What is "Atheism"?

[Medicine*Woman]

Gambit Star: Athiest or not, we are being our god. And part of the scenario of life is that we will never be able to explain it, that is why we evolve, there is room for learning.

Athiesm was the name given to a non-believer during (what I see as) a time of quite barbaric outlooks on life. People killed in the name of their religion and would cast their hate upon those whom did not follow the same beliefs.

If you ask me, Athiest could be just as important as those who create their god, because they accept the world before them, with their own eyes and perceptions.
*************
M*W: Gambit Star, you have made a wise observation. How much greater our own observations are than those filtered through the sieve of Christianity.

The human race has reclaimed its divine nature. So what? They're called atheists! The truth be known -- the atheists are gods.

 

[Cris]

Sarkus,

Many thanks for the link, Cris - very helpful and informative.
Maybe you should make it a "sticky" for the Religion forum?

It was when I was the mod here, but James wisely has it as a link in the Religion FAQs which is a sticky thread.

 

[duendy]

No - now you're injecting some strange kind of nonsense into what I've said. We're not arguing the existence of God here, but the nature of atheism.

d___No silas. you are rejecting a 'HE-God". you said 'He'

I'm sorry, I was brought up with the paternalistic God image and I believe most of my readers have been as well.

d__EX_ACTLY.now you are admitting it. you say you have been brought up beliving in a paternalistic god image. a HE god image.

So when I talk about God I use the image that I believe most people will recognise and understand.

d__well i DO understand it, and i challenge that sole conception of what spirituality might mean, as explained and indoctrinated by patriarchal religious conditioning.

I'm sorry but calling one "theory" a God theory and the other theory a "Goddess" theory is, in my view, pseudointellectual New Age-y claptrap.

d__is it hell as like. in order to KNOW what you ARe rejecting, KNOW it! what's the point of disblieving some belief if you dont explore about it, its origins. what it has bee UP to. in other words, you 'disbelief' is BLIND

A "Natural" creation of the Universe (which is what I believe in) is by definition not involving any gods, male, female or otherwise.

the tern 'natural' derives from NATURE. you should look also at the birth and beliefs of science regarding Nature, and compare it with Goddess orientated understanding of Nature. you will see that the former has a definite dogmatic opion of the natrual. one i am not at ALL happy with! which is why i am challenging you here

 

[Silas]

is it hell as like.

Ah, a refreshing Northernism! I'm so used to talking Americanese "webspeak" it's a breath of fresh air to hear a Mancunian speaking his native tongue!

in order to KNOW what you ARe rejecting, KNOW it! what's the point of disblieving some belief if you dont explore about it, its origins. what it has bee UP to. in other words, you 'disbelief' is BLIND

Back to the argument. I'm sorry duendy, but I defy anyone to read my posts and state that I speak from ignorance of religion and religious origins.

A "Natural" creation of the Universe (which is what I believe in) is by definition not involving any gods, male, female or otherwise.

the term 'natural' derives from NATURE. you should look also at the birth and beliefs of science regarding Nature, and compare it with Goddess orientated understanding of Nature. you will see that the former has a definite dogmatic opion of the natrual. one i am not at ALL happy with! which is why i am challenging you here

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, religious or otherwise. As an Atheist, it is any kind of personification behind the processes of nature that I am not at all happy with. The whole point of science is that it isn't a God-oriented view of nature, nor a Goddess-oriented view of nature, nor any but a "lets see what the evidence shows us" view of nature. This is, by definition, the very antithesis of "dogmatism". Despite the image that is common in the world, science does not hold any view through dogmatism, but through sound, examinable evidence. Individual scientists propound views in a way that can be seen as dogmatic, certainly, but the progress of science itself is not. And the crucial difference is this: you are not at all happy with the scientific view of the natural - well, maybe some scientists aren't that happy either. But the scientific view will go on regardless of how happy you are with it, and that view will increase human knowledge of the Universe and concomitantly create benefits for humanity - actual, measurable benefits. This is what the religious view can not do - and I'm afraid your view cannot do it either. You can worship the goddess of Mother Nature, but that's not going to stop one single cancer cell from growing.

Now to the earlier, much less important parts:

No - now you're injecting some strange kind of nonsense into what I've said. We're not arguing the existence of God here, but the nature of atheism.

d___No silas. you are rejecting a 'HE-God". you said 'He'

I reject God - does it matter what personal pronoun I use? You will say yes, but please believe me when I tell you that it really doesn't matter to me. God is equally nonexistant in either gender.

I'm sorry, I was brought up with the paternalistic God image and I believe most of my readers have been as well.

d__EX_ACTLY.now you are admitting it. you say you have been brought up beliving in a paternalistic god image. a HE god image.

But a) I can hardly help how I was brought up, can I? And b) The kind of God I was brought up with is not germane to the discussion. I was simply explaining why I talk about things in a particular way in order to be understood here by the majority of people. I don't reject God for any male characteristics it may have been attributed with, I just reject God full stop.

My rejection of God was due to my embracing of the rational, scientific view of the Universe. I have studied that sufficiently to be more than convinced that I am and wish to remain a rationalist. Exploring other views of nature (like your Goddess-centred viewpoint) has simply not come into my purview. I have studied the religion in which I was brought up and I have studied science, and I think understand both to a sufficient level to allow me to make contributions to this forum. I don't think my ignorance of your, you have to admit, somewhat esoteric world-view, does not disbar me from coming here to define my atheism.