Religion is threatened less by atheism than by other religions

Sorry but if you read the koran, and pick either shia or sunni version, you would be surprised with what you read and if you ever went to a mosque, that is if you can get past the front door, you will be shocked with what you hear.

 

I meant it in general, the basics. The further you get into the details the more aggitation between beliefs (which includes faiths that don't rely on dieties). When I think of Sunni vs Shia I think of the butter your bread on top or bottom thing from that nutty Dr. dude. Minor differences can eventually become an excuse (a very poor one from my pov) to kill.

 

Well, this has been a discussion throughout history. You make a point when you say most of the wars that have been started in the past have been against opposing views of God and between different religious faiths. And that is a shame, because most religions believe in peace. Contradictory isn't it?

However, my faith believes that I should explain my religion. It you, an opposing religion, do not agree or start to see that my religion is the one true religion, then I don't destroy you, I dust my feet off and move onto someone else and attempt to tell them about my religion.

Now that has been taken to out of context by extremists in every religion and wars have started because of these extremists. I do not believe it is the faithful that start the wars, but the extremists of that religion that starts the wars. Does anyone really believe that most religious people believe in war? God will take care of the non-believers, not me, don't you think?

 

Two things always happen when you separate people into groups. They fight and they screw. I only wish there were more of the latter and less of the first.

 

I'm tending toward theistism myself. (I'm sure that's mispelled). I can't buy the big daddy in the sky idea no matter what clothes he wears but, looking around at the world, I also can't believe it's all from a random union of various chemicals dosed with radiation and heat. I just don't know.

 

Jung wrote that when reason arrives, religion suffers.

 

You make a good point eric. There are crazy people in all major demographics - religious and non-religious people alike. And even if religion disappeared entirely tomorrow, there would still be wars - people would find other reasons to fight. However I think that religion provides a catalyst to foment hatred and distrust in people who are different - and we are worse off for it. I contend that we would be better off if people didn't have religious motivations to hate people different from themselves. "Religion makes good people do bad things" as they say. There will always be the bad apples who are bigoted towards somebody else, but the vast majority of people who would not normally be that way wouldn't have the dogmatic motivation to do something against their better nature just because they have been trained to follow without questioning.

 

That's because people who are Atheists claim that they don't believe in anything but here's something for you to consider. Even Atheists do believe to an extent that there is some sort of supreme power because I have a friend who lives in Canada that is Atheist and he admits this himself. It doesn't surprise me that Atheists don't slam religions and a lot of it has to do with people are going to do what they feel is right according to what they were raised to know. It took centuries before Christ (For those who believe. No offense intended.) for the Bible to be compiled and brought together, and it may not even be complete because scrolls are still being found to this day. This doesn't make Atheists wrong. We are all still grasping, hoping and intend to believe that we are here for a reason, and that there must be a great meaning as to why we are here. Religions that are attacking each other are doing so in the name of their God but I wonder how much do people realize they actually referring to the same one in the first place? Okay, that was a personal opinion but it is what I believe, and I'm sure that many can't argue this point. To avoid breaking from the point, I would like to add that it is a fact that Atheists don't bother people at all who are religious. Why can't everyone else follow this and do the same? People just need something gripe at and we will continue to see this until something gives on this planet.

 

Atheists can, and do, believe in all sorts of things barring one: Atheists by definition do not believe in a god or gods. If a person believes in a deity of any sort, then they're something other than an atheist. Your friend in Canada may call himself an atheist, but if he thinks that there's some sort of supernatural supreme power then he might be a deist or a pantheist or simply some type of theist who is in denial, but despite his protestations, he's not an atheist. One misinformed person in Canada can not be used to demonstrate anything about atheists in general.

 

Atheism is not a church with dogma to follow other than a belief that there is no god, one atheist is nothing like another. You cannot take the actions and beliefs, other than the belief there is no god, of any individual atheist no matter how high profile, and use them to attack every other atheist. We do not have a leader, a patriach or anti pope, we are I suppose by definition free thinkers.

 

Well said Recusant. I too am an atheist from Canada mscuban, I know many other atheists here and am involved in freethinker and skeptic groups, and I can tell you that your friend in Canada is certainly not an atheist by any definition that any of us would use. Sorry to break it to you

 

There is nothing about atheism which eliminates the idea that there may be ghosts, spirits and a whole range of other supernatural beliefs. An atheist can be an atheist and believe in these things. The act of being an atheist is directed to one direction and one direction only. The idea that god/gods do not exist.

Of course, if you arrived at being an atheist through rational means you are not going to find support for any of the other spiritual ephemera either. A rational atheist won't believe in any of these things because there isn't any evidence to support their existence. The same skeptical and perceptive rules which are applied to the concept of god are applied to the concept of spiritual planes of existence.
This is part of the reason for the Brights movement. It is designed to separate those who don't accept any supernatural existence and those that do. You can be an atheist and a believer in magic. However, you can't be a Bright and believe in either god or supernatural impacts.

There is also the issue of the Buddhist. A Buddhist doesn't believe in the existence of a creator god and can believe in all kinds of spiritual nonsense like reincarnation and chi.

 

Agree with the premise of the tread. Good talking points which I do not think I have seen before.

 

Interesting perspective that a person can be an atheist and still have some sort of other belief. A boarder term of atheist then I am used to.

 

Atheism is very specifically the disbelief in the existence of god. This is all that it means. You can be an non-believer in god and still believe in all kinds of supernatural forces. For example, Buddhism is an atheistic religion, but they still have a belief in a lot of supernatural objects including, demons, hells, heavens, reincarnation and spiritual/psychic powers (iddhipada). Atheism simply means that a person does not believe in a god/gods. You can be an atheist towards one set of god and be a believer in the other set. For example, Christians are atheist towards Thor and Zeus, but not Yahweh/Ehyeh/Jesus.

This non-exclusionary aspect of atheism in regards to supernatural objects is the cause of the Brights Movement within the Atheist community. The brights do not believe in any form of supernatural existence while supers do. You can be an atheist and be a super, but you cannot be a bright and be a super. Super, for the record, refers to the acceptance of supernatural objects.