Thread: What Religon do you follow?

Originally Posted by Rums03

Literally, no we're not. When you're born you have no concept of God, it's only when you've learned of its existence you can choose not to believe.

This is true only if one uses a restrictive definition that isn't typically used in conversation -- a definition in which most atheists will not agree with.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

This is true only if one uses a restrictive definition that isn't typically used in conversation -- a definition in which most atheists will not agree with.

What's restrictive about it?

Originally Posted by Rums03

What's restrictive about it?

It's restrictive in the sense that it means one must actively believe/disbelieve. As you say, they must have heard of the idea first.

Contrast that with the most widely accepted (and used) definition, which only refers to absence of belief, regardless of prior knowledge.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It's restrictive in the sense that it means one must actively believe/disbelieve. As you say, they must have heard of the idea first.

Contrast that with the most widely accepted (and used) definition, which only refers to absence of belief, regardless of prior knowledge.

How can you have an absence of belief without first a belief? How could we possibly label something like that? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me 'regardless of prior knowledge' is an argument from a place of authority (rightly so) outside of what actually exists for a newborn.

I somewhat understand what you're saying and you certainly know you're saying but as to a newborn's understanding, there isn't one. I guess I don't understand atheism that well.

Originally Posted by Rums03

How can you have an absence of belief without first a belief? How could we possibly label something like that? I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me 'regardless of prior knowledge' is an argument from a place of authority (rightly so) outside of what actually exists for a newborn.

I somewhat understand what you're saying and you certainly know you're saying but as to a newborn's understanding, there isn't one. I guess I don't understand atheism that well.

Let's say you have never heard of the concept of a Goobledork (bear with me). You have absolutely no knowledge of what it is, where it came from, how many people believe in it (or don't), its effect on human culture, etc.

Can it then be said that you believe in it?

The answer is, obviously: no. Therefore, you would be an a-goobledorkist (or something like that).

There is nothing about atheism that states one must explicitly disbelieve in a deity. There can be explicit disbelief as well as implicit disbelief. By simply having no prior experience with something, you implicitly do not believe in its existence. My overall point, if it isn't clear yet, is that one should not confuse "I do not believe" with "I believe not." They are not necessarily synonymous.

I am a Taodeist. I believe that the Tao was the source of all that is through being nonbeing and doing not doing, but then the Tao stepped back and let things happen by themselves. The Tao is a Taoist, not a hypocrite.

I am a Christian!

I am this:

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

with a twist:

All forms of religion are expressions of a pure truth. That truth can only be experienced, making any teaching or dogma irrelevant except in the manner by which they lead to that immutable truth.

I'm always unsure on what to say on these things. I'd hate to say Christian, but by literal definition I am; believing in God and the words of Jesus Christ. However, at the same time, there's a lot in the Bible that I believe was both mistranslated over the centuries and also misinterpreted by society. I have my own set of (more liberal) beliefs on the meaning of life and what's right and wrong and the afterlife and etc. etc. that makes perfect sense to me but that typical Christians don't have, so at the end of the day I guess I just like to call myself spiritual.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Let's say you have never heard of the concept of a Goobledork (bear with me). You have absolutely no knowledge of what it is, where it came from, how many people believe in it (or don't), its effect on human culture, etc.

Can it then be said that you believe in it?

The answer is, obviously: no. Therefore, you would be an a-goobledorkist (or something like that).

There is nothing about atheism that states one must explicitly disbelieve in a deity. There can be explicit disbelief as well as implicit disbelief. By simply having no prior experience with something, you implicitly do not believe in its existence. My overall point, if it isn't clear yet, is that one should not confuse "I do not believe" with "I believe not." They are not necessarily synonymous.

While I agree that it is not required for one to disbelieve something simply because they do not invest belief in it, I think you're arguing really arbitrary and dubious semantics. One could just as easily argue that "a-" strictly means a belief in the lack thereof, rather than neither. Lacking certainty both that there is or is not is typically defined as agnosticism (literally meaning to not know). Atheism connotes a belief in the opposite, whether you think the connotation is justified or not. You cannot claim that a- represents uncertainty rather than clear opposition with any resolution. Logic tends to bend at the waist in this regard, anyways. People claiming an allegiance to logic attempt to box people into positions either for or against, going as far as claiming one is against until they are for. You seem to see this issue when you say "I do not believe" differs from "I believe it not." But I'm not sure you get to tell people which definition atheism falls into. Language is finicky here because language is built around clear borders and mutual exclusion. There is no prefix for "whether it's true or not, it appears an irrelevant concept that has little influence over my actions and therefore does not necessitate further consideration at this time"-theist, or "I have only my perception and will it not against an untouchable objectivity"-theist.

What I got from your post is that you think I'm talking about certainty. I'm not differentiating between certainty and uncertainty, as that is only relevant in explicit atheists. I'm differentiating between implicit and explicit non-belief. If that's not a sufficient reply, let me know. I just got out of work so I'm a little tired.

There is no prefix for "whether it's true or not, it appears an irrelevant concept that has little influence over my actions and therefore does not necessitate further consideration at this time"-theist, or "I have only my perception and will it not against an untouchable objectivity"-theist.

Sure there is.

I practice vodou

I'm a pluralist.

I'm fairly well versed in the religions (past and present) of the world. I pick and choose portions of religious script that suit me and I'm agreeable with. And just skip over the rest.

For example, I certainly ascribe to the outlooks of "harming no other living being, willfully" which is Jainism's precept and also occurs in Tao, Buddhism, etc. I'd also ascribe to one of the commandments referring to 'not coveting your neighbor's personal items.'

On the other hand, I don't believe in a judgmental or otherwise wrathful God. I don't believe in a Christian Satan or Hell (or purgatory).

I think praying is powerful and can certainly be performed anywhere and at any time.

I don't think designated places of worship are any more 'connected' to deities than say....your back porch, the wilderness or inside your car.

God = Energy -therefore I am God and so are you.

Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, Bob Marley etc etc... were indeed wonderful people who lived amazing lives for their times. They were fantastic examples of how a life could be lived. But, not one of them is the only son of god, since we're all sons and daughters of god.