Q
quandy57
Guest
Yes, this is what I meant. Obviously, you shouldn’t be open to just anything. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
- Status
B
BornInMarch
Guest
But what if you honestly thought that no God existed?
Q
quandy57
Guest
If you fail to believe in His existence through no fault of your own, you will not be at fault for that. Everyone will be judged, 100% justly, for God is completely merciful, completely loving, and completely just.
You search for truth - you come up short - it is not your fault
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
God is either real or He is not. It’s not like the act of belief makes Him real.While I am almost sure you are right, I am confused. Atheists don’t believe in any Gods?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Sensitive to what the Bible claims, are we?
It is “loathsome and corrupt” to deny God’s existence; it is “not good” to do so.
That’s all it’s saying. Try not to read into it too much.
(And yes, trying to remind a former believer that God really does exist, and that it’s erroneous to suggest otherwise, really is charitable.)
G
Gorgias
Guest
If you’re intent on splitting hairs in this way, then we’d have to say that the Bible doesn’t say “reject”, either. God simply commands, “you will have no other gods before me.”
It does not say “you must make a catalogue of other gods and actively reject them, by name.” It does not say “you must make a profession of faith to other gods and then reject them.” Rather, it simply asserts that God is the only ‘god’ whom we follow.
I’ll have to look up that post, because on its face, it’s a silly assertion. One must have knowledge of the assertion that something exists, prior to rejecting the assertion, but that doesn’t imply that the assertion itself must be accepted prior to rejection.
(Let’s use this very proposition as the counter-example which disproves it:
I couldn’t reject the proposition “you have to believe an assertion before you reject it” before I was made aware of the assertion of the proposition. However, having been made aware of it, I never accepted it as true. Nevertheless, having been made aware of the proposition, I reject it as illogical.
Therefore, it stands as a counter-example. Of itself. Nice…
)The logic doesn’t hold up. And yes, atheists do reject God: atheists accept the proposition that God does not exist. Therefore, they reject the proposition that God exists. QED.
(Now, we can discuss the question of an individual person’s culpability; but that’s a different notion.)
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I don’t care where the quote comes from.Sensitive to what the Bible claims, are we?
Words are not necessarily interchangeable. Especially not on a board, which expressly forbids derogatory phrases. If I would say that Catholics are drooling idiots, I would be justly reprimanded for not being charitable. If I would just say that Catholics are mistaken, it would be acceptable.
Loathsome and corrupt have very precise meanings. There is no way to “read too much into them”.
It all depends on the words used. And, of course on the argument presented (if there would be any
).To reject the proposition that God exists is NOT the same as rejecting God itself. You confuse the proposition with the referent of the proposition. If my belief about God’s non-existence would be proven incorrect, then and only then could I accept or reject the referent (God) the original proposition.
Q
quandy57
Guest
To Reject God:
- One must have knowledge of God
- One must know who God actually is
- One must deny His love
- One must simply not accept the claim of His existence
If you reject the proposition of God, then you are not fully knowledgeable, you aren’t fully denying His love. Therefore, you will be judged accordingly.
Here are 3 examples of atheism:
- Richard Carrier: an atheist who searches for truth, and does not believe that Christianity is true (I do disagree with much of what he says). However, he wants to know God if he does exist, he just comes up short while he is on his path to truth. This is an example of one who rejects the proposition, not God himself.
- Richard Dawkins: an atheist who seems to attack anyone with faith, as he believes God is a delusion. He fails to understand who God is, but I would say, he is not truly searching, as he mocks the idea. I would say he definitely rejects the proposition and God, but he does not fully deny God, as he does not fully know who he is.
- Christopher Hitchens: an atheist who attacks the belief of God. He does not truly know who God is, but he rejects any possibility to know the full truth. He denies the proposition of God. He denies God (not fully knowing who God is, but not letting himself truly find out). As he says if God did exist, he would hate Him, not love Him, not follow Him.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I am glad that you see the difference.
As the other posts show, many people don’t.
A
animalis
Guest
No one can be a true atheist. God calls everyone to salvation. What people call atheists, in reality are God-resisters.
And to resist God’s call to repentance falls upon many categories of people. It is called blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Saint Thomas Aquinas names the species
- despair 2) resistance of the known truth 3) envy of a brother’s spiritual good 4) impenitence 5) obstinacy 6) presumption (STh II-II q. 14 a. 2)
B
BornInMarch
Guest
This is simply out of touch with reality. Just because he calls everybody does not mean everyone recognizes or understands it. There are a lot of atheists who state that they wish God existed, or that they tried to believe in God, but that everything they observed told them otherwise. While I believe in God, I’m well aware that it isn’t as obvious to everyone as it is to me.
Saying “Atheists don’t really believe that no Gods exist” is both insulting (it presumes that somebody’s beliefs are insincere, thereby accusing atheists of being liars) and arrogant (it presumes to know what is in somebody else’s heart or mind). It feels like a cop-out to justify condemning atheists, because if you condemn somebody for being mistaken or for being lied to then you would be acting unjustly.
Q
quandy57
Guest
God either exists or He does not. He does. Therefore you either resist or you do not. Sometimes you resist simply by lack of knowledge, but it is still a type of resistance (not necessarily the fault of the person). When someone says that someone cannot be a true atheist, the idea is that if someone actually had full knowledge and understanding, it would be irrational to not accept. I don’t necessarily agree completely, but it is just a view on how atheism can never truly work.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
This is how I understand the situation of atheism:
Atheism and theism are labels of beliefs or what someone is convinced of or not convinced of. - Such as jurors in a jury. They do know have direct knowledge of the event, but need to be convinced for the side making the claim by the theist. By default they are unconvinced, ie: atheists on the topic.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are labels of knowledge. What someone claims to know about reality. - such as the people directly involved in the event. They know the event happened, to everyone else it is hearsay.
Gnostic Theist = Someone who believes/is convinced (positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to have direct knowledge (positive claim that is challengable) of the supernatural’s existence.
Agnostic Theist = Someone who believes/is convinced (positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to not have direct knowledge (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the supernatural’s existence.
Gnostic Atheist = Someone who does not believe/convinced (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to have direct knowledge (positive claim that is challengable) that the supernatural does not exist.
Agnostic Atheist = Someone who does not believe/convinced (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the arguments for the existence of the supernatural and claims to not have direct knowledge (not a positive claim that is challengable) of the supernatural’s existence.
So to offer clarification for how you seem to be using the word “atheist”. Atheism is not being convinced of the theistic’s claim of the supernatural. There may actually be a supernatural, to know this to be the case ie: gnosticism". But if you presented the argument A + B = supernatural, instead of C. I would be unconvinced that the supernatural exists if I understand that logical argument is only correctly stated as A+B = C, not A+B=supernatural. Your bad use of logical presentation just didn’t work on me since I don’t have direct knowledge of the supernatural.
Q
quandy57
Guest
You can redefine anything to fit your beliefs. The definition is not the issue.I was clarifying what someone means by “you can never be a true atheist”. The reason is simply there is no gray area, God exists or He does not. In this case, you either are a Theist or an Atheist.
The initial question was “Is Atheism a Sin?” The simple answer is no. Atheism is a belief, beliefs cannot be sins, but they definitely can be created by sin and can definitely lead to sin.
To sin is to in some way hurt your relationship with God. Not praying is a sin, therefore being Atheist leads to not praying aka it leads to sin. Atheism itself is not a sin.
The idea of true Atheism is a complete rejection of the possible existence of God. If we were to follow along atheism and get to true atheism, here is a few things that we will get:
-All of existence will eventually come to an end, so there is no point to continue living
-No purpose leads to no moral truths
- no moral truths leads to no good nor bad
- no good nor bad leads to it doesn’t matter what you do so do whatever you feel like doing
-no one can possibly be in the wrong (you cannot say what Hitler did was wrong)
It does not matter how you define atheism. The idea is that rejecting God is rejecting God. The definition only leads to by what fault does the person reject God. If the person rejects God out of no fault of their own, then it will not weigh in on the person’s final judgment. If the person does play a part in their own ignorance of God then it will weigh in accordingly.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Redefinition is not a tactic to create obfuscation and confusion, it’s the exact opposite. To create an understanding from the other side. I’ll use any words you want to get the same point across. The point is for understanding, not to just have mental masturbation debates.
There is not difference between atheist and true atheist because there is no middle ground between “I believe or am convinced of X.” and “I do not believe or am not convinced of X.” You either believe or do not believe.
Knowledge of X existence is not the same as being convinced of X existence. I’ll use my jury example again: The jury has no direct knowledge of the event in question. They have to make a decision based on being convinced. So by default, they are atheist (ie: unconvinced) to the god claim. If the side making the claim the deity exists, the theist side, can convince the jury that the god exists, then the jury goes from atheist to theist. They still have no direct knowledge of the deity’s actual existence though. That is a gnostic claim and why there is a distinction between a gnostic claim (knowledge claim) and a belief claim, theistic.
Since atheists don’t see the god character as any different than any other literary character of fiction, then yes they are not anymore concerned with sinning against that literary character than any other mythical creature or woodland sprite king.
If the reality presented does not show a causal link between a deity and this reality, then it is not wrong to hold the tentative belief that the idea of deities are no different than nothing at all. We have to have some sort of evidence to be able to tell the difference between nothing and a deity. Currently, now, there is no difference. Just because someone has an active imagination about something does not make that idea valid in this reality. By that thought processes, you can defend any imagined claim. Swap out deities with hogwartz and magic wands and you can still make the same argument. Once there is evidence to point towards a deity’s existence, then it becomes justified in looking for it and suggesting that it could be part of reality.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Purpose is found by each individual. Your purpose is different from mine and so on. Your reference for moral truths is different from mine and as such each has different reasons for “justification”. Ultimate meaning or Ultimate anything is irrelevant to me. I don’t have a need for ultimate anything, ultimate powerful deities, ultimate truths, etc.
Your car has a limited drivable life, does that mean it has no meaning now for helping you live your life? to help you to work? to help you take your kids to school? From my point of view, this is an example of the absurdity of ultimate meaning.
Divine command theory morality: Anything the ultimate power in the universe says is moral. Yeah that’s just might makes right. If people under this rule are not convinced that the commandments this deity dictates are moral, then they are still immoral to those people. People have to understand why something is moral or not. If the people ignore their misgivings about the commands then the people are not acting as moral agents. That is not to say they are acting immorally, only they are shelving their questions about morality and just being trained pets without understanding. They are just trained dogs told to get off the couch without understanding why being on the couch is a bad thing to begin with.
Right and wrong is based on your understanding of reality, your understanding of what it is to be a human being in a social environment, and your reference points for right and wrong. If bad people die before “justice” is carried out, then they “get away with it” without a deity. But in christianity there is a loop hole for “getting away with it” correct? Your deity’s “forgiveness” is the suspension of “justice” and hitler could be up in heaven now while Anne Frank, a jew, is burning in hell. In fact, in christianity, you can be exactly as bad and selfish as you want and still have the reward because of the loop holes.
From a secular humanist point of view, since I believe this is the only life we get, it’s important to me to stop bad people before they do more harm, as soon as possible. If they die before being prosecuted, then that sucks. But that’s the reality as I experience it. I can’t make something up to make myself feel better and wish for some sort of ultimate justice. Life is not fair sometimes and that’s ok because that is how I experience this actual reality, not an imagined one. But Hitler does not get away with it because of how we teach his story in history. The family members that carried the genetic code of the nazies in the third reich refused to have their own children so that the genetic evil would not be passed on. That’s how psychologically damaging their family history was to the rest of the people around them. I can’t stop bad people from doing bad things and then kill themselves, but I can make sure those bastards are remembered as bastards in the telling of their history and that would not be an example of what humanity would want to live up to.
Definitions matter because we have to be able to communicate our ideas correctly to each other. Definitions don’t matter to people that don’t care about that.
Rejection is a purposeful act towards something that exists to someone in their reality. Are you purposefully rejecting harry potter too?
Final judgement and deities do not exist to atheists because they honestly see these ideas as no different than literary ideas. No different than pissing off shakespeare’s Puck.
R
reggieM
Guest
Atheism or Atheist may not be the best term to use in all these circumstances - at least by the nature of the word.
It could mean, “lacking belief in Theism”. That’s lacking a belief in a certain idea about God.
Or, it could mean “lacking belief in any kind of thing that could be considered a god”.
That definition is a lot different. If it is true, it’s easier to point out that humans ascribe godlike qualities to many things, and give their highest love (which is what worship means) to some thing. So, a person who worships something, is making an acknowledgement of some kind of god in his or her life.
It can depend on how one defines God or gods. Idolatry is the worship of a thing other than God.
So, atheists can be said to commit idolatry, if they give their highest love and homage to something other than God.
It would be a sin to give worship to something that is undeserving of that. It’s a sin against reason for one thing, since giving something that is not worthy, the highest love and homage is to be unjust. It’s a form of a lie or dishonesty.
It could mean, “lacking belief in Theism”. That’s lacking a belief in a certain idea about God.
Or, it could mean “lacking belief in any kind of thing that could be considered a god”.
That definition is a lot different. If it is true, it’s easier to point out that humans ascribe godlike qualities to many things, and give their highest love (which is what worship means) to some thing. So, a person who worships something, is making an acknowledgement of some kind of god in his or her life.
It can depend on how one defines God or gods. Idolatry is the worship of a thing other than God.
So, atheists can be said to commit idolatry, if they give their highest love and homage to something other than God.
It would be a sin to give worship to something that is undeserving of that. It’s a sin against reason for one thing, since giving something that is not worthy, the highest love and homage is to be unjust. It’s a form of a lie or dishonesty.
G
goout
Guest
This is illogical.
On the one hand you say purpose can be found, and in the next breath say you have no need for “ultimate anything”.
It makes no sense.
This is a defining characteristic of atheism… which claims that in the end (or “ultimately”), there is nothing, while at the same time atheists are concerned with that supposed nothingness and are here to talk about what that end is…
If you weren’t concerned with the ultimate, you would be on the couch drinking beers all day awaiting your nothingness.
Of course there is an ultimate, or an “end” toward which we are drawn. You know this and express it right here and now, even as you deny it at the same time. That end is “not you” (or God as we call it), that end is something outside you.
O
oyaji
Guest
Well according to the parable of the sheep and goats, you will be judged on how you treat others and not on if you sought God or not.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
It makes no sense.
This is a defining characteristic of atheism… which claims that in the end (or “ultimately”), there is nothing, while at the same time atheists are concerned with that supposed nothingness and are here to talk about what that end is… If you weren’t concerned with the ultimate, you would be on the couch drinking beers all day awaiting your nothingness.
I refer you to my car example again. Limited time spent with my family is not diminished in any way because of an ultimate heat death of the universe or anything else after I die.
I really don’t agree here, If you can’t accept my reality I am presenting, not my problem and not a conversation worth continuing since you can’t accept my point of view as an honest representation. Everyone is lieing to you about their reality you don’t accept is an absurd way to have a conversation.
- Status