The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

The reality is that atheism is the "right" choice when it comes to discerning what is real, factual, and existent. It may not be the most philosophically comforting choice, and it may not stroke the ego as much as theism, but it is the most intellectually honest choice we can make.

If you choose theism over atheism, then there's something which needs to be done. Namely, you must explain how Amun-Rē, Ba'al-Zebûl, Enlil, Marduk, Nuadha, Oðin, Tešub, YHVH, and Zeus are all the Supreme God who rules over everything, simultaneously. Or else you're just picking and choosing what to believe, which makes your religion nothing more than a superstition. At the same time, you must also explain how the sacrifices of Adonis, Attis, Ba'al-Zebûl, Baldr, Dumuzi, Inanna-Ištar, Jesus Christ, Khepra-Rē-Atum, Oðin, Osiris, Persephone, Utu-Šamaš, and countless others have all saved humanity from the finality of death.

But, I bet there's not a theist alive who would agree with that (well, very few at least). But that is the reality of theism. Either everyone is right, no one is right, or you present undeniable scientific facts, through evidence and repeatable tests, which support why you're the one who is right.

12,000 years later, science is still waiting for evidence that any god is more than just a collection of morality stories meant to help our ancestors understand life and its supposed meaning.

Mind you, I'm not an atheist. I absolutely love mythology and religion. But I understand the difference between faith and fact. I know that my faith is personal and private. And I choose to keep it that way. I act in the way that my faith tells me too, yet I don't throw a hissy-fit is somebody else acts differently. Maybe that is how their god commands them to act. And until I can demonstrate the existence of mine, then I have no right to chastise them for theirs, or their lack-of.

~ Wandering Scribe

Nicely put. I have to agree.

Compared to other religions, atheism is the right choice. But since atheism requires the context of religion to live within, I would argue that the atheist has not fully stepped out of religion until he repudiates even his own atheism. I fear the atheist hasn't gone far enough, and is therefor not immune to the religious psychology required to argue over beliefs and opinions.

Outside of religion, atheism is nothing more than a word. But inside religion, it is the negation of another's beliefs and a position on purely superstitious religious matters.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Compared to other religions, atheism is the right choice. But since atheism requires the context of religion to live within, I would argue that the atheist has not fully stepped out of religion until he repudiates even his own atheism. I fear the atheist hasn't gone far enough, and is therefor not immune to the religious psychology required to argue over beliefs and opinions.

Outside of religion, atheism is nothing more than a word. But inside religion, it is the negation of another's beliefs and a position on purely superstitious religious matters.

Would you prefer realism, then? At that point, you have nothing but psychological disorders to contend with. Although I must say that spirituality is beneficial to the human spirit. It allows us the strength to continue when life gives us every indication that it's time to roll over and admit defeat. And sometimes, I think that's the only reason we have religion - because without religion, we don't have any reason to continue existing.

Is it the right thing to do? Lie to ourselves, to give ourselves the fortitude to fight onward? I don't know. Who are any of us to tell someone they don't have that right? And that's another question, too, isn't it? Do we have the right to take away anyone's will to survive? And if ridding them of their delusions does just that, would you still do it?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


These are the important questions, the ones we should be concerning ourselves with, afterinfinity.

We are doing no one any favours by arguing within the sphere of religion with religious concepts. We should be outside, questioning religion itself, weighing the pros and cons. We should be beyond religion showing that there's no fear outside of it, and be welcoming, understanding and proud of anyone who chooses to come outside to take a peek.

Great insights as usual.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

But since atheism requires the context of religion to live within, I would argue that the atheist has not fully stepped out of religion until he repudiates even his own atheism.

I would whole heartedly disagree with this.

Anywhere that a theistic opinion is raised, is where the atheist belongs. Whether the opinion raised refers to what should be taught in public science classes, what requirements a political official must meet before election, or what procedures a doctor might engage in to save the life of a victim who is dying, if a theist suggests that their god or personal belief should at all be involved, then an atheist has an obligation to speak up and remind the school officials, the public, or the doctors that not everyone agrees with the theist, and that if lives can be saved, justice dealt more fairly, or facts and truths be taught in place of lies and superstition then we must do just that.

Facts, fair rulership, and the preservation of life are always more important than not offending an imaginary god's imaginary sensibilities. Always. So, until such time as theists no longer seek to have their religions made law, then the atheist most certainly deserves to remain within their sphere.

Outside of religion, atheism is nothing more than a word. But inside religion, it is the negation of another's beliefs and a position on purely superstitious religious matters.

That is exactly what atheism IS though. Atheism means absolutely nothing more than "I do not believe in God." Anyone who says otherwise, I'm looking at you, Atheism+, does not actually know what it means to be an atheist. If you're concerned about matters which don't pertain to religion, then there are a whole bunch of other positions which you can adopt: humanitarianism, realism, existentialism, a variety of philosophies, materialism, democratic, communist, etc.

Atheism only refers to religious opinions. And is therefore only sensible when used in religious discussion. If religion ever disappears from the human noosphere, so then will atheism also disappear, as it will no longer be important when belief in God/s is irrelevant.

~ Wandering Scribe

Truly, no one is born a Christian, that would be most insulting to Christ and his Disciples who started the Christian religion. To be a Christian one must find within himself the fundamental truths of Christianity. These truths, the truths of the Trinity and of the teachings of Jesus Christ, must be found within. The fundamental truths of Christianity are a priori knowledge, we are all born with this knowledge because IT IS THE TRUTH! In order to access this a priori knowledge we must first attain certain levels of cognitive ability and experiential understanding, and then we can see the truth of the one true religion. I cannot PROVE to you my knowledge is the truth, you must access your a priori knowledge within, and together we may see and experience the one true God.

How can you say you cannot know God? God is the one sure thing that we CAN know! Do not depend on science to reveal the truth of this matter, for science cannot give us true knowledge of anything. All of science is based on inductive reasoning, and the nature of inductive reasoning is that it can only prove a conclusion to a high probability, but can never attain certainty. Thus, science can be PRETTY sure about many things, but because it uses inductive reasoning it can never give us certain Knowledge. For something to be knowledge, it must be certain, and for something to be certain, we must use deductive reasoning.

We use what Descartes called reason to attain knowledge, and this method called reason uses deductive reasoning. It was he that concluded "I think, therefore I am," and led us on the path to truly knowing the one true God.

As I have said before, the truth about God is within all of us, you simply must reach the same cognitive ability and experiential understanding that I have in order to know what I know about God. If you have not reached this same level, and have not yet tapped into your ocean of a priori knowledge, how can you expect to disprove what I know deductively with what you think you know inductively?

And if you claim to know through deductive reasoning that I am wrong, perhaps you should go and study some more because you most likely have not reached my level of cognitive ability... or you should go and experience the world because perhaps you have not had the profound life experiences that I have had. I am certain that I am right, and you cannot convince me otherwise... I am only here to spread the word to anyone who is willing to listen.

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Truly, no one is born a Christian, that would be most insulting to Christ and his Disciples who started the Christian religion. To be a Christian one must find within himself the fundamental truths of Christianity. These truths, the truths of the Trinity and of the teachings of Jesus Christ, must be found within. The fundamental truths of Christianity are a priori knowledge, we are all born with this knowledge because IT IS THE TRUTH! In order to access this a priori knowledge we must first attain certain levels of cognitive ability and experiential understanding, and then we can see the truth of the one true religion. I cannot PROVE to you my knowledge is the truth, you must access your a priori knowledge within, and together we may see and experience the one true God.

How can you say you cannot know God? God is the one sure thing that we CAN know! Do not depend on science to reveal the truth of this matter, for science cannot give us true knowledge of anything. All of science is based on inductive reasoning, and the nature of inductive reasoning is that it can only prove a conclusion to a high probability, but can never attain certainty. Thus, science can be PRETTY sure about many things, but because it uses inductive reasoning it can never give us certain Knowledge. For something to be knowledge, it must be certain, and for something to be certain, we must use deductive reasoning.

We use what Descartes called reason to attain knowledge, and this method called reason uses deductive reasoning. It was he that concluded "I think, therefore I am," and led us on the path to truly knowing the one true God.

As I have said before, the truth about God is within all of us, you simply must reach the same cognitive ability and experiential understanding that I have in order to know what I know about God. If you have not reached this same level, and have not yet tapped into your ocean of a priori knowledge, how can you expect to disprove what I know deductively with what you think you know inductively?

And if you claim to know through deductive reasoning that I am wrong, perhaps you should go and study some more because you most likely have not reached my level of cognitive ability... or you should go and experience the world because perhaps you have not had the profound life experiences that I have had. I am certain that I am right, and you cannot convince me otherwise... I am only here to spread the word to anyone who is willing to listen.

edit on 23-4-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret

Originally posted by mrperplexed

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Truly, no one is born a Christian, that would be most insulting to Christ and his Disciples who started the Christian religion. To be a Christian one must find within himself the fundamental truths of Christianity. These truths, the truths of the Trinity and of the teachings of Jesus Christ, must be found within. The fundamental truths of Christianity are a priori knowledge, we are all born with this knowledge because IT IS THE TRUTH! In order to access this a priori knowledge we must first attain certain levels of cognitive ability and experiential understanding, and then we can see the truth of the one true religion. I cannot PROVE to you my knowledge is the truth, you must access your a priori knowledge within, and together we may see and experience the one true God.

How can you say you cannot know God? God is the one sure thing that we CAN know! Do not depend on science to reveal the truth of this matter, for science cannot give us true knowledge of anything. All of science is based on inductive reasoning, and the nature of inductive reasoning is that it can only prove a conclusion to a high probability, but can never attain certainty. Thus, science can be PRETTY sure about many things, but because it uses inductive reasoning it can never give us certain Knowledge. For something to be knowledge, it must be certain, and for something to be certain, we must use deductive reasoning.

We use what Descartes called reason to attain knowledge, and this method called reason uses deductive reasoning. It was he that concluded "I think, therefore I am," and led us on the path to truly knowing the one true God.

As I have said before, the truth about God is within all of us, you simply must reach the same cognitive ability and experiential understanding that I have in order to know what I know about God. If you have not reached this same level, and have not yet tapped into your ocean of a priori knowledge, how can you expect to disprove what I know deductively with what you think you know inductively?

And if you claim to know through deductive reasoning that I am wrong, perhaps you should go and study some more because you most likely have not reached my level of cognitive ability... or you should go and experience the world because perhaps you have not had the profound life experiences that I have had. I am certain that I am right, and you cannot convince me otherwise... I am only here to spread the word to anyone who is willing to listen.

edit on 23-4-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret

And I think youre an idiot. Why would you expect anyone to listen to you just because you say so? The problem with theists is that they assert a claim as truth based on zero evidence...zero. Athiests simply do not believe that claim, they dont believe the contrary... I am happy to give a simple to understand analogy to prove this point.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope



Brilliant post!

To bad it's WAAAAAAY over their heads. I marvel over he fact that you were able to put this so clearly and logically into words. your argument and point of view were transferred clearly.

So much so that i think the answer to your questions are just as clearly and logically answered by many of the responses in this thread.

As you should now understand some people are......for lake of a better word that would not violate T&C.....incapable of understanding. Like trying to make a dog understand that the reason he must sit, play dead, or jump through a hoop has less to do with him getting a treat or a beating than is does for our own sick personal enjoyment. The dog is incapable of such a knowing.

Now we humans are on a whole other level than dogs, but this just means that being incapable is all the more tragic.

How an atheist can think that they are accidentally put tough what ever existence they perceive this to be only to end up in the same nothingness they came from not realizing the extreme flaw of not questioning if they will exist once again from the same nothingness they came from once they enter it again is beyond me.

How a theist can fear nothingness as much as an atheist fears life after death and yet live in such hypocrisy as to pray wen things are good and when things are bad instead of just accepting what ever destiny God has in store for them as part of his plan.

And the agnostic, who think you can not know when really deep, deep down you know.

The truth is we all are all of the above at some point or another, we all doubt, we all believe and we say you just can't know. It just depends on what spoon fed truth we decided to cling on to for dear life.

But deep down we are Gnostic in the sense that it's all the same thing, we are just incapable of understanding why we sit, play dead and jump through life's hoops.

The Rat.

I assert my truth based on all the evidence that I need... and that is the evidence in my heart, mind, and soul. I do not need scientific evidence to guide my beliefs... on the contrary scientific evidence will lead you on a false path. The only true path is within, and upon that path you will find God's light. God is shining his light on everyone, you simply must attain the cognitive ability necessary to see this light.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Lost interest after point 1. Everyone is born an atheist. As no knowledge of religion or associated concepts is atheism at it's purist.

Flawed and poor argument.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe
You said:

The reality is that atheism is the "right" choice when it comes to discerning what is real, factual, and existent.

If you assume what is "real" is simply what is appearing, then this scientific-materialistic approach certainly is a valuable tool for helping us make appropriate choices. However, this does not imply that atheism is the right choice in life altogether because atheisim is just another fixed disposition of mind, a belief that there is no Unconditional Reality (or "God") that transcends all conditions.

How can atheism then be considered a valid approach for discerning what Reality is - if such an Unconditional Reality is actually the case? Science would not be able to measure what is Unconditional, so for anyone to assume that only what is measurable by science, and/or perceived by the senses, is real or believable - is actually closing themselves off from perhaps discovering what transcends, though may not be separate from, conditional existence itself.

Is such a state of close-mindedness the right disposition for discovering, and making oneself available to, what is reality altogether?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

We are doing no one any favours by arguing within the sphere of religion with religious concepts. We should be outside, questioning religion itself, weighing the pros and cons. We should be beyond religion showing that there's no fear outside of it, and be welcoming, understanding and proud of anyone who chooses to come outside to take a peek.

But should anyone know what's outside of it, and choose to keep it anyway, what would you say then? If it gives them the strength to get up in the morning, and gives their life meaning, would you take it away to satisfy your vision of a realistic philosophy?

reply to post by izero

Lost interest after point 1. Everyone is born an atheist. As no knowledge of religion or associated concepts is atheism at it's purist.

Flawed and poor argument.

I didn't write the post for the illogical.

Have you ever asked a child if he's an atheist? Are children born with opinions on deities? No one is born an atheist. We are born irreligious. Irreligion is not atheism at its purist. Atheism is a religious concern. Irreligion is indifferent to religion. Big difference.

Flawed and poor rebuttal.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But should anyone know what's outside of it, and choose to keep it anyway, what would you say then? If it gives them the strength to get up in the morning, and gives their life meaning, would you take it away to satisfy your vision of a realistic philosophy?

It's impossible to take away someone's beliefs. I am not one to endorse the impossible. Can they arrive there on their own accord? That's possible, but it will by their own choice and motive.

reply to post by Wang Tang

You should probably share your deductions, because you'd be the first person in the history of mankind to deductively reason to God.

And Good Morning!

Another day of getting very little accomplished?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

It's impossible to take away someone's beliefs. I am not one to endorse the impossible. Can they arrive there on their own accord? That's possible, but it will by their own choice and motive.

That's not what I asked. If their beliefs give them the motivation to embrace love and kindness, if their beliefs give them the strength to continue living, if those beliefs were irrational, would you destroy those delusions despite the implications? Would you prefer their depression and hopelessness in contrast to the love and hope that their beliefs give them?

That's the paradox I inevitably come to. In facing the reality of our responsibility for this world, many would lose faith in our ability to master our own nature and even lose the will to continue existing. As such, they choose to twist their understanding of this reality in order to continue living in it. Would you sacrifice their esteem for their rationality?

You do not endorse the impossible, but do you endorse the loss of hope and faith? As unpalatable as it may be, faith in the unfounded and unlikely may be the only thing that gives us the strength to continue. Take away the faith...and you take away our perseverance. It is a possibility you must consider.

Another possibility you must consider is that, if our perseverance is not affected, but rather our direction, we might become a strictly logical society in which emotion and faith is considered a weakness. In other words, the whole society becomes a facsimile of government, where your only chance of survival is to behave according to the rules of survival. Civilized manner is upheld for convenience only.

I'm not sure you've entirely thought this matter through. There's a much larger picture.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That's not what I asked. If their beliefs give them the motivation to embrace love and kindness, if their beliefs give them the strength to continue living, if those beliefs were irrational, would you destroy those delusions despite the implications? Would you prefer their depression and hopelessness in contrast to the love and hope that their beliefs give them?

That's the paradox I inevitably come to. In facing the reality of our responsibility for this world, many would lose faith in our ability to master our own nature and even lose the will to continue existing. As such, they choose to twist their understanding of this reality in order to continue living in it. Would you sacrifice their esteem for their rationality?

You do not endorse the impossible, but do you endorse the loss of hope and faith? As unpalatable as it may be, faith in the unfounded and unlikely may be the only thing that gives us the strength to continue. Take away the faith...and you take away our perseverance. It is a possibility you must consider.

Another possibility you must consider is that, if our perseverance is not affected, but rather our direction, we might become a strictly logical society in which emotion and faith is considered a weakness. In other words, the whole society becomes a facsimile of government, where your only chance of survival is to behave according to the rules of survival. Civilized manner is upheld for convenience only.

Once again, no one can "take away" one's beliefs. I endorse my own loss of hope and faith, no more.

A logical society would not see emotion and faith as weakness. It would seek emancipation from only the illogical. For instance, obedience to a specific religious view is illogical if one hasn't arrived at the same conclusions as the one who created them. It is illogical to have faith in something that one is unsure about. We would instead invest faith and emotion in actual real things, not get rid of faith and emotion entirely, which is an impossibility. We are not robots, nor are we ghosts in shells.

Your view of how a godless society might appear is common among the religious. They assume it would be nihilistic. That's not true. Nihilism is the disappointment of religion.

Although I do agree that faith in something higher than oneself is a coping mechanism.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

A logical society would not see emotion and faith as weakness.

Spock would beg to differ.

It would seek emancipation from only the illogical.

As referenced above, emotion often prompts illogical behavior, driven by what is desired or an unwillingness to accept the unsavory rather than what is needed or necessary.

It is illogical to have faith in something that one is unsure about. We would instead invest faith and emotion in actual real things, not get rid of faith and emotion entirely, which is an impossibility.

Can you prove that you are not a brain in a jar? Can you prove that your entire world is not a simulation? Likewise, you say it is illogical to have faith in something that one is unsure about. Your exact words. What, then, is the future if not uncertain? Every second you have not yet lived is a second spent in the faith that your surroundings will not betray you under the influence of an external factor that you have not been made aware of. Even your own body is susceptible to surprises that exceed your limited perception.

Nothing in this reality is certain. Logic is only as efficient as the mind that uses it.

Your view of how a godless society might appear is common among the religious. They assume it would be nihilistic. That's not true. Nihilism is the disappointment of religion.

Have you witnessed any society that has functioned well without the presence of a religion? Just because the possibilities I have considered have also been considered by religious parties, does not give it any less validity. Morals that exist independently of any deity are broken just as easily as they are made. If you need evidence, observe the American government.

Although I do agree that faith in something higher than oneself is a coping mechanism.

In that precise application of faith, yes, it is a coping mechanism that provides emotional security for the purpose of sustaining our psychological ability to handle a life that we are unwilling to forsake. It is not up to anyone to tell another that they are wrong for utilizing such a mechanism, anymore than it is wrong to tell someone that they are evil or barbaric for having OCD.

Can you prove that you are not a brain in a jar? Can you prove that your entire world is not a simulation? Likewise, you say it is illogical to have faith in something that one is unsure about. Your exact words. What, then, is the future if not uncertain? Every second you have not yet lived is a second spent in the faith that your surroundings will not betray you under the influence of an external factor that you have not been made aware of. Even your own body is susceptible to surprises that exceed your limited perception.

Can you prove that you are not a jellybean? These are the sorts of questions that lead us no where. Preoccupying ourselves with such unsubstantiated imaginations is a game best left to the one who imagined them, not for any future adherents who find such doctrines pleasurable.

Nothing in this reality is certain. Logic is only as efficient as the mind that uses it.

If nothing is certain, then how are you so certain that logic is only as efficient as the mind that uses it?

Anyways, I agree; I am not arguing otherwise. Logic states that this is the case. But irrationality and intuition is also as efficient as the mind that uses it.

Have you witnessed any society that has functioned well without the presence of a religion? Just because the possibilities I have considered have also been considered by religious parties, does not give it any less validity. Morals that exist independently of any deity are broken just as easily as they are made. If you need evidence, observe the American government.

I have never witnessed any society function well...period. We have not yet had the chance to see any examples of a completely non-religious society.

All morals already exist independently of any deity.

In that precise application of faith, yes, it is a coping mechanism that provides emotional security for the purpose of sustaining our psychological ability to handle a life that we are unwilling to forsake. It is not up to anyone to tell another that they are wrong for utilizing such a mechanism, anymore than it is wrong to tell someone that they are evil or barbaric for having OCD.

No, but but I think it right tell another that there are other more real things to have faith in. We cannot remove faith, only irrational faiths—the faith in nothing.