The Most Logical Religion

[Lord Rahl]

Which brings me to the thread title, atheism isn't a religion, so none.

True. As some who have been through these discussions enough would know, even religious people are atheists, i.e., Christians don't believe in the Muslim "Allah", Muslims don't believe in Vishnu, Hindus don't believe in Thor, etc. Pure atheism is simply the non-belief in every deity.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Divine as in tied to a creator, purpose as in it created the universe for a reason. By saying that humans are nothing but dust you're expressing a belief.

More like an opinion based around the knowledge that the Universe is, as far as we can currently tell, devoid of life for the most part and that life on Earth has no impact on the workings of distant solar systems/galaxies.

As an atheist I don't believe your assertion that a creator exist due to the lack of evidence/reasoning behind your claim, so how should I be able to see the Universe tied to creator? What's the reason of the Universe then?

[PointOfViewGun]

Can't speak for anyone but myself, but for me that's where your chain of thought goes wrong.
It's not belief in nonexistance, it's nonexistance of belief. I don't believe in deities for the same reasons that I don't believe in dragons, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus etc. I don't completely rule out that they can exist, but it's so unlikely that I consider them irrelevant.

Which brings me to the thread title, atheism isn't a religion, so none. And another nitpick, this time about the poll, atheism =/= science. Plenty of atheists out there who believe in plenty of non-scientific stuff which fall in varying ranges on the absurdity meter. The healing power of crystals, astrology, the dangers of vaccinations, ghosts etc etc.

Nope. You believe that there are no deities, dragons, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. Non-existence of belief is merely a linguistic device used to mean belief in the opposite.

More like an opinion based around the knowledge that the Universe is, as far as we can currently tell, devoid of life for the most part and that life on Earth has no impact on the workings of distant solar systems/galaxies.

As an atheist I don't believe your assertion that a creator exist due to the lack of evidence/reasoning behind your claim, so how should I be able to see the Universe tied to creator? What's the reason of the Universe then?

An opinion is often, if not always, an expression of belief.

As an atheist, you wouldn't believe in the connection between the universe and a supernatural being. Why would you? I don't get what you're trying to get at with that question.

[Phier]

there is considerable difference between the random raised as, never goes to church, ambivalent about god so called Christian or otherl; and the die hard true believer and so it is the other way.

Yes, one still knows how to have fun at parties

But I'm not sure where you are going with this...

[AngryTitusPullo]

Buddhists worship Buddha in the same way that suicide bombing is condoned by Mohammed and guarantees 47 virgins in the afterlife.

Ideally the only thing shown to Buddha is respect. Bowing and sitting in front of a picture of Buddha is respect to the teacher, the teachings and the path of Dharma. Like any religion not every idea that people do is found in the religion. I don't think suicide bombing is in the Qu'ran, nor do I think Buddha proclaimed himself a god or thought people should worship him. It was rather the opposite.

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188

I guess Buddhist in the west are very different from Buddhist in the east. You are right about Buddha not asking people to worship him. Same like Jesus if I may add.

[Stavroforos]

I don't know, Bible Jesus doesn't seem to object to being worshipped.

[Visna]

Nope. You believe that there are no deities, dragons, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. Non-existence of belief is merely a linguistic device used to mean belief in the opposite.

Well, you can believe (haha) what has been explained to you, or you can continue to base your opinion on incorrect ideas which you then express with such remarkable certainty. Whichever suits you.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I don't know, Bible Jesus doesn't seem to object to being worshipped.

Jesus said 'worship God'. John, Paul, George and Ringo said 'worship Jesus'.

True. As some who have been through these discussions enough would know, even religious people are atheists, i.e., Christians don't believe in the Muslim "Allah", Muslims don't believe in Vishnu, Hindus don't believe in Thor, etc. Pure atheism is simply the non-belief in every deity.

But Christians do insist of using the word Allah for God ?

[Stavroforos]

Jesus said 'worship God'. John, Paul, George and Ringo said 'worship Jesus'.

Well when he says things like only through him can you go to heaven or when Jesus is god, a pretty clear case for worshipping Jesus arises.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Well when he says things like only through him can you go to heaven or when Jesus is god, a pretty clear case for worshipping Jesus arises.

Or it could mean (before it was distorted) through him is to follow his teachings, like all messengers do before or after him ?

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Symbolic of sacrifice so worthy of respect

Lots of people die, lots of people sacrifice themselves and lots died for the sake of others, from rustication, why single out Jesus? And if Jesus died and resurrected there is no sacrifice in the first place.

[Stavroforos]

Or it could mean (before it was distorted) through him is to follow his teachings, like all messengers do before or after him ?

No, because Jesus says:*“Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.*But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven." - Matthew 10:32-33

[Denny Crane!]

I guess Buddhist in the west are very different from Buddhist in the east. You are right about Buddha not asking people to worship him. Same like Jesus if I may add.

Not really. I mean you have some distortions amongst the ordinary folk where there is a bit of luck, ancestor worship and other traditional beliefs. But talk to anyone educated and educated in Buddhism and it is very similar bar a few differences. My favourite Buddhist speaker is Ajahn Brahm and he is English but he grew and was educated in Buddhism in Thailand and follows the Thai traditions. And I do know what I'm talking about having spent a long time in Thailand and being married to a thai national. Not just guessing here.

Lots of people die, lots of people sacrifice themselves and lots died for the sake of others, from rustication, why single out Jesus? And if Jesus died and resurrected there is no sacrifice in the first place.

Agree with it or disagree with it, its all explained in the NT. Give it a read.

[basics]

I guess Buddhist in the west are very different from Buddhist in the east. You are right about Buddha not asking people to worship him. Same like Jesus if I may add.

LestaT,

Before His death and resurrection Jesus did insist on placing worship to the Father of that there is no dispute but once resurrected and seen by His disciples the penny dropped as far as Thomas was concerned when he cried out, " My lord and my God." And once the day of Pentecost was over everyone saved were in no doubt that Jesus was God. But the secret which is no secret was that it was the Holy Spirit who opened their eyes to that fact in the act of regeneration that fell on all of them. So, when Jesus said, " A man must be born again to enter heaven," He spoke as always the truth. That is why all you guys can't see it, simply because you are still bound in sin.

" Or it could mean (before it was distorted) through him is to follow his teachings, like all messengers do before or after him ? "

No, that doesn't come into the equation at all unless of course one supports a religion that has twisted the whole aspect of salvation into something that requires works and hope of mercy. There is no " or " about Jesus Christ, pointed to from the beginning of the world, told of by all the real prophets as well as God in the garden at the fall of man plus all the remaining prophecies still in the pipeline like the changing weather, the one world system, the deteriorating sun and of course His coming again to judge all things.

" Well when he says things like only through him can you go to heaven or when Jesus is god, a pretty clear case for worshipping Jesus arises."

Stavroforos,

And when He paints a picture of what hell is like clearly He is showing that it is better to believe on Him before death rather than discover that after is too late, why? Simply because He is God's mercy to all sinners, there being no other. He paid the price demanded for sin with His own blood, the very reason He came from heaven to become a man another reason why He has to be God just as Gabriel told Mary. Can anyone imagine the Father leaving His Son to rot in hell whilst saving others from their sin? It stands to reason that the Father would raise Him from the dead exactly as is written. How can He judge the world and all else if He is not alive?

[Aeneas Veneratio]

As an atheist, you wouldn't believe in the connection between the universe and a supernatural being. Why would you? I don't get what you're trying to get at with that question.

Then why did you ask the question about the Universe having divine purpose, if you already knew that it was a pointless question?

[Phier]

Well, you can believe (haha) what has been explained to you, or you can continue to base your opinion on incorrect ideas which you then express with such remarkable certainty. Whichever suits you.

Such is the mystery of faith. Let us pray...

[Himster]

Of course it would be quite illogical and ludicrous if that were how things happened to all them that have been born again of the Spirit of God. The thing is that they know having had that experience something I may say that you haven't which leaves you in a position of making assumptions and false assumptions at that.

What am I supposed to do when people tell me about their hallucinations and other unbelievable claims? There's nothing I can do: their/your claims are by their nature unbelievable to all except the most gullible.

As I have pointed out these myths are a twisted version of the original that God laid down

And they claim that your myths are twisted version of their truths. Nobody has a shred of evidence. It's your word against theirs, non are especially believable. Their God was written about before your God, but that's meaningless: I had an imaginary friend before my brother had an imaginary friend: does that make my imaginary friend more real than my brother's? No, no it doesn't.

at the fall of man and they only began after the flood whereas the Gospel was proclaimed quite some time before at the act of creation. So yes, they will have their so-called holy men and their so-called prophets but God's word declares them as false. If there is any supernaturality involved with them God's word tells us where that comes from and it's not from Him. As for their miracles, where is it said that the dead were raised like Jesus, Peter and Paul did, that water was changed into wine, that any walked on water as Jesus and Peter did, the Red Sea and the Jordan being parted, manna falling from heaven and many many more? It is written that millions witnessed the Red sea and the Jordan crossing, that thousands witnessed the loaves and the fishes episodes so it's not as though we are talking here about one or two witnesses. By the end of the day of Pentecost some two to three thousand were born again and people actually saw the Spiritual fire that accompanied that event.

And their Gods and holy-men declare your God and holy-men to be false. It's just your word against theirs and their God against your God. Nothing more.

Very true because God also said, " that thinking themselves wise they became fools " why? Because staring them in the face is what God made so that they have no excuse for making assumptions about Him and His people.

Assumptions. That's an interesting choice of words. What assumption have I made? Did I have a hallucination and assume it was the esoteric message from an incomprehensible supernatural being? No, no I didn't. But someone here did.
Do I assume claims that are baseless and lacking evidence are not to be believed until supporting evidence has been found? yes, yes I do, because that is the only effective way to observe reality. If I didn't do that I would have to believe every religion to be true even if they're contradictory, I'd have to believe every claim about ghosts and unicorns and the Loch Ness monster and fairies and Jewish conspiracy theories in order to maintain consistency and intellectual integrity. That's the thing, that is what it all comes down to: I have no problem with believing silly things, but there needs to be consistency. If you believe the evidence for the world wide flood is sufficient then equally to be consistent you have to believe in the Loch Ness monster and fairies and aliens and every other evidence-less claim made under the sun, if you don't apply the same level of critical thinking to all claims then you're just a hypocrite. A common hypocrite.

You see? You don't apply the same critical thinking to all claims: you apply less than no critical thinking to your religion and then, hypocritically, you apply loads of critical thinking on other religions. Well sorry, that's not good enough. Without consistency you cannot have intellectual integrity, without intellectual integrity serious conversation (let alone debate) cannot be endured.

You're the one living in the glass house old fellow and your the one casting the stones.

Let he who is without sin.........

Is it really? Well, once again it is written that, " every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Now the name Lord in this context means God and because, when this actually happens during the judgement and as only God can judge, it follows that Jesus Christ is God. Yes, the Elohim, plural, the "us" that made man in the image of God. There is nothing insane nor insipid nor circular in repeating that. Some day even you are going to have to accept that fact so wouldn't it be better before death than after when it is too late?

Yes: that is circular reasoning, it is as plain as day, if you cannot see it you are blind, insane, or joking: "It is written that God is always right because God says whatever is written is true because it is written that God is always right because God says what is written is true because it is written so we know it's true because God says so, which is true because it is written which is true because God says so which cannot be false because it is written which of course is true because as I mentioned God is always right, which we already have covered because that is what is written, meaning that God is always right thus proving that what is written is therefore true meaning that God is never wrong because God says whatever is written is true because it is written that God is always right because God says what is written is true because it is written so we know it's true because God says so, which is true because it is written which is true because God says so which cannot be false because it is written which of course is true because as I mentioned God is always right, which we already have covered because that is what is written, meaning that God is always right thus proving that what is written is therefore true meaning that God is never wrong because God says whatever is written is true because it is written that God is always right because God says whatever is written is true because it is written that God is always right because God says what is written is true because it is written so we know it's true because God says so, which is true because it is written which is true because God says so which cannot be false because it is written which of course is true because as I mentioned God is always right, which we already have covered because that is what is written, meaning that God is always right thus proving that what is written is therefore true meaning that God is never wrong because God says what is written is true because it is written so we know it's true because God says so, which is true because it is written which is true because God says so which cannot be false because it is written which of course is true because as I mentioned God is always right, which we already have covered because that is what is written, meaning that God is always right thus proving that what is written is therefore true meaning that God is never wrong because God says whatever is written is true because it is written that God is always right because God says what is written is true because it is written so we know it's true because God says so, which is true because it is written which is true because God says so which cannot be false because it is written which of course is true because as I mentioned God is always right, which we already have covered because that is what is written, meaning that God is always right thus proving that what is written is therefore true meaning that God is never wrong............................................................. That summarizes precisely what you have repeated over and over and over and over all these years, most of that I didn't even type, I just copied and pasted from what you've said: It's utterly fallacious, the very definition of circular reasoning and you're so lost in it that you can't even see it. That'd be fine (well maybe not quite fine, but it's not terrible) on it's own, but considering it's coupled with the hypocritical lack of consistency when considering other religions.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, you can believe (haha) what has been explained to you, or you can continue to base your opinion on incorrect ideas which you then express with such remarkable certainty. Whichever suits you.

And, you can continue to make claims about "incorrect ideas" without managing to come up with coherent arguments against them.

Then why did you ask the question about the Universe having divine purpose, if you already knew that it was a pointless question?

The pointless part was for you to respond a question with a question, not my question. My question was to ask you about your stance on universe's nature. Let me ask again: As an atheist, you don't believe that the universe has no divine purpose?

[High Fist]

As an atheist, you don't believe that the universe has no divine purpose?

Well, given that without a deity the universe can't have a divine purpose, I'd guess that anyone who doesn't believe in god would, in turn, not believe the universe has a divine purpose. But who knows, people believe in stranger things.

Do you believe the universe has a divine purpose? What's the point if it does, none of us will ever see it.
May I ask what the point you're trying to make is?

And, you can continue to make claims about "incorrect ideas" without managing to come up with coherent arguments against them.

So the point you're trying to make is when someone says "I don't believe you," they are believing that ~whatever~ is not true?

What's your point?

[Destin Faroda]

Where's gnosticism? It is the only religion that really embraces science, knowledge and logic.