Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

I have never really heard of the 3 fold rule but it sounds like the same concept as Karma which I am not really sure how I feel about it. I think it ties into reincarnation nicely though.

i have trouble with the karma concept, for the reasons i listed below. it gives people an excuse not to consider another person's suffering, particularly if they have decided the person is beneath them in some way. i don't think that's how we are supposed to approach other's suffering. imagine how many people who are mentally ill in some way, get further abused by society for something they have no control over. with the karma concept you can safely assume they deserve it. that's some heartless stuff right there.

Originally posted by blackcube

Originally posted by interupt42
However, I would not be surprised that most atheist are really Agnostic atheist. Meaning that they realize that their is no evidence either-way but at the same time they find fewer evidence supporting a believe in God or religion.

Exactly. For practical sense I am atheist but if I need to be precise about the knowledge I am agnostic, the same way I am agnostic about unicorns, dragons, bigfoot, flying spaghetti monster, santa klaus etc..

wait, dragons are real. might not look like the paintings of dragons, though

Yep. I see karma/reincarnation is a lame excuse to don't do anything to try help another people today.

I suspect that in old times people couldn't understand WHY someone people were different (human genetics) when were born. Today the explanation is very simple and understood and the karma/reincarnation "answer" is no excuse anymore.

Example: If you have a family history of genetic disease and still want have a child... you are gambling with the life of your child and you, and only you, are responsible for anything that happens to that new born. Don't blame karma/reincarnation of mistakes/gamble you did

reply to post by undo


You made the comment you wouldn't wish reincarnation even onto your worst enemy. Yet you do not address hell. I cannot imagine anyone believing it to be worse than spending eternity in Hell (as portrayed by religion). What you said really baffles me actually.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo

 

You made the comment you wouldn't wish reincarnation even onto your worst enemy. Yet you do not address hell. I cannot imagine anyone believing it to be worse than spending eternity in Hell (as portrayed by religion). What you said really baffles me actually.

i have addressed hell, just not in this particular thread, or at least, my interpretation of what it means. in the last chapter or thereabouts, of the book of revelation it states that hell is thrown into the lake of fire. now how's that possible if hell is fire to begin with?

well to understand that, you have to understand the hell is the grave. meaning, it's where people's dead flesh goes after they die -- in the ground. how is the grave thrown in the lake of fire? easy, death is done away with so hell is no longer a functional concept. if people don't die, the grave and therefore hell, is meaningless. well then what of the lake of fire? far as i can tell, the lake of fire is not a lake in the traditional sense. remember we have language translation variants between the time of john the revelator, and king james translations etc.

my best guess at this point is the lake of fire is a wormhole in which everything that's no longer an useful part of existence, is tossed, like the grave for example. i think it's a metaphorical way of explaining that it's just not useful so it gets tossed in the abyss (the wormhole, the lake of fire). if that makes sense.

reply to post by interupt42

Yes, I agree both atheist and religious people are blindly taking a leap of faith on opposite sides of the spectrum and somewhat lying to themselves.

Is it really a blind leap of faith from atheists?

Some people believe in the Hollow Earth Theory. Lets for the sake of discussion say there is at least some evidence for this.

Now let's say someone that believes in that theory also believes deep within Earth is a city inhabited by rock golems.

I assume you disbelieve in this yourself. Why?

If I said you're taking a blind leap of faith by not believing in the rock golems what would you say to me?

Originally posted by undo
i admit it seems irrational on its face, but the world would certainly be alot better place if our leaders actually did believe god exists and is expecting them to behave. it seems the fox is in the chicken coop, the gate is locked, and the owner has vacated the premises.

edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

Haven't you seen The Soprano's?
Strong religious faith didn't stop them from murdering people.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by undo
i admit it seems irrational on its face, but the world would certainly be alot better place if our leaders actually did believe god exists and is expecting them to behave. it seems the fox is in the chicken coop, the gate is locked, and the owner has vacated the premises.

edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

Haven't you seen The Soprano's?
Strong religious faith didn't stop them from murdering people.

yeah but it's in the religion itself, not in a supernatural being who could at any time, ask them what the heck they are doing and call them to make an account of themselves.

the irony of it all, is the very thing atheists want not to exist, is probably the only thing that'll keep world leaders from killing us all eventually.

reply to post by undo

remember we have language translation variants between the time of john the revelator, and king james translations etc.

Translation variants occurred even when first translated to Latin. I guess that time span is included if you meant starting with the authorship of Revelations (John of Patmos?).

my best guess at this point is the lake of fire is a wormhole in which everything that's no longer an useful part of existence, ....if that makes sense.

Yeah I think it does makes sense. Also I have heard the 'eternal grave' interpretation before from other Christians. The most common seems to resemble more of a Greek Hell, where the damned are more literally punished.

Still, you're saying reincarnation is worse than eternal non-existence? Actually I think many will agree with you. Personally I am terrified of non-existence so that's kinda the worse hell to me

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Yeah I think it does makes sense. Also I have heard the 'eternal grave' interpretation before from other Christians. The most common seems to resemble more of a Greek Hell, where the damned are more literally punished.

Still, you're saying reincarnation is worse than eternal non-existence? Actually I think many will agree with you. Personally I am terrified of non-existence so that's kinda the worse hell to me

edit on 7-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

no no, you don't stop existing. hell does. death does. the contents of hell are dead bodies. you want a dead, malfunctioning body forever? lol in other words, in the infamous words of inigo montoya: "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Originally posted by undo

can you explain this comment? cause to be honest, i've had enough discomfort to last many people's lifetimes. i'm getting real tired of seeing comments that suggest this path is some pampered cake walk, cause it hasn't been so for me nor my family members.

Sure. First of all I would like to make it clear that my comment was not a blanket all encompassing statement regarding Christians or any other belief system. It is though something that I see far too much of.

And I agree for a true believer the path is not easy and sometimes it's difficult to follow such a path when you see those who don't share your belief's seemingly getting all the breaks.

Here is my explanation. Central to the Christian belief system is a belief in Jesus and his teachings in the New Testament. In the Old Testament God instructed his believers to kill people for any manner of things, and not by gentle humane means but by stoning them to death etc. In the New Testament Jesus instructed his disciples that they were no longer to pass judgement on others, that they were not without sin and were not worthy of passing judgement upon others, he made it clear that this was now something that only HE and his Father were were worthy of.

He instructed his disciples how to spread the message he came to give by his words and his actions. In his teachings he told them that he wanted all people to receive the message and gift he came to give. He taught them to bring those who had not yet found their way to him with kindness, compassion, and love. He himself did not turn his back and shield himself from being exposed to sin and sinners instead he showed by his example that he did not wish for his disciples to shield themselves from sin and sinners either

Mark 2:15 - 17
15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 24:45-49
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.
49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

It is clear that he did not want his disciples to shield themselves from sinners, or to force sinners to falsely behave as if they believed. He told them that the laws handed down in the Old Testament still pertained to his believers, he did not teach them to force non-believers to obey these laws, to paint a pretty picture that everything is light and sweet and joy all around, when such was not the case. It was not the outward behavior without belief that he wanted of the world, he wanted everyone to accept him of their own free will.

Now consider what we are seeing in the news, in the forums and so forth especially regarding issues such as gay rights, and people desiring that a Christian president be elected so that he will force non-believers to conform to those laws expected of believers, without that same faith. Consider the previous election when Mike Huckabee proclaimed that he intended to make the Constitution more Christian and gained quite a following hoping he would do so. Think about how people responded to Obama when he stated that although he was a Christian, as President he swore an oath to follow the Constitution....People have been proclaiming since that he definitely is not Christian, but he swore to uphold the Constitution he cannot just order that from that time forward the entire country had to live as Christians, that would be treason as he would be violating his oath.

Forcing actions without belief has a greater power to push people farther away from accepting him, which directly opposes His plan, what He desires and what he tasked his disciples with. Yet that is what many people who claim to be Christians are trying to do. Consider the subject of gay marriage, if they are not believers those laws do not apply to them, it is only when they come to accept Him they are expected to follow those laws. People proclaiming to be Christians are publicly stating that they don't want their children to see gay people. But shielding them from and ostracizing sinner's who He has asked His followers to guide to Him does not serve him it eases their discomfort facing sin.

Originally posted by undo

so are you worthy of 3x the punishment for something you didn't have any control over? should we punish fat people 3x as much or gay people or people who have turets syndrome (uncontrollable cursing) ?

sorry, i have been over all this with people who think we should be harder on gay people, and i'm like........how's that any different than say, not obeying your parents, eating too much, cheating, lying, etc? 3x as much? i don't think so.

Nah all I'm saying is the idea is a great deterrent to not inflict harm on others, and as I understand the laws it is in regards to intentional harm not innocent failures.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


well now i agree with your sentiments entirely.
that was a good post.

Originally posted by Pixiefyre

Nah all I'm saying is the idea is a great deterrent to not inflict harm on others, and as I understand the laws it is in regards to intentional harm not innocent failures.

there would be big arguments over whether the schizophrenic who just robbed, raped and tortured innocent women children or men, was not inflicting intentional harm. but if he's ill in the brain pan, it's not his fault. people cannot grasp this. when it comes to brain malfunctions, people think it must be demonic or something.

ever meet a person with panic disorder? it's literally not their fault. it's medical. it's evidence that we are still seeing in a glass darkly.

reply to post by undo


I absolutely love that Movie and that Quote! I was amazed when I found out who played that role. The same guy that played the part of Gideon in CSI Mandy Patinkin!

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
reply to post by undo

 

I absolutely love that Movie and that Quote! I was amazed when I found out who played that role. The same guy that played the part of Gideon in CSI Mandy Patinkin!

yeah that's a classic film. one of my all time favorites.

Originally posted by undo
[
ever meet a person with panic disorder? it's literally not their fault. it's medical. it's evidence that we are still seeing in a glass darkly.

edit on 7-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)

Yes, and agoraphobia combined with it, it's very difficult. My daughter after being raped at 15 suffered from both, she is soon to be 23 and still has times and it breaks my heart

Originally posted by undo

I have never really heard of the 3 fold rule but it sounds like the same concept as Karma which I am not really sure how I feel about it. I think it ties into reincarnation nicely though.

i have trouble with the karma concept, for the reasons i listed below. it gives people an excuse not to consider another person's suffering, particularly if they have decided the person is beneath them in some way. i don't think that's how we are supposed to approach other's suffering. imagine how many people who are mentally ill in some way, get further abused by society for something they have no control over. with the karma concept you can safely assume they deserve it. that's some heartless stuff right there.

It seems you concentrate on negate possibility’s.

There have been times in my life where I needed to reflect inwards and try to understand the hardships in my life. Understand that I do not hold firm to any belief and that my philosophy on life evolves with new knowledge however the idea that I was possibly paying for past transgressions in some way only strengthened my resolve to pull through that period in my life and make a stronger effort to live a more pure life and it served as a reminder to be aware of my actions in the present.

The concept served to only be positive in my case and I suspect that is the result for most rather than what you presume .

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by interupt42

 

Yes, I agree both atheist and religious people are blindly taking a leap of faith on opposite sides of the spectrum and somewhat lying to themselves.

Is it really a blind leap of faith from atheists?

Some people believe in the Hollow Earth Theory. Lets for the sake of discussion say there is at least some evidence for this.

Now let's say someone that believes in that theory also believes deep within Earth is a city inhabited by rock golems.

I assume you disbelieve in this yourself. Why?

If I said you're taking a blind leap of faith by not believing in the rock golems what would you say to me?

Science can explain why the rock golems doesn't exist. If science couldn't then you are right, I would be taking a blind leap of faith by not believing in the rock golems. Can you provide me scientific facts that some cosmic creator doesn't exist?

There is no scientific law nor mathematical equation, that can factually prove what happens before we are born or after we die nor what came first the chicken or the egg. In addition Science can't answer without a doubt what is the purpose of life nor do we truly only live once or do we get reincarnated?

All I'm saying at some point we have to acknowledge our limitations and accept that we don't have all the answers. Prior to the big bang theory what existed? empty space? well what is empty space and what existed prior to it being empty? nothing? Will how does something come out of nothing?If energy can't be created nor destroyed where did it originate from, etc ....

The point is that even though atheist have more facts on their side and atheism makes more sense to me than any religion I can't factually say that a creator doesn't exist. Simply because I don't have the evidence to back it up. So eventually you make a leap of faith and either you believe for a fact that God exists or you believe for a fact that God doesn't exist. Or you can be more factually accurate and say its not likely , but I have no proof either way.

In science lack of evidence doesn't proof anything, does it? In science an unknown is an unknown despite of probability. Of course if you have all the variables then yes we can solve for the unknown but as far as I know we are no where close to having all the variables.

I'm an agnostic that leads more toward the atheist side and don't really believe in religion. However, I can't ignore that I have no facts back up my believes nor any facts that clearly proves that no creator exist. Like I said I can use probability and form my theory but in the end I can't go past speculation or expand beyond a theory.














that I highly doubt it based based on what we know ,science and