jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (444 posts)

Would you call Atheism a religion?

  1. 0
    il Scetticoposted 3 years ago

    Many believe Atheism is not a religion because it does not follow traditional beliefs.  Others believe it is a religion because it has to do with existentialism.  What do you think?

    1. kess profile image61
      kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If religion can be described as an ideological world view which utilizes individual active thinkers to establish, strengthen and perpetuate itself, by garnering more individual active thinkers, then Atheism and Traditional religion is exactly the same.

      Methods vary but intent remain the same.

      1. 59
        lifegamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Very well put...sounds alot like politics, too. smile

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This one is a bit of a no brainer.

      Religion is defined as

      the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.

      Using this definition Atheism is not a religion.

      1. 0
        il Scetticoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Where did you get this definition for religion?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          New Oxford American Dictionary

      2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
        IAmAnAtheistposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Completely agree.

      3. 59
        lifegamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Atheists at least believe in Self, Yes?  And those that I know are fairly good at pitting science vs. religion. (?)

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Atheist's believe in Self? What are you talking about?

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What I gathered from this is that Atheists believe more in themselves and their own powers rather than relying on a "God" tp act and choose for them

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have no powers. I thought it was the Christians that believe in free will?

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Powers as in ability, Not anything supernatural

            2. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well said.  This is very much the belief of the LaVeyan Satanists.  Those are Satanists who belief in the Church of Satan's beliefs founded by Anton LeVey and not the devil themselves.

              I would say this is a very mild form of atheism.  Both trust in their own abilities and think they don't need any God.   Whereby all of these Satanists believe they are their god and believe in worshiping the self, many atheists just don't believe and that doesn't resemble Satanism at all.

              Did you know that Seth McFarlane, creator of "The Family Guy" is a Satanist and atheist? Both (not all atheists) have the agenda of trying to eradicate Christianity by saying it is a cancer and is for stupid people.

              See this video about "The Family Guy".

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSSZn9SxMrQ

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The funny thing is that there are also some Christians that also believe in their own abilities and realistically on some levels don't need God either. I'm not going to dig into this because this will open a whole new can of worms

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Then they aren't truly Christians then, are they?

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why would they not truly be Christians? I'm very curious. Note, I said on some levels. In my opinion, there are some Christians that rely wayyyyy more on God than truly necessary. But this is going into a whole other realm that some would not even want to entertain.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I tried to watch your video, but was only able to get half way through. I had to stop when the narrator said "If people continue to watch Family Guy it will bring a complete moral collapse of society... and people will be stealing and killing and there will be no structure or order left in society... pure anarchy."

                I'm not a Family Guy fan and tried to prevent my kids from watching it when they were young, but it runs on many channels all day long, but the above description is over the top.

    3. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those who believe that atheism is a religion because it deals with existentialism are wrong.  Existentialism is a philosophy, not a religion.

      1. pacecharging profile image61
        pacechargingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Very important difference and well said.

        1. 59
          lifegamerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Religions are based in philosophies, are they not?

          1. WiccanSage profile image95
            WiccanSageposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A religion can contain a philosophy; a philosophy doesn't need to take the shape of religion.

    4. 54
      Shakespearposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Giving Atheist the name alone acknowledges that they are a group, and yes a religion.  Their mission statement is God does not exist.  They don’t need a building or an alter or collection plates etc. etc. to be called a religion.  I would accept that the God describe in the bible does not exist but to make the statement that nothing created us is a bit naive.  Example: Some people believe in Ghost some do not , but both are irrelevant  to the reality of weather they exists or not.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe it's naive to jump to the conclusion that something made us without all the required information.

    5. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If this is the definition of religion, yes.

      4
      : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


      I cannot prove that the last integer of pi, exists for example. Nevertheless there is a ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The ratio exists, the exact figure can not be shown or known.
      Scientist and mathematicians still are trying to compute the value of pi and I think its up to 10 trillion digits.

      When an atheists claims: There is no evidence of the existence of God. There is no evidence of the last integer of pi, yet the ratio exists. I think,  It is a category or induction error to assume that the last integer of pi has to be computed or the ratio just does not exist. No, it just does not exist that way. We observe the temporal and physical via the temporal and physical, so I think it creates a bias.  Thats just an example.

      If there were no life in the universe would the universe still exist? Who would there be, to make that claim? Based upon what observation of empirical evidence? Yet the universe could exist without observers, because truth is not contingent on observers.  Especially if there was an observer and he had this "belief"  that universes should exist within the parameters they desire as opposed to how they might in fact actually be. Without a claim of experiential or inference; agnosticism is less faith driven than atheism and more rational, in my opinion.

      1. 0
        il Scetticoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely loved this comment.  I'm a big fan of analogies and you tied it in very well and made it logical.

    6. OutWest profile image60
      OutWestposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If it is a religion it certainly isn't very organized. lol

      1. pacecharging profile image61
        pacechargingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just to play devil's advocate, why must a religion be organized?

    7. 0
      Lybrahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is not a religion.  They don't believe in anything.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, Atheists have beliefs. They just don't believe in God.

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Atheists do have beliefs. The only belief they lack is a belief in God (This is mostly due to a lack of acceptable evidence for them).

    8. dspallino profile image61
      dspallinoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      OP: I don't consider it to be a religion.

    9. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are two types of atheists.  Those who just don't believe in God and don't care and those who go out of their way to make people believe in the way they do especially set up sites like jesusneverexisted.com

      The latter is more of a movement with Dawkins as the Pope.

    10. Oaces profile image60
      Oacesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Too much for my brain right now.. Ask a Theologian?

    11. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A theism meaning without theism or without religion. It is obvious it is not a religion, It is not an ideology either. It means one thing only, we have no belief in the christian god or any conscious creator.

      Some think this is a belief. Philosophically having a belief or faith about atheism is not a strong position to take. Atheism just means lack of belief. Christians believe, atheists do not. It does not mean atheists believe there is no god. You can't prove there is no god any more than you can prove there is one. So the only rational position is one of lack of belief, not belief of lack. Same goes for anything that is speculative like bigfoot or invisible pink squirrels, or anything the imagination can come up with that can't be falsified..

      Physicalism or materialism is a science based philosophy which some have made into atheist religions. Pantheism, for example. But it is only a religion in that it has a model for existence like religions do. It even gives moral directives.

      Atheism does not have a moral philosophy, or a model for existence. It tells you nothing at all about what a person does believe if anything. It tells you only one thing they do not believe.

    12. Neall profile image85
      Neallposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If one cares enough to promote his or her atheistic beliefs then it seems to me that atheism has become their religion. On the other hand there is agnosticism -- now those folks simply don't care. Nothing religious about that.

    13. Iamsam profile image65
      Iamsamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, it is not a religion.  A religion is a set of rules and regulations.  Because Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their ideas about the cosmos and human nature, they tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good answer, But this only accounts for one definition of religion. There is a second definition of religion that is more personalized and does not necessarily mean that any of the other things you mentioned are part of it. You just spoke of the organized definition of religion.

    14. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Atheism is an ethical belief and practice.  It is not a religion.  The basis of a religion is to have a relationship with a deity, god, or higher power.   
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8544163_f248.jpg

    15. 0
      Mark Knolesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

    16. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago

      It depends on the atheist. I've met atheists who don't believe and their demeanor is such that I would not label them religious. However, the atheists who appear to believe they have a moral imperative to call believers onto the carpet for their beliefs are, in my mind, religious.

      I know these types will vehemently disagree, but I think their disagreement comes from a basic difference of opinion as to what defines religious behavior. I see it as little more than something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience. Claiming a moral imperative is little different from the Christian belief that drives evangelism. I don't consider them two sides to the same coin. It's the same side of the same coin with the same value, just minted at a different location.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I've never met an atheist that feels a moral imperative to call believers on the carpet.

        Ones that think they are smarter, better educated, think better, etc. but never one with that moral imperative.  Ones that will try to stamp out religion wherever found either in reaction to religious proselytizing or demands that all conform to their belief, but never a moral imperative.

        I've even met a few that almost wear their atheism as a badge of some kind, probably in reaction to religious doing the same, but the reason is far more base than a moral imperative.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I used the term 'moral imperitave' specifically because I read it in a post by an atheist here on Hub Pages. After I finished laughing, I thought about it. Then laughed again.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think I would too.  While I do find the logical reasoning abilities as well as the knowledge base of some of the far out religious nuts to be pretty sad, I certainly don't have a moral imperative to "help" them "improve".

            Not only are they happy where they are, the golden rule prevents any "imperative" that I force teach them.

        2. gmwilliams profile image86
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Concur, atheists DON'T bother nor harangue other people for their beliefs.  Atheists state their beliefs and let it BE.  I have never met an atheists who insist that their belief and philosophy are the only valid and legitimate ones.  They are on a higher plane than that.

          1. 0
            Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8705381_f248.jpg


            http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8705382_f248.jpg


            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8705385_f248.jpg

            Atheists don't harangue other people for their beliefs??? Atheists state their beliefs and let it BE??? You never met an atheist who insist their belief and philosophy are the only valid and legitimate one???

            If that is the case, then you have lived under a rock or never met an atheist.

            I actually can't find an example of an atheist that states their belief WITHOUT putting other beliefs down.

            1. gmwilliams profile image86
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I have met many atheists and they are the nicest and most reasonable of people.  They do not condemn others.  They have a live and let live attitude!

              1. 0
                Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I have met many atheists that are nice people, too. But to say they do not instigate long arguments or only state their own beliefs without putting down others is completely false.

                I don't know you from Adam and you might have never met an Atheist who has done these things, but that equates with the Duck Dynasty guy saying all of the African Americans he met were happy under segregation. You can't prove him wrong, since he is saying it was his experience, but it is highly unlikely. You know what I mean?

                1. 0
                  Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  To expand on that, I would say that 99.9% of Atheists have not tried to convert me or tell me I am wrong. Maybe some in college that go overboard like most when they believe something at such an impressionable age, but otherwise I have had good experiences.

                  The attacks are from those that are out of sight and out of mind and are protected with anonymity, such as groups that post billboards or people on the internet. Others are the ones that protest things like public crosses and are protected by the pack.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I do think you will find general agreement among atheists that public funds, land and buildings should not be used for religious icons.  I also think that they are NOT wrong in protesting that their tax money and public land or buildings are being used to promote a specific religion - it is after all illegal to do so.

                    1. Dr Lamb profile image61
                      Dr Lambposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Imagine if the Mormons didn't have to pay taxes?

                    2. 0
                      Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      You will get no argument from me on that because I would not like the shoe to be on the other foot. With that said, it can be done respectfully, which is rarely done in the dealings of politics and religion.

                  2. Dr Lamb profile image61
                    Dr Lambposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ever wonder why we need anonymity?

                    1. 0
                      Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      I can honestly say I haven't

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What do you think explains how anyone could possibly claim that "Atheists don't harangue other people for their beliefs" when they do just that 24/7/365 here?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Not much explains that strange behavior, but one thing does.  The worldview they are most often "going after...."  Christianity.

                This is a clue from logic, reason and truth and facts, if people care to see it.  I think most don't want to see how ironic that is.  Truth stands, hardly needing defense, and will be the most threatening to other worldviews that don't have truth and facts as their base.  People COULD always consider abandoning worldviews that don't give sufficient reason, evidence, logic, etc.  Instead, we often see what we see.

          2. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Trust me, there are atheists who won't leave you alone until you abandon Christianity.  Like Christians that threaten atheists with hell, there are atheists who keep insisting Christians are stupid and delusional.  Both are trying to undermine the belief of the other.

            So be neutral, they need to stop making atheists churches.

    17. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago

      I would say that it is a religion for the person is basing their precepts and concepts on what they believe.

      People used to believe in Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite's etc. entities which we recognized as non-existent. Believing is a faith-based concept.

      The murderous pastor Jim Jones believes in himself.

    18. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

      No. 

      If atheism is a religion, bald is a hairstyle.

      1. johndnathan profile image89
        johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Amen! ... er I mean... Math!

      2. kess profile image61
        kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why do bald people use barbers, hair dressers, scissors razors etc...and other things designed for those who is interested in improving hair styles?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Bald is a hairstyle option for some and mandatory for most.

    19. johndnathan profile image89
      johndnathanposted 3 years ago

      No.  Atheism in its basic form is a lack of belief in a deity.  This is generally attributed to a lack of evidence supporting the existence of the deity.

      There are those that may try to force their Atheism on others, but this does not define Atheism as a religion.

    20. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago

      Okay, I've had it and I'm gonna blow - RIGHT HERE AND NOW!

      Atheism is not a religion.  A religion involves a deity.  Atheists do not believe in dieties.  At least, not all of them.  Maybe some of them do, I don't know.  For certain, they do not believe in a diety who interacts with humanity on any personal level.  Period.  They don't believe.  Why is this such an oft asked question?

      Let me tell you why.  If believers can call atheism a religion, then it justifies the attacks of the religious against the atheists (since two can play at that game, you know). 

      I've got news for you, folks.  NOTHING JUSTIFIES AN ABUSIVE ATTACK ON ANY HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANOTHER BELIEVES OR DOESN'T BELIEVE.

      The war of words that you wish to win with the atheist will never be won, dear believer, because neither side will stipulate to any truth which flows from the other's position. 

      Say I hand you a red ball and ask you what it is.  You're color blind.  You tell me that it is a ball.  Another person recognizes only the color, not the shape and says that it is red.  Are you both right?  Yes.  Partially.  But the only person who is completely and totally right is the person who can see that it is both RED and A BALL. 

      Believers are blind to every truth that comes from an atheist's mouth because they think their non-belief makes them a natural liar.  Atheists are often blind to every truth that comes from a believer's mouth because they think their very belief makes them irrational, hence they are must be irrational by nature.

      Can an atheist cling to his/her worldview with religious zeal?  Sure.  But lots, lots, lots of believers have watered down their faith and practice it with no zeal at all.  To stand the two next to each other, no one would recognize a difference between them.

      This question isn't even worthy of a decent internet troll. roll

      1. Marisa Wright profile image93
        Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wonderful!  If this was a Hub I'd share it and vote it up.  Got it in a nutshell.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, Marisa.  It's been driving me crazy since the post showed up, and I finally couldn't hold back.

      2. getitrite profile image81
        getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with most of what you've said here.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think I may have had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that caused me to make some generalizations.  If so, I apologize.  smile

      3. pacecharging profile image61
        pacechargingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        While I can appreciate your original post, I think to be fair we would have to properly define "Deity" - for instance, I believe Taoism is considered a religion, and I do not think they have any deities. That is just one example, and please correct me if I am wrong.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think you're right, in part.  Deity has been clearly defined, IMO.  While I think also that Taoism is considered a religion, because of lack of belief in a diety, I would call it either a life philosophy or a belief system.  smile  Similarly to secular humanism - as close as an atheist might ever come to a belief system, but certainly not a religion.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
            Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are correct, and the wisest Christian I've met concerning this topic. These things are complex and have to be broken down into their parts before they make sense. Religion is obviously a life philosophy and belief system. An atheist might have a life philosophy or belief system like Taoism and take that on as their religion. Some forms of Buddhism do not concern themselves with deity either. So an atheist might be a Buddhist as well. You can be both an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time.

            As many times as I have explained it, atheism means one thing and one thing only: We lack the belief that Christians and others have in god beings. But other than that we may have nothing else in common as a set, certainly not a life philosophy or belief system, or model of origins.

            Again, many atheists look to science for answers to origin. But many do not. 

            So while it may be complicated as to what an atheist might believe, the meaning of the word atheism is very clear, and clearly has nothing to do with religion in and of itself.

    21. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 3 years ago

      From my point of view

      Until an atheist can prove their belief, it is a believe.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They have no belief.  What's to prove?

        1. SpanStar profile image60
          SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If this was true then they really have no problem proving that God doesn't exist.

          1. waynet profile image45
            waynetposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            God doesn't exist, because this old man told me once that God is just an anagram of Dog and that this is the whole point about religion, people believe that most Dogs have balls, but quite often the Vet hacks them off to keep the Dog from humping your favorite Teddy bear....

            1. SpanStar profile image60
              SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Having read what you've written I'm not sure if we're in the same reality.

              1. waynet profile image45
                waynetposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We have Dogs yes?.....then we are! Dog spelt backwards is God, but Dogs spelt backwards is Sgod....it just doesn't make sense in this day and age if God was real, he would at least spell things right according to his own all mighty powers.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It didn't take with my dog. Every once and a while he tries to show affection to someones leg. I like how you got from the existence of God to a dog humping a teddy bear in one sentence. Made me laugh.

            3. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              *BEST ANSWER*

              1. waynet profile image45
                waynetposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I've been smoking Dog hair from another forum thread here....smile

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I guess I have to do this again.

            The definition of religion is

            "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion."

            Using this definition Atheism is not a religion.


            Actually we don't have to proof God doesn't exist, it's up to you to prove he does. That hasn't happened yet and I'm waiting.

            1. SpanStar profile image60
              SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              On the contrary, it is the nonbeliever who is concerned with the concept of God by believers. If one is certain of their position then they need to prove it. A scientist can't say gravity doesn't exist-until he can prove it.

              1. JMcFarland profile image90
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In the debate world, it is the person making the claim that bears the burden of period.  Some even go so far as to claim that the burden of proof rests on those making a positive claim.  If a believer is making the claim that a god exists, it is their responsibility to prove that position.  Most atheists don't claim "no gods exist".  They simply have a lack of belief in god.

                Do you need someone to prove to you that unicorns, Bigfoot or leprechauns don't exist, or would you be asking for evidence from the person that claims that they DO exist?  Can you prove to me right now that there is no such thing as a unicorn?

                1. SpanStar profile image60
                  SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I believe a young child having been told by a classmate that the unicorn exist with mind some proof or some reasonable explanation that they don't.

                  1. DzyMsLizzy profile image90
                    DzyMsLizzyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Gee--I heard that only virgins can see unicorns....  lol

                    1. johndnathan profile image89
                      johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Yeah, but the only way to tell if someone is a virgin is to see them not have sex.  I've seen virgins not have sex many times before, as I am a proficient virginity witness expert.

                  2. johndnathan profile image89
                    johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Here is why the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim of existence.

                    YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST!

                    1. kess profile image61
                      kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      So do not claim skmething does not exist....

                  3. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So what proof would you use to definitively, positively claim that unicorns don't exist?

                2. 0
                  il Scetticoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Seeing as both are making large claims, with believers of either side trying to back up with evidence for centuries, I'd say both sides need to prove they're "case".

                  Simply saying "I am 100% right until you prove me wrong" is not good enough.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What claim was she making?

                  2. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's the problem.  I didn't make a claim.  If you're claiming that god exists, you are making the claim, not me - and I'm asking you to prove it.  If god is as great as they say, it should be easy.

                  3. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Additionally, you ignored me request to prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      You do understand the difference between faith and fantasy?

              2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So you are saying that you believe in Santa Claus, fairies and unicorns, because no one has proved that they do not exist?

                1. SpanStar profile image60
                  SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  For a very long time I have heard that people live on other planets with absolutely no proof.

              3. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's funny. Yes a scientist CAN say gravity doesn't exist and they don't have to prove it doesn't, but others have to prove it does.

                We can't prove anything doesn't exist. We can't aliens don't exist, we can't prove dragons don't exist, we can't prove purple dragons don't exist. If I make the positive claim that I have a purple dragon in my basement you'd say prove it. Could you attempt to prove I don't?

                1. 54
                  Shakespearposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Repost from earlier

                  Giving Atheist the name alone acknowledges that they are a group, and yes a religion.  Their mission statement is God does not exist.  They don’t need a building or an alter or collection plates etc. etc. to be called a religion.  I would accept that the God describe in the bible does not exist but to make the statement that nothing created us is a bit naive.  Example: Some people believe in Ghost some do not , but both are irrelevant  to the reality of weather they exists or not.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Once again look at the definition of religion.

                    "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion."

                    Atheists do not believe or worship any superhuman or God therefor Atheism is no a religion.

                    This is not rocket science people.

                    1. 0
                      il Scetticoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      What makes this definition any more valid than another that includes Atheism as a religion?

                2. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey!  You stole my pet purple dragon!  I was wondering what happened to him.  He went missing.  Give fluffy back!

              4. getitrite profile image81
                getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's strange how ADULTS seem to get insanely desperate when faced with having to discard a belief in Santa Claus.  Desperate!

              5. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, according to some of the atheists I've met here, the burden of proof falls to us because we believe in the existence of something.

                Rad man actually used the example of  if he said he had a talking dog it would be up to him to prove that the dog talked because if someone else didn't believe it there would be no need to prove it didn't talk because he could come up with the statement that the dog only spoke in certain situations.

            2. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But there is more than one definition of the word religion. According to another definition, atheism can be considered a religion..

              Dictionary.com also defines religion as - a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.

              What I've noticed is that some define atheism as a lack of beliefs. Dictionary.com defines atheism as -the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

              so in looking at certain definitions, there are arguments that point to atheism being a religion and some that point to it not being a religion..

              I personally don't have a classification for it either way. Atheism is simply what it is.

          3. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This is an old, tired, worn out, and disingenuous argument.  The only reason an atheist will even tell a person God doesn't exist is because someone is telling them He does.  Until you can prove that God does exist, don't demand proof that He doesn't.  It sounds like nothing more than a 'nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.' to the reasonable people around you.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No need for atheists here.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why's that?  Because I've already got you covered? tongue  This is just such a .... less than reasonable argument.

            2. SpanStar profile image60
              SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is not I who is objecting to your belief but rather those who choose to object to my belief.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ummm...I think perhaps you're arguing solely from a personal, emotive point of view.  You don't even know what my belief is (or what I might not believe in) from what I've said here.  I've deliberately that personal information out of my posts.

                1. SpanStar profile image60
                  SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I do not believe my comments was focused primarily on you but rather only those who choose to fall in that category.

              2. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Which belief?  Do you believe that God exists?  If you tell someone that, they might ask for proof.  If you don't, you'll have plenty of interesting conversations about other things.

          4. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
            Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The problem here is that some people do not understand the difference between having a belief and not having a belief. I can not prove god does not exist so believing god does not exist would imply a faith in the matter. I lack the belief that a god does exist which is not the same as believing it does not.

            It seems to be a hard concept for some. It really isn't.

            A theism. Without theism. As opposed to with theism.

          5. A Thousand Words profile image80
            A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's backwards thinking. If you give me a lava rock, and tell me that when magical leprechauns existing in the leprechaun realm get really angry, lava on this plane is formed, and when they go to war in their realm, the lava builds up and the pressure causes a volcano somewhere in the world to erupt. When they calm down, the lava cools and becomes beautiful black rock. It's an interesting story, but why should I be the one to prove to you that is not what really takes place? Honestly, there's no real way for me to prove 100% that your leprechaun story isn't true, however, so here enters agnosticism.

            "Atheism," or more specifically a lack of belief in God/gods, is a default state. Any beliefs, in anything to do with that which cannot be seen with the naked eye (or tools that enhance said eye) or experienced by everyone without being a part of some special group with mystical exclusivism, are taught to you after you are introduced into the world. The burden of proof is on those teaching them. Simple as that.

    22. waynet profile image45
      waynetposted 3 years ago

      No

      As a species on this polluted planet we always label everything.....why not simply say a Spade is just a Spade!

    23. DzyMsLizzy profile image90
      DzyMsLizzyposted 3 years ago

      In a word, No.  As others have said, a religion, by definition, deals with belief in a diety of some sort.  Atheism denies the existence of such, so cannot fit the definition of a religion.  Period.

      1. 54
        Shakespearposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sure you are technically correct but what would you call a union of people that is based off a belief system and promotes an ideology which interpretations are considered as truth.  The definition of religion needs to be updated.

        1. johndnathan profile image89
          johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There is a slight difference between the Atheist and the religious in this regard.

          If a particular deity is proven to be true, and can be scientifically verified, then the Atheist will most likely agree.  The religious that already follow that deity won't have to switch and will become smug.  The religious that don't follow that deity probably won't, as it goes against their already preconceived beliefs.

          To summarize, an Atheist relies upon evidence to determine their position.  Since there is no evidence supporting the existence of any deities then the default position is a lack of belief.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why update it?  So you can claim atheism is a religion?

          It's not.  Live with it.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah.  What wilderness said.

            smile

        3. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are the American fraternities of Eagles, Moose, Elk, etc., religious organizations?

          Atheists are not religious.

          Atheism is not a religion.

          And who the heck woulda thunk that I would be the one irritated with this constant, erroneous assertion?

        4. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          what do you think an atheist's belief system is?  What do they support?

          If you were talking about secular humanism, I'd agree.  Atheists are all different - the only thing that we all have in common is a lack of a belief in a deity.

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What you have just said is so very profound. Atheists are all different. I know at least 4 different types here. But I have a question: do you personally think all Christians are the same?

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              no.  I don't think that all christians are the same - but there are some generalizations about christians that I feel justified in making because the common majority often behaves the same way.  Does that mean that all christians can fit into a nice cookie-cutter box?  No.  But speaking about "christians" at least when I do it, is in reference to the overwhelming majority that i've encountered in my life - and in the lives of the majority of people I know.  perhaps it's not fair to refer to them this way, since there are christians that don't fit the mold - but the mold exists because of the common mentality in regards to christianity in general.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Another profound statement, and one which I hope you understand that most of the sweeping generalizations you make toward Christians are generalizations that some Christians make of atheists (some of which you personally have taken offense to in other forum posts)?There is a common mentality that is made of atheists as well

                1. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  again, when I speak of "christians" i am speaking of the majority - not individual christians or denominations.  I am referring to the common ground that is typically assumed when someone calls themselves a "christian". 

                  when you're entering into a discussion with someone in real life (although not necessarily in the forums) if someone tells me that they are a christian, they don't usually say "i'm a christian and I'm a southern baptist, and I believe....) They don't trot out a list of doctrinal positions or explanations.  they assume that, at least in this country, there is a general idea of what that term means, and that most people are aware of it.  Does that mean that every christian believes exactly the same thing?  Of course not.  there are over 3000 denominations of christianity alone.  But in real life, I've found that people aren't as concerned with specific labels as they seem to be here.  If I make an incorrect assumption about what "christian" means to the person that I'm conversing with, they're free to correct me.  They don't usually, however, jump all over it and get offended that I'm lumping them in with other "christians" that they personally disagree with.  I'm learning that things are much different on HP forums.

            2. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The only generalization that I can think of is that they all believe that Jesus Christ is a savior.  Other than that, the myriad of differences are even more varied than the 3800 different denominations.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Right on time. Another of my favorite atheists. Thank you for your response. Although I'm a little surprised that you didn't mention that you also generalize that Christians believe the same silly whimsical nonsense that is posted in a 2000 year old book. (LOL.. you surprise me sir. I've gotten used to it)

                1. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Very observant! lol lol

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I try...LOL

    24. Jyle Dupuis profile image89
      Jyle Dupuisposted 3 years ago

      Atheism means "without theism", enough said. That would be like asking if Anarchy should become a legitimate political party.

      1. 54
        Shakespearposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        One of the few people that make sense. Thank you Jyle Dupuis

    25. JMcFarland profile image90
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

      let me add a question.  If christianity has lost its meaning, and no one is supposed to assume what that word means, since there are so many different versions of it - why choose to label yourself as one? 

      If I tell someone that I'm an atheist, and they equate that to devil-worship or baby killing, I can always correct those misconceptions.  If I was uncomfortable with the term, I wouldn't use it.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A valid question, I think.  I'm not uncomfortable with the term personally.  I feel much the way you do in that I am always able to correct any misconceptions someone may have regarding my beliefs.  I tend to identify myself only when asked about my beliefs, rather than just throwing right out there that I'm a Christian.

        And I think that if one doesn't want to be identified with others who bear the same name, they have a right to be heard about what they believe as individuals.  For example, a woman who bears her husband's name cannot be expected to believe or condone everything every member of his family believes or condones.

        Just my two cents.

        1. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I completely agree.

          Do you agree, then, that there is a common "assumption" about what being a christian means, and while everyone is entitled to have their own interpretation of the scripture and their relationship god, it is not necessarily always a negative connotation to say "christians" when speaking to the group that collectively goes by that title?

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it isn't always negative connotations. But at the same time, there is sometimes an unfair standard placed on Christians

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If i really wanted to place an unfair stereotype on all christians, I would lump them all in with the likes of the Westboro Baptist church.  I don't.  I understand that they're the exception to the rule - and the rule itself has enough issues to deal with without figuring that crazy lot in.  Do you get what I'm saying?

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I get it totally.

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I do agree that there are common assumptions anytime a label of any sort is applied to someone.  I used to hate "Christians" because everyone I knew who identified themselves that way seemed to behave in a manner that was a complete antithesis of what I believed it to mean.  Then I met one woman who changed my mind.  I started then to look at each believer individually, although it's a difficult thing to do.   

            I think the biggest struggle in this particular situation is recognizing that there are Christians who are not fundamentalists...literalists...evangelicals.  When anyone in America hears "Christian" they think of those three groups because they are the most vocal.  To me, it is not a negative connotation.  I take no offense to it - but I will correct misconceptions about my own beliefs and others who believe as I do when I feel that it will benefit the conversation and further understanding.

            smile

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              understood.  Thank you very much for the clarification.

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A very deep and valid question. I'm also not uncomfortable with the term itself. Just like you aren't uncomfortable with the term atheist. A lot of it for me are the connotations and misconceptions regarding Christians, and as a result, Christianity. The actions of the majority are often attached to the minority as well. I personally catch the flack for some of the ideals that Mainstream Christians promote.

        1. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          i understand your position.  I guess my main point is that, knowing that the "majority" of christians fly the same flag - and that flag is not always positive - is it unfair to say "christians" in general terms, when there is an understood implication as to what that title means?  You have the right to express where you differ from the norm, and many people in these forums have.

          The one problem I have with the term 'atheist' is that a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means.  Atheists only don't believe in a god.  As someone else pointed out, the word itself means "without theism".  To therefore say that all atheists are secular humanists, for example, is a misconception.  A lot of us are - but that's not due to atheism.  It's due to an agreement with the ideas of secular humanism.  Do you get what I'm saying?  (i'm not very clear in my posts tonight, I guess)

          If I'm an atheist and a democrat, my atheism has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a democrat.  the misconception I encounter is that people assume that all atheists are nihilists or liberals or humanists, etc - and that's untrue.  Atheism has nothing to do with being a part of any of those groups.  All atheism is is a fundamental lack of a belief in a deity.

          Conversely, a lot of christians are republicans.  When you ask some of them why they're republicans, they say that republicanism embraces the moral values of their religion - therefore the fact that they're a christian has something to do with the fact that they're a republican.

          I have a feeling that I'm not making much sense.

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, you make a lot of sense to me. I'm following you just fine

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that you make sense.  I think that one of the biggest mistakes we all make is to assume that belief or non-belief automatically dictates how a person thinks, behaves, and interacts with others.  I'm politically quite liberal.  Far right Christians assume then that I have no faith.  I'm highly intelligent and critical in my thought processes so lots of atheists who assume that all believers are stupid don't quite know what to do with me.  I came to faith as an adult, so people who think all believers are indoctrinated sheep get confused when we converse about things like Scripture.

            I said to getitrite in another thread that it is extremely important to come into any dialogue from an objective place.  Assume that each party is interested in ultimately seeking and discovering truth, not in trying to win a debate.  Do not get emotional, do not attack with generalizations, and try not to take generalizations personally.  It's the red ball situation that I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread.  Everyone has a spark of truth in what they present in a dialogue, but we are so quick to dismiss it because of preconceived notions and assumptions that we only hear that what they say differs from what we say, rather than hearing the possible truth in what we all say.

            Now, I'm afraid I'm not making sense.  LOL

            Sorry. smile

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              you're making sense to me.  While I will most likely continue to use the word "christian" because it makes things easier without having to list out the multiple denominations, etc, I will be open to individuals who would like to clarify their own positions and correct any misconceptions I may have.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well...it's hard not to use the word when you're speaking of someone who identifies with that group.  I can't 'not' refer to you as an atheist.  BUT, I can refrain from lumping you in with 'militant' atheists, or making assumptions about your character based on your lack of belief.  I like you.  I think you're cool.  A little strident at times wink but then, aren't we all when we're passionate about something.  But, guess what?  I don't think you're going to burn in hell for eternity.  And, I personally think that if I face God on a day of judgment, it will mean a hell of a lot more to Him that I was kind to you and treated you like the decent human being that I believe you are than it would if I could count the number of times I'd threatened you with eternal damnation if you didn't turn away from your dissolute lifestyle.  I could throw a rock in a room full of Christians and find a whole bunch leading lives far more dissolute than yours or mine.

                smile

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I second this emotion.

                2. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  although we may disagree at times, I like and respect you too.  awww I feel the love

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you.  I appreciate the kindness.

                    And just for the sake of clarification, I should have put 'dissolute' in quotes.  I make no judgments on anyone's lifestyle...there's more than enough to judge in mine.

                    Feel the love?! Good! That's my goal!

                    big_smile

              2. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You have always been open to me. That's why I respect you a lot. I have learned a lot in reading your hubs as well as in conversation with you

                1. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  likewise

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    High Five!!

    26. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago

      I love the fact that here we have people seriously debating atheism and Christianity, instead of slinging insults at each other.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's great isn't it?  And happens so rarely.  big_smile

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It happens so rarely because sometimes comments get taken out of context which raises hackles...lol

        1. johndnathan profile image89
          johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          *hackle*hackle*hackle!*

          Harumph!

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, pfffft.  tongue

      3. 0
        il Scetticoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I was thinking the exact same thing.  It's usually complete mud-slinging "every body kill the person who doesn't share our beliefs" nonsense.  Actually seeing people interact with logic rather than irritated ignominies is quite refreshing.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Much funny thanks. Love to see "beliefs" and "logic" in the same sentence. Always makes me LOL

    27. SawyerTHEBEST profile image59
      SawyerTHEBESTposted 3 years ago

      lol nope

    28. f_hruz profile image78
      f_hruzposted 3 years ago

      Atheism is not a religion at all! They don't see any use for any gods for nature to function ... but see quite clearly the absurdity of religiosity in general - all of them - which most religious type are not able or unwilling to grasp!

    29. starneri profile image61
      starneriposted 3 years ago

      Atheism is not a religion. Religion follows a doctrine, a dogma that has to be obeyed at all times. The dogma of each religion, although sometimes in conflict, should be adhered by its followers. Atheists don't have a dogma, they are freethinkers. And sometimes atheists are in conflict with each other because they have contradicting beliefs. But when it comes to God, for them it doesn't make any sense since none can provide any evidence of its existence, not even God himself.

      1. JMcFarland profile image90
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

        1. johndnathan profile image89
          johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Really?  I not collect stamps all the time. It's a very time-consuming hobby though.

    30. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

      Seeing many of the usual suspects involved in this thread, and having had some good conversations with many of you in the past, I have to ask, do you not get tired of having this same tired never-ending discussion over and over again? Does this question really warrant 6+ pages worth of discussion?

      Atheism is not a religion. A belief system, yes, but not a religion. Anytime anyone fills in the unknown with something other than "I don't know", it's a belief. I'm pretty sure it's as simple as that. Is there really anything to say beyond that?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but it's not a belief system, either.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Explain.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You can't be serious.

          2. johndnathan profile image89
            johndnathanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I can help.  Atheism is a lack of belief.  It is not saying "I don't believe in a god, because I believe there is no god."  It is "I find no valid evidence to believe in a god so I do not have a belief."

            It is possible that mankind will prove the existence of a god or gods, however man will never prove that a god or gods do not exist.  It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.  They can however make statements such as "it seems more likely that this particular deity does not exist".  Science is of course always open to and ready to change if evidence is produced.... provided it can be verified with the scientific method.

            Also I'd like to use an analogy that JMcFarland used only an hour ago.

            "If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Okay. So then how do you define agnosticism?

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Agnosticism: A person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

                Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, so by your definition, one makes a determination regarding the existence of a God, the other doesn't. Because the existence of God cannot be objectively/factually known, how is making a determination on the topic when it cannot be known for certain not a belief?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    First, those definitions belong to the New Oxford American Dictionary.

                    Second, if I don't believe in something then it's a disbelief not a belief.

                    You make the claim that you believe so and so, I say I don't believe (disbelieve) so and so.

              2. JMcFarland profile image90
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I disagree with rad's definitions.  (that he got from the dictionary)  gnosticism speaks of knowledge.  Agnostics do not have knowledge of a god.  Theism speaks to belief.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a god and agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of a god

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting, but most who call themselves Agnostic (as I once did) were given the knowledge of a God, but still don't have faith or a disbelief in God. Meaning they are undecided even with knowledge. Using your definition we could say that even Atheists don't have enough knowledge to believe in God, so we could be also called Agnostic.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think gnosis in this instance refers to absolute knowledge or certainty.  Christians, for example, claim to know for certain that their god exists, despite the lack of evidence, so they are gnosticism.  Agnostics may have heard of god, but they do not know him to be true.

                    1. 0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      J, that's always been my understanding of agnostic as well.  In short, a-theism is without belief in God;  a-gnostic is without knowledge of God.  They may believe in the possibility, but have no certain knowledge.

                    2. 0
                      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      If they have heard of God then they have knowledge of God. We all have the same knowledge, it's the faith that changes. Mo has faith, I have a disbelief and the Agnostic has neither faith or the disbelief in God just as the definition states.

          3. JMcFarland profile image90
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Is it a belief system to NOT believe in Bigfoot or aliens because of a lack of evidence?

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Aliens and bigfoot aren't a valid comparison. We're talking about existentialism here. We undoubtedly exist. The universe undoubtedly exists. Beyond that we don't KNOW anything. Some believe there is a God who created existence, others believe existence formed on its own with no deliberate/intelligent aid, others believe its always been here and didn't begin at all. But we all believe something where we cannot KNOW. You have to. Whether or not you profess your beliefs externally, internally you believe one over another and the rest of your worldview is built around and informed by beliefs regarding those things that can't be known.

              Okay, so you don't believe in God. That means God is not part of your belief system. Your belief system where existence is concerned is an existence that doesn't include a God.

              Therefore, atheism is an existential belief system.

              1. JMcFarland profile image90
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, so what would you call a belief system that includes a lack of a belief in unicorns, pixies or giants?  What do you call your lack of a belief in something?

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  A-mythicism? Doesn't matter as its beside the point. The point is if somebody claims to be an atheist then they are saying that the CAUSE that resulted in existence as it is today does not involve a God in their view. Until we can know for sure what the CAUSE of existence is, any answer other than "I don't know" is part of your belief system. Atheism is an existential belief system that does not include a deity. But it's still a belief system.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Can we say that our disbelief in the giant spaghetti monster is a belief system? Is it a belief or a disbelief?

                    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      That means the giant spaghetti monster is not part of your belief system. Doesn't mean you don't have one, just that a spaghetti monster isn't part of it.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Existentialism is not exclusive to atheism and existentialism is not a belief system, it's a theory or approach.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I made a mistake by trying to use the word 'existentialism' in the same way I use 'existential', when technically, according to online dictionaries at least, there's a difference. If my use of that word has caused confusion I apologize, but I think what I'm saying should be pretty clear. I mean 'existential' as in "of, relating to, or dealing with existence".

                  We all have beliefs where existence is concerned. Atheism is a belief system that does not include a God as part of, or the creator of, existence.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That may have been my error then, but a belief in my own existence has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in God's existence.
                    If we use existential as a philosophy then existential concerns the the theories of existentialism.
                    If we are using it as a logic then we are affirming the existence of a thing.

                    I guess I was using it as a philosophy.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Some folks have beliefs, others don't. Those, much like yourself, have a poor understanding of the world around them because they believe in things rather than understand, causing them to come to false conclusions based on false premises. Others have an understanding of the world around them and don't require believing in things, but rather admit to not knowing something rather than attempt to create false premises and conclusions.

                    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I get what you're saying, and you're right. Beliefs can cause you to miscomprehend the facts and reach false conclusions. Much like your beliefs about me and how I look at the world have led you to the false conclusions that I have a poor understanding of the world around me and why.

                      I'm not sure whether or not you count yourself amongst those that have an understanding of the world around them, but in the past you have stated that the universe just formed itself on its own and that the abiogenesis of life just happened on its own. These are your beliefs, that this is not only possible, but actually happened. This is not known for certain, but you still believe it to be true. And you form your understanding of the world around these beliefs. Your belief system revolves around the idea that something can come from nothing given the right conditions. You don't admit that we don't actually know that that's what happened, and even go so far as to brazenly tell others they are wrong, or that they just have a poor understanding, when they don't agree with you. Your faith in your beliefs is strong.

                      What you don't seem to understand is that my views are based on the exact same facts about the world as yours. I know where the facts end and the speculation begins, and I just try to point out how these same facts make sense from a 'God does exist' viewpoint. You and I just fill in the blanks regarding what's not known differently, based on our differing philosophies. But because your faith in your beliefs is so strong, you conclude that I must not have a very good understanding of the world around me or I'd agree with you.

                      That's my whole point. To say you're an atheist requires belief. In this case, it's the belief that the universe and life could have just happened all on their own. Because these things definitely exist, an atheist mindset requires the belief that they could just come about all on their own, though this is not known for certain. That's a belief.

    31. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

      JMcfarland and Motown2Chitown,

      I'm afraid you're misunderstanding. Like you said, JMc, specific theories have nothing to do with it. The fact is, the universe and everything in it does exist. Life. Us. If you do not believe in a higher power then you also don't believe in its various explanations behind existence existing. But because existence does exist it has to be accounted for. Whether you equate the two or not, they are not separate. You can subscribe to established theories like Big Bang, evolution, or the various theories regarding abiogensis, or something else entirely. Just something that does not require the need for a God of any kind. The belief is that existence can and does exist without a God because existence does in fact exist. Therefore, you believe that existence can be as it is today without a creator. Because we do not know for certain how existence exists, or whether or not a God was involved or not, it is the belief of the atheist that however it happened, it is indeed possible without a God.

      Personally I subscribe to the Big Bang theory. Besides the fact that it offers a plausible explanation for how the universe and all the stars and planets took shape, it also describes all the universe coming about from a single point, which sounds just about right to me. The primary problem with that scenario in a God-less existence is accounting for that singularity made up of all the matter in the universe that had to be there initially. And I subscribe to the theory of evolution. Forging life through struggle, competition, and adaptation makes sense.  However, evolution doesn't account for the actual beginning of life, nor does it account for the inherent determination every living thing has to survive and procreate, the very instinctual drive that propelled life to evolve as it has. Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and the seas, that explains the propulsive nature of life to me. I also don't see the efficiency and effectiveness of all the variations of evolved characteristics; limbs, lungs, eyes many different times over, etc, as being the result of a truly random mutating process, or gene-replicating 'mistakes'. Even given the extensive timeline. And that goes even more-so for the conscious, self-aware, reasoning human mind. And as far as the actual abiogenesis of life happening on its own, that requires accepting that a molecule in the primordial pool just happened to start replicating all on its own, developing the ability to replicate itself exactly, presumably accidentally, without the benefit of prior generations aiding the process.

      Basically, science and God do not contradict in my eyes. They coexist. And one informs of the other.

      1. JMcFarland profile image90
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You said a lot that I cannot make heads or tails of, and I'm frankly not really interested in figuring out how a believer reconciles god and science - it's all spin theory.

        My only question is why?  Why do you have to assume that atheism is a belief system when multiple people have explained to you repeatedly in relatively simple language that you don't.  I don't know how life began.  It's fascinating, and I'd love to learn more, but frankly I don't really care right now.  I have too much going on.  I exist because my parents had sex.  I don't care how the universe began, or if it began at all.
        This is far more cynical than I like to be, and I'm just trying to accentuate a point.  The point is that I don't believe in a god, or a creator or a deity of any kind.  I don't have to explain how we exist or why or anything else, for that matter.  My atheism is a term that describes my lack of a belief in a god.  Period.  I don't know how else to explain this to you.  All you're doing is saying "yes it is yes it is yes it is because I don't want to listen to what anyone else is saying because I want this to be true" while practically EVERYONE else is saying "no it isn't" and trying to explain why.  We're at an impasse.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Whether or not you care to think about it or acknowledge it makes no difference. That just means you haven't really thought your view out very far. I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful. It's just the truth. You can just stop at your parents if you like, but the story doesn't stop there. It keeps going. Belief/disbelief in God cannot be separate from this. The fact that you exist had to happen somehow and ultimately has to be accounted for, regardless of whether or not you choose to pursue it. The fact that you don't even think about it just means you're that certain as to not even feel the need to question. That's faith in an unsubstantiated belief.

          Anything accepted as truth, when there is no empirical evidence to prove it to be so, is a belief.


          be·lief ....
          an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
          - something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion
          - a religious conviction

          1. JMcFarland profile image90
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Its the truth according to you.  Its your opinion, and nothing more.  I'm sick of being told that I have a belief system just because I define myself as someone without a belief in god.  You do not have an additional belief system due to your lack of a belief in unicorns or pixies.  A lack of a belief does not automatically constitute a belief in something else.  I DO have a belief in the origins in life (the above psst was just an example for effect alone) but it has nothing to do with my atheism.  I'm sorry that is either to hard for you to understand our accept, but that's the way it is.  Insist SGML you want, but you're in no position to tell someone who actually is an atheist what they do or do not believe, our which of their beliefs are linked when you don't share those beliefs our opinions.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just because I'm not an atheist doesn't mean I can't understand. I do get what you're saying. I get how you see it. You're not getting me because you're saying it's my opinion. If you really think about it, it isn't. These aren't separate topics with each having separate belief systems. There is one belief system you adhere to. It's the blanket that covers everything else you don't know for sure. It's just how the mind works. It builds its concept of reality using sensory perception and reason. Everybody has one to some extent because no one knows everything. Your beliefs can be informed by knowledge of facts, they can be based on something you were told by someone you trust, they can be shaped by your own ponderings and studies and reason, and they can change over time as you change, but unless it's something that is an objectively verifiable fact, it is a belief you treat as truth.

              As far as I can tell the disconnect here seems to be more based on how you think of the word 'belief', or maybe what I mean by 'belief system'. It's just a guess on my part, in trying to better understand where you're coming from. Belief doesn't have to be just about whether or not God is real, or unicorns or pixies for that matter. It's anything and everything you believe to be true that can't be proven to be true. Therefore, if you are an atheist and do not believe in a higher power of any kind, you by default believe that existence as it is is possible without having been purposefully created. The only way that is not the case is if you don't acknowledge existence.

              It's not unlike the way society is a belief-based system. Or the economy. Or business. Or love and marriage. It's all about operating within a system that is built on trust and belief in the institution and the parties involved doing, or feeling, as they say or have agreed to. This too is all belief-based. Whether or not anyone thinks about it or acknowledges it as being such doesn't change that fact.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Even the simplest of concept is escaping you? She's not saying you can't understand because your not an Atheist, it has nothing to do with that. Just because Religion is wrapped up in everything you do and think doesn't mean it is for everyone else. The lack of belief in God has no effect on how we think the universe began. And saying we don't know or care how it began is perfectly acceptable, just as saying that the big bang makes sense. There are also all kinds of theories as to how life started, again unconnected with the birth of the universe.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Look, I don't know why this is so hard for you all to grasp. It's really very simple. Everyone has a belief system. Period. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you do. We all do. Every single human during adolescence constructs their own version of reality based on information gained through the senses and their own logic and reason. And a big part of that construct is made up of things you believe to be true, whether or not there's any actual truth to it. For all you know your body could be in one of those Matrix contraptions with a spike sticking in the back of your head feeding your brain information to fool it. You simply trust what your brain tells you. Just like the rest of us.

                  Reality to you is what your brain tells you it is. You, me, JMcfarland, and every other human who has ever lived, each constructed our own concept of reality during our childhood. Whether or not a God is part of that reality you construct has a significant impact on everything else. If God has never been a part of your concept of reality, then your version of reality still must account for reality being here. For you being here. Your parents before you. Your history. The country you're a part of, the species you're a part of, etc. However far each individual has thought about it can vary a great deal. The less you think about, or feel compelled to question, any particular facet of your construct of reality has everything to do with how soundly you buy into that belief.

                  Whether or not you're theist or atheist informs, or affects, the rest of it. It has to. Whether or not you recognize or acknowledge it. You seem to think that one topic can be completely separate from another. Like there's no relation at all. For example, JMcfarland said earlier that she does in fact have a belief where the origins of life is concerned. Yet, without even knowing what her specific belief regarding the origins of life is, her identifying herself as an atheist informs me of at least one crucial bit of information, doesn't it? So, how could that be if they're in no way related? How could one inform the other if they have absolutely nothing to do with one another?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course there are things I believe, but God is NOT one of them.

                    atheist |ˈāTHēˌist|
                    noun
                    a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.

                    You will notice that the definition doesn't contain information about the beginning of the universe or humanity.

                    Now, just because your belief in God hampers all your other beliefs doesn't mean my lack of belief in God hampers any of my other thoughts. For crying out load, what if I said I don't believe there is a God now but there once was.

                    I personally have no idea how the universe or life on earth started. I've read the theories and understand they are just theories with some evidence. The only thing I know is I don't believe in the existence of God or gods.

                    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Right, and your certainty regarding your disbelief in the existence of a God plays a significant role in what you accept as truth, especially in regards to potential explanations for the origin of the universe or the origin of life, does it not? Whether you're conscious of it or not. If you hear/read a theory regarding the origins of either that includes something about a God playing a part then, based on your own concept of reality, you reject that explanation, right?. That portion of it is not plausible to you because to you there is no God. You are, therefore, more willing to consider explanations that offer what you view to be a plausible scenario that has nothing to do with a God, because to you there is no God that is a part of your construct of reality. How is that possible if the two are in no way related?

                      There is only one reality, and each individual only has one version of that one reality that they maintain. One belief system. And what you hold to be true greatly impacts everything else. Just like in those cases where something you held to be true is proven to be false. It can have a significant impact that makes you reassess other things you also held to be true. It's all related.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    We understand why you believe that nonsense. It is because the indoctrinated are only able to function on a belief system because they never really developed any critical thinking skills, which is evident in almost all of your posts. They then project their own deficiencies onto others because they believe everyone operates the same way.

                    Sorry, that you don't understand.

                    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      If you don't acknowledge that everyone's construct of reality developed during our formative years and forged throughout life experience does not include a network of beliefs held to be true, that may or may not actually be true, then it's you who lacks critical thinking skills. It is simply how the human mind works and I know you know that.

                      Just as you filter everything I say through your imagined concept of me as being this indoctrinated fool unable to think critically for myself colors your perception of me and makes you incapable of comprehending the simplest of points. That lens, like your belief system, is a construct of your own making. This is a point that I'm sure you'd fully accept if it were not coming from a believer because it's simple logic. Something I know you're capable of when you actually respect the person you're speaking with and not being so dismissive and arrogant, thinking yourself intellectually above them. Your mind is closed to me because you've already deemed me not worth listening to, which then affects the rest of the discussion. See what I mean? Your beliefs, valid or not, color how you interpret everything else, whether you acknowledge it or are aware of it.

    32. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago

      JMcfarland and Rad Man,

      Neither of you have comprehensively considered what I've given you. If you had then you'd both be much more familiar with the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia, the Uruk culture, climatological data in that region and time, behavioral studies, etc. If you had actually looked into it and gave it your honest consideration, you'd see that it's as plain as day. But your mind is already made up. Genesis gives a very specific time period and region, and what we've learned over the past couple of decades lines right up with what its describing. That's not just my opinion. Like it's not my opinion that according to Genesis 1656 years passed between when it says Adam was created and the flood. That's a fact. That is in fact what it says. Just like it's not my opinion that the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia lasted roughly the same length of time (5500 to 4000 BC) and actually did end very abruptly, at least partially due to an actual flood. Didn't make any of that up. Or that a dramatic climate change caused massive migrations just like what Babel describes. Didn't make that up either. Or that the Sumerian city of Uruk was built not long after the flood according to both Genesis and Sumerian texts, and the actual city of Uruk we know to have been built not long after the fall of the Ubaid culture. That too is a fact. It all really happened. And even the experts agree that it (the climate change and the Uruk culture) played a significant role in human history and the dawning of multiple civilizations, each having their own unique language and culture. You can dismiss this as the opinion of a believer if you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

      Now, if you actually want to engage in some real examinations of the evidence I'm game. But I understand that's a lot of work and hard to convince yourself is a worthy cause because to you I'm just another delusional believer trying to bend reality to fit my views. That's your call.

      1. JMcFarland profile image90
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have actually examined your claims historically the last time we spoke.  Its why there was a lot of time between your posts and mine.  I spoke to my old testament professor from college.  I got back in touch with my history mentor from college.  I listened attentively to all of your posts and theories.  If I was going to dismiss them outright, I would have never engaged in a conversation with you at all, and I resent the assumption than I would just disregard your theory out of hand because I disagree with you.  I believe that I've always been respectful of you, even though this conversation particularly has tested and challenged my patience.  Don't assume ignorant things about me just because we disagree. 

        I don't care to examine your claims all over again, because they have nothing to do with this conversation.  When we last spoke, I believe that I told you briefly the problems that your theory presented, both from my own research and the information I was given from two people in the actual field of study who I both respect and trust.  You were unwilling to accept what I said, and instead staunchly stucco to your position, ignoring all of the challenges to it - ironically much like you're now accusing me of doing. 

        I can't respect someone who assumes things about other intelligent people because they disagree.  I can't respect the ostrich approach of maintaining a previously held belief just because you want it to new true.  You have pre existing bias, and this conversation has just proven too me that you cannot sufficiently ses past it

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well JMc, I certainly don't mean to offend and don't want to downplay any work you may have put into this before. But you have to understand that as far as what actually got back to me and our discussion, I didn't get any of that. I got a reply that began with "While I do know a lot about the bible, I will also admit that the history that i've studied is not of that region or that time period..", then went more into a criticism of my methods and how you felt I was starting with a conclusion and working back. If you did indeed do all this research and have these discussions, none of it equated to specific information relative to my claim. Unless there's something I'm not recalling. I just went back through some of our previous discussions. We talked about the slavery thing, we talked a bit about the rise of Christianity, but when it comes to ancient Mesopotamia and information specific to that region and timeframe, we didn't discuss much at all and I certainly didn't get out of that conversation that you had put so much effort into it. In fact, I do recall the time that passed between and being a bit disappointed in the responses because I was looking forward to someone knowledgeable of the bible really having a go at my claim.

          None of that, however, I have much issue with. What I do have an issue with is when you later make a blanket statement that you've 'examined my "evidence"' and that it "neither lines up with the biblical accounts or with the known origins of human history". I don't mind being wrong, but I've put a significant amount of time and effort into both research as well as presenting it to others to get their input. Maybe its a character flaw on my part, but I don't generally take too kindly to being so flippantly dismissed with what at least appeared to be very little effort and little to no pertinent/relevant information.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Typical Headly, turn a forum entitled "Would you call Atheism a religion?" to look at how much work I do and how smart I am and compare that to how pathetic all you people below me are.

            Nice.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If you'll recall, the whole reason we got into any of this was in reply to your statement that said, "I've asked for evidence over and over and none is supplied."

              The discussion organically led here. I only brought it up when you said what you said.

              McFarland said, "i've examined your "evidence" about the events in genesis.  It's your opinion and it neither lines up with the biblical accounts or with the known origins of human history."

              And you said, "I don't except your evidence because it's incredibly flawed."

              The rest had to do with those statements. I'm sorry if I find that slightly irritating. Hopefully by now you have a sense of the amount of time and effort I've put into this. Can you not see how those kinds of statements would be borderline infuriating? Especially when neither of the people making that statement have actually gotten into the meat of the specific theory I'm talking about?

              1. JMcFarland profile image90
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                so what you're saying is that you don't like people making what appear to be sweeping assumptions and claims about your years of careful research and consideration - none of which can actually be supported - but you have no qualms about turning around and making sweeping assumptions and claims about belief systems for people that are actually living as atheists and these ARE their lives, regardless of how much research they've done, the years that they've put into it and the knowledge that they ultimately possess.

                That's interesting, don't you think?

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  None of which can actually be supported? Seriously. I know I've apparently gotten under your skin with this whole discussion, but let's be reasonable here. You've yet to actually touch on anything specific to what I'm claiming, other than a comment about how different it is from what other theologians say/think, so how would you know? Maybe you did look into this, maybe you found good reason to say what you're saying. The problem is you haven't shared it with me. So, until then, I take issue with statements that say 'none of which can actually be supported'.

                  And I'm not making sweeping claims and assumptions about the whole 'beliefs in atheism' thing. I'm sorry you're not understanding me, but that doesn't make what I'm saying wrong or even presumptuous. It's a fact. It's how the brain works. I don't know how else to explain that to you. It has nothing to do with atheism specifically. It's a human thing. You're a human with a human brain, I too am a human, also with a human brain. We're on the same playing field here. You're trying to say that your lack of belief in God in no way informs or has an effect on your other beliefs. I know that to be false. Not because I'm presumptuous, but because that's literally impossible. It's impossible to not maintain a belief system on some level, and it's impossible to not have a belief in God and for that lack of belief to not have a significant impact on those other beliefs. For example, the belief you said you have about the origin of life. Something you yourself referred to as a 'belief'. Your atheism stance informs me of what you definitely don't believe in where the origin of life is concerned. Can you be an atheist, yet buy into an origin of life belief that includes a God? Would you even consider it? No you can't and no you wouldn't. That's what I mean. They're related. They impact one another.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I've been more than respectful with your beliefs, but just because you've done years research and doesn't mean I have to do years of research to see the errors in your theory. You believe what you believe because you want to. I'd like to believe in eternal life as well, but I prefer reality and the reality is your theory is flawed and if a simple graphic designer with limited critical thinking skills can see the errors in your theory then you may want either look at your theory or move onto a different market.

                The little bit of marketing I know indicates that the reason we are not buying your theory is you are marketing it to the wrong people. I suggest you look for the gullible, the ones who have already been indoctrinated to not use there own brain as even the bible describes this process.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, Rad Man, that response from you is hugely disappointing. I don't know what I've done to warrant such a remark. Maybe I'm coming off as an ass here. If so, I'm sorry. I'm really not trying to. But I'm also not going to just tuck my tail and run because I'm outnumbered. There have been many who have specifically studied the age I'm talking about who say my theory is the most rational they've seen. Even Mark went so far as to say that my 'delusion' is at least the most consistent he's ever heard, though not to me of course.

                  I've been vetted by quite a few people who have illustrated a much deeper understanding of the material. So I'm sorry if I don't accept your clearly flawed assessments. Like you yourself said, you've not put much into this yet you're claiming to have found glaring errors. Do you really think that little of me? Have I not at this point earned more credit than that? Can you not see that your default view that I just believe because I want to might make you a little too quick to dismiss this?

                  Stay in the dark if you prefer, but this idea is gaining momentum. Sooner or later you're going to be hearing it from others beyond me. Even those who don't believe in God have at least acknowledged that what I'm pointing out gives much more credence to Genesis as a historical document than many give it credit for. Even if they don't buy into the 'God' aspect of it. It's that on point. If you're really interested in the truth, you'd be wise to not be so dismissive of this. Whether or not you believe in God, this offers incredible insight into arguably the biggest change in human history that played a demonstrably pivotal role in humans becoming what we've become.

                  Or, as Riane Eisler put it ... "the great change - a change so great, indeed, that nothing in all we know of human cultural evolution is comparable in magnitude."

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You think your the first to think in the validity of genesis?

                    To be honest you are coming off like an arse.

                    The fact that your delusion is consistent has no bearing on it's validity, you are just consistently delusional. With all due respect.

                    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      No, I don't. I'm also not the only one that sees what I see. The thing is, the evidence that makes it so apparent is still relatively new and is not yet common knowledge. But that will change soon enough. It's an education issue, pure and simple. If it were more commonly known then this would be a totally different conversation.

                      I honestly don't know where things went so haywire here. I'm still baffled that nobody here seems to get the point I was originally trying to make before all that other nonsense. And I'm particularly baffled that there could be such offense taken. Even not believing in God, you have to account for existing. How can you not? How can you just not have any beliefs where that's concerned? And even in acknowledging you don't know, what you do consider as even a possibility is impacted by your disbelief in God, because that means you are predisposed to leaning towards believing possibilities where no God plays a part over those where God is involved. Right? How is that not clear?

                      So, you have to believe, as an atheist, that existence as it is today is possible without any intelligent design or guidance. It's really just that simple. For it to be understanding, not belief, as ATM kept trying to say, suggests that the knowledge of how existence and life came about is known, but just not understood by the individual. That is not true. It is not known. And no amount of understanding will make you fully understand something that is not yet known or understood by anybody.

      2. JMcFarland profile image90
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In order to make further discussion profitable or worthwhile.  (apologies for the typos and wrong words, my smart phone is not as smart as I'd like it to be, and I cannot edit it until I am in home in front of an actual computer.)

      3. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I've gone down that road way to many times and every time I show you errors in your theory you somehow invent and rationalize your errors away. Dinosaurs... birds... days and eons blah blah blah. And know you tell me MY mind is made up and I don't understand my own disbelief. No thanks, been there. done that, plus you seem even more stubborn then before.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Look, I appreciate the effort you've put into prior discussions. You have been one of the more willing to read and look into things within these forums, and I acknowledge that. But you have to understand I have engulfed myself in this stuff for months and years, so when you try to dismiss things like the lack of human on human violence prior to 4000 BC based on dated evolutionary psychology theories that I myself used to subscribe to long before doing this research and finding a lot more is now known on the topic, that I'm not going to accept that. Or you trying to dismiss something based on a cursory level of reading you did on one specific example of violence prior to that date, that I acknowledged and even gave an additional example of, as saying there's no truth to what I'm saying. Or the getting hung up on the whole bird thing, discounting the fact that you have to ignore numerous other things for that to stand, or getting hung up on the day thing, though I illustrated at great length how what I'm saying is valid according to the Hebrew language. While these are perfectly fine for you to choose to not accept what I'm saying, that's a far cry from saying, "I don't except your evidence because it's incredibly flawed".

          When I present the entirety of human history and can illustrate behavioral changes that actually reflect in the historical record, cultures that last the same length of time as what's described, ended the same way as described, followed by dramatic climate changes that line up chronologically, and countless other things, it's kind of hard to dismiss all of it based on your birds argument.

          The fact is I no longer have any doubt in what I've found. What I find most frustrating now is that what I'm offering actually provides an explanation that has the potential of bringing together to opposing views in a very divisive topic, allowing for middle ground to be had. Something that could actually help us better understand ourselves and help us move forward together, rather than wedged further apart, so I may tend to get short with such flippant statements that try to dismiss the months and months of work I've poured into this. This, whether you want to believe me or not, is the result of a very honest evaluation on my part, and has nothing to do with trying to justify my beliefs. I believe anyway. Being right or wrong about this won't change that.

    33. Weswiki profile image91
      Weswikiposted 3 years ago

      People tend to conflate atheism and religion because in a sense they serve a similar role in coloring ideological beliefs in people's worldviews. But I'd say this isn't because the two are similar, but because the two are expessed in similar ways each as an alternative to the other. But..religion is entirely theistic and I'd say that is its defining characteristic. Atheism is non-theistic.
      Both I suppose are "believed in".  Though I'd say for different reasons.  Faith is at the heart of a theistic belief system, and for some, this just isn't enough. If I were to reduce it down to an equation, theists say "1+1=2", while atheists say "2+0=2".  I'm not equating the two, but just trying to show how similar convictions can be arrived at in vastly different ways.
      The primary difference between these forms of "faith" is their philosophical basis. Atheists have been engaged in a range of philosophical schools, but I'd say the common demoninator is a belief in the tenets of philosophical materialism, in which empirical evidence is "scripture". Theists ultimately reject this view in favor of philosophical idealism, which asserts that reality is ultimately mental, or immaterial.  Neither of these philosophical schools lead directly to atheism or theism, but do provide some fertile ground for each viewpoint to grow.

      Taking all of this into consideration, and to answer the original question...I'd say no, atheism isn't a religion. Though I would say it's a philosophical stance, a stance that once adopted actually prevents any religion from being adopted as well (or at least not without a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance).

      I would like to add that religion is often seen as a source of morality.  And I'd certainly agree that in many cases it does serve this function from a cultural standpoint.  Buuut, there is a popular belief out there that atheists are immoral, or generally unethical, and for most atheists, this is far, far from the truth.  I'd like to point out that there are some just morally awful theists, as well as atheists and the same with upstanding folks.  And that moral systems are much more likely to have a basis in the anthropological understand of cultural systems rather than a purely religious source.

    34. Pamela Mae Oliver profile image80
      Pamela Mae Oliverposted 3 years ago

      I believe atheism is the absense of a religious belief system, and the disbelief that God, or a super-natural power exsists.

    35. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

      Would you say that Atheism is Satanism, by default?

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How do you figure that?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Read up on it.. go to a Satan site.  When I first read about Satanism on the internet, it thought ...wow, I agree with all of this.. I must be a Satanist!...
          Without bringing the awareness of the reality of God into our consciousnesses and lives, I think we all are! I mean by nature, without God, we are essentially, naturally self-oriented. Not selfish... self oriented. Which is what Satanists seem to be.
          So are atheists in all actuality, Satanists?
          I guess Mr. Radman and Mr. Troubled Man would have to answer this question after they check out what Satanists believe. If they are not, I would like to know why they or any other atheist would not not agree with Satanism.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Kathryn, to be a Satanist you must believe in both Satan and God and you must be truly selfish. I do not believe in Satan and am not selfish, however I've has a bit of an epiphany of late and may be in transition.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What???!!!
              ...talk about throwing a loop!
              BTW Are you sure Satanists believe in God? ( I hate going to those sites..I guess I'll have to go check it out... ugh.)

              More random thoughts:
                    Most people who believe in God, do so because of Jesus and the Bible (and for other religions: their holy texts and scriptures...) Jesus was born and as a young man, he spoke of God. The very bottom line is that Atheists believe the history of Jesus is just a story. Christians believe the story of Jesus is actual history. It has to do with  f a i t h  in the spiritual realm where some sort of metaphysical Source/Force originated (and originates) everything that exists. Atheists just do not believe in anything which is not provable in/on the physical realm of existence. They do not have scriptures or holy texts about spiritual and metaphysical concerns and realities.
                                                                                                                       
              The word "metaphysical"  applies to all true religions. It means, that which is beyond matter.
              So, Atheism is not a religion at all.
              The end.
              You are welcome.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I've found that not all anyone believes in any particular concept, but Satan is really a biblical concept.

                Actually, bad guys with horns have been around pre-bible, but then we get into the discussion of things that influence the bible from other religions and it goes down-hill from there...

                But basically, satanism is largely a Christian religion... in as much as the text from which it derives it's deity is the bible.

              2. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have not researched that in some time, but as I recall those calling themselves "Satanists" basically worship themselves and those calling themselves "Devil worshipers" do what the name implies.  Could be wrong, but that is what I recall.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I think that is right. But, after I go to those sites I'll get back to you.

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think that is where we do each other a disservice. We define a term such as Satan to mean something and then we project that label on to others. Unfortunately, our definition of the term is not their definition of the term; which causes confusion. And, then you have others reading and they use their definitions of the term to decide how to judge the one who the label has become attached to.

            Satanism is not viewed in a positive light by anyone other than a Satanist. I would never apply the label to anyone; I would accept the label if the individual chose to use it. At which time I would attempt to understand the positive light they see when they do use it. But, even then, considering the negative connotations associated with the word; I wouldn't use the term in relation to them unless they were there to defend themselves against the images conjured up by the listener.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I concur, here. Thank you.

    36. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wili/church_of_Satan

      Church of Satan does not believe in Satan or any gods. They say one's self is their own "God." They do not believe in suppression of desire and human nature. They say that believing in God or the Devil is abandoning reason. Satan in Hebrew means "one who questions."

      "Nine Satanic Statements:" (of the Church of Satan:)
      "Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
      Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
      Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
      Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
      Satan represents responsibility to the responsible rather instead of concern for psychic vampires.
      Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse that those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all.
      Satan represents all the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years."

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The Church of Satan? What are you talking about? You can't look up the Church of Satan and say that's what Satanism is? That's just what that Church is.

        satanism
        noun
        the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh. Thank you.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Will you stop calling me a satanist now?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Heehe he...Yes.
              Sorry about that.

    37. alexabda profile image60
      alexabdaposted 3 years ago

      Atheism is not a religion. Why? Because it has nothing to do with one's lifestyle. Religions normally have certain systems that determine one's behaviours and attitudes to achieve a spiritual goal. No such system is proposed or advocated by atheistic views. Atheism just states there is no god or gods whatsoever and noone needs to be worshipped, prayed and offered sacrifices. Atheists agree on this point only and may have different standpoints on what life is and who they are and what the purpose basically is.

      As to satanism, evil spirits exist (are believed to exist) in many cultures and faiths, either of Jewish or other origin. The concept of satan seems to be absent from the old testament bible and to have been introduced much later, after the end of the exile. Basically, it was all about rebellous angels who descended to the earth to enjoy sexual relations with human females. I understand them as have similar inclinations. In particular, God supposedly destroyed the earth in the flood because of the children from their marriages who reportedly had devoured the inhabitants of the earth and were guilty of many other mischiefs. The idea of satan was most likely developed by Christians and later adopted by Muslims as well. It is all about the devil who made Adam and Eve taste the apple and reduced them to death and the Christ who destroyed the devil's hooks and enabled the life option. It is a battle between angels and humans. Devil misled Adam, the man of dust, and Jesus, the man of spirit, overplayed devil.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Okay.  I thought it was just the absence of the belief in God.  I guess the Church of Satan dumbed the concept down... or up.

      2. Weswiki profile image91
        Weswikiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're right, alexabda, the old testament doesn't mention satan.  I'd point out that vast majority of jews reject the idea that satan, or hell for that matter, even exists.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's not true.  Here's from the book of Job:

          The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” (Job 1:12)

          The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. (Job 2:6-7)

          Who is the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The Christian take on Satan is a jubled mess and makes no sense whatever, how can an omnipotent deity allow Satan to exist and all the evil he supposedly wreaks.  The only interpretation of this that makes any semblance of sense (assuming these things exist at all) is Islams which claims that Satan is god's servant sent to tempt men to men and thus test their faith.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Christians believe in a monotheistic God but that isn't actually true.  There are polar opposites in life and both Satan and God represent that.  The one does not exist without the other on this earth.  They are both powerful deities.  The only thing that makes God more powerful is Jesus.   It is humanity that keeps Satan alive and well here not God. 

              There is such a thing as permissive will when God will allow something from Satan in the lives of those who serve Him IF it will spiritually benefit us.

              1. alexabda profile image60
                alexabdaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Claire, do you know what the story of Job is about? It is about a god making bets with a satan, whoever he is. It is not about Job's righteousness and god's grace. It is about a god who seeks to prove his rightfulness and superiority at any cost - both to satan and Job at the expense of Job. God truly believes he is so great that noone should question his authority. The entire family was murdered at god's discretion, and this son of bitch believes a new family and more rams and goats will compensate and reimburse for the loss. He demonstrates his greatness by referring to the fact that nobody could kill a hypopotamus or catch a crocodile in the Nile at the time. I am so fucking strong and right in my decisions that canon balls like Job should keep silent and never open their stinking mouths again if he sends any test again.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I just quoted Job because Satan is mentioned in it.  I don't believe in most of the Old Testament.   It is absolute nonsense that God makes bets with Satan even though the story says so.   

                  That story clearly was written due to a lack of understanding.  People may think that when God allows something to happen to us then it means he must have given Satan permission.  That He must have said, "Okay, Satan, make his life a misery so I can prove just how great I am by delivering this poor wretch in my own time." It may appear that way but it most certainly is not the case as I explained permissive will.

              2. alexabda profile image60
                alexabdaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Some Jews question the book of Job. Why? Because it mentions the satan that is missing elsewhere. As to the serpent in the garden, read the bible more carefully - god says that Adam broke the testament (was in breach of their treaty), that's it. Hosea, I guess.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Where is it missing elsewhere? I just find it so ironic that Jews wouldn't believe in Satan when their ancestors constantly were worshiping Satanic figures like Baal and Molech.  Even their Star of David is Satanic. 

                  In the Garden of Eden, the serpent is described as the most cunning creature God made.  Who's that? Adam? There was God, the serpent, Adam and Eve.  Who's the serpent? You know that serpent worship is Satanic just like Moses did?

                  1. alexabda profile image60
                    alexabdaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Claire, it really funny to see you describe everything as satanic. Sanatic, according to the bible, is anything which opposes god's will, laws, etc. This can include spirits and humans. The bible states that pagan gods are not gods, they are dead idols, therefore it is not Baal or Molech that are satanic, but human aspirations and desires that are exposed through one's worship of carved stones and woods. As to spirits, those are sons of god who made love with human ladies. According to one version, they are spirits under the heaven, according to another - they have been chained and placed in an abyss, wherever it is. In any case, Jesus will get them fried in the lake of fire. A saturday barbeque.

                    We do not know who the hell that snake is. Christians believe it is the devil. One who cheats and misleads. It seems that devil has been there to blame humans in the eyes of god, now we have Jesus who takesany blame off. It is like god has two superheroes, one of them is a bad guy, the other is a good guy. The good guy is expected to win based on Hollywood screenplays.

                    1. Claire Evans profile image90
                      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Not everything or everybody is Satanic but the world is drowning in Satanism so I talk about it.  Perhaps Satan in the OT is anyone or anything opposed to God but it is most certainly not the case in the NT.  Those pagan gods are just representations of Satan. 

                      You know we know who the snake is supposed to represent.  Who else did God oppose in the Garden of Eden? How does Satan blame humans?

                  2. Weswiki profile image91
                    Weswikiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The star of David is a stylized form of hebrew script that actually spells out "David", and has over time just merged the letters together.  A much older symbol of judaism is the menorah.  It's hardly "satanic" as you suggest, and frankly that's offensive.  On the other hand, your cross could easily be misconstrued as a symbol of human sacrifice, as much as a symbol of christ. The only reason it isn't is that christians have a tighter grip on popular culture.  You keep brining up the serpent in the garden, without realizing, apparently, that genesis is a fusion of two seperate stories of creation.  The "Elohim" version describing it in a more generalized way --for example: "Man and woman, he created them." (apparently at the same time) and the "YHVW" version in which eve is created from adam's rib. What I'm getting at is that the serpent was only apart of one story, not both, and you'd think that a supposed lord of evil would at least warrant a mention in the other version.  Moreover, well before the New Testament was even written, jewish philosophers had already stated that "animals with speech are ridiculous," and that it was a clearly a metaphor for temptation, NOT a person. If I seem irritated it's because I am, it's because so many christians comment on *jewish* texts without any knowledge, or twist the Torah to fit christian theology.  I really wish christians would just stick to their new testament, and leave our supposedly "old" testament alone.

                    1. 0
                      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Thumbs up for this one. A lot of things are taken too literally as well as are just plain taught incorrectly. Which in itself is a big reason for disagreements and debates on the subject.

                    2. A Thousand Words profile image80
                      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Isn't it interesting that Christians tend to believe they know more about Jewish scripture than Jews? I find it to be like adolescents telling their parents how the world works. I don't believe in your God, but I respect sensible people such as yourself.

                    3. Claire Evans profile image90
                      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      The Star of David dates back to the 14th century.   Before then, the hexagram representing witch-craft and still does.

                      "The Israeli national talisman is the hexagram which is called the Magen David or 'Star of David' and is supposed to be the ancient symbol of Israel. However, such an occult symbol is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. It was 'bequethed' to rabbinic leaders in the 14th century by the Hermetiist, King Charles IV of Bohemia and formally adopted as 'the Star of David' in 1898 at the Second Zionist Congress in Switzwerland." (Michael A. Hoffman, Judaism Discovered: A Study In the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition, and Deceit, page 794, Independent History & Research, 2008)

                      In fact, the Star of David is actually the Star of Rephan who is Molech or Baal:

                      "But ye have borne the tabernacleof your Moloch and Chiun your images,the star of your god..." -- Amos 5:26 KJV
                      "Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye make to worship them; and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." Acts 7:43 KJV

                      Hardly surprising since the Jews tended to worship these gods.

                      It also represents the Seal of Solomon and he was a black magician or is the Star of Saturn whose number is 6.

                      666 Part 1 The Hexagram, its origins and hidden meaning

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4QYqquWVj4

                      The crucifix is not based on human sacrifice.  I am interested in its origin. 

                      I bring up the serpent because I am interested in knowing what the Jews think it is.   So which Genesis account is correct? They can't both be.  What caused the fall of man in Genesis 2? Where did evil come from if God planted a tree of the knowledge of both good and evil?

                      Of course speaking animals is nonsense.   The snake represents Satan and is not a snake.  Who is the source of temptation? Was Jesus not tempted by the devil in the wilderness?

                      I bet you didn't realize that the OT is very different translated literally.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … r_embedded

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That actually makes a little sense, but why would an all powerful, all knowing God need to test anyones faith. You'd think he'd would just know. Sorry, it sounds more like something made up by man to make people think God is always watching and testing.

          2. Weswiki profile image91
            Weswikiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The book of Job is more or less a narrative trying to anwser "the question of evil", or why bad things happen to good people. there are quite a few interpretations but every rabbi I've ran across has suggested that it's a rejection of divine punishment or reward in this world.  That nature is ultimately neutral to men, and for there to truely be justice, it must be upheld by, and strived towards by societies, instead of being passively assumed to exist. The mention of satan is from the hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן   (ha'satan) meaning literally "the adversary/opposer".  It's not a name, but an epithet (or title) for an angel -- which was common at the time.  What you have is NOT proof of anything, but a misunderstanding of jewish texts, which is very common for chirstians to make.  There are several theological reasons jews don't believe in satan. Some believe that a truely loving god wouldn't allow such a thing to exist. Others take the position that evil is in and of itself not an active force, that it is like darkness.  Darkness isn't a force, it's simply a lack of light, evil is simply a lack of good.  And that personifying it is actually a form of idolotry.

            1. Weswiki profile image91
              Weswikiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, as I said, Claire, "Satan" as Christians (and popular culture) understand the concept do not appear in the old testament. To drive this point home: there are a few cases where "ha'satan" is mentioned without the definitive article "the(ha in hebrew)". Such as in psalm 109:6  "הַפְקֵד עָלָיו רָשָׁע;    וְשָׂטָן, יַעֲמֹד עַל-יְמִינוֹ. "  meaning "'Set Thou a wicked man over him; and let an adversary (satan) stand at his right hand." 
              Satan wasn't a personifed concept of the big bad for jews, even linguistically, like it is for christians.

              1. alexabda profile image60
                alexabdaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The problem is OT does not provide for demons, evil spirits, while NT is abound with them. They are everythere, almost everyone is possessed.

                The only case of an evil spirit is that which irritated Saul after god's spirit left him to the benefit of David. But that one was from god. However, OT prohibits, along with the worshipping of foreign gods (and their idols), the calling of ghosts and the wakening of dead. We could say neither ghosts and dead souls exist and can be contacted, but the OT itself describes a number of situations where they are called and seen. In any case, such situations are quite rare.

                In NT, we see people that believe in demons, ghosts and that dead people can rise from the dead and walk to work miracles. Judea seems to be a province of lunatics, as if Roman governors used the area as a GULAG to keep psychically inadequate population separately from the rest. Evil spirits, demons, satans, ghosts, walking deads are a commonplace. Jesus seems to be busy all day long expelling various impure spirits, so many of them are there torturing poor Jews. As if it was an ethnicity-specific infection.

                If before the exile bible says god sent the flood because humans got too sinful, after the exile Jewish apocryths say he sent the flood to save the earth from all-devouring children of sons of god. If in OT god suppresses ill habits in humans, NT says those habits come from spirits, and that Christians must fight not only evil men, but also evil ghosts.

                Why is it so?

    38. alexabda profile image60
      alexabdaposted 3 years ago

      What Jews believe is an open question. Josephus Flavius gives descriptions of Jewish denominations that existed at the time of the Christ. The only thing they all had in common was the law of Moses. They could have different opinions as to postmortal existence and god's influence. Sadducees did not believe in angels and soul and the rest of intangibles. Pharisees believed in judgement and reincarnation where souls returned back to earth. Esseis, like Greeks and Romans, believed that souls would go to a happy place or a sorrowful place depending on their life achievements. Therefore, the underlying basis is the origin from Abraham and the law of Moses. Anything else is not in the scripture and does not matter. Whether or not there is life after death, the law must be observed and upheld. Basically, god should attach postmortal rewards to one's compliance.

      1. Weswiki profile image91
        Weswikiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        its an open question only if you look at the beliefs historically, just as it is with christians and the divinity of jesus, various sects, mostly declared heretical, denied such claims.  The Greek and Roman religions also had various destintions they believed souls would go to, at different times in their own respective histories.  Maybe I should have said "most modern-day jews..."

    39. adorablebaby profile image61
      adorablebabyposted 3 years ago

      the answer we all  should agree on is no.

    40. alexabda profile image60
      alexabdaposted 3 years ago

      Right.

    41. ahorseback profile image52
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

      Yes ,  I would call atheism a religion all its own ,and why .  only because of our modern day culture of How we treat others , atheists here at least? .....Religiously attack theists with battle lines already drawn !  Its not enough you see , to just decide you don't believe in faith , No , the gestapo tactics of  so called atheism  ,at least in these forums , requires that you state your case while driveling venom at all of  the elements of faith  within  theism!   And all it amounts to is digging the  shallow grave of liberalist's integrety and moral  acceptance of others ....their mission statement is but ,na na na Naa na na!

    42. WiccanSage profile image95
      WiccanSageposted 2 years ago

      By definition atheism is not a religion-- just like theism isn't a religion in itself. Nor is polytheism or monotheism, etc.

      Atheist simply means no belief in any Gods. It does not imply any beliefs or world view or practices beyond that.

      Religion is a set of beliefs and practices.

      Some atheists are religions (Buddhists, secular humanists, Unitarian Universalists, etc.). You can be an atheist and still have a religion. But atheism itself isn't a religion.

      Just like you can be a theist but not have a religion.

      1. 0
        Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Perfect answer. Thank you for bringing us back to topic! lol

     
    working