Fairies and spagetti monsters aren't considered Gods, so a belief about them wouldn't ever count as a religion. 'Atheism' as you're describing it is apathetic agnosticism.

Here's a quick run through of spiritual beliefs:

If you think God(s) exist you're a theist. This is a religious belief.
If you think they don't you're an atheist. This is a religious belief.
If you think it's possible to know either way you're a gnostic. This is a philosophical belief. It's also ignorant.
If you think there's no way to know you're an agnostic. This is a philosophical belief.

It's all lines in the sand boychick. But just so you know, you can draw more lines in a semi-meaningful way.

Postive atheism -> affirming the claim that god doesn't exist
Negative atheism -> denying the claim that god exists.

Denying the claim really only means that you don't think there is enough empirical evidence to warrant belief in the claim "there is a God". Means a whole world of difference from claiming the proposition 'There is no God'.

These, I would argue are two different knowledge claims. Negative atheism and agnosticism are compatible. I would assume positive atheism has some sort of gnostic belief to it. The vast vast majority of atheists are negative atheists (I would assume).


I still feel uncomfortable under the label atheist. I think implicitly it's what I am, but I think my own beliefs are a little too nebulous to put down in a binary. Like I said. lines in the sand, nothing more.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com

I am very comfortable saying I AM AN ATHEIST.

_________________

That's gnostic Atheism.
That's agnostic Atheism.

Like, I just went through this

Great, now that we have those ideas categorized, anyone know what they mean?

okay so.

it seems like the difference between the words a/gnostic and a/theist are the most important modifiers.

if you don't believe in a god and you think there is no way to ever know if there is a god or not, you are a atheist agnostic. (this seems to be what would most accurately describe the modern usage of the term 'agnostic')

if you believe in SOMEthing, but submit to the idea that there is no way for you to ever know, means you a theist agnostic.

if you do not believe in a god, and you believe there is "proof" of the lack of a god, then you are an atheist gnostic. (this seems the most in line with today's use of the word 'atheist')

and finally, a gnostic theist is someone that believes in a god and believes that they have "proof" or can prove its existence.

it seems that agnostics submit to the idea that they can have no way of knowing for sure, and gnostics believe that there is a way of knowing for sure. theist believes in a higher power, and an atheist doesn't.

_________________

But we already categorized the words!

Can you not tell me what they mean?

What does it mean if I believe in a god? Or a higher power? Or if I don't?

Hi All:

I am not, like many Reformed Baptists, a staunch anti-Catholic. I am, however, opposed to the manner in which the Vatican deliberately mistranslates some of the works of the Roman Catholic Church Fathers into English so as to agree with the Vatican's viewpoints on certain issues. Here is a prime example of deliberate Vatican mistranslations:

The Vatican takes shortcuts when interpreting Augustine of Denmark’s / Nicholas of Lyra’s mnemonic:

From Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993. 2nd ed. Hereafter, CCC.

Church Latin: Littera gesta docet; quid creda, allegoria;
Moralia quid agas; quo tendas, anagogia.

Translation: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny (CCC 118).

Problem: This deliberate paraphrase constitutes a poor translation of the “Latin” original. Why?

1. Three verbs (i.e., credas, agas, and tendas) have a subject; therefore, they are not in infinitive form (i.e., the preposition “to” immediately precedes the verb).
2. The first verb, docet, is in plural form, and the infinitive case is never used in such circumstances.
3. The first verb is just a plural verb; the following three verbs, though, are second person singular verbs (i.e., the subject “you” immediately precedes the verb).
4. The first verb is not in subjunctive form; however, the other three verb forms are. A subjunctive is a wish. (The auxiliary verb, should, immediately precedes the verb.)
5. The term gesta is Italian, and means deeds. (Church Latin possibly uses original Latin plus those borrowed from languages derived from Latin, namely, Italian, Spanish, and French.)
6. In the second and fourth part of CCC’s translation, a verb is missing.
7. In the first and second part of CCC’s translation, the verbs are paraphrased.
8. There are no subjects in the couplets, but there should be.

My Translation (I used Wiktionary)

FIRST CLAUSE: The letter teaches deeds,
Littera (noun, thing)—LETTER [THE]—Notes: There are no articles in Latin (i.e., a, an, or the)
gesta (noun, idea)—DEEDS
docet (plural verb form)—TEACHES
SECOND CLAUSE: the allegory teaches what you should believe in,
Quid (adjective)—WHAT
credas (second person singular present active subjunctive verb)—YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN—Note: “In” is not used in the accusative case (a direct object, followed by a noun referring to a person), or the dative case (an indirect object, followed by a noun referring to an abstract idea), though, in the latter case, “in” can be used.
allegoria (noun, idea)—ALLEGORY [THE]—A verb is needed (i.e., docet, teaches) between “the allegory” and “what.”
THIRD CLAUSE: the moral teaches what you should do,
Moralia (noun, idea)—MORAL [THE]—A verb is needed (i.e., docet, teaches) between “the moral” and “what.”
quid (adjective)—WHAT
agas (second person singular present active subjunctive verb)—YOU SHOULD DO
FOURTH CLAUSE: and the anagoge teaches what you should strive for.
quo (adjective)—WHAT
tendas (second person singular present active subjunctive verb)—YOU SHOULD STRIVE FOR
anagogia (noun, idea)—ANAGOGE [THE]—A verb is needed (i.e., docet, teaches) between “the anagoge” and “what.”—A conjunction (and) is needed before anagoge, since it is the last of four consecutive clauses.

My translation: The letter teaches deeds, the allegory teaches what you should believe in, the moral teaches what you should do, and the anagoge teaches what you should strive for.

Take care.

Best Wishes,
QuotidianPerfection

What does it mean? Like what does it effect?
It's such a vague question.

Well, they're pretty vague words, aren't they?

Words in general are pretty vague. Vagueness is pretty vague.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com

Well, that's my point about all the silly things people say about God. It is rare that someone actually wants to talk about the idea of God, and go beyond the concept of "well SOMEONE had to make it all..."

And then you want to tell me that you have all these important beliefs about this vague idea's existence? Nothing could be more meaningless.

Well, we're all talking about that vague idea, but if you want to get the ball rolling on talking about the idea of God without talking about the origin of the universe (though nobody has discussed that here yet, I think) I'm sure there's people who'd be interested in that too.

In a Roman Catholic family, currently converting to Agnosticism.

The wife and I have different religions so we just go to an agnostic church together every week

...get it?

If you would like to label atheism a 'religious belief' then you would have to categorise it more than just a non-belief in a god. Non-belief alone doesn't make someone religious, it would be devotion to that idea which would make them religious.

_________________

Exactly, it's like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.

i am non religous.

_________________
YouTube: PeacefulJarl
Twitch: PeacefulJarl379
Mixer: PeacefulJarl379

I am an atheist. I wish there was a way to change my vote from Christian, I believe I voted that way when I first joined the site in like 2010.

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.

Hi All:

I believe in Christianity (Calvinism). To understand my convictions, let me explain what the Calvinist (named after the Reformer John Calvin) acronym TULIP means.

T = Total depravity of man (this includes men and women). Since the Fall, humans can do only evil, although God restrains sin.
U = Unconditional election. God predestines who He wants to save and who He wants to damn. The norm is this: all condemned individuals are declared to achieve wickedness; however, the unrighteous people's choices in life fulfill God's proclamation that they will do evil--He does not cause them to do evil. The Holy Spirit caused those destined to be saved to ask that Jesus Christ save them, and, once this action is performed, God causes the saved to act righteously.
L = Limited atonement. While it is true that Christ's death on the cross has the potential of saving everyone, only the people who God selects will seek Christ's mercy; others will reject Him, seeking other paths than the "narrow way" which Christ says is a must in the Bible.
I = Irresistible grace. At a certain point in time, sinners drawn to the gospel will cry out to God for mercy, and have all their sins forgiven.
P = Perseverance of the saints. Once saved, a person can never lose their salvation.

Take care,
QP

T, U = So do you believe that humans do not have free will? After all, it's the Holy Spirit deciding if we do good or bad, not us. If we do not have free will, why should I try to achieve anything? What about atheists who do good? How is it possible that they do not abide by the principle that humans can only do evil without God?

I = That's not necessarily true. Not all sinners do this, and most don't turn to your God. What is your answer to this?

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.

Hi Kubi:

Thanks for your prompt response.

Yes, I believe humans have "free will," but only to do evil. God restrains sin, though, which is why people can never be as wicked as they would like. However, before the Fall of Man, Adam and Eve had the ability to choose between good and evil.

Your comment on the "Holy Spirit" needs clarification. The Holy Spirit never influences humans to act evilly, as they have done so since the Fall. It is in humanity's nature to rebel against the Spirit of God on a continuum. The Holy Spirit, though, convicts a small percentage of individuals, and causes them to obey God. Following the Edenic duo's Fall, no one desires to honor God's commandments.

Do I think atheists can do good? Yes. However, this "goodness" comes about only because God restrains one's level of unbelief. The rebellion against God shown by some unsaved individuals is more than others, and this is evidence that God curtails people's wickedness in different degrees.

You wonder how can good and evil can exist apart from God. It can't. Without God's universal laws, morality disintegrates into a moral relativity, meaning that societies choose what is right and wrong. This means that a Christian who speaks out against the Isis leaders who condones raping females is right, from his perspective, and Isis is wrong; however, from Isis' perspective, raping females is ethical, and those who oppose it are unrighteous. Who is right or wrong then? Both groups they are, but, in a society following the dictates of ethical relativism, no one can be.

Let me take the paragraph above further. Christians who follow the Bible are authentic to their religion, but Christians who murder, steal, and commit other atrocities do not live according their Christian faith. The same thing can be said for atheists. Atheists who are horrified at child abuse and other wrongdoings are not acting as atheists, but showing that the Christian belief in a firm divide between right and wrong with respect to ethicality is, in fact, the case. Atheists who blow up buildings and participate in other types of conduct Christians denounce as evil are merely acting in accordance to their belief that no morality exists, and, as such, can act however they want without fear of moral repercussions. I would argue that you are an atheist who accepts a Christian, rather than an atheistic, perspective.

My answer to your last question is that we don't want God--in fact, before people are saved, they reject Him, or turn to false gods and idols. It is God who has to regenerate the heart of the sinner.

Christians, contrary to popular beliefs, do not shun logic. Yes, maybe Adam and Eve did not know how to discern good from evil, but that still doesn't excuse their behavior. When God told them that they are not to touch or eat forbidden fruit on penalty of death, the Edenic duo understand perfectly that touching or eating outlawed substance is prohibited, as the logical conjunction "not" indicates, and that there is a consequence for their behavior, even if Adam and Eve do not know what "death" is. Logical thinking does not require that one know about good and evil, either--it can be used to evaluate propositions independent of them.

Finally, God's prohibition of Adam and Eve knowledge did not apply to art, history (in Prelapsarian Eden, it would probably be what happened beforehand), literature, math, science, and other subjects--it just disallowed them from having knowledge of good and evil.

If you want, I can give you links to some Christian / atheist debates. As an intellectual who I deeply respect, you can evaluate these videos, then remark upon the strengths and weaknesses each one. I'll try to field your queries as best I can.

Best Wishes,
QP

Wrong. An atheist who is horrified by child abuse is acting upon an inner moral compass, it has nothing to do with a religious belief, never mind a Christian one. Does my disgust for moths also follow a Christian belief? No it does not, and most people won't share that same thought for moths. However, disgust for child abuse is universal and to credit a thing like that to a religious belief is quite obnoxious.

If you are going to discuss a topic with somebody, at least be accurate with what you are trying to say. It’s no good if you believe in something that is not true, since Atheists do not believe that morality doesn’t exist, perhaps you mean something else by what you said. If not, then you are wrong, and you should carry that correction forward.



I wouldn’t say Christians shun logic, but I would say they bend it to make their views make more sense, or at least bend it enough so it doesn’t disrupt what they believe to be true. It doesn’t help that their belief relies heavily on a book written thousands of years ago, with no real evidence to say that it is a true written word of god (hence the need of faith).

So:

- Adam and Eve do not know how to discern good from evil (so we could also say that as right/wrong).
- God tells them not to eat the fruit else penalty of death.

Perhaps god should have taught these newly created beings not to touch his stuff if he didn’t want them touching his stuff. I don’t even allow my son to choose whether or not he gets to mess with my things, never mind a magical apple I’m particularly picky about. If you are going to go through the effort of creating the world, and new creatures, at least teach them right from wrong. And if you don't want to do that, don't punish every human to follow because of the mistakes of two. It's laughable to speak of logic when we're talking about Adam and Eve as though it actually happened.



What evidence do you have that says humans do not know what good and evil is?

_________________