Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I got a nasty cut the other day, up to now I thought someone just left a screw sticking out of the wall, but apparently I must of imagined it.
Your imagination told that it wasn't hot and therefore faced with reality.
"Sorry to break it to you but everything that you do or think is imagination."
I ain't even going anywhere NEAR that....
But no.......
I think I will have to inquire,
Are you seriously trying to tell me everything I do is merely a figment of my imagination?! Are you seriously saying that every person I know is simply an imaginary figure?!
I'm sorry, but I've already been through and passed my Solipsism phase. I did so at the age of 14. Maybe you should catch up with the rest of us........
Reason and logic cannot be applied to any sort of belief in god. That is why there is very little in the middle ground. To accept god is to reject logic and reason. To accept logic and reason necessitates a start from a neutral standpoint which if applied properly and unbiasedly generally leads to a lack of belief in god. The fact remains all children are born atheist. They don't become religious until they are told the religion of their parents before their minds are able to mature. That is why there is so many different religions be it monotheistic or polytheistic. If god or gods spoke to us about religion and then we rejected it well then that would be a different story. But every religion in the world is based on taking someone else's word for whatever crap they are selling. No direct from the horses mouth. Also little or no evidence for any of the fantastic stories claimed by many religions exists. Its kind of an advanced case of: if everyone jumped off a bridge would you? My answer:only if there is a good reason(and I have found no such reason).
We are already past your definition of god, I am not talking about god up in the sky from heaven
Who is wacthing over us and sent down Jesus which is what you are implying and makes most of your statements invalid. For example i am talking about a force and that force can be represented as god,energy or universe its very simple your making it hard or thinking to hard.
If you want to start reassigning word definitions to just fit whatever point you are trying to make then I can't really argue with you because if you invent a all encompassing word for all existence then constantly re-define what that is and give it multiple meanings I can't really make any points.(god-1.in Christianity and other monotheistic religions the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.-2.in certain other religions a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity-3.an adored, admired, or influential person.) The commonality in this is that each of these examples for the word god all refer to something with a consciousness. You can't just start coming up with things to add to your definition, with that methodology you can just endlessly deflect and come up with new ideas to fit your narrative. You are assuming God is a certainty then creating ways of interpreting things so that god can still fit in your narrative understanding of things which is backwards thinking. You don't assume something then make it fit your ideas. I don't assume dragons are real(even if i really like the idea) then change my definitions of things to make it so I can interpret a lizard as a dragon.
Your thought process:
-well I see that there is no evidence for the traditional idea of dragons that fly and breathe fire, so this lizard must be a dragon cause it has claws and dragons have claws,
-biologist points out that it is very different from the common conception of a dragon,
Your answer:
-well I think that a dragon can be interpreted as any animal that walks flies or has scales because dragons exhibit all these qualities therefore I can interpret everything and nothing as a dragon at the same time, so in a way every animal is a dragon because they all either walk,fly,or swim
-therefore dragons are real
Its deflective position-less rhetoric that has no value. You can't just say things then wait for a response then change your position based around that response. That is not understanding or even attempting to understand something. It is just useless debate circle talking that keeps you from developing your own real thoughts. Its only talking not thinking.
@ Zero - your viewpoint is that both sides have something to offer, both sides implies one side as the atheist viewpoint and the other being the theist perspective.
However the theist perspective is not one easily clumped together. Which theist perspective? The christian or Muslim or Hindu Narrative? Which God? Polytheistic or Monotheistic? Ancient or existent ?
You claimed no longer to believe in a personal god looking down from heaven but maybe something more akin to energy or life force etc. The problem here is that any and all definitions of gods are contained within religion. So when you say both sides have something to offer we understand what you mean when you talk about the atheistic point of view but which theistic perspective are you offering as your definition of succinct?
I do not know of any existing religion that defines god as energy. The judeaochristian god is personal and masculine (his sex is defined, Which implies he has secondary sexual characteristics.) Where am I to look for the bearded white guy (zeus, jehovah, odin you name whoever) in the sky? Hubble hasn't spotted them yet!
Religion had some authority in the past when it was used as a rule book. Today however those rules are obsolete. The pseudoscience in there has been long since debunked. Its time we abandon childish fixations (like Ssanta clause, the tooth fairy, jesus, allah, jehovah, peter pan, etc) and adopt a more realistic outlook.
Charvak
The christian or Muslim or Hindu Narrative? Which God? Polytheistic or Monotheistic? Ancient or existent ?"
Majority of religions share the common belief in god that is why I put them together all of the religions you have state believe in a god which they share the belief that god always existed and works with a different set of laws then our universe(which i claim a multiverse could explain this concept for the fact that a multiverse would have different laws in every universe)
"I do not know of any existing religion that defines god as energy."
Hinduism is based on chakras which is energy and meditation that is what my avatar is based on. Hinduism also talk about karma and certin philosophys that revolves around energy based ideas.
"The problem here is that any and all definitions of gods are contained within religion"
I will say this again look up the word deist and deism i do not know any religion that is attacthed to this type of god and I highly doubt that it is and I think this proves that you are wrong about that point.
@ Zero - Where do I even start.
1. "Majority of religions share the common belief in god that is why I put them together all of the religions....."
The only thing all religions have in common is fear and political gain. The characteristics of their GOds, Their Demons and their pantheon is all varied. You think they are similar because you are considering the judeochr istian tradition which is basically the continuation and branching of the same religion. Jews, christians and muslims are idiots who don't realise they have been conned by the same lie, just a different version.
2. "Hinduism is based on chakras which is energy and meditation..." - This statement is as ignorant of Hindu religion as it is of Hindu tradition and Yogic practices.
3. Finally your only refutation I was waiting for. The deist. - Where did this concept of denim originate? it is when people decided to reject organised religion but were too fearful to reject the concept of God and thus lose the hope of paradise that they settled for deism. Which deist claimed divine knowledge? Where is the deists source of belief ? Is there scientific data of a deist god backing their claim? He neither has scripture nor science on his side. In my opinion deism is an intermediary between agnostic and theist. smart enough to know religion is a scam. not brave enough to face the truth. Either that or they are delusional. (at least the religious have nonsense scribbled on parchment, the deists lack even that much)
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for such a deity? Can this force be empirically tested for instance, if so what evidence differentiates this energy as being deified.
This claim sounds like woo woo to me. One of those vapid unfalsifiable claims theists make up to move their believe beyond any human scrutiny.
There is no credible evidence to support the claim of the existence of God.
There is no credible evidence to support the claim of the existence of Unicorns.
No belief required. No philosophy required.
That depends on your definition of god like i have stated the universe can be represented as god so....
What character traits does god have again?
This shite again?
My original post was not about past threads but it kind of turn into that but that was not my intention.
So basically to sum up this forum.
You(Zero) say I think god is real but different than what others think. Most of us being atheist, having already arrived at our own conclusions that god is most likely not real, ask for evidence. You then say you aren't sure what god is and fail to clearly define your ideas to anyone, but constantly return to your statement that if we don't agree with you then we aren't open minded. I think a good percentage of people on this site are pretty intelligent so if you can't explain it to these people good luck explaining it to random people on the street(because most people are pretty dumb there I said it, though I wouldn't necessarily always exclude myself from that generalization). Most of your arguments are rooted in philosophy with no facts or back up. Basically its all I think these things cause I say so. Also a large percent of your rebuttals are re-wordings of extremely vague ideas and statements that you have failed to clearly define, I repeat, to anyone. Mostly because it seems you don't have any sort of set real understanding or belief other than that you think god is real in some way, and you are determined to reconcile that desire to believe in some sort of god with a reality that points towards no such existence. Or perhaps you are so utterly pompous to believe that you are the only one to ever try to re-define how they think of god and no other agnostics have attempted similar efforts, it seems you want to tell us how great and open minded and spiritual you are, calling the rest of us closed minded, and explaining how great you are from your cross-eyed, excessively confused, high horse. How am I doing so far? Anyone else care to weigh in?
Nope. You've pulled all the right flags as far as I'm concerned. I do however think that ZERO may just be another example of someone who relys on philosophy just a little too much(or, perhaps, way too much). Think "Well Intentioned but Confused Snake Oil Salesman" mixed with "Philosophy Man From Insanity Land".
You guys are making it more complex than it is, a multiverse would have different laws than our universe and god is claimed to work with different laws then our universe ,is it possible that those concepts have something to do with each other? Could they be the same? I do not need no evidence to back up that statement its common sense. That is very clear explanation I like to deal with possibilities no matter how low of a percentage it is and you guys are telling me that this simple solid argument is not at the very least possible , historically things that has been labeled impossible has been proven false and has become reality in many cases. if you disagree I cant help you, its critical thinkers that applies logic and reason in there thought process, the intellectual level the guys i have communicated with on this site is standard athiest and I dont hold any thing you guys say as creditable but I do get a chuckle out it once and a while.
When i here a person making sense and has strong points and logic to something they are explaining weather it on this site or on the street im am going to pause and say "it could be possible" with more information you can sway me even more but something thats possible can be right or wrong but to say something is impossible with no room to change based on the information available that might change or be proven wrong is what I try to stay away from. But I am done explaining such a trivial thing that is so easy either you get it or you dont.
Ok folks, let's keep it real... I keep seeing people talk about Atheism like it's separate from Religion. Make no mistake, Atheism IS a Religion by definition. Albeit a Religion that touts no god/God exists... but it's still a belief system, like any other Religion that's based entirely on faith that in spite of there being no proof no God exists nonetheless. You can believe there is no god/God and that's fine, but if you do you do so by faith, same as theists & deists. And if you claim to be Atheist you've just claimed a Religion by definition.
Don't take my word for it, look it up... or feel free to prove me wrong. :)
People will always believe what they choose to believe regardless of how others interpret the facts... ALWAYS. :)
- "Atheism IS a Religion by definition"
You might get away with saying that "Atheism is a belief" but only by referring to the atheists who actually claim that there is no god. But you're saying that it IS a religion? Really?
The definition of religion usually contains "organised system of beliefs", "worship", "practices, ceremonies or rituals" and the word "faith"
It will be interesting to hear how you can make atheism a religion.
I've heard the very same statement many times, atheism is a religion. People like to redefine things all the time and many times they do so without thinking about it.
So I usually give my own definition as to why I call myself an atheist, to clarify what I mean to reduce misunderstandings and to stop people from trying to misrepresent me:
I lack belief in any gods, because there is no evidence to merit such a belief. There could be a god or gods, but until there is anything concrete to show that it is true, I simply don't believe it.
That is very different than claiming that "There is no god".
I also comes down to defining the god your talking about. When it comes to the literally interpreted Biblical God, I can say that I believe it doesn't exist. Because an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being is self contradictory.
Heh, I agree completely, there is a huge difference. I was simply referring to (what used to be anyway) the lexical definition as found in the dictionary but that's apparently changed. My intention was not to make any statement about anyone's personal belief system of my own accord. And apparently that definition was a result of the influence of evil theist's, as my recent search has come up with updated information (not in the dictionary but whatever, we may as well let those involved in it define it)... so I gladly stand corrected, although I will never understand why people would seemingly get offended when it was defined as a Religion to begin with, unless they just had a problem with being associated with that word for some reason. *shrugs shoulders
(recent search results)
"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position.""
( https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism )
Glad to see you changed your opinion.
@ CuddlePhysh
My apologies if I seemed harsh in my responses... I thought "here's another one who wants to transform atheism to a religious faith".
I'm happy to see someone revise their statement after checking it out for themselves. A sign of integrity.
Science has and continues to progressively push religion into a tiny corner of irrelevance.
The OP claims both have strong arguments but I am yet to see any, even on here by some of the smarter theists.
In reality however, All claims of religion/god, can mostly be tested and have been proven to be wrong or false.
For example, can water be turned in to wine? no. Can a winged horse fly to the heavens above? no (and no evidence ever, of a winged horse) Can someone walk on water, no. and so, and so on.
It is simply not comporting to reality in any way shape or form, and yet its practitioners expect to be allowed some special treatment in not to be offended or have their beliefs publicly challenged.
I would absolutely cherish the opportunity to see a debate where all the claims were discussed between leading theologians and top scientists from fields of cosmology, biology, chemistry and so fourth.. they would be utterly humbled.
The only arguments that are really ever put forward now are logical arguments, i.e. KALAM (which is awful) and such,
Evolution is a scientific fact supported by all the objective evidence. It has nothing to do with atheism.
There is no scientifically validated evidence against species evolution, none. If however it were hypothetically falsified utterly, I would accept the findings of science.
I would remain an atheist however as falsifying evolution does not remotely evidence a deity or the creation myths attached to those deities. Only creationists like Breezy think this way, it's called an argument from ignorance fallacy, or argumentum ad ignorantiam, and by definition a logical fallacy cannot rationally be asserted as true.
There is only one truth.
Pages