And you might get upset in the process.



I would make a parallel to "The Punisher", in the comic books, who is an anti-hero.

I feel no emotions, in regards to him, his actions or decisions.

Now if I could quickly swap analogies to, say, Star Trek.

People can get emotionally charged about the reality of the characters and actions taken within the fictitious works.

I suppose it can be difficult for some, who find themselves living in a "Star Trek" world and mentality.

I hope that all made sense.

Yes, I see what you're saying.

 

[Mess]

Blind post,

To answer both of your questions, yes I do, can't speak for my siblings in Christ though.

 

[elman]

We are not a belief system.... We do not follow anything that tells us what to believe or how... or even how to live our lives. We reject the concept of any god/s/ess and rely heavily on science. We don't rely on faith, we go with what is proven and speculate on what is not and do our best to find the answer. If we don't know something for a fact, we don't rely on any faith to explain it to us.
All in all, what faith is, is simply believing in a deity. A belief system is a religion based on a deity.... in wich we are not.

I, personally, don't "hate" what I do not believe in. I do, however, get angry at what RELIGION (Not a faith in a deity) can do to a person.

You said you speculate on what is not proven fact. That is making an assumption when you do not know for sure. That is what I do when I assume we exist for a reason and have a destiny other than oblivion. When you assume we do not exist for a reason and do have a destiny of oblivion you are doing exactly the same as I --making an assumption--speculating on what is not proven fact.

 

[Non sequitur]

You said you speculate on what is not proven fact. That is making an assumption when you do not know for sure. That is what I do when I assume we exist for a reason and have a destiny other than oblivion. When you assume we do not exist for a reason and do have a destiny of oblivion you are doing exactly the same as I --making an assumption--speculating on what is not proven fact.

You are making a positive claim.

"Unknown" or "unsure" is neither positive or negative.

First we have to establish that specifically exists or does not exist, before we can make an assumption about it.

 

[elman]

You are making a positive claim.

"Unknown" or "unsure" is neither positive or negative.

First we have to establish that specifically exists or does not exist, before we can make an assumption about it.

No we do not have to establish we exist for a reason or we exist for no reason to make an assumption either way. We have evidence supporting both assumption, but no conclusive evidence proving either. We each therefore make the assumption that seems the more reasonable to us.

 

[GA777]

The unicorn

Unicorn= One horn animal.I never knew rhinos were fictional.

 

[Non sequitur]

No we do not have to establish we exist for a reason or we exist for no reason to make an assumption either way. We have evidence supporting both assumption, but no conclusive evidence proving either. We each therefore make the assumption that seems the more reasonable to us.

If you want to write your own questions, with qualifiers, I'm sure you'll come up with whatever answers you want.

Take out "for a reason" (an explanation) and you are left saying, "We have both evidence supporting we exist and we do not exist".

And I'd disagree.

 

[elman]

If you want to write your own questions, with qualifiers, I'm sure you'll come up with whatever answers you want.

Take out "for a reason" (an explanation) and you are left saying, "We have both evidence supporting we exist and we do not exist".

And I'd disagree.

I don't have any evidence I do not exist. My existence is not in question for me. Taking out "for a reason" makes it nonsense.