Don't marry an Atheist.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Atheists: Most disliked subset of the population, least likely to be found in prison and/or divorced.

Oh good, the militant atheist is here.

[racrguy]

Oh good, the militant atheist is here.

I didn't want to disappoint.

[talisman]

Oh good, the militant atheist is here.

There it is!

I don't even know if I'm an atheist any more. I've been reading about Naturalistic Pantheism and like it. I'm not sure if there is an actual name for what I believe, or if it could even be qualified as an already defined belief system.

Is it okay to chose a religion based on if you like it, as opposed to if you believe it deep down? Like based on what you would LIKE your existence to mean? This is something I've been considering a lot in the last year, along with all the ethical and moral dilemmas that come with that type of thinking. I guess this is as good a place as any to drop that and see what others opinions are one it.

[Maddhattter]

There it is!

I don't even know if I'm an atheist any more. I've been reading about Naturalistic Pantheism and like it. I'm not sure if there is an actual name for what I believe, or if it could even be qualified as an already defined belief system.

Is it okay to chose a religion based on if you like it, as opposed to if you believe it deep down? Like based on what you would LIKE your existence to mean? This is something I've been considering a lot in the last year, along with all the ethical and moral dilemmas that come with that type of thinking. I guess this is as good a place as any to drop that and see what others opinions are one it.

I think this would be a generally interesting discussion. However, don't you think it deserves it's own thread?

[talisman]

I think this would be a generally interesting discussion. However, don't you think it deserves it's own thread?

As dead as this forum is, no one would notice anyway.


Is there anything different in simply choosing a religion than being indoctrinated into one? Hell, it even sounds preferable; sample everything the world has figured out to offer up until this point and go from there.. Yet I still feel like it's "cheating" in a way, but there is no other true way for me to ever select any religious ideology as much as I've studied the "big" ones.

[racrguy]

Is it okay to chose a religion based on if you like it,

A great many people do this, I don't see a problem with it.

as opposed to if you believe it deep down?

Personally, I wouldn't say I subscribe to any belief system that I didn't have a good reason for believing/not believing. That being said, if you don't believe the core tenets of a particular religion, can you really say that you are a believer in that religion?

Like based on what you would LIKE your existence to mean?

You can give whatever meaning to your life you want to, that's up to you. Do you need a religion and all the things that go with it to do so, or are there certain parts of it that you like. There are certain parts of christianity I like, but you won't catch me calling myself a christian.

[Maddhattter]

As dead as this forum is, no one would notice anyway.

Understood. Though, I think that the reason this subforum is dead is generally because these kinds of discussions don't happen.

I don't even know if I'm an atheist any more.

By definition if you do not actively believe in a god/s, then you are an atheist. That doesn't mean that you've no religious affiliation. So, the question is "Do you believe in a god/s?". If your answer is anything other than "Yes", then you are an atheist.

I've been reading about Naturalistic Pantheism and like it.

Are you convinced of it's accuracy? If not, why would you believe it?

I'm not sure if there is an actual name for what I believe, or if it could even be qualified as an already defined belief system.

How are you defining belief system here? Any group of beliefs is a belief system.

Is it okay to chose a religion based on if you like it, as opposed to if you believe it deep down?

Are you asking if it's okay from a moral perspective? If so, I'd say that it's fine as long as you're getting out of it what you want to get out of it. Whether it be warm and fuzzies, a prebuilt social construct, or a job, I can see no real justification to say that it's wrong as long as you're not doing harm to others.

Like based on what you would LIKE your existence to mean? This is something I've been considering a lot in the last year, along with all the ethical and moral dilemmas that come with that type of thinking. I guess this is as good a place as any to drop that and see what others opinions are one it.

I don't see any reason that you couldn't do this, I'm just not sure why someone would. Is hope really that comforting when you know you're only going through the motions because that's the way you want it to be?

Is there anything different in simply choosing a religion than being indoctrinated into one?

I'm sure there are. However, indoctrination follows because one of the pillars of what defines a religion is doctrine.

Hell, it even sounds preferable; sample everything the world has figured out to offer up until this point and go from there.

This sounds like another way of saying that I have to sample everything to know what is poison compared what I am allergic to or what I will enjoy eating. If you're just using the basis of, "I want to believe it", then you're actively admitting that you don't believe it and you're just going through the motions.

Yet I still feel like it's "cheating" in a way, but there is no other true way for me to ever select any religious ideology as much as I've studied the "big" ones.

So, why not withhold judgement until one is presented to you that has evidence to support it? You'd be an atheist until that religion is found, that's assuming the religion you found does, in fact, have a deity.

[Baron Von Crowder]

As dead as this forum is, no one would notice anyway.


Is there anything different in simply choosing a religion than being indoctrinated into one? Hell, it even sounds preferable; sample everything the world has figured out to offer up until this point and go from there.. Yet I still feel like it's "cheating" in a way, but there is no other true way for me to ever select any religious ideology as much as I've studied the "big" ones.

people choose religions all the time, just look at prisons...

As far as making concerted effort to sample all, and choose; I dont know that I would be able to sample all, mostly because there are some really stupid things that some of them do, IMHO.

The common theme with all the core beliefs in most religions is a path to good living anyway, so I don't know that indoctrination is necessary on the core level. Do you believe or agree with the rest of it is where the question comes in.

[talisman]

Understood. Though, I think that the reason this subforum is dead is generally because these kinds of discussions don't happen.



By definition if you do not actively believe in a god/s, then you are an atheist. That doesn't mean that you've no religious affiliation. So, the question is "Do you believe in a god/s?". If your answer is anything other than "Yes", then you are an atheist.



Are you convinced of it's accuracy? If not, why would you believe it?



How are you defining belief system here? Any group of beliefs is a belief system.



Are you asking if it's okay from a moral perspective? If so, I'd say that it's fine as long as you're getting out of it what you want to get out of it. Whether it be warm and fuzzies, a prebuilt social construct, or a job, I can see no real justification to say that it's wrong as long as you're not doing harm to others.



I don't see any reason that you couldn't do this, I'm just not sure why someone would. Is hope really that comforting when you know you're only going through the motions because that's the way you want it to be?



I'm sure there are. However, indoctrination follows because one of the pillars of what defines a religion is doctrine.



This sounds like another way of saying that I have to sample everything to know what is poison compared what I am allergic to or what I will enjoy eating. If you're just using the basis of, "I want to believe it", then you're actively admitting that you don't believe it and you're just going through the motions.



So, why not withhold judgement until one is presented to you that has evidence to support it? You'd be an atheist until that religion is found, that's assuming the religion you found does, in fact, have a deity.

The problem with determining a belief in a god(s) is the very definition of the word itself, which I don't find value in. Do ants consider us gods? Why do most people assume god is benevolent or even aware of us? How significant are we in comparison to other possible civilizations and their progress we have yet to encounter? There are so many questions before you even get to the god question it makes it very difficult to have a conversation assuming normal parameters. When I disassemble those possibilities, the result is that despite all we've learned, we really still don't know jack shit. We've done well at explaining the literal physical world, yet our very existence makes no real sense. Or limitations on understanding size means we really don't know what is out there beyond the universe, or how small or large we really are.

I'm not convinced of any belief systems accuracy. I'm talking about this in regards to traditional Religion. However, certain parts of certain theologies strike my imagination and stick in my head. Maybe there is some reason for it. Or perhaps it's just absurd. I tend to be a fan of good stories. The better ones stick with me, and it has felt lately as if I am constructing something from a combination of belief systems. In short: I'm probably going insane, or going to start a cult soon. I can't tell if I believe these things, or just simply like the idea them. Either way I look at it, it doesn't seem to be too different from the way people just all of a sudden decide to be religious and subscribe to XXXXXXXXXX belief system. It's been a bumpy ride.

[Chili]

By definition if you do not actively believe in a god/s, then you are an atheist. That doesn't mean that you've no religious affiliation. So, the question is "Do you believe in a god/s?". If your answer is anything other than "Yes", then you are an atheist.

I disagree with "anything other than yes" being an atheist. An atheist is someone who specifically believes that no god(s) exist.

While I do not "believe in" a specific deity or deities, I do think it's possible that such a thing exists. I just have not been convinced, and lack the faith to "believe", one way or the other. That differs significantly from the definition of atheist.

Although still a little broad, I would revise the answers to mean the following:
Yes: Theist
No: Atheist
Maybe: Agnostic

[racrguy]

I disagree with "anything other than yes" being an atheist. An atheist is someone who specifically believes that no god(s) exist.

While I do not "believe in" a specific deity or deities, I do think it's possible that such a thing exists. I just have not been convinced, and lack the faith to "believe", one way or the other. That differs significantly from the definition of atheist.

Although still a little broad, I would revise the answers to mean the following:
Yes: Theist
No: Atheist
Maybe: Agnostic

This is inaccurate, however it is a very common misconception. Theist/atheist is a claim to belief, and gnostic/agnostic is a claim to knowledge.



I fit into the agnostic atheist category. I do not have a belief in a god, yet I cannot claim to know that there is no god. Anyone that claims to know either way has a lot of explaining to do, IMO.

[Baron Von Crowder]

how can you possibly know if a god does or does not exist?

[Chili]

This is inaccurate, however it is a very common misconception. Theist/atheist is a claim to belief, and gnostic/agnostic is a claim to belief.

That chart is someone's opinion based on their phraseology. Clearly you can get down into minutia, but I'm operating based on the following simple definitions from merriam-webster.com:

the·ism - belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

athe·ist - one who believes that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

[Maddhattter]

The problem with determining a belief in a god(s) is the very definition of the word itself, which I don't find value in. Do ants consider us gods? Why do most people assume god is benevolent or even aware of us? How significant are we in comparison to other possible civilizations and their progress we have yet to encounter? There are so many questions before you even get to the god question it makes it very difficult to have a conversation assuming normal parameters.

These are good questions. None of which I can answer definitively. Though some have some research and evidence to support conclusions. However, I'm still not convinced that any of these questions have any bearing on the existence of a deity. Wouldn't a god be a god regardless of what ants thought of us or what we thought of it? How would our comparison to another civilization affect it's existence?

When I disassemble those possibilities, the result is that despite all we've learned, we really still don't know jack shit. We've done well at explaining the literal physical world, yet our very existence makes no real sense. Or limitations on understanding size means we really don't know what is out there beyond the universe, or how small or large we really are.

I agree, there is still much for us to learn. However, in relationship to what we didn't know only a hundred years ago, we know quite a bit. We also have yet to find any demonstrable evidence to assume there is anything beyond our physical world. I don't know, nor could I honestly comment on, how much more there is that we don't know when compared to what we do know. After all, I'd have to know all that I don't know to claim that I do.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you state our existence makes no sense. If you're looking for meaning or purpose, why do you feel that has to be external or given? Why couldn't we just exist and make our own purposes? Why should my life be determined by anyone but me?

I'm not convinced of any belief systems accuracy. I'm talking about this in regards to traditional Religion. However, certain parts of certain theologies strike my imagination and stick in my head. Maybe there is some reason for it. Or perhaps it's just absurd.

It could also be that you've heard it all your life and people are more likely to believe what they've been told repeatedly. It could be that you're bowing to peer pressure. There's no shame in that, we all do it to some extent or another. We're an empathetic, social species. We attempt to conform to a great extent. Living in the US, we're surrounded by christianity. So, christian ideas and concepts tend to stick out to us more when we look at other religions. However, our social values color that lens as well. So, when we look at other religions, the doctrine that confirms what we already agree with will generally stick out far more than anything else. This is the very definition of confirmation bias, and we all fall prey to it.

I tend to be a fan of good stories. The better ones stick with me, and it has felt lately as if I am constructing something from a combination of belief systems.

As long as you remember that your belief system has no right to govern anyone else, believe what you want. If you feel that the raliens are right, have at it. Of course, when you start telling people that the raliens are right/correct/accurate or start trying to implement your beliefs into legislation, people like me are going to start asking and/or demanding that you first demonstrate the accuracy of your claim.

In short: I'm probably going insane, or going to start a cult soon. I can't tell if I believe these things, or just simply like the idea them. Either way I look at it, it doesn't seem to be too different from the way people just all of a sudden decide to be religious and subscribe to XXXXXXXXXX belief system. It's been a bumpy ride.

Everyone looks for different things in their churches, temples, etc. Some look for specific doctrines, others specific social structures, and some only look for the safety of the familiarity that comes with being someplace you've grown up being told is safe. Your search will, ultimately, conform to what you find important.

As for me, I'm determined to believe as many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. I try not to let any subject sit as an exception to that. Others, like yourself as my reading of your posts seem to indicate, will fudge that a little to remain hopeful that what we go through isn't just a blind process of cause and effect. There's nothing wrong with that either. I just refuse to be that person.

I always have a standing challenge to anyone and everyone. If you can demonstrate the truth of your claim, in a way that is reliable, demonstrable and repeatable, I will gladly adopt it. Until then, I will dismiss it as untrue.

[racrguy]

how can you possibly know if a god does or does not exist?

Exactly. Logically there is only one choice when carried out to its end, agnostic atheism.

That chart is someone's opinion based on their phraseology. Clearly you can get down into minutia, but I'm operating based on the following simple definitions from merriam-webster.com:

the·ism - belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

athe·ist - one who believes that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Etymology is important.

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (see theo-) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

The adjective is first recorded 1870.

gnostic (adj.)
"relating to knowledge," 1650s, from Greek gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "known, perceived, understood," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know).

All from: http://www.etymonline.com/