Atheism...........

  • Thread starter Thread starter A_Dancer_Whirls
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
summa8447 said:
This is my first post in this forum. Hello everyone.

I have heard it said we were all born a-theist (a=without… theist=a belief in God). It is only through our parental or social indoctrination that people come to believe in one god or another. Whom of you out there can claim to have seen God come to you (direct revelation) and tell you it is He, She or It? If you had parents of a different religious orientation or lived in a social environment that supported something else you would likely be of that orientation.

I might also point out that everyone is an atheist to other people’s gods except their own.

Dictionary.com
a⋅the⋅ist
  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist

Synonyms:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.​

BTW I would consider myself a Catholic who is a skeptic, probably leaning toward a heretic in many people’s eyes.

I go to mass on Sunday, confession regularly, but I question ALOT. I guess that’s what happens when you read, think alot, and listen to lots of InfidelGuy podcasts. I just can’t believe predigested truth is all too truth containing. As Plato said, "The unexamined life is not worth living.

Summa8447
Click to expand...
It’s been said that questioning is just the act of consciously using your brain.
Even if one believes in God, I would expect them to use the organ they believe God gave them.

PS: Welcome to the fun 🙂
 
liquidpele said:
It’s been said that questioning is just the act of consciously using your brain.
Even if one believes in God, I would expect them to use the organ they believe God gave them.

PS: Welcome to the fun 🙂
Click to expand...
And also question the wisdom in limiting questioning to your true need.

What, even in naturalistic evolution, supports useless or fruitless activity?

Your true need is in the reality of your living, not in your worship of doubting and “fun”.
 
wanstronian said:
What evidence that religion adds use or ‘fruit?’
Click to expand...
The very meaning of the word tells of what fruit it brings. Of course, I could list a great many things that religion has brought, but you would deny that it was religion that did so and insist that Man would have been far better off without religion. But of course, you cannot know what Man would have been without anything that he had.

The very principle of evolution directly implies that over thousands of years, if no fruit was coming, the tree would not have survived.
 
James_S_Saint said:
The very principle of evolution directly implies that over thousands of years, if no fruit was coming, the tree would not have survived.
Click to expand...
Dawkins would call religion a meme. As this ‘meme’ has survived and diversified this suggests that it has survival value. In other words this aspect of humanity produces much fruit and is indeed useful.
 
No great thing could have ever been without greatness within.
 
James_S_Saint said:
The very meaning of the word tells of what fruit it brings. Of course, I could list a great many things that religion has brought, but you would deny that it was religion that did so and insist that Man would have been far better off without religion…
Click to expand...
And you accuse me of being presumptious!
But of course, you cannot know what Man would have been without anything that he had.
Click to expand...
And nor can you, so yet again you are unable to prove your claim.

Of course, if this is yet another question for which you claim to know the answer but are unable to provide it due to the fault of your audience…?
The very principle of evolution directly implies that over thousands of years, if no fruit was coming, the tree would not have survived.
Click to expand...
You very clearly do not understand the theory of evolution. Or you are equating the alleged (but unproven) fruits of religion with the natural survival instinct of evolved species.
 
Fran65 said:
Dawkins would call religion a meme. As this ‘meme’ has survived and diversified this suggests that it has survival value. In other words this aspect of humanity produces much fruit and is indeed useful.
Click to expand...
And yet non-religious people are just as successful, happy, balanced, honest and generous as religious people. How do you reconcile that? Is religion just a comfort blanket for those that require it?
 
wanstronian said:
Did this post have any point, or was it just another nebulous assertion that adds no value?
Click to expand...
What would be the “point” in displaying a picture to the blind? But perhaps the picture wasn’t intended for you.

There are those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, and there are those who do not (but think they do). You can tell the difference by the questions they ask.
 
James_S_Saint said:
What would be the “point” in displaying a picture to the blind? But perhaps the picture wasn’t intended for you.

There are those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, and there are those who do not (but think they do). You can tell the difference by the questions they ask.
Click to expand...
Gosh, you’re so wise. Now I finally understand that I cannot hope to comprehend your awesome (yet undemonstrated) intellect. You have truly put me in my place. I’m not worthy.

:rolleyes:
 
James_S_Saint said:
Second, Atheism means what it IS in real practice, not what it is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...
It is not my fault if the common understanding of the word is incorrect is it? Besides i am an atheist and i don’t claim to know there is no god. I’m not alone in this view even **RICHARD DAWKINS ** doesn’t claim to know there is no god.

It seems to me that you are the one that wont accept what it really means, you would rather carry on believing what you want it to mean, because somehow you feel it makes your position stronger.
 
A_Dancer_Whirls said:
It is not my fault if the common understanding of the word is incorrect is it? Besides i am an atheist and i don’t claim to know there is no god. I’m not alone in this view even **RICHARD DAWKINS ** doesn’t claim to know there is no god.

It seems to me that you are the one that wont accept what it really means, you would rather carry on believing what you want it to mean, because somehow you feel it makes your position stronger.
Click to expand...
My “position” is supported by the reality of what OTHER Atheists actually do. Your argument is really with them, not me.

If you want “Atheism” to mean what you say, then go make it so, because right now, your party is astray.
 
James_S_Saint said:
My “position” is supported by the reality of what OTHER Atheists actually do. Your argument is really with them, not me.

If you want “Atheism” to mean what you say, then go make it so, because right now, your party is astray.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it really matters how you define it. The reality is that most people that are not religious do not believe there is a God and are therefore agnostic about the topic. Label it however you want, very few people are willing to assert that “there is no god”. I’m sure you know several though… they tend to be the loud annoying ones in the group - especially online. Just don’t think that’s representative of everyone.
 
Or another thought…

If a Catholic were to propose to you that “Catholicism” means “adherence to the Truth”, would you just take his word for it? Who are you to argue what Catholicism means against an actual Catholic?

Or perhaps would you look up the word “Catholic” and discover that it means, “The universal church” and make that your stand as to what it means?

Or would you observe the Catholics themselves as a whole and surmise to your best estimate the reality of what it means to be Catholic and thus what Catholicism really means even though perhaps very different from either proposal?

Which has higher authority to you, what a word is declared to mean by men, or what you observe directly with your own eyes?

Science gives preference to observation over personal declaration. To which method do you adhere?
 
wanstronian said:
And yet non-religious people are just as successful, happy, balanced, honest and generous as religious people. How do you reconcile that? Is religion just a comfort blanket for those that require it?
Click to expand...
Because whether you want to believe this or not their foundations are religion. They have grown up with it all around them and its positive influence they have accepted but rejected other parts.
 
buffalo said:
Because whether you want to believe this or not their foundations are religion. They have grown up with it all around them and its positive influence they have accepted but rejected other parts.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely not true. I’ll assume that by the “positive parts” of religion which people accept, you mean a strong sense of morality, an appreciation for beautiful things, etc. These, as well as most other things that can lead to a happy and successful life do not require religion.
 
pzona said:
This is absolutely not true. I’ll assume that by the “positive parts” of religion which people accept, you mean a strong sense of morality, an appreciation for beautiful things, etc. These, as well as most other things that can lead to a happy and successful life do not require religion.
Click to expand...
Because they are usurped from the religious. You weren’t born in a vacuum nor do you live in one.
 
James_S_Saint said:
My “position” is supported by the reality of what OTHER Atheists actually do. Your argument is really with them, not me.

If you want “Atheism” to mean what you say, then go make it so, because right now, your party is astray.
Click to expand...
Not really, they just belong to a subset of atheist. Much like some Americans being atheists does not mean every American is an atheist, does it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top