Is atheism a religion?

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I still don't know what you're trying to say.

"if an agnostic knew, they would not be agnostic."

what? If the agnostic believes/knows that he/she doesn't have proof either way then they are agnostic.

I am saying that they should know they are agnostic and not atheist, but it seems like many are confused about it and thing that they can be both an agnostic and an atheist, or that they are an atheist when they are really agnostic.

And that is quite frustrating to see.

We seem to be going in circles. The subject was whether an agnostic should be outspoken or not, not simply understand the definitions of agnostic or atheist. An agnostic doesn't know what to believe, so how should they know what to call themselves?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: her209
I am the human reincarnation of God.

Who isn't?

Everyone else are posers. Mere mortals acting god-like.

Thanks for trolling.

Can you prove otherwise?

Easily. But you won't understand it.

Here goes though: you alone can't be God because it takes the collective of everything to be God.

I put that misconception out there to separate the true believers from the herd. I mean, think about it. If I were the collection of everything, I would be evil as well.

Good and evil are perceptions, not realities.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
her209,

No need. I know what you were going to say. I'm God!

If you are God, then tell me exactly what I'm thinking right now.

How do you know that God knows what we think?

Do you know what you think?

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
her209,

"I'm going to say her209 is wrong no matter what he says."

God is infallible, so how could you be wrong?

No, I didn't say I was wrong. I said you were going to say I am wrong regardless of what I said. There is a difference.

This implies that I would lie about this. Apparently, you judge me by yourself.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
her209,

No need. I know what you were going to say. I'm God!

If you are God, then tell me exactly what I'm thinking right now.

How do you know that God knows what we think?

Do you know what you think?

How do you know that God is all encompassing?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Your comments have broken down into nothing more than flames,

Ridiculous claims will be met with the ridicule they deserve.

Seekermeister doesn't even believe in evolution. You won't get very far with him.

 

[TheRyuu]

It's a belief. A belief in disbelief.

It'll probably fall under both though. There is strong and weak atheism.

Wiki article sums it up good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
her209,

No need. I know what you were going to say. I'm God!

If you are God, then tell me exactly what I'm thinking right now.

How do you know that God knows what we think?

Do you know what you think?

How do you know that God is all encompassing?

How do you think I said that from the question that I asked?

I do know that when asked about the possibility of a universal pantheistic God, Richard Dawkins said he could agree with that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Your comments have broken down into nothing more than flames,

Ridiculous claims will be met with the ridicule they deserve.

Seekermeister doesn't even believe in evolution. You won't get very far with him.

Yeah, he can't do any good in this thread. Faithful fighting faithful isn't going to help here, except make the flames higher.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic
I do know that when asked about the possibility of a universal pantheistic God, Richard Dawkins said he could agree with that.

Is this the idea the "we" and the rest of the universe are God? I haven't thought about it enough to have a reasonable opinion on what it implies (what does it imply?).

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Your comments have broken down into nothing more than flames,

Ridiculous claims will be met with the ridicule they deserve.

Seekermeister doesn't even believe in evolution. You won't get very far with him.

You are quite correct. If anyone is under the misconception that they might change what I believe, they should give up all hope.

 

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

Yeah, he can't do any good in this thread. Faithful fighting faithful isn't going to help here, except make the flames higher.

There was a point when this conversation was worthwhile, but it is breaking down with the trolls from the P&N, so like there, I will bow out, because this thread is going down the tubes.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I still don't know what you're trying to say.

"if an agnostic knew, they would not be agnostic."

what? If the agnostic believes/knows that he/she doesn't have proof either way then they are agnostic.

I am saying that they should know they are agnostic and not atheist, but it seems like many are confused about it and thing that they can be both an agnostic and an atheist, or that they are an atheist when they are really agnostic.

And that is quite frustrating to see.

We seem to be going in circles. The subject was whether an agnostic should be outspoken or not, not simply understand the definitions of agnostic or atheist. An agnostic doesn't know what to believe, so how should they know what to call themselves?

Since when was that the subject? That has nothing to do with my original post, it was something that you brought up and kept rambling about.

I was simply talking about the definitions.

But now you think that agnostics don't have a true name since they "don't know what to believe" ?

Are you serious?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Your comments have broken down into nothing more than flames,

Ridiculous claims will be met with the ridicule they deserve.

Seekermeister doesn't even believe in evolution. You won't get very far with him.

Yeah, he can't do any good in this thread. Faithful fighting faithful isn't going to help here, except make the flames higher.

Excuse me, but are you referring to me as one of the "faithful"? If you are, please do explain.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Your comments have broken down into nothing more than flames,

Ridiculous claims will be met with the ridicule they deserve.

Seekermeister doesn't even believe in evolution. You won't get very far with him.

Yeah, he can't do any good in this thread. Faithful fighting faithful isn't going to help here, except make the flames higher.

Excuse me, but are you referring to me as one of the "faithful"? If you are, please do explain.

I was using the expression in general. Whenever the argument turns to flaming between the extreme polar opposites of opinions, then any hope of rational discussion goes right out the window.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Garth,

Your comments have broken down into nothing more than flames,

Ridiculous claims will be met with the ridicule they deserve.

Seekermeister doesn't even believe in evolution. You won't get very far with him.

Yeah, he can't do any good in this thread. Faithful fighting faithful isn't going to help here, except make the flames higher.

Excuse me, but are you referring to me as one of the "faithful"? If you are, please do explain.

I was using the expression in general. Whenever the argument turns to flaming between the extreme polar opposites of opinions, then any hope of rational discussion goes right out the window.

Ok, thanks. I misunderstood.

 

[SlitheryDee]

After having read the entire thread:

I conclude that you are all self-righteous bigots who haven't given as much thought to the subject as I have. I would cite peer-reviewed journal articles and quote popular theologists if they had a clue, but they don't. Suffice it to say that you are all wrong and I am right. Neither reason nor faith will lead you to the correct conclusion.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Not everybody has the benefit of understanding all things...even themselves. If an agnostic doesn't know what he believes, why should he be expected to be outspoken? It's a bit more complex than simply jumping on a bandwagon. In a fashion, I have a respect for an agnostic that keeps his mouth shut, because they know they don't have all of the answers...unlike an atheist.

I wonder if this is one of the reasons why agnosticism has become the preferred label to some non-believers. Its an easier way of telling Christians and other religious people that your not one of them, but your not one of those evil atheists they hate so much either...

When a non-believer tells a Christian they are agnostic it is sort of only half true. In a strictly philosophical reference frame they are agnostic (i suspect this applies to most atheists), but in a Christian sense they are usually atheist.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
I do know that when asked about the possibility of a universal pantheistic God, Richard Dawkins said he could agree with that.

Is this the idea the "we" and the rest of the universe are God? I haven't thought about it enough to have a reasonable opinion on what it implies (what does it imply?).

Yeah pretty much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
In reference to a panteist point of view you'll often see the term 'Spinoza's God' like in the famous Einstein quote;
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

This point of view is criticized as a way of avoiding the need to deny god (thereby appeasing religious people somewhat) by Steven Weinberg in this quote;
"But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Suffice it to say that you are all wrong and I am right. Neither reason nor faith will lead you to the correct conclusion.

... and that correct conclusion is... ?

 

[animalia]

NO.

No further discussion is necessary.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

I can't talk for other people, but I don't care that others believe in god. The problem I run into is when religion migrates from a church or private home into a place like public schools . As long as religion is kept out of public institutions, you can worship whatever you want for all I care. I don't want a religion forced on me as much as you wouldn't want a different religion forced on you.

Are your convictions so weak, that merely being in the presence of believers forces you to believe as they do?

This is where the problem lies... and you seem to completely miss it...

atheism isnt a conviction..its the lack of a belief in god..absence of..it has nothing to do with conviction.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
I do know that when asked about the possibility of a universal pantheistic God, Richard Dawkins said he could agree with that.

Is this the idea the "we" and the rest of the universe are God? I haven't thought about it enough to have a reasonable opinion on what it implies (what does it imply?).

Yeah pretty much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
In reference to a panteist point of view you'll often see the term 'Spinoza's God' like in the famous Einstein quote;
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

This point of view is criticized as a way of avoiding the need to deny god (thereby appeasing religious people somewhat) by Steven Weinberg in this quote;
"But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?"

It's not "avoiding" God. The pantheistic concept of God meets every possible definition of the idea of God and its possibility cannot be denied.
I have no desire to appease anyone BTW.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: animalia
NO.

No further discussion is necessary.

:roll:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
I do know that when asked about the possibility of a universal pantheistic God, Richard Dawkins said he could agree with that.

Is this the idea the "we" and the rest of the universe are God? I haven't thought about it enough to have a reasonable opinion on what it implies (what does it imply?).

Yeah pretty much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
In reference to a panteist point of view you'll often see the term 'Spinoza's God' like in the famous Einstein quote;
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

This point of view is criticized as a way of avoiding the need to deny god (thereby appeasing religious people somewhat) by Steven Weinberg in this quote;
"But what possible difference does it make to anyone if we use the word 'God' in place of 'order' or 'harmony,' except perhaps to avoid the accusation of having no God?"

It's not "avoiding" God. The pantheistic concept of God meets every possible definition of the idea of God and its possibility cannot be denied.
I have no desire to appease anyone BTW.

You might be interested in the fact that I've done some reading into a certain pantheistic panpsychic concept of God that parallels some of the things you've commented about here in this thread. Here are some excerpts:

"You do not have to die to find God. All That Is, is-now; and you are a part of All That Is now. And as I have told you often, you are a spirit now. The avenues for development are open now. If you want to, you can now set upon exploring environments that are not physical, but I do not see any rush of students at that invisible door!"

"Now, when I speak to you, I very seldom use such words as love. I do not tell you that a god is waiting for you on the other side of a golden door. I do not reassure you by telling you that when you are dead, God will be waiting for you in all His majestic mercy, and that will be the end of your responsibility."

"And so, I offer no hope for the lazy, for they will not find eternal rest. However, through traveling within yourself, you will discover the unity of your consciousness with other consciousnesses. You will discover the multi-dimensional love and energy that give consciousness to all things. This will not lead you to want to rest on the proverbial Blessed Bosom. It will, instead, inspire you to take a better hand in the job of creation."

"And that feeling of divine presence you will find indeed, and feel indeed, for you will sense it behind the dance of the molecules and in yourself and in your neighbors. What so many want is a God Who walks down the street and says, 'Happy Sunday, I am I, follow Me.' But God is hidden craftily in His creations so that He is what they are, and they are what He is; and in knowing them, you know Him."

These passages were transcribed by the husband of Jane Roberts, a woman who was allegedly a medium for a personality she called "Seth."

Whether or not the personality of "Seth" is/was real, the content of the alleged "transmissions" does seem to strike a particular chord much in harmony with pantheistic concept of god that you've described.