Posted on 12/05/2003 10:43:11 AM PST by vannrox
This is a subject near to my heart and my own spiritual journey, and I'd like to discuss it with as many intelligent minds as possible as I ponder it. It seems to me as though the most basic, intrinsic aspect of a religious philosophy is faith. I have been talking to a lot of Christians lateley, so I'm not sure if that is the prevailing veiw among people of other persuasions. Anyways, it seems to me as though a religion can really be boiled down to beliving that it is THE answer, and it seems to me as though atheism is no exception.
But this is where I came to realize there many different brands of thought given the title of Atheist, each with their own twists. Here are some categories that i have run across, and my opinion(just roll with me on this one):
Spiritual Atheists Some people claim to be "spiritual" but not "religious," disavowing belief in a god persay in favor of just not thinking about the issue. It sounds just lazy to me. They get the "all good people go to heaven" feeling without defining good, heaven, or even feeling itself. This may work for some, but it seems to lack any real thought into the matter.
Non-Practicing Atheists And there are the "Catholics" like my parents who dont buy a word the church says, but are so afraid of what it means to be atheist that they desperately cling to a religion that offers them no real meaning.
Deist Atheists Some people use Atheism to describe a sense of disbelief in the major established world religions, which to me sounds like it could still be a throwback to the deism of the 18th century. Basically it can be summed up as: There is some kind of god, hes a pretty decent guy, dont be an ass and everything will turn out ok somehow, once again, a little too lazy for me.
Orthodox Atheists Then there are the Atheists so absolutly steadfast in their disbelief in god that they would have made an excellent Christian in another life (THAT's an interesting turn of phase!). They dont buy the proof that the various religions offer, but the seem to narrowmindedly rule out any possiblities except absolute soulless oblivion. I have a friend like this, and i have yet to figure out how he can 100% FOR SURE rule out a higher power of any type...
Agnostics This is the only one that really makes sense to me. I mean, maybe there's a god. Probably not one of the big religion's vengeful, mythical "gods" with their spotty and doubtfully accurate "historical records," I doubt reincarnation that doesnt work well with the increasing entropy of the universe, and the evidence for it is even less credible than the rest ... But prove to me god's not just hiding...
Thats where i'm at right now. I would appreciate any input, even religious propaganda. I want to know the truth, even if it means the complete destruction of my current schema for faith.
I would even go so far as to recommend two such books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith, to anyone who is openminded enough to consider Christianity. I almost bought into it after reading those, but to me, there are still holes (i'll probably talk about those later) If your already Christian, they will strengthen your faith, and if not, they will rock your world...
You posted just part of the dictionary definition. Mine also shows a "disbelief" in deities as one of the definitions.
furthermore, exactly how does denying the existence of supernatural entities of any kind differ from denying the existence of God?
I suspect that you disbelieve in the existence of any number of deities and supernatural entities. Thor? Kali? Krishna? These are, or have been, believed in by millions. I disbelieve in them, too. I don't just disbelieve in Abraham's deity.
You are free to disbelieve anything you wish, but when that disbelief becomes a definitive statement that there is no God then unless you can prove that belief, it is based upon your faith that you are correct. I'm saying that belief without proof is faith.
Ah, but I make no definitive statement, except about myself. I disbelieve in all supernatural entities. I do not state that they do not exist. I state that I disbelieve in them. This is about my own disbelief, not your belief. I don't honestly care what you believe. It has no impact on me whatever.
That passage in Daniel is referring to the anti-Christ's actions in the near future. God knew that his physical laws would be worshipped in the last days. Atheists do worship the physical laws not realizing that God has the power to suspend those laws.
I'm pretty sure the cavemen were atheists, as an FYI.
Ha!...how do you know?! Observations of gorillas show that they sometimes look to the setting sun when a member of their group dies. If gorillas can, neanderthals can.
Would I say the same thing about Christianty? No. When man gets to invent God, he invents gods to serve himself or even makes himself god. Jesus Christ was an historic person who worked miracles, claimed to be God, and rose from the dead which is in the realm of fact and history, not myth and wishful thinking. Although numbers alone may not be convincing, the facts surrounding Christianity must be fairly convincing since it is the largest religion in the world and none of its converts are forced at the point of a gun to remain as in Islam. Like CS Lewis said, it would be hard to explain the existence of the Christian Church if Christ were not who he claimed to be.
Nice backpeddle. You may want to reread your post. When you write "I ask X" and "you say Y" then when you write "you" directed at me in an attempt to conjecture or shape my response, you're putting words in my mouth. I will allow that it was unintentional, however.
Either you were able to follow the argument or (more likely) you were not. And that's the way it is. As for logic being nothing but a silly word game, well, if that's the way you see it, you've made your choice between knowledge and belief. Hey, that's fine.
And when at a loss for valid points it inevitable results in ad hominem. I assure you, I fully understand the point your attempting to make. I'm pointing out that your views fail on logical grounds.
And again, straw man arguements show a weakness in your case. I did not say logic was a silly word game, I was indicating that logical contradictions are silly word games. An example would be something that was dry and wet at the same moment, or blindingly bright blackness. Such was the line of reasoning you were pursuing.
The two are mutually exclusive and people who try to juggle both are kidding themselves. If you're man enough to boldly claim "I refuse to think, I just believe." then bully for you. At least you know that's what you're doing.
So you've given up trying to prove your case and resorted to ad hominem and straw men. I'm not very impressed. I've never stated I refuse to think, so quoting those words are intellectually dishonest.
Such tactics prove you've lost.
I'm pretty sure the cavemen were atheists, as an FYI.
Hey joke, Adam and Eve weren't atheists, so the burden of proof is on the new idea, atheism. FYI: Adam and eve existed before Nebuchadnezzar.
Ok. Some universities.
No problem my friend. I have thick skin (don't leave home without it!). And you wrote in such a way that your intent was clearly not a personal attack...at least I took it to be information seeking more than personal.
I'll trust you after you verify that the Circuit Court in Texas did not order the cessation of prayers before football games, the Ninth Circuit in California did not issue an order to stop the recitation of the pledge with the words "under God" spoken, the SCOTUS did not affirm the the act of sodomy between homosexuals deserved respect and that the federal courts have declared infanticide an inalienable right.
Until then, I have things to worry about and paranoia plays no part in my worldview, judicial tyranny does.
For some, things are self-evident. For others, they need to be held by the hand and shown every point in detail. It's obvious I wasn't speaking of all universities.
One of the definitions for "religion" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." I would define one's religion as being simply the part of that person's philosophy that defines their beliefs in the existence and nature of the divine.
Buddhism is defined as a religion, though it in fact is agnostic or atheistic in its outlook, so the idea that a body of beliefs must include God or gods to be a religion is patently false.
The real reason that athiests deny that their belief system is as inherantly a "religion" as any other is political rather than logical. Simply put, the non-theists in this country have built up the idea that all religion (and in particular, the Jewish and Christian religions) must be purged from the public forum on the basis of the supposed Constitutional "wall of separation" between church and state. If atheism and humanism were recognized as religions unto themselves, then they too would have to be purged from our schools and our public properties.
That would mean that you couldn't teach evolution, since it promotes certain religious systems over a fundamentalist, literal belief in a seven-day creation, not to mention the Viking theory that fire and ice came together and created a primal cow. Nor could you teach any other scientific or historical subject that might risk invalidating any of the world's religions--any more than a Christian teacher is allowed to teach the historical evidences that support the claim of Christ's Resurrection today.
Atheists need to be honest about the nature and consequences of their beliefs. I find it interesting that those who try to blame all the world's wars on the catch-all enemy of "religion" deny that atheism had anything at all to do with the slaughters in Russia, China, and SE Asia. You can't have it both ways.
The only true non-religious position is agnosticism, which isn't so much a belief as a lack thereof. However, while saying, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid starting-point, I think that those who live in perpetual agnosticism, never taking a stand (and rarely putting as much effort into learning enough to take a stand as they do into watching TV) ultimately cheat themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.