I’d say that ironically god is actually part of our evolution, a remnant of that evolutionary process. There was a time when on that basis it made sense to believe. it helped. As you say that should recede every time an empirical truth is found.
2 Likes
wait until you get a load of what the mormons believe about your beliefs!
Mormons can believe anything they like doesn’t change the fact that it’s a load of horse shit does it. I mean just take a look at their leader / founder:
You have to remember the historical context of were Mormonism and other similar religions came from, the time and the social context at the time. Many pentecostal, evangelical movements were borne at this time. However it makes nothing that religion or others similar to it true in any sense of the word.
What a mess!
I see little difference between this and say scientology.
That’s a categorically untrue statement. Many atheists were raised within various religious frameworks. Our unbelief is not a failing on our part at all. Many of us easily were able to imagine the deities of our various religions.
It’s just that, when you take the dual blades of reason and science to the imaginary woodcut of a god, it shaves down to a blank plank and a pile sawdust.
We atheists are humble enough to admit that our own imaginations can’t hold a candle to what reality has to offer.
Atheist literally translates to “One without god” that’s all it means.
1 Like
please, take your argument up with a dictionary.
or wikipedia. “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities”
whatever it means to you, the word means “without deities” to english language speakers, and thats all i am saying, and only in the context of a response originally to someone who asked if there were room for athiests to believe deities could exist. no. no they cannot.
use a different word for that belief system. that is all.
Dictionaries aren’t subtle. Moreover, they don’t aim to resolve the contradictions among the several senses of most words.
If you wished to know the meaning of love, would you really find satisfaction in a dictionary
I guess one question is if it has always been interpreted that way, historically speaking. As much as people think of these things as settled questions, are they? Is the currently Pope discussing doctrine in the same way as the two former Popes? I’d suspect not. It seems that there is a constant ongoing debate about major theological questions within the faith itself, no?
But, yeah, most people don’t have a clue about Catholic doctrine, which is pretty deep, actually. if I were going to be a believer, then that would probably be where I’d go to, in part because I have a family connection and in part because it has a pretty deep philosophical bent compared to at least some of the protestant sects. Not all, of course, Quakers are pretty philosophically oriented, for example, more so, than say some of your mainline evangelicals, or at least the ones I’m familiar with… prosperity doctrine seems ill at ease with jesus’ message.
im not seeking nuanced definitions.
i was responding to one statement, and if you refuse my words the context of that statement, its your choice to misunderstand me.
here it is for a reminder:
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say atheists believe no god could exist.
a lot of people who call themselves atheists can believe a god might exist, but, if so, within at least one living and one dead language, they’re describing their belief system inaccurately.
its like saying not-day is day, or not-ready is ready.
non believers DO NOT believe.
if i know one thing about a man, and that thing is that he is an athiest, the only thing i know is that he has no working conception of a deity, not the capacity to believe in one.
nothing faulty with those beliefs. room for improvement on word choice if you call agnosticism or any form of belief in any deity, or ability to concieve of one with powers, as any form of atheism.
because that would be theism. and not atheism.
See “inconceivable”.
Why is trying to bring Christianity back to what we can know of earlier Christianity “what a mess!”? Or am I misreading you here?
God is irrelevant to how the Universe works. How’s that for an atheist statement?
1 Like
as it is a statement which contains the word god, it is not a (without) theistic (deities).
how about just "the universe works? or ‘i like pie’?
those are atheistic statements.
thats like being a vegan with bacon eating tendencies. choose a side. shit or get off the pot.
from what youve said your an agnostic.
the latin root ‘a’ is without. like a vaccum. any trace of a gas and you no longer have a vacuum. agnostic is a very good open word with many interpretations. atheist on the other hand is a very specific word, defined as a total and complete the lack a thing. you cant be 95% atheist any more than you can be 95% a virgin.
Arguing about how someone from a different group uses a word to describe themselves is a negative-sum game. You can’t win, you can’t break even, you shouldn’t try.
“That’s not how I use the term” is valid. “That’s not how you should use the term” ususally isn’t.
1 Like
Oh calm the hell down. There is no picking. I don’t believe in a god, but I’m not so certain that I dismiss the possibility of ‘something’. I don’t worship a deity, certainly not a gray bearded man in the sky, maybe there is some element that is yet undiscovered. It’s not like like being a vegan, it’s like being a vegetarian, who wears a leather belt. Have a drink or something.
i was saying that atheism means roughly 'without a conception of a deity,. and so all it means is that imagining a deity is beyond the scope for someone who is a self identified atheist.
Oh, you’re right. I missed some…
- I understand the word ‘God’ and the concepts behind it.
- My imagination is not impaired in some way
Really. I am a functioning human being. I do not have a gaping void at my core where my belief has been torn out. I have not had the gaping void at my core filled by some malign force that causes me to reject the divinity. It is not some defect from birth that stunts my imagination or limits ability to understand. It is not a group or clique I identify with or hang out with. It is just something that I am, and somewhere I arrived by myself without being converted or brainwashed. I doubt if I can convince you I am human. But I feel I ought to try, if only for the look of the thing.
I am stating that a self described atheist, who holds in their mind a place for a deity, defines things relative to a deity, or who conceives of a deity, is using an obstusely imprecise word to describe their beliefs. its your prerogative, but it doesn’t mean you are using the word to mean what the word means.
like saying you are an atheist about politics, when you mean you’re apolitical.
Im not arguing semantics. i am stating semantics. youre welcome for the advice, keep using the word wrong, i don’t care. I’m mostly an apathetic anonymous anarchist.
so of course you could choose to focus on how much i care, personally, about rules. its equally your prerogative
-edited for clarity’ and to remove at least on incendiary.
please go erect your strawman elsewhere. you seem defensive, and are telling me all about what i must be assuming. i assume none of those things.
i bet all of those things are true to you though, and i can believe you believe there was a reason to say so.
as originally stated, i believe you are bringing in a lot of context that has nothing to do with me or my statement which was first directed at someone else
i think there has been a miscommunication. i think you missed my intended point. I’m saying so a second time, and trying to clarify my intent. nothing more.
I never said anything about you. so i sure didn’t say any of those things about you.
My capacity to totally believe that you believe in something, does not mean i have the ability to hold the same thought, or believe in that same thing as you do.
so, you might believe i am attacking you, or believe in god, or believe Karg the III from planet Jarvos runs the universe, and i will believe you believe in those thing, and validate that you believe it… but that does not mean i understand any of your beliefs personally, or am capable of doing so.
thus, i maintain that an atheist can certainly have heard of god, thought about god, and respect other peoples belief, but the personal understanding required for belief is not there, and they are therefore without deities. a-theist
that is and remains my only intended point. im out.
Heh. I remember a sketch by Dave Allan, a wonderful Irish comedian, now alas dead. He acts out a ferocious teacher quizzing a terrified boy - his younger self - on beliefs.
What, boy is the Transubstantiation? ]
D-d-dunno, sir.
Well, what do we mean by the Virgin Birth?
D-d-dunno sir.
Alright. We will start with something easy. What is God?
Ah-ah-a-ah
You don’t know, sir? Well, I will tell you, sir. GOD (THWACK) IS (THWACK) LOVE (THWACK).
Here’s some more Dave Allen if you are willing to risk eternal torment…
1 Like
I’ve been there friend, I was raised as a JW, there are many generations of JW on both sides of my family. Well the fact that there are so many versions, that is the problem. There should only be one version of the truth according to, well every religion pretty much out there. This is what they ultimately preach. That to me is a huge problem. All of these religions claim that they receive gods grace, his spirit. They don’t. All religions, for all their inclusiveness, some more than others, fail. Closely following the principles of early christianity, well any religion, if that is what you want to do is a fine thing. Is it (any religion) though the truth, is it the way of things. Personally I know that is not the case. These religions they are the constructs of man. All of them fail at the level of the deity, their principles are often good. There is however no root truth to them.
So yes it’s mess, they’re all clamouring, broadcasting that they hold the truth. Do they all?
