On Religions and Atheism. How do you justify it?

And no, your logic did not pan out. I clarified why in a previous post.

actually, you did not. All you did was assume my motives and reply on things that I did not state. That is what I call spin and a diversion, and yes, the end of intelligent discussion.

Not at a single point did you reply to anything in the post that you quoted.

You are free to feel differently and I am free to feel the opinion I have expressed. Good Day.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

OK, I think it is self evident. Please just remember, I am not here to tell you what you are or aren't, I only made that statement because it seemed evident to me from your response. Anyhow, you requested for me to show my work, in a manner of speaking, so here it is.

Just the atheist definition again, so this is all in one place.

Atheist-
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Deny-
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

With that in mind, what I said was

It does not seem logical to me that one can both concede that a god may exist while also denying the existence of God

Now to deny that a God exist, means to declare God untrue, to refuse to believe God exist, to refuse or acknowledge the existence of God.

Now to concede means

Concede - 1. To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit.
2. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example)
www.thefreedictionary.com...

So to concede God may exist means that you acknowledge, however reluctantly, that God may exist.

So, what is illogical to me...

How can one both refuse or acknowledge the existence of God (to Deny) and at the same time, acknowledge, however reluctantly, that God may exist.(to concede).

To Deny that God exist is to not concede that God does exist.

Now I am not saying that a person without a label, can't both deny the existence of God while conceding that a God might exist. That is exactly how I feel, TBH.

I am just saying if one calls themselves an Atheist, which means " denies the existence of God" they can not be an atheist if they also concede that a god may exist. To concede is to not deny.

I also said

It would just seem logical for me to assume you are actually agnostic

I say this because agnostic means

Agnostic - a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
or
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

So I said it would seem logical that you are actually agnostic, if one must be labeled, because when you said

I havewill continue to concede that God may exist. I just do not think he does.

To me this seems to match up better with

One who is skeptical about the existence of God
not
One who denies the existence of God

Just my opinion, as I said though, and what seems logical to me.

edit on 10-9-2011 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

Nope your logic doesn't pan out. Why would i believe in God if there is no evidence? There is either belief and disbelief in my opinion. After all, when hearing about something how can i not take a stance on whether or not it is true? Do you really think that the only viable position is no stance? Which seems weird to me because that would mean you yourself are hearing about ridiculous claims and not doing any critical thinking at all about them? Agnosticism is a cop-out, you have to lean to one side or the other, that's is just how the human mind works. When we examine a claim we HAVE to come to conclusions about it.Humans would not have survived this long without doing so.

If you are not coming to conclusions about things then it is more likely you are a machine or perhaps an Integrated Data Entity.

You may think you are being open minded in claiming you don't go one way or the other. But if that is what you are trying to come across as then i have news for you. Being open minded is not about being on both sides or in the middle. Its about examining claims and not outright rejecting them. I have examined these claims. I have done critical thinking about them. I have come to the conclusion they are probably not true. How is coming too a rational and reasonable conclusion illogical?

More than that, how is not coming to conclusions logical?

edit on 10-9-2011 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

This post. Right here.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Yep, I read your post.

This post right here is my response.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello

And no, your logic did not pan out. I clarified why in a previous post.

actually, you did not. All you did was assume my motives and reply on things that I did not state. That is what I call spin and a diversion, and yes, the end of intelligent discussion.

Not at a single point did you reply to anything in the post that you quoted.

You are free to feel differently and I am free to feel the opinion I have expressed. Good Day.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Yep, I read your post.

This post right here is my response.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello

And no, your logic did not pan out. I clarified why in a previous post.

actually, you did not. All you did was assume my motives and reply on things that I did not state. That is what I call spin and a diversion, and yes, the end of intelligent discussion.

Not at a single point did you reply to anything in the post that you quoted.

You are free to feel differently and I am free to feel the opinion I have expressed. Good Day.

edit on 10-9-2011 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

Now that is simply not true. Though i guess your free to see what you want to see.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Just as you are free to see whatever you want to see.

You said my logic didn't pan out, you then said nothing that relates to the post you quoted or the logic that you said didn't pan out.

Furthermore you decided to assume many things that aren't true and have no base of reality outside of you mind.

Please explain how your reply relates to anything that I have said. please use examples. I have already explained how it does not and given examples. I will do it again below. Can you do the same? Can you take your post where you said that my logic doesn't pan out and then actually cite any of the words that I actually wrote and you quoted in your response? void of your assumptions?

All you did was say my logic doesn't pan out, you then said

Why would i believe in God if there is no evidence?

I never asked you to or implied that you did. An assumption there maybe?

When we examine a claim we HAVE to come to conclusions about it.Humans would not have survived this long without doing so.

Fine, come to your conclusion, I have also come to a conclusion, atheist and theist have no facts and make decisions without evidence. This is my stance and conclusion. I do not have to endorse anything that has no evidence.

You may think you are being open minded in claiming you don't go one way or the other.

Nope, I don't, I have already told you I am being closed minded. Another one of your assumptions resulting in spin and diversion.


The facts are you ignored everything I wrote to you, then replied to me based on your assumptions while quoting text I wrote that had nothing to do with the response you wrote to that text.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Just as you are free to see whatever you want to see.

You said my logic didn't pan out, you then said nothing that relates to the post you quoted or the logic that you said didn't pan out.

Furthermore you decided to assume many things that aren't true and have no base of reality outside of you mind.

Please explain how your reply relates to anything that I have said. please use examples. I have already explained how it does not and given examples. I will do it again below. Can you do the same? Can you take your post where you said that my logic doesn't pan out and then actually cite any of the words that I actually wrote and you quoted in your response? void of your assumptions?

All you did was say my logic doesn't pan out, you then said

Why would i believe in God if there is no evidence?

I never asked you to or implied that you did. An assumption there maybe?

When we examine a claim we HAVE to come to conclusions about it.Humans would not have survived this long without doing so.

Fine, come to your conclusion, I have also come to a conclusion, atheist and theist have no facts and make decisions without evidence. This is my stance and conclusion. I do not have to endorse anything that has no evidence.

You may think you are being open minded in claiming you don't go one way or the other.

Nope, I don't, I have already told you I am being closed minded. Another one of your assumptions resulting in spin and diversion.


The facts are you ignored everything I wrote to you, then replied to me based on your assumptions while quoting text I wrote that had nothing to do with the response you wrote to that text.

Afraid not.

Afraid not.

Okey Dokey Smokey

You simply saying "afraid not"

proves my point quite well, in my opinion. Not sure what your deal is but I am done wasting my time in this conversation that is going nowhere. Maybe we can try again in the future. I thought you were making some good points and providing some good responses yesterday, today seems to be quite a different matter and I have already given you many examples and explanations of why I feel that way. Oh well.

Good Day to you.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by CarpenterMatt

 

Sorry, not sure how I missed your post. Buddhism has always appealed to me, not the whole of it or any specific way of practicing it, but, really, just in the way that you described and in the way that it is not a religion but more of a code of conduct.

Yep, I would say religion is unknown or unknowable. I guess what I am asking is, how do people who believe differently "know". Thanks

The key I think has something to do with the character you are born with, like the genetic lottery. When I stumbled upon the buddhist concept of "Beginners Mind" I realised something about myself. I was born with that mindset, it is the natural way I look at everything. I & probably lots of the people that frequent this forum do not react negatively to alternative ideas & concepts. Think about it, the average Joe would freak & pass a broad sweeping judgement about this website & the content in it after 15 minutes of surfing. Many people are simply just not geared to question or digest alternative ideas. They find comfort & security in consensus reality, & maybe it plays a part in the human survival story to bind communities together in this way. Maybe our character type has a different purpose, to manifest change from thinking differently.

reply to post by sageofmonticello
I guess I'll take the position of theist for this discussion because the questions seem more appropriate to my situation.

Theist - How do you justify believing what you do? The existence of God has never been proven, many religions exist other than the religion you practice so what makes your religion correct? Why is it that you believe your religion as fact and other religions as non-factual? Have you ever looked at other religions? Is your goal with following a certain religion based on wanting to improve this world or to improve your after-life, if you believe in an after life that is? In a nutshell, how is it that you are so certain that what you practice as religion is what God wants of you? What do you base it on, other than just "your faith" if anything?

Suppose a fellow, call him HWAWG (he who associates with god/desses) happens to notice a god who seems to be GGOA (Greatest God of All). And GGOA does not talk. And the other gods and goddesses do not speak of GGOA.

It seems reasonable that HWAWG may surmise that GGOA is not the originator of any theistic religion, theistic as associated with verbally passed on religions, that is book religion. The logic isn't complete though because,
1) Just because GGOA doesn't speak to HWAWG, doesn't necessarily prove that GGOA has never spoken.
2) The silence of the other gods concerning GGOA may be evidence of secrecy rather than ignorance of what GGOA has spoken in the past, if he did speak in the past.

Weighing the various possibilities, HWAWG tentatively concludes that GGOA is not the originator of any theistic religion. Which makes him atheist toward theistic religions, as in: "Your god is not my god"

The existence of God has never been proven

It's my religion, I don't have to prove the existence of GGOA because He is not a missionary god.

many religions exist other than the religion you practice so what makes your religion correct?

Correct or not, it is mine.

Why is it that you believe your religion as fact and other religions as non-factual? Have you ever looked at other religions?

Yes, I have looked at other religions. In my estimation, the followers of handed down religions don't qualify as having religion, they are merely aping religion. Displays of zealousness for particular religions does not imply understanding of religion by the zealous, merely a desire to be right with the religion. As for "non-factual", I would say that one persons experience with a god or gods cannot be stated in factual verbal terms so as to be factually passed on to someone else.

Is your goal with following a certain religion based on wanting to improve this world or to improve your after-life, if you believe in an after life that is?

The goal of my religion is to free humans from imposed religion. There is no particular benefit to myself except insofar as external religion will less likely be imposed upon me if less people are having religion imposed on them. I see that as an improvement of this world. The after-life involves that which come after I die. That won't concern me, as I will be dead. I do hope that those who live then will be better off for having come after me. There seems to be no valid guarantee.

how is it that you are so certain that what you practice as religion is what God wants of you? What do you base it on, other than just "your faith" if anything?

I'm not certain. GGOA doesn't tell me one way or another. Therefore my religion is based upon humanist concerns.

Glossary:

GGOA (Greatest God of All)
HWAWG (he who associates with god/desses)

reply to post by pthena

Weighing the various possibilities, HWAWG tentatively concludes that GGOA is not the originator of any theistic religion. Which makes him atheist toward theistic religions, as in: "Your god is not my god"

What if GGOA sees one of these other gods and says, "I will take you on, especially since you felt so much about your religion that you died for it."?
GGOA liking that god but seeing that god gone forever as part of his godly duty, GGOA takes the spiritual essence of that being and incorporates that essence into part of His own, in order to refer back to all of what was going on in that god's mind up until it ceased to exist on the normal plane of existences that all other gods other than himself have to exist on.

reply to post by jmdewey60

What if GGOA sees one of these other gods and says, "I will take you on, especially since you felt so much about your religion that you died for it."?
GGOA liking that god but seeing that god gone forever as part of his godly duty, GGOA takes the spiritual essence of that being and incorporates that essence into part of His own, in order to refer back to all of what was going on in that god's mind up until it ceased to exist on the normal plane of existences that all other gods other than himself have to exist on.

That would take a major fight between the gods and angels, such as mentioned in Jude:

JUDE 1:8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Which is what you suggest concerning Jesus sometimes called Christ. If you take him to be the Suffering Servant

ISA 53:10 Yet it was Yahweh's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though Yahweh makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of Yahweh will prosper in his hand.

This Yahweh character is pleased to torture his own servant to advance his own agenda.
But then, HWAWG intervenes himself into the equation:

ISA 53:12 Therefore I, HWAWG, will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.

And HWAWG says to Yahweh, "You and your agenda be damned! I take what is mine. This man gave his flesh and blood to me as an everlasting covenant. The body belongs to me." What of the Spirit?

JN 16:5 "Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, `Where are you going?' 6 Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

If you can accept it, the Spirit of Jesus is the Counselor, a human spirit for human spirits. Not as some suppose, a separate person of godhead. The ideal is, that here on Earth, in this life, human body united with human spirit. We, people, are Jesus Christ.

I know absolutely nothing about some place people call heaven, absolutely nothing.

There was some awesome remark that just slipped away. If I remember it in time I'll edit to add.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by XplanetX

 

Creator is spirit, he always existed.

before that you said

I can 'logically' understand an infinite future but not an infinite past.

Do you not see the contradiction? How is it that you don't see an infinite past being possible but then claim god has an infinite past?

edit on 10-9-2011 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

Infinity only exists as long as time exists.

Time was created.