Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)

[derek]

yea exactly. I figured that was simply because modern distortions of scriptures don't mean those scriptures weren't true, or that even if no religion was true that there is no God, so it simply doesn't warrant anything but Agnosticism.

Well, I think people tend to mix the two up. I find Atheism (and I am generalising a tad) to be quite reactionary.

I think a lot of it is based upon a reaction to Christianity in particular, as opposed to any reaction the notion that God (I use the term very loosely) may exist.

After all, God never laid down any rules, regulations or - quite frankly - bullshit moral values. Those were all attributed to him by the folly of man, in its most un-noble of religions, Christianity.

 

[Seditious]

Well, I think people tend to mix the two up. I find Atheism (and I am generalising a tad) to be quite reactionary.

I think a lot of it is based upon a reaction to Christianity in particular, as opposed to any reaction the notion that God (I use the term very loosely) may exist.

After all, God never laid down any rules, regulations or - quite frankly - bullshit moral values. Those were all attributed to him by the folly of man, in its most un-noble of religions, Christianity.

well, that's the Deist's view. the christians/muslims etc say that they were told, by the prophet or by jesus or whoever, and given those values from God. That God doesn't pop by to proofread the current version of the sacred text doesn't mean that he was always absent like the Deists think.

 

[OldScratch]

Well, I think people tend to mix the two up. I find Atheism (and I am generalising a tad) to be quite reactionary.

I think a lot of it is based upon a reaction to Christianity in particular, as opposed to any reaction the notion that God (I use the term very loosely) may exist.

After all, God never laid down any rules, regulations or - quite frankly - bullshit moral values. Those were all attributed to him by the folly of man, in its most un-noble of religions, Christianity.

While atheism may indeed be a reactionary response for some, most mature folks I know who are atheistic have thought through the matter beyond rebellion or purely dogmatic rejection. We haven't even scratched the surface here of what we may object to 'religiously' speaking. I personally see no value in believeing in mythical or magical beings and ideas that run counter to everything I understand to be rational and sensible.
Additionally, I also find the ideals propounded by most religions (Christianity in particular - as I am most intimately familiar with it) to be thoroughly diasagreeable and counterintuitive to what is, to me, obvious and natural. The famed "Sermon On the Mount" and its exhortations to love one's enemies, to turn one's cheek like a coward when attacked, to abandon one's possessions, the exhaltation of meekness, glorification of the poor, etc...this is madness! What could be more utterly unnatural or foolish?
That Priests and ministers have only further perverted an already questionable creed is certain, though at times, by conveniently ignoring some of the more preposterous assertions as mentioned above, western man has occasionally thrived in spite of himself and his stubborn attatchment to this desert utopianism!

 

[SoundMaster]

While atheism may indeed be a reactionary response for some, most mature folks I know who are atheistic have thought through the matter beyond rebellion or purely dogmatic rejection. We haven't even scratched the surface here of what we may object to 'religiously' speaking. I personally see no value in believeing in mythical or magical beings and ideas that run counter to everything I understand to be rational and sensible.
Additionally, I also find the ideals propounded by most religions (Christianity in particular - as I am most intimately familiar with it) to be thoroughly diasagreeable and counterintuitive to what is, to me, obvious and natural. The famed "Sermon On the Mount" and its exhortations to love one's enemies, to turn one's cheek like a coward when attacked, to abandon one's possessions, the exhaltation of meekness, glorification of the poor, etc...this is madness! What could be more utterly unnatural or foolish?
That Priests and ministers have only further perverted an already questionable creed is certain, though at times, by conveniently ignoring some of the more preposterous assertions as mentioned above, western man has occasionally thrived in spite of himself and his stubborn attatchment to this desert utopianism!

Well stated.
I don't see atheism as 'reactionary' either, for the most part. As you've stated, i simply see no reason to believe that super-beings exist. It's that simple. Is that 'reactionary'? Hardly.

 

[speed]

This is taking this argument in entirely a different direction, however...


It seems most of our concerns about the existance of god and atheism arise from the fact "God" must be a creator God. What if this is irrelevant?

The Buddhists dont even bother to question or think about who created the universe, it just is for them--and it is painful and must be escaped through nirvana, or perfect atheism. Who created the universe is thus immaterial. As Buddha was reputed to say, if you were shot by a poisoned arrow, would you wonder who shot you first, or would you wish to be treated by a doctor and remove the arrow first? Let us not worry about who created it, or if a god could have created the universe, and instead, focus on the world at hand--treat our souls that way. I'm no Buddhist, but this makes sense, even if it is extremely atheistic (well Buddhism is the perfect atheistic religion or philosophy).

 

[derek]

Well stated.
I don't see atheism as 'reactionary' either, for the most part. As you've stated, i simply see no reason to believe that super-beings exist. It's that simple. Is that 'reactionary'? Hardly.

I did say I was generalising.

The majority of people I've encountered who hold Atheistic beliefs are as stubborn and pig-minded as those who hold the Theistic ones. To me, it's a largely reactionary mindset.

Of course not all people can be lumped into that category, and I never implied any of you were, only that my experience had made me consider this fact.

 

[Seditious]

This is taking this argument in entirely a different direction, however...


It seems most of our concerns about the existance of god and atheism arise from the fact "God" must be a creator God. What if this is irrelevant?

The Buddhists dont even bother to question or think about who created the universe, it just is for them--and it is painful and must be escaped through nirvana, or perfect atheism. Who created the universe is thus immaterial. As Buddha was reputed to say, if you were shot by a poisoned arrow, would you wonder who shot you first, or would you wish to be treated by a doctor and remove the arrow first? Let us not worry about who created it, or if a god could have created the universe, and instead, focus on the world at hand--treat our souls that way. I'm no Buddhist, but this makes sense, even if it is extremely atheistic (well Buddhism is the perfect atheistic religion or philosophy).

exactly. I mean personally I haven't bothered to bring the matter up because I only see ethical monotheism as the real problem, and of course 'atheism' as you say isn't in opposition to Buddhism and the like, so to talk about atheism is naturally to focus on the groups to whom we are labelled atheists in context to, the theists. I see these other religions as merely spiritual philosophies, not the same kind of threatening dogmatic religions as judaism/islam/christianity, and though they seem equally likely to be without a truthful base, there's no reason to be be concerned by it any more than Plato's republic or any other essentially neutral idea.

and considering those monotheisms I mentioned cover over half the entire world population, I consider it more than relevant enough just to square off against them and leave alone the passive scores of other religions with far less followers.

 

[Seditious]

I did say I was generalising.

The majority of people I've encountered who hold Atheistic beliefs are as stubborn and pig-minded as those who hold the Theistic ones. To me, it's a largely reactionary mindset.
.

yeh true. I've rarely met an Atheist with a good reason for considering himself an Atheist, that was one of the key reasons I felt the need to make this thread.

 

[SoundMaster]

I've rarely met an Atheist with a good reason for considering himself an Atheist

And what, please tell us, do you consider a 'good reason'?

 

[Έρεβος]

I do not believe in the concept of a "literal and concrete" god that is widely portrayed by judeo-christianity, and [I believe flawed] interpretations of other religions such as paganism.

I hold pagan beliefs, but I do not believe in the mythological stories in a literal way, they are simply absolutely genius stories that get across real meaning, ideas, and concepts in a way humans can interpret and connect with. I believe in God as something not literal by any means, not something humanly describable, or something that effects us in any way we're able to describe. God is in a way what the wolves follow, what makes the birds migrate in the winter . . . it is a spirituality that humans have all but forgotten. A noble way of belief that the purely flawed Christianity has all but destroyed . . .

So, I could be in a way considered "atheist", as believing the modern concept of god has basically become the definition of "theist". But I don't tend to refer to myself as such, and when I do it is just in reference to the flawed judeo-christian interpretation of God.

 

[Norsemaiden]

What's a good reason not to believe in ghicdozopfodcodswallop? A gazillion mattresses on planet Floopit do after all.

My point is: why would one have to justify one's non belief in a very vaguely defined apparantly made up nonsense?

Btw - Are any so called "Pagans" unhappy about defining themselves by a word Christians apparantly coined to describe non Christian country dwellers?

"Pagan" is the usual translation of the Islamic term mushrik, which refers to 'one who worships something other than The God of Abraham'.

Historically, the term "pagan" has usually had pejorative connotations among westerners, comparable to heathen, infidel and kafir (كاف&#1585 in Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

 

[Έρεβος]

What's a good reason not to believe in ghicdozopfodcodswallop? A gazillion mattresses on planet Floopit do after all.

But but . . . those matresses are my friends

 

[Norsemaiden]

Sorry about editing my post before I realised you had already responded a moogle! I wonder what you think about what I asked about Paganism?
A Christian would call me a Pagan, but I hesitate to use the word myself.

 

[Έρεβος]

Sorry about editing my post before I realised you had already responded a moogle! I wonder what you think about what I asked about Paganism?
A Christian would call me a Pagan, but I hesitate to use the word myself.

Ah, well, I don't really put importance in the word. It's simply the most readily recognized description of the belief system, the word that is used to describe it isn't what matters, but rather what that word represents. It may be the christian word used to describe us, but it has become the english term for it, and it really is just a word. If I knew a better term, I'd surely use it.

I use the term "Odalism" or "Odalist" once in a while, but that only encompases a small [though vital] part of the/my belief system.

Though also, calling ourselves "Pagans" or "Heathens", in a way, is mocking christianity and their foolish egocentric terms [which is always a good thing ].

 

[Seditious]

Btw - Are any so called "Pagans" unhappy about defining themselves by a word Christians apparantly coined to describe non Christian country dwellers?

there are of course afroamericans today who'll call eachother 'nigga' in a friendly way. I think, that a word comes from a derogatory origin need not mean it should still be considered that way.

a racist insults you, you think 'hes the ignorant one, I'm not insulted' so too I think if a Christian was to use pagan as if to yell 'HETHAN!!' trying to put you down, surely you'd laugh and think 'thats like a group of obese people yelling 'SKINNY!!' at me for being healthy'

 

[Έρεβος]

I'm not insulted' so too I think if a Christian was to use pagan as if to yell 'HETHAN!!' trying to put you down, surely you'd laugh and think 'thats like a group of obese people yelling 'SKINNY!!' at me for being healthy'

Haha! That is excellent.

 

[speed]

I consider myself a student of eastern "thought" (or perhaps experience). Indian Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism or the combination (Zen Buddhism) may have a nihilist feel or sense at first glance but I assure you, there is a world of difference. Zen truely offers a definite, liberating perspective on life however, understanding Zen is really more art than science as it requires you to set all preconceived views and notions aside. Unfortunately, many people have a lot of trouble doing so enough to understand this new way of relating to our world and as a result, incorrectly throw it all into the same bag.

Anyway, it all boils down to how you want to live and where you see yourself. Buddhists in general are extremely amazing people who you'd want to spend your time around, whereas atheists, as many on this forum, are typically subborn and very ridgid people at the core.

Someone was mentioning the possibility/impossibility of having a set of beliefs/religion without a God, or from a atheistic stance. As judas listed here, eastern religions are atheistic; there is no god, no creation, no judgment, no divine good and evil. Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. All are philosophies, codes of ethics, ways of seeing the world, that in essence, are entirely god-less. Thus, as each of these religions have existed for centuries, and if anything, these religions have been far more humane and have rarely been used as a battle-cry or for crass missionary purposes, it is obvious a truly atheistic religion way-of-life is entirely possible and perhaps even beneficial over other supernatural religions.

I'd also contend, that Aryan religion: from the Hindu gods, to the Greeks/Romans, Norse, etc--this pantheon of supermen-like gods who inhabited our own faults and desires, were also essentially atheistic. They;re more about ritual and providing a template for life, than they are about actual belief. Ask a Hindu how they feel about their gods.

Thus, besides those goddamn crazies from the Middle East, and very primitive peoples, much of the world already had slid into essentially atheistic religions and belief systems. And, it is entirely possible and perhaps even beneficial for the world to accept some form of atheistic--i.e. no creator god, divine arbriter of justice--religion.

 

[Norsemaiden]

there are of course afroamericans today who'll call eachother 'nigga' in a friendly way. I think, that a word comes from a derogatory origin need not mean it should still be considered that way.

a racist insults you, you think 'hes the ignorant one, I'm not insulted' so too I think if a Christian was to use pagan as if to yell 'HETHAN!!' trying to put you down, surely you'd laugh and think 'thats like a group of obese people yelling 'SKINNY!!' at me for being healthy'

Yes that was a clever observation. Still, if black people all started calling themselves "niggas" and lost the irony, as if this was what they should call themselves it would please the KKK no end! Do Christians get the same sense of us putting ourselves down by accepting the "pagan" label I wonder. (Even if it is indeed like the Obese calling us "skinny"). The only alternative would be to be more specific - eg. Odinist or Asatru or whatever.

 

[Έρεβος]

Do Christians get the same sense of us putting ourselves down by accepting the "pagan" label I wonder. (Even if it is indeed like the Obese calling us "skinny").

The thing is, why should we care? I don't particularly care if christians get some kind of stupid pleasure out of me using the term "pagan". I'll even call myself a heathen! Though that is a more obvious mocking of christian idiocy. :danceboy:

 

[Seditious]

The thing is, why should we care? I don't particularly care if christians get some kind of stupid pleasure out of me using the term "pagan". I'll even call myself a heathen! Though that is a more obvious mocking of christian idiocy. :danceboy:

exactly. we know it comes from foolishness we have no reason to feel offended. and if the idiots are amused by their own foolishness, then everybody is happy.