Atheism is just silly.

REPEAT - REPEAT - REPEAT

ANY Philosophical Thinking - - Viewpoint - - etc - - - - beyond the root: Atheism is LACK of Belief in a god/deity - - is INDIVIDUAL.

Comparing individual Atheist philosophies - - - has zero to do with what Atheism means.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Everything you just said is wrong. Atheism is as old as man. When man started developing concepts and theories to explain his world is when theism came about. To explain what man couldn't understand. We are far beyond that time now and the percentage of atheists or irreligious grows yearly.

The increase in global population has increased as well as the percentage of atheists, while religious has declined. Do not confuse percentage with count statistics. The increase in population is not directly related to the increase in atheists in any case.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide


Jesus was the first God that was of the common man, before then it was royalty or animals.

Before that - - was simply survival.

So is the necessity of survival god? NO.

Atheism is the root - - before any thought of "why am I here".

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
Jesus was the first God that was of the common man...

I am going to quote myself here...

and yes that was a "Miracle"

considering that pretty much no subordinates were free before then, you fell under some Royalty god's jurisdiction... Catholic church did the same thing, they kept the-word from the common man. But Tyndale changed all that.

it is good-news that we are free and we are to love eachother a little more...

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Based on what information? Around 13% of the global population is atheist/irreligious right now. That's nearly 900 million people. You're saying that in 38 years, despite atheism/irreligious continuing to grow for decades, suddenly that number will drop to 178 million or so?

Will it be the rapture? Please say yes so I can just ignore all further posts based on total irrationality...

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

No, we don't. It's very simple. I do not believe in the concept of god as thoroughly as I do not believe in the actuality of god.

Well, you're in denial. I guarantee you, as well as many people around you that the concept of God is real. That is a blatantly false notion. You've already given credence to the notion of God by blabbing about it this entire time.

LOL If it's not God you're blabbing about, then what is it? Why are you being so obtuse?

God is an idea created in the mind of man.

Oh so you do acknowledge the concept of God.

A fabrication. A piece of fiction. It is a fictional character just as much as, like I've tried to point out previously, Winnie the Pooh or Spiderman. I've been exposed to all 3 characters in my lifetime.

So you are gnostic then, right?

Why is it I can reject the concept of 2 but not the other?

If you say you believe that God doesn't exist, that is a rejection. A position of non-believe isn't a rejection of anything, because you have nothing to believe. In your case, you've been exposed to the concept of God, so you must accept it or reject it, and you have your reasons why you made your decision, because I'm sure you rationalized it.

Must I believe the concept, because I've been exposed to it, that there is a yellow anthropomorphic lazy bear that only eats honey, wears a red tee shirt, and speaks to a pig that walks upright and wears clothes? No, I do not. I can quite clearly see that it is fictitious.

No, you do not. But that doesn't mean you reject the belief, it simply mean you believe that to be false. And the reason you belief that, as you said, is because you think it is fictitious.

Must I believe the concept, because I've been exposed to it, that there is a man dressed in pajamas climbing walls and swinging from the buildings of New York because he was bitten by a radio-active spider? No, I do not. This, also, is clearly fictitious.

See my above statement.

But when it comes to god? There's just no way I can not believe in the concept apparently. Must I believe the concept, because I've been exposed to it (which I have, growing up in an evangelical home), that there is some all-powerful being that has created everything there is and knows everything that can be known? No, I do not. I clearly see this as fictitious.

You don't believe in God, but that is your belief. Your rejection isn't the concept of God, but the concept of God's existence. That should be an A-HA moment.

You keep misrepresenting this as a belief that god doesn't exist.

It's not a misrepresentation. It's reality.

Call me a rationalist, but for me to believe, as you say, that god doesn't exist I would first need evidence that it does.

Belief doesn't require cold, hard evidence. If you had evidence either way, you'd be gnostic, because atheism is about belief. It would be absurd for you to say, " I believe that this computer is sitting here in front of me(or whatever it is you are using)" The evidence is there, and you don't believe it, you know it. You know that?

From the investigation of the evidence I could make my determination on whether to believe said evidence, or not believe.

What evidence?

Perhaps I see the evidence as evidence for some other process or object. In this instance I would have chosen to not believe in god. This isn't the situation we find ourselves in. We find ourselves in a universe devoid of evidence for god. Devoid of evidence for Spiderman. Devoid of evidence for Winnie the Pooh. I don't believe in any of the three, or their concepts. Belief does not enter the thought process. There is evidence for none.

Just because you haven't found it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

you worship cows or ravens then the cows and ravens will become more important or valuable than a human life.

choose life, love humanity... it's all it really been missing is a little more love

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
Just because we are discussing god does not change the rules. It doesn't get a special set of requirements or think-type. I know there is no Spiderman. I know there is no Winnie the Pooh.

You know, but do you have evidence?

With this same process, I know there is no god. If ever there were evidence I could reassess what I know, and perhaps I could say "maybe there's a god", or "I see this evidence but I don't believe this has to do with god". But this isn't the case. There is no evidence to make me question. In this instance, if there were evidence and I rejected it, I could claim "I do not believe in god".

So you are a gnostic that takes things as true, even without evidence to back it up. You sound like the people at my old church.

And we've gone full circle

This is not an either/or situation. At least in my case. Some simply claim "I don't know, so I don't believe in god". I am not one of these people. I say there is no god. That's all. There's nothing complicated going on. No evidence - no god. I understand the concept of god, but it has nothing to do with evidence. It is unrelated to whether there is a god or not.

You are like a fundamentalist atheist! LOL

-William Tyndale

"We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." Swelling with emotion, Tyndale responded: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"

I guess just a little more education on history and humanity coupled with a little gestalt would help clear all this atheism business up?

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Based on what information? Around 13% of the global population is atheist/irreligious right now. That's nearly 900 million people. You're saying that in 38 years, despite atheism/irreligious continuing to grow for decades, suddenly that number will drop to 178 million or so?

Will it be the rapture? Please say yes so I can just ignore all further posts based on total irrationality...

Atheism is increasing for sure - - according to studies.

Church counts are kept of anyone officially joining the church - - - even if you never go again. I went back and had my name officially removed from a couple of them. Sometimes people fill out a little visitor card and are put on the official count. It is definitely a manipulating and dishonest racket.

I think a lot of people are just assimilated into a god belief because of parents/society/culture - - - even though they only go to church on Easter and Christmas.

God belief is an accepted society culture. Its not easy for everyone to step completely out of that "god circle".

I do think the Spirituality movement will be the demise of much of Official Organized Religions.

Since Atheists don't belong to any group to be counted - - and some keep it quiet so as not to be ostracized from society - - - its impossible to truly get even close to an accurate count.

reply to post by Annee


Not to mention all the people who do attend church, that are really atheists, to humor relatives or for social and business relationships. My dad, granddad and uncle, were all atheists that went to church.

The real problem with defining atheism, the absence of a belief in god, is that there is no clear cut definition of what god is. Is it the Christian god whose existence we debate, or the idea of a personal god, or all the myriad ways one could express what god is or isn't?

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by satron

 

If ever there were evidence I could reassess what I know, and perhaps I could say "maybe there's a god", or "I see this evidence but I don't believe this has to do with god". But this isn't the case. There is no evidence to make me question. In this instance, if there were evidence and I rejected it, I could claim "I do not believe in god".

The above paragraph explains it well. After that is when we decide whether to believe in god and have a belief for it or just disregard all the data and not have a belief for it.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Annee

 

The real problem with defining atheism, the absence of a belief in god, is that there is no clear cut definition of what god is. Is it the Christian god whose existence we debate, or the idea of a personal god, or all the myriad ways one could express what god is or isn't?

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. If you want to be something else, you can't be an atheist. You have to be called something else. I'm not sure what it would be or why you would do that. You are either an atheist or theist, as far as your beliefs go.

reply to post by satron


Well, maybe I could make that distinction better if you could please provide a definition of "god."

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by satron

 

Well, maybe I could make that distinction better if you could please provide a definition of "god."

There's no need. God can be called anything and you aren't being forced to believe in that God, so you can choose not to believe in that God.

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is increasing for sure - - according to studies.

the percentage remains the same, Monotheism is growing at an exponential rate... it's a little more natural.

you can believe in anything you want and Dawkins (a flawed man) can feed you any statistics you like... I only believe in Truth.

reply to post by satron


I think we need to be careful not to deify those that we think are superior. Everything better, greener grass isn't necessarily god.

and my Truth is not based on statistics...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by satron

 

I think we need to be careful not to deify those that we think are superior. Everything better, greener grass isn't necessarily god.

I wouldn't make it a habit to deify everything I came across. But that choice is there for anyone else, don't deny that it isn't.