Trajan12
Deity
What would make you believe in a relgion?
Ask an Atheist.
- Thread starter Yeeek
- Start date
-0blivion-
Musically inclined
Nothing. I define my moral code and way of living myself, I need no guidance from a supposed supreme being, even if one was proven categorically to exist.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
When their is scientific proof for a religeon. Right now there is absolutly no proof for any religeon.
Trajan12
Deity
What do you like about religion?
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
that it is a valid universal excuse for war. It also has some values.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Why is there a need for this thread when atheists are a majority in CFC? 
skadistic
Caomhanach
Doing bong hits in my den wioth god packing the bowl with heaven grown northern lights.
Its a good base for teaching goodness.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
And they are theists.
Not all deities are "supreme" either. Even the "previously most powerful" deity Uranus in Greek Mythology got his testicles cut off and casted into the sea. Some people do attribute vairous pretty powerful abilities to ghosts. Whether they are supreme is really not clear and pointless in terms of demarcation.
Some people believe magicians actually perform magic. Some people believe bad luck is caused by certain felines strolling past you. Some people even read horoscopes. Whether they genuinely have reasons to believe or they are simply stupid is sometimes impossible to tell. Maybe they are confused.
Hmmm... Nihilistic, would you say it's possible to believe in UFO's and abductiuon, in conspiracy theories, or astrology, and still be an atheist?
I say this because I see merit in mdwh's point. The semiotics of God implies a ruling or governing role before the existence (even if not omnipotency). The term "ghost" implies none of that. Now, why can't one person believe in supernatural entities which aren't governing forces? It's similarity with the built of "God" does make it unlikely, but impossible? I think not.
Perhaps you are building an undue link between atheism and skeptcism?
Regards
.
I say this because I see merit in mdwh's point. The semiotics of God implies a ruling or governing role before the existence (even if not omnipotency). The term "ghost" implies none of that. Now, why can't one person believe in supernatural entities which aren't governing forces? It's similarity with the built of "God" does make it unlikely, but impossible? I think not.
Perhaps you are building an undue link between atheism and skeptcism?
Regards
.
Religion isn't about science. It's about faith and what you believe in. What now?
Good question: I'd say that I lost interest in Christianity (or the variants I was exposed too) when I realised the falseness of its claims. I would guess that if the claims hadn't been verifiable; I would not be so doubtful.
At this point, however, I would think that an extreme experience would be required. Whatever event occurred would also have to answer the 'hard' questions of existence, and not merely be a show of force. Though a show of force wouldn't be unreasonble
You're getting your logic confused.
1. A theist is someone who believes in God.
2. Gods are supernatural.
This does *not* mean that anyone who believes in other supernatural things are also theists.
No, I can't give you a definition that tells you that a theist isn't someone who believes in ghosts, just as I can't find one telling you that a theist isn't someone who has red hair. Dictionaries define what words are, not what they aren't. Now, you show me one showing that a theist does include someone who believes in ghosts.
Perhaps - but plenty of people believe in ghosts without worshipping them, so they could not be considered theists.
azzaman333
meh
Why is there a need for this thread when atheists are a majority in CFC?
Actually, in just about every poll atheists have lower numbers than theists.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Well, you grouped too many different things together, but only one of those disqualify someone from being classified atheistic. Also, none of them has anything to be ghosts. Believe in UFOs and abductions is believe in extreme science fiction, still distinguishable from a believe in the supernatural. Believe in conspiracy theories is a believe in skepticism, various levels of it, still not theism. Astrology though, is at best demonstrates mental incompetence and at worst deism.
To you it might, but if you consider all the various deities considered between different coultures throught history of the world there is an exception for every qualification you subject to the term 'deity'. Various cultures have ascribe varying qualities and "power levels" to their deities and/or ghosts and/or demons. I understand that you may see a sentimental difference but the underlying theme is that they are all supernatural explanations of misunderstood natural phenomena.
More like I'm linking atheism with materialism and functionalism. Skepticism may be similar but is a lot more extreme than what I would propose.
Yes, but just because some people ascribe those qualities to their ghosts doesn't mean everyone who believes in ghosts does. E.g., there is still the implication that they are sentient beings - a few people believe in ghosts as some phenomenon, but that they aren't sentient beings. And what about things like psychic powers?
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
The condition of worshipping, like all your other proposed conditions, fails to distinguish between ghosts and deities. What if someone believes in a deity but doesn't worship it? That has certainly been the case with the Greeks and Romans, where they ahve so many gods they can't possibly pay much attention to every one of them. Or you can have someone who believes in a deity, an modern day deity even, but his/her affection towards it is not admiration or reverence. Someone could believe in a god or whatever but doesn't give a damn about that god, or even have an antagonistic attitude about it. By your reasoning then such a person would believe in "god" but yet is termed an atheist?
I grouped them in the basis of their evident unlikeliness and the weakness of the arguments supporting them, as well as the obvious self-serving process involved in defending them. Traits, I think, quite fitting to match our debating topic.
My point was, with that, to show that a person which don't belive in God is not necessarily someone unwilling to believe in the ludicrous.
The difference is arbitrary and without method, I know. Still, the difference IS, it exists, for no better reason that enough people do think of these as different.
As I said, in a coherent line of thought, the same process that excludes one excludes the other. But my point of contemption is exactly that not necessarily will atheists have coherent POVs.
Pyrronic skepticism would, but I see skepticism in a much lighter light.
Regards
.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Then the question remains, do they think such phenomena is caused by a physical (perhaps extraterrestrial) sentient being or a supernatural "being". For the claim of psychic power, it's similar: is the subject committed to a holistic or a materialistic explanation? The demarcation is clear: if the supernatural is invoked in any of your explanations, then you are not an atheist. If not, then you can still commit other misjudgements and be labeled somethign else while remaining atheist.
Here's my question: can any atheist speak for any atheistic point of view but his own?
It seems to me that there is not much to say about lack of belief, just about how one views beliefs that one doesn't have.
It seems to me that there is not much to say about lack of belief, just about how one views beliefs that one doesn't have.
No, actually, no. Atheism, as any negative, lacks form, and because of that, lacks also conformity. An atheistic creed would undermine the idea, and that is why there is no expected common trait to atheists except not believing in God.
Regards.
Regards
.Similar threads
