How do you choose to believe?

[durangodawood]

...and that applies to atheists no less than it does to theists. The atheist's religion just is called by some other name.

I see this "atheist religion" invoked typically as an attempt to embarrass atheists, by saying "see! youre really just like us!". But to me, it seems more to discredit religion than discredit atheists. If not believing in God can be a religion, then religion is a shallower, shabbier impulse than I ever thought.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Nonsense.

It is sense, nobody can serve no god. The idol of atheism is accepted false information about the God. Therefore they are pagans (recall the Spaghetti church of atheists???). Be simple: only two kinds of people, you are pagan or True Christian.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is sense, nobody can serve no god. The idol of atheism is accepted false information about the God. Therefore they are pagans (recall the Spaghetti church of atheists???). Be simple: only two kinds of people, you are pagan or True Christian.

We don't have a church, or idols, or gods. Atheism isn't a religion.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

We don't have a church, or idols, or gods. Atheism isn't a religion.

What error has my proof of pagan atheism then? You just say: Dima is wrong. It is not very informative. I am wrong in what place of the proof above?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What error has my proof of pagan atheism then? You just say: Dima is wrong. It is not very informative. I am wrong in what place of the proof above?

Sorry...allow me to explain...you said this-

"Nobody can serve no god." This is false. I serve no god.

Then you said, "The idol of atheism is accepted false information about god."

This is also false, atheism has no idol...and I don't believe any "information about god". So I certainly don't accept false information about god.

Does that help?

 

[dysert]

Then what did? How old were you when your first heard about god?

I first heard about God when I was very young. When I was around 11 I read the prophecies and concluded that there must be a higher power who predicted such things with 100% accuracy. It was just a matter of time, then, when I realized that this higher power was the God of the Bible.

 

[Chris B]

...and that applies to atheists no less than it does to theists. The atheist's religion just is called by some other name.

You really think that? (the second part, that is: I made the universality quite clear in my comment, precisely so that it need not be mistakenly be taken as a dig against theists.)

If you really think that atheists just have another religion (a false or mistaken one, by your perspective), you will be wrong around 98% of the time, which will not be serving you well.

The other 1 or 2%? Humanity, being what it is, can turn almost anything into a religion, including the most unlikely and (it might be thought) most unsuitable entities, such as Science or Evolution or Vegetarianism. The wrongly assigned capital letter is a strong clue in such cases.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Sorry...allow me to explain...you said this-

"Nobody can serve no god." This is false. I serve no god.

Then you said, "The idol of atheism is accepted false information about god."

This is also false, atheism has no idol...and I don't believe any "information about god". So I certainly don't accept false information about god.

Does that help?

Atheist: "we are not pagans", "we believe to be not pagans". Me: "What error has my proof of pagan atheism then? You just say: Dima is wrong. It is not very informative. I am wrong in what place of the proof above?"
To atheist's reply: "It can be put short and simple, without lost of information: Dima is wrong. No else you have explained. Why are you not agnostic?! You must have the proof to come to atheism."

 

[Chris B]

The beauty of predestination is that a person still beset themselves in not believing in God. A person who believes thoroughly in Christ is part of the elect.

The latter, only if they are correct in their belief.
This step seems so often ignored, set-aside, or plain not realised, yet it is of serious import.

There is room for definite difference between "I believe X is true" and "X is true", though often enough what people believe turns out to be true, close enough for practical purposes.
If what people believed (thoroughly) to be true always turned out to be true then the world would be drastically weirder than it is already.

 

[Albion]

I see this "atheist religion" invoked typically as an attempt to embarrass atheists, by saying "see! youre really just like us!". .

It's possible that you're primed to be offended. My observation was just that--an observation. If a person doesn't believe in a God, he almost always can be seen to have a similar faith in something else. I was, in fact, reacting to a comment that that effect by someone not identified as a theist.

 

[Albion]

There is every reason that such a God cannot exist. The Bible says that God is love. Not that God loves, but that He is love. A God of love does not do such a thing.

Says...you. No, the first mistake that always occurs in this kind of discussion is the statement made by someone or other that unless God is exactly as he, the speaker, would like him to be, there can't be a god.

It's ridiculous on its face to think that way.

 

[Chris B]

...Why are you not agnostic?! You must have the proof to come to atheism."

Proof? Nah. It's an epistemology thing. There's not much that can be *rigorously* proven outside of certain defined and deliberately constrained areas such as mathematics and logic.

The Dawkins scale of 1 to 7 illuminates the different ranges or qualities of belief, and notes a statistical lack of symmetry: proportionately many more theists are prepared to declare themselves 100% certain of their belief in God being correct and true (Level 1 on the scale ) than there are atheists who will announce that they are 100% certain in their atheism (level 7 on the scale)
The discrepancy lies with different beliefs: not on theism or atheism, but as to whether anything pertaining to this area can be known with 100% certainty.

Noting this does not turn atheists 50 /50 equivocal agnostics by any means. Of the labels conveniently available to call myself "an agnostic" would be a far worse fit and be more misleading than calling myself "an atheist."
I am just not a category 7 atheist. I'm a 6. Or 6.5, if that's allowed.

 

[Albion]

Nonsense.

Don't be so outraged. If there is no belief in a god, all the rest that constitutes a religion can still remain, and in the case of most people (and as another atheist poster pointed out) it does. Something else that's of ultimate value to the person is substituted, that's all.

 

[Chris B]

If a person doesn't believe in a God, he almost always can be seen to have a similar faith in something else.

Could you give a few examples?
I certainly don't have faith in anything comparable to a deity, at least not that I'm aware of.
Not myself, nature, science, justice, horoscopes...
And I've found any such type of belief rare enough in non-theists that it is something peculiar and noteworthy when it is encountered.

 

[Albion]

You really think that?

Absolutely. I certainly was not simply making a scornful retort (as another poster seems to have assumed).

 

[Chris B]

Don't be so outraged. If there is no belief in a god, all the rest that constitutes a religion can still remain, and in the case of most people (and as another atheist poster pointed out) it does. Something else that's of ultimate value to the person is substituted, that's all.

I don't think I proposed "ultimate value". Just a *relative* place or state of sensed comfort and security.
(The latter possibly quite illusory, of course. Someone saying "I never thought that sort of thing could ever happen here" is to me indicative of a lack of reality-facing thought more than a failure of a trusted pseudo-deity.)

 

[Chris B]

Absolutely. I certainly was not simply making a scornful retort (as another poster seems to have assumed).

OK, but not this atheist, and I think what you propose is rare.
I propose that thinking human beings don't think like that, and I hope the level of unthinking human beings is not actually worse than that found in my current rough estimate.

Chris

 

[SkyWriting]

So it's all about God's will, and whatever God does is right.
It's Potter's Right's, Creator's Rights, Deity's Rights.
Like diplomatic immunity only much more so.

Here is the key. The scriptures are not God's diary or the conclusions of God's analyst.
The scriptures are a key to knowing, understanding, and dealing with God.
The phrase "God has mercy on whom he has mercy" is the human point of view.
God has mercy on everyone and all are welcome and saved by God's Son.

But, from the human perspective, some will die too soon for our little minds
to bear. Some will refuse what God has done for us. For us, it seems, that
God throws his mercy this way and that. That's a human perspective on God.

 

[Albion]

OK, but not this atheist, and I think what you propose is rare.

Fine. I'd say that the exception to what I described is rare...but that there are exceptions. You might be that rarity.

However, most people who contemplate these matters and label themselves as being somewhere on the theist-atheist spectrum are not likely to be the kind who are simply removed from thinking about religion or god or ethics or standards of behavior, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I see this "atheist religion" invoked typically as an attempt to embarrass atheists, by saying "see! youre really just like us!". But to me, it seems more to discredit religion than discredit atheists. If not believing in God can be a religion, then religion is a shallower, shabbier impulse than I ever thought.

As the old saw has it, 'Not believing in God is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby'