• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Atheism

When I was young they would say if you are sick, it was 10% medicine and 90% belief in the fact the doctor told to you that you were going to be fine.

I would say if you have a religious belief, that this was probably influenced by your parents.

I personally would like to think there is a god, but then I make the mistake and watch the TV news and see what horrible things are happening in the world.

But people should do what they want to do.
 
Is there a term to cover the belief for 'god' being the collective unconscious, ultimate reality etc. as experienced under psychedelics or do we have to use philosophical terms i.e. Panpsychism and Idealism?
 
Also, Buddhism isn't a religion. Buddhists don't accept there is a God as a person.

First, defining a religion as the belief in a (single) personal God is incorrect. There are several equally valid definitions of the religious phenomenon, and one of the original meanings of the word "religion" in latin is "what links people together", which is very relevant to the way ancient Greeks and Romans practiced their religion.

Of course, they had "personal gods", but what was important for them was not as much the individual faith than the collective / social role of their rituals. That's why the Romans at first did not understand Christians. They wanted them to sacrifice to the emperor, because, that was the standard ritual practice, and they believed this "piety" was what was required to stabilize society. But the Christians acted like "integrists" in their view. they wouldn't comply because they followed a different paradigm. For them, religion was a matter of personal faith in one god, and this god was certainly not the emperor. So both had a religion. And both could be very sensitive and intolerant about it (just think about how Socrates was executed by the Athenians because of his so-called "impety"). So, defining religion just on the basis of a personal god is likely too restrictive. There are religions which were based much more on collective rituals, ancestor cult and so on.


Second, it is wrong to deny the presence of gods in Buddhism. In both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, "gods" are given as one of the 6 categories of beings. To this very day, tantric buddhist start their path to enlightment through "preliminary practices" (Ngondro in Tibetan) that emphasize meditation on impermanence. To develop the feeling of impermanence, practicioners are encouraged to think that for times immemorial, they have endlessly transmigrated through all 6 realms : hells, animals, preta, humans, asura and ...gods !

In the story of Gautama Sakya, the Buddha, it is told by all the Buddhist schools, that before coming down to Earth, prince Siddharta had been staying in the "paradise of Tusita", aka, the paradise of the 33 Gods. And when he reached enlightment under the bodhi tree, he was visited by the king of the Gods who requested him to teach other humans.

Last but not least, in most schools of buddhism, people admit and worship "gods" as "protectors of the teachings" or protectors of sacred places.

So it is not right to deny the presence of gods in Buddhism, although I can understand where this idea came from (the same debate exists in Taoism, opposing "philosophical" and "religious" taoism). It is true that according to the higher buddhist teachings, all phenomena are transient delusions obscuring the essential nature of the world. According to this "final" buddhist vision of the world, gods may not really exist as independant essences, but neither do we ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First, defining a religion as the belief in a (single) personal God is incorrect. There are several equally valid definitions of the religious phenomenon, and one of the original meanings of the word "religion" in latin is "what links people together", which is very relevant to the way ancient Greeks and Romans practiced their religion.

Of course, they had "personal gods", but what was important for them was not as much the individual faith than the collective / social role of their rituals. That's why the Romans at first did not understand Christians. They wanted them to sacrifice to the emperor, because, that was the standard ritual practice, and they believed this "piety" was what was required to stabilize society. But the Christians acted like "integrists" in their view. they wouldn't comply because they followed a different paradigm. For them, religion was a matter of personal faith in one god, and this god was certainly not the emperor. So both had a religion. And both could be very sensitive and intolerant about it (just think about how Socrates was executed by the Athenians because of his so-called "impety"). So, defining religion just on the basis of a personal god is likely too restrictive. There are religions which were based much more on collective rituals, ancestor cult and so on.


Second, it is wrong to deny the presence of gods in Buddhism. In both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, "gods" are given as one of the 6 categories of beings. To this very day, tantric buddhist start their path to enlightment through "preliminary practices" (Ngondro in Tibetan) that emphasize meditation on impermanence. To develop the feeling of impermanence, practicioners are encouraged to think that for times immemorial, they have endlessly transmigrated through all 6 realms : hells, animals, preta, humans, asura and ...gods !

In the story of Gautama Sakya, the Buddha, it is told by all the Buddhist schools, that before coming down to Earth, prince Siddharta had been staying in the "paradise of Tusita", aka, the paradise of the 33 Gods. And when he reached enlightment under the bodhi tree, he was visited by the king of the Gods who requested him to teach other humans.

Last but not least, in most schools of buddhism, people admit and worship "gods" as "protectors of the teachings" or protectors of sacred places.

So it is not right to deny the presence of gods in Buddhism, although I can understand where this idea came from (the same debate exists in Taoism, opposing "philosophical" and "religious" taoism). It is true that according to the higher buddhist teachings, all phenomena are transient delusions obscuring the essential nature of the world. According to this "final" buddhist vision of the world, gods may not really exist has independant essences, but neither do we ...
Thanks for the interesting post. However, I said the Buddhism doesn't accept there is a God as a person, i.e. with a form and personality. By God I mean the supreme controller of everything who is eternal and infinite. By religion I mean religion as it's generally understood now and not the roots of the word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the interesting post. However, I said the Buddhism doesn't accept there is a God as a person, i.e. with a form and personality. By God I mean the supreme controller of everything who is eternal and infinite. By religion I mean religion as it's generally understood now and not the roots of the word. ...

Atheism: you quite correctly state that the "roots of the word" religion are of limited relevance when considering whether or not gods exist.

Recourse to etymology or dictionaries in any philosophical discussion immediately changes the nature of the discussion to "mere" semantics rather than, for example, ontology or epistemology.

However, you undercut yourself by then offering your own rather selective definition of God, and supporting this with the expression "as it's generally understood now."

There are many well-established religions that involve one or more gods. Based on 2015 figures, just under 1/3 of the world's population is Christian, just under 1/4 are Muslim, just over 1/7 are Hindu, and about 1/6 claim "no religion". There are other major religions such as Judaism, Sikhism, and Rastafari, as well as innumerable belief systems that might loosely be defined as "pagan" or "traditional" religions. Each of these has a different concept of God or gods.

Of course, any one of those religions further subdivides into denominations and sects, and branches. A Roman Catholic, an Orthodox Christian, and Anglican, a Methodist, and a Baptist would all have different views of the nature of God. Islam is divided into two main religious traditions. Some Hindus have a literal belief in their gods, but some other Hindus consider them to represent principles rather than beings.

Similarly, not all people who consider themselves to be atheists have the same reasons, or are even rejecting the same definition of god.


Logically it is easier to dismiss (rather than disprove) the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, interventionist god than it is to dismiss the idea of a lesser god with more limited powers.

A God who is everywhere, and can do absolutely anything, without limit, and who's motives are inherently unknowable can be used to explain absolutely any possible or conceivable set of circumstances or events.

If "God" is a potential explanation of absolutely everything or anything, then there is no possible way of proving or disproving that he exists.

Imagine the experiment with the two possible outcomes: X = God exists, and Y = God does not exist. There are no possible circumstances that fit into category Y.

Therefore, you cannot use the "God hypothesis" to either explain or predict anything. You may as well just say, "That is how it is."

Why was there a tsunami? Because of God. Why did this baby survive the tsunami? Because of God. Why did this other baby die in the same tsunami? Also because of God. Why did one baby die and not the other? Because God willed it. Why did he will it? We cannot know the mind of God. Will this third baby survive his injuries from the same tsunami? If God wills it. How will we know if God wills it? By whether the baby survives or dies. And so on ad infintum et nauseam.


On this line of argument, the question of whether God exists is not answered with a "Yes" or "No" but with "That's a pointless question."


Now consider a lesser god with limited powers. The above line of argument does not work. The lesser god is believed to have limits on what he can achieve and if we know those limits we can devise an experiment in which there is at least one value for Y = the god does not exist.


We then have to approach the existence or otherwise of that lesser god by a rational comparison of hypotheses. Put simply: is thunder and lightning caused by (a) Thor banging the clouds with his hammer when he is angry, or (b) by electrostatic discharges in the atmosphere?

Hypothesis (b) electrostatic discharges, enables us to make reasonably accurate predictions about when lightning will occur, and we can observe and describe the mechanism that causes it. Therefore we can reasonably conclude that "electrostatic discharge" is a better hypothesis than "angry Thor."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atheism is generally considered a belief system or a philosophical position, rather than a scientific fact. Atheists hold the belief that there is no god or gods, and base their worldview on that belief. However, it's worth noting that atheism is not a monolithic belief system, and there is significant diversity within the atheist community in terms of beliefs, values, and attitudes.

While some atheists may base their beliefs on scientific evidence and logical reasoning, others may simply reject the idea of god or gods without offering any specific justification. Therefore, it's important to distinguish between the belief that there is no god or gods (which is a philosophical position) and the scientific understanding of the natural world, which is based on empirical evidence and subject to ongoing revision and refinement.
 
Atheism is generally considered a belief system or a philosophical position, rather than a scientific fact.

Considered by...?

Atheists hold the belief that there is no god or gods, and base their worldview on that belief.

For a significant proportion they don't. The question isn't a major interest, doesn't have any follow on in terms of moral and ethical behaviour and is generally an also ran. Why would we expect a justification for something that doesn't matter to them?

Not everyone has the god debate centre front which can lead to the impression that some
simply reject the idea of god or gods without offering any specific justification.
 
it's all a personal choice. these f--cking arguements go on forever and are useless. y have your belief I have mine , so what.
It ought to be, I agree.

Unfortunately, some religious types insist that everyone live by their beliefs, whether they share them or not, and legislate and get subjects, and books, in or out of schools according to it :(
 
Unfortunately, some religious types insist that everyone live by their beliefs, whether they share them or not, and legislate and get subjects, and books, in or out of schools according to it

Unfortunately, some religious types humans insist that everyone live by their beliefs, whether they share them or not, and legislate and get subjects, and books, in or out of schools according to it

TFTFY :)
 
There is no atheist community. Atheists don't need to meet up or share a culture.They just don't believe in gods.

Au contraire: l once taunted a mate of mine - a strident, militant, proselytising atheist; a positive vegan of atheists - about something l overheard on the radio: A group of atheists who met every Sunday to discuss their lack of beliefs. The cherry on top of this irony cake was that they met in a disused church, and their speaker would address them from its pulpit.

:rofl:

maximus otter
 
There is no atheist community. Atheists don't need to meet up or share a culture. They just don't believe in gods.
Yes and no. For a while, many years ago, I got involved in the British Humanist Association, as it was then known. I even had articles published in their magazine.

Of course, Humanism is not the same as Atheism. Indeed, the word "humanist" without the capital H has been used by some Christians in some contexts. However, Humanists with a capital H, who are members of organisations such as the BHA, are a subset of atheists who choose to subscribe to a shared set of values and ideas. You read and hear things starting with, "Humanists believe that..."

This type of subset of atheists is definitely a community with a shared set of principles and philosophical beliefs, and which campaigns for legal changes and promotes a world view.

I agree with much of what these Humanist groups stand for (e.g. the separation of church and state, absence of bishops in the Lords, etc.) but I decided to cease my involvement because I did not agree that just because I was an atheist, I should subscribe to a set philosophical position.

Atheists and theists are people. As a species, people <<need to meet up or share a culture>>. I do my meeting up and sharing a culture mainly through being part of the Morris dance community, but also, to a lesser extent, being a motorcyclist, cyclist, dinghy sailor, concertina player, and even by participating in this forum.
 
Au contraire: l once taunted a mate of mine - a strident, militant, proselytising atheist; a positive vegan of atheists - about something l overheard on the radio: A group of atheists who met every Sunday to discuss their lack of beliefs. The cherry on top of this irony cake was that they met in a disused church, and their speaker would address them from its pulpit.

:rofl:

maximus otter
https://www.sundayassembly.com/ ?
 
This type of subset of atheists is definitely a community with a shared set of principles and philosophical beliefs, and which campaigns for legal changes and promotes a world view.
That's about atheists with an agenda. People with no interest in religion don't have that. They just live without it.

Like sport. You can be a fanatical team supporter or ignore the whole thing. Up to oneself.

Anyway, off I go, on my hedonistic godless way. :)
 
Atheists can congregate, especially if they feel a need to combat the influence of religion in our culture. I spent a lot of time online as part of atheist communities back in the day. In real life, most of the people I've known were atheists. I didn't feel any greater connection with them than with most theists of various shades I've known. I've liked or disliked, agreed or disagreed with them much the same. I couldn't imagine anything less fulfilling than gathering with other atheists just because we're atheists. For me, and for many atheists, not believing in a god is like not believing griffins or not believing in Frankenstein's monster. I don't feel a particular connection with other people who don't believe in Frankenstein's monster.
 
Yes and no. For a while, many years ago, I got involved in the British Humanist Association, as it was then known. I even had articles published in their magazine.

Of course, Humanism is not the same as Atheism. Indeed, the word "humanist" without the capital H has been used by some Christians in some contexts. However, Humanists with a capital H, who are members of organisations such as the BHA, are a subset of atheists who choose to subscribe to a shared set of values and ideas. You read and hear things starting with, "Humanists believe that..."

This type of subset of atheists is definitely a community with a shared set of principles and philosophical beliefs, and which campaigns for legal changes and promotes a world view.

I agree with much of what these Humanist groups stand for (e.g. the separation of church and state, absence of bishops in the Lords, etc.) but I decided to cease my involvement because I did not agree that just because I was an atheist, I should subscribe to a set philosophical position.

Atheists and theists are people. As a species, people <<need to meet up or share a culture>>. I do my meeting up and sharing a culture mainly through being part of the Morris dance community, but also, to a lesser extent, being a motorcyclist, cyclist, dinghy sailor, concertina player, and even by participating in this forum.
Currently, there's an interesting abridged reading on BBC Radio 4 of a book about humanism, the general origin of humanities, and it's development. Fascinating.
 
Au contraire: l once taunted a mate of mine - a strident, militant, proselytising atheist; a positive vegan of atheists - about something l overheard on the radio: A group of atheists who met every Sunday to discuss their lack of beliefs. The cherry on top of this irony cake was that they met in a disused church, and their speaker would address them from its pulpit.

:rofl:

maximus otter
I heard about that 'atheist church' too - I think it eventually faded away for obvious reasons.
 
Stephen Hawking claimed people are just computers that simply just turn off when we die.

Thirty miles from me is Nashville which just went through a school shooting and It goes back to the age old question why bad things happen to good people and young children ?
 
Stephen Hawking claimed people are just computers that simply just turn off when we die.

Thirty miles from me is Nashville which just went through a school shooting and It goes back to the age old question why bad things happen to good people and young children ?
What has that to do with atheism?
 
Back
Top