The “main divide” on the board is always given presumptively as atheist vs theist. I wonder. Now asking just the theists (atheist hold your thoughts):
Where do atheists fit on the spectrum of right minded and wrong minded, compared to other standard religions, splinter sects of your religion, minor traditional religions, modern religions like Moonies and Jonestown, modern revivals like Wicca, zombie cult and satanism, and brand new self-proclaimed prophets. Are atheists the “wrongest” of the spectrum or still this side of the fringe?
Back to mainstream religions, are they “essentially the same” as yours, do they all reflect the same god, the same soul, the same afterlife?
Are those religions’ holy writings inspired by gods or just made up, old wives tales, fiction for moral instruction, wishful thinking, simple speculation?
How do you think the believers of those other religions would answer those questions about yours? Would they think you are closer to them than atheists are, are essentially about the same god, soul, afterlife, and have god-inspired writings?
Sorry, I don’t judge people’s value by their religion or lack thereof. Not applicable. Some day, I’d love to be able to invite Der Trihs to lunch, although I’m reasonably sure it wouldn’t be a good idea to choose that day to bless the meal standing up and singing at the top of my lungs, yanow
Well, the three Religions of the Book are all the same God, others to a certain point, others “any relationship is coincidence, please don’t sue.” Do you consider Hinduism a mainstream religion? It’s quite big if not huge, but it’s polytheistic and (according to the Hindus I’ve been able to talk with) fatalistic; nevertheless, it still tries to explain the same world, the same laws of physics, the same nature, the same god(s).
Theirs and mine are a combination. God talks to us all, but some people have better hearing than others.
Which religion? Which branch? I know people of MY religion who think I’m going to roast in Hell for not belonging to their little branch… There’s assholes, tolerant folk and saints in every religion.
Where do atheists fit on the spectrum of right minded and wrong minded, compared to other standard religions, splinter sects of your religion, minor traditional religions, modern religions like Moonies and Jonestown, modern revivals like Wicca, zombie cult and satanism, and brand new self-proclaimed prophets. Are atheists the “wrongest” of the spectrum or still this side of the fringe?
I try not to judge. There are zillions of different beliefs in the world, and I’m only aware of a fraction of them, so how should I know where to put someone on the right-wrong-loonie scale? Obviously I think my beliefs are correct- that’s why they’re called beliefs. But saying “how wrong?” makes about as much sense as asking how purple yellow is.
Er, did that make any sense? I’m not very good at trying to put abstract thoughts into words.
I don’t blame some of the angry atheists for being atheists. They grew up with intolerant loons, so naturally they think religion causes you to be an intolerant loon. Other people grew up with a shallow, God-as-the-cosmic-Tooth-Fairy education, so when they grow up and start to think they dismiss the whole thing altogether. I would, too.
*Back to mainstream religions, are they “essentially the same” as yours, do they all reflect the same god, the same soul, the same afterlife? *
Some of them do. Certaintly the monotheistic ones. There’s the idea in Judaism that (at least for gentiles) any sort of ethical monotheism is calling God by a different name. A moral Muslim or Christian is a good person in God’s eyes.
Are those religions’ holy writings inspired by gods or just made up, old wives tales, fiction for moral instruction, wishful thinking, simple speculation?
Well, yes. The point of belonging to one religion is that you think your faith is the true word of God, as opposed to all the other faiths.
However, I’m not obnoxious about it. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, and in the meantime, we both try to be good people.
4) How do you think the believers of those other religions would answer those questions about yours? Would they think you are closer to them than atheists are, are essentially about the same god, soul, afterlife, and have god-inspired writings?
Ditto for what I said above. If they thought Judaism was the truth they’d be Jews, or at least Noachide gentiles.
I don’t know what individual faiths think about others. I’m pretty sure that Christians think of Judaism as a lesser form of Christianity, but honestly, I don’t know.
I would only add, that imo, the term atheist has been misappropriated. I do believe I’m a part of All There Is and so believe in God and therefore am not an atheist. Nonetheless, I think many hold a more rigid idea of God’s “requirements” (other than being) and to them, am I an atheist or just a heretic?
Well, atheism is better than real devil-worshipping Satanism, and may be better/worse than that pseudo-philosophical Howard Stanton Levey fluff.
It just depends on the atheist. I’m sure there are atheists I’d like better and who have more truth on other areas than some orthodox Christians.
2.) To a varying degree, but they don’t know Jesus as Lord & Savior, and that’s a BIG gap.
3.) All of the above. At the very best, other faiths can be signposts/foreshadowing/indicators of the Gospel of Christ. At the very worst, they can be Satanic opponents to it.
I honestly don’t know. I know that satanists are into Self, and I’m not down with that as a human. Wiccans seem to have a nice thing going for them. Nothing wrong with thanking the breeze. I think cults are loonies, religious or not.
It’s not my place to judge who’s wrong or right. I certainly don’t know. I believe I’m right but anyone else could be right.
I will say one thing…I have friends and family of varying religious and non-religious bent and there are a lot of atheists I’d rather spend time with and discourse with than other Christians.
Hmm…I think Islam and Judaism are a lot like Christianity but stricter. Mostly because they’re a lot more cultural than Christianity, so people know if you’re following the rules or not. Christianity is such a hodge-podge of ideas once you get past God and Christ. From what I know of Judaism and Islam, they’re all about peace, being a good person and God. Technically Christianity is too. Problem is, when you introduce real people into the equation, things get messed up.
I tend to view the Bible as moral instruction and speculation. But for the most part it’s all good news so it’s not hard to find it A Good Book. Gotta remember that God sort of changed course when he sent Jesus, because the people on Earth were having trouble following the original rules (Old Testament) so a lot of the rules set forth in the OT are now invalid.
I would hope that Jews and Mulsims respect a Christian’s respect for God. They probably think all Christians are nutjobs, tho, just like I sometimes think all Christians are nutjobs because it’s the nutjobs you see on the news. I’m not sure that they want to convert athiests like Christians do, tho.
It seems to me that, if a person doesn’t have a sense of there being some kind of higher power, that atheism seems to make the most sense. Clearly, I am using the word “sense” to mean two different things here; sorry, but I couldn’t think of better words to use. I just can’t imagine believing in a higher power based solely on organized religion or what other people believe.
If I hadn’t had the experiences I’ve had, that make me strongly feel the “Something” that I feel, I would be an atheist. (I am also aware that my “sense” of the “Something” may come completely from my own brain, so I guess that makes me technically an agnostic. However, my experiences have been significant enough, as well as consistent enough, that I am comfortable considering myself a believer.)
I don’t know if this makes “sense” to y’all. ;)
Again, my “sense” is, from hearing, reading about, and viewing the experience of others, that there is a similarity of experience of a higher power. That’s about all I can say with any honesty.
I don’t know. I read them as poetry expressing experiences beyond what can be expressed rationally.
Again, I don’t know. My mom sometimes tells me I am being controlled by Satan when I disagree with her. My sister is more tolerant and speaks to me carefully, but seems to be trying to witness to me in a non-confrontational way.
I don’t really know what’s going on in other people’s heads, and I find it tiring and counterproductive to try to guess.
I will add this…when I hear or read people say or imply, “God thinks this” or “God doesn’t like this,” I get a strong feeling of a kind of atavistic dread. I do not take this to mean they’re wrong or sinful or whatever. I take it to mean that I am personally uncomfortable with assuming I know anything along those lines. In other words, I believe my reactions reveal something about me, not others.
ETA - I was raised Christian, but, even though I believe I have been very open to Christian experience and to “Jesus”, I have never sensed anything that I could call a relationship with Jesus. Still open minded, but can’t call myself Christian.
Where do atheists fit on the spectrum of right minded and wrong minded, compared to other standard religions, splinter sects of your religion, minor traditional religions, modern religions like Moonies and Jonestown, modern revivals like Wicca, zombie cult and satanism, and brand new self-proclaimed prophets. Are atheists the “wrongest” of the spectrum or still this side of the fringe?
I suppose they are the wrongest of the spectrum.
Back to mainstream religions, are they “essentially the same” as yours, do they all reflect the same god, the same soul, the same afterlife?
I think other religions are misinterperted versions of Judeo-Christianity. For instance the doctrines of Hindooism on deities are quite similar to the concept of the Trinity.
Are those religions’ holy writings inspired by gods or just made up, old wives tales, fiction for moral instruction, wishful thinking, simple speculation?
Some allegorical, some inspired, and some fiction.
How do you think the believers of those other religions would answer those questions about yours? Would they think you are closer to them than atheists are, are essentially about the same god, soul, afterlife, and have god-inspired writings?
I don’t think other religions are exactly the same but they are more correct then atheists.
I would only ever consider someone ‘wrong minded’ for their religious beliefs or lack thereof if they used them as an excuse to harm others.
They are all ways of looking at small parts of a big picture.
Some are narrative retellings of historical events, others are allegory and parable.
I think most would agree with me, and that only extremists might argue that I am lesser for not belonging to their institutions or following their customs.
I also don’t really think I’m all that different from atheists. I think science and history are ideally similar to religion in their aims.
Compared not so much to “other religions” but to average/typical people who identify with them, and obviously taking a broad paintbrush in hand:
a) Most atheists are more accurate and more in touch with reality and I daresay have more admirable ethical standards than most theists. If there were some clever way to control for the extent to which people are thinking people, a lot of that would wash out. If there were some way to eliminate people who have been exposed to other people’s religious thought (definitely including established religion but also private/personal insights of a fully thought-out religious sort), you might even get an inversion effect (although you’d get a lot of thoughtful NUTTY people amongst your remaining theists).
Umm, yes and no, with the emphasis on “no”. MOST of them are “certainty-centric”. They are dogmatic. They tend to have a canon of beliefs that all people — or at least all believers (not all religions are “drag everyone in and make them us” in approach; some are “only we elect few get to be in and neither we nor God cares what the riffraff thing about anything” instead) are supposed to believe. In some cases the believer is expected to derive an independent understanding which nevertheless should dovetail with understandings that other believers have wrought; in other cases one is expected to believe without understanding (i.e., ascribe to the tenets even if the terms thereof are meaningless to the believer).
I would consider that entire constellation of religious behavior as falling into “worshiping a false god”. To use an example likely to be quite familiar to western civ folks, and especially to US residents, there are people whose religion obtains its certainties from a Book. Although one “should” have a personal relationship with God, one’s resulting experiences, insights, beliefs, etc, should damn well adhere to the book (and, less formally, to well-ensconced interpretations given to it, although those interpretations are treated as self-evidently what the Book says, as if no other interpretation were possible). This is Book-worship; they have put their Book before God and worship it instead of God.
God is a personal experience, and no description or interpretation can be more than a clumsy and pale mock-up, and true religion is a process not a canned set of already-determined truths and understandings.
And uncertainty — not certainty — is the cornerstone. One becomes spiritual by perceiving, accepting, and embracing the perpetual state of human uncertainty. Not by trying to find a cure for it.
But see below, I did say “yes and no”. I don’t think any of the established religions started out as what they are now.
I think in each and every case, if you went back far enough you would find someone who had been doing honest seeking for answers and who had insights and revelations, the core of which were not, ever, geared towards telling people how they could become sure of themselves and their righteousness, or secure in their factual or ethical correctness; nor, for that matter, were they originally excoriations, heaping verbal abuse on people and telling them what worms and undeserving deplorable creatures we all are. Instead, most of them were joyously excited in bringing difficult-to-express understandings, understandings about the importance of people doing a type of internal “listening”, and following the understandings that they themselves would attain.
So in those ancient cores, yes, I think they were all the same. But in the case of all institutionalized / mainstream religions with which I have any familiarity, that process was taken to the taxidermist, the living guts of it ripped out and replaced with cotton wadding, glass eyes replacing anything akin to seeing for yourself, all meaningful activity and life eliminated, and the stuffed and mounted corpse put on display to amaze one and all.
Depends on who you ask! The typical mainstream orthodox believer would either dump me in with the atheists or perhaps put me a couple rungs above or below them, depending on whether they’d consider me deluded or sinister. The ones doing their own thinking would say much what I’ve said here, except in their own words and from their own background and shaped by the religion to which they have been exposed which would inform the terms and concepts that they use to express it.
Oh, pooh! Why should atheists hold their thoughts? This forum is for all humble opinions.
The wrongest on my spectrum are the ones who think everyone thinks like them.
I guess Unitarians and Deists are close enough, the rest scare me.
Yeah, all of the above, plus some cynical mind games and manipulation to gather donations, especially among faith healers and TV preachers.
I’m pretty sure most of the other religions are not impressed with American sects. If they consider them at all I’d bet they are considered forms of paganism, false idolatry, unsanitary food laws etc. And probably more nettlesome than atheists.
I am answering before reading any of the other responses.
I don’t think you can judge how “right-minded” or close to the “Truth” an individual is based on what label they put on themselves. And I don’t think right-mindedness and closeness to the truth can be measured on a linear scale: some religions or individuals may be closer to the truth in some ways and further in others.
I, as a Christian, am convinced that some atheists are more right-minded, closer to the truth, and more pleasing to God than some religious people (including some who profess to be Christian) are. Some of the things that an atheist rejects, he is absolutely right to reject.
And atheism definitely makes more sense to me than some of the wackier religions out there do. I can see things from the atheist’s point of view more easily than from that of some religious people.
Maybe asking “Who, in your opinion, is closer to being right-minded: the atheist or the believer in a different religion?” is sort of like asking “Who is closer to being happily married: the bachelor or the unhappily married man.”
I can’t give a simple answer to these questions, partly because no simple answer would suffice for the wide variety of religious beliefs and claims out there and partly because my understanding of those beliefs and claims is limited.
I guess it depends mostly on how convinced they are that their belief is the absolute correct one. The vast majority are just possibly mistaken as are we believers (one side has to be wrong, and I’m not 100% convinced it’s theirs), but there are a few who are akin to religious fundamentalists who also have an unwavering belief that they are utterly correct. I think absolutists on both ends of the spectrum are the most wrong-minded because it shows an unwillingness to ever re-evaluate one’s position.
Most do, and it’s the same God by different names. Obviously polydeism is a different case, but even that might be naming different aspects of the same divinity rather than actually multiple gods.
They may well be inspired by God too, but even Christianity’s teachings fit all the other choices offered as well. I don’t think it’s bad for them to be these things, because explainations were needed despite their lack of scientific knowledge, and rules for society were necessary too.
I don’t know to the first question, and obviously to the second - any sorts of belief in those things would be closer than a lack of belief.
One of the major tenets of my religious belief is not to judge, so the idea of ordering religions or lack thereof by rightness would be anathema. My religious beliefs leave that responsibility 100% up to God. Not to say I acheive being 100% nonjudgmental, but it’s what I believe in. I was an atheist through my early 20s. I wouldn’t want to go back to being an atheist, so in that sense I do order belief higher than nonbelief. But if God has not brought an atheist to believe yet, I trust Him to work in his own time. I try to live my life in a way that wouldn’t be a barrier to an atheist becoming a Christian.
Most flavors of Christianity are very similar in their beliefs. I’d say the basic beliefs are the same as mine. I don’t know enough about other mainstream religions, like Buddhism or Hinduism, to say much about them.
I’m called to live out my own faith, not evaluate other faiths. So if I were reading about Buddhist beliefs, I’d consider it food for thought, and interpret it from the framework of my own faith.
They would vary, from seeing more unity than probably really exists to seeing more divisions than probably really exist.
Whether you think that “All there is” has some kind of intent or purpose. In other words, I’m certain I’m part of “all there is”, just because that’s the definition of “all there is”. That surely does not make me a theist or an atheist. That’s just plain logic - I exist.
1b. If all you’re proposing that god is the universe or some kind of similar definition, then I would argue that you should work on getting your ideas clearer. You might be a deist, but who knows with sloppy definitions like that.
Which religion or other dogma you’re proposing you might be heretical against. I don’t know of any religion at least that holds that people aren’t part of the universe, at least in a broad sense (though I’ve got a lot of difficulty grasping the concept of immortal souls, which some denominations seem to hold as potentially existing “outside the universe” or whatever). On the other hand, mainstream christianity is probably heretical to jews and muslims.
Very shortly, it just depends on your definition of God. Pretty much all religions hold that God (or gods) is a powerful entity. If you agree, you’re not an atheist.
Also, most religions hold that god has some kind of intent with the universe as it is today. If you don’t agree, you’re probably a deist.
If you think god is neither but just some meta-concept of everything with no intent, in my opinion your mind is cluttered and you need a cup of coffee and you could possibly turn out to be an atheist.
If you think all those definitions of god are highly improbable, then you’re an atheist. If you think you can’t make a decision either way, you’re an agnostic and you should get another cup of coffee.
I’m an atheist, but if you forgive me for attempting to answer this I’ll ignore the OP
Well, you nailed it; I’m a “theist” and that’s usually how I describe myself to someone who asks. I believe in God, and there are parts of the Bible that I find great truth in, but I’m a Christian only in the sense that I find some of Jesus’ teachings about how I should live my life and treat other people informative and compelling, but I’m not a Christian in the “JC as the Son of God” kind of a way. And I’m further from other organized religions than I am Christianity.
1: From rightest to wrongest:
Splinter “sects” of my own religion (people who mostly agree with me, I guess?)
Atheists (because they’re not expecting an afterlife, especially a divided one, and seem to have a sense of humanistic beliefs about morals, like me)
Standard religions and minor traditional religions (because they’re less crazy than the people coming next)
Modern religions, revivals, and brand-new prophets. (I’m not sure how you distinguish these guys, but I think they’re all kinda crazy.)
2: Some of these people may have had legitimate religious experiences, and either interpreted them differently than I have, or were misinterpreted by their followers. Others are simply delusional. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer here.
3: Some portion of religious texts are clearly old wives tales, metaphor, and the like. Others may be divinely inspired. I don’t claim to have a real right-or-wrong answer about this. There are some that I take as though they were divinely inspired, though.
4: Yes, I think I, as a theist, would be viewed by most theists as closer to their beliefs than an atheist.
Aside from acknowledging Nava’s post as summing the OP as I see it, especially 3), I put a rhetorical question to anyone who believes that words can say something meaningful about what contains them. Thanks for your reply.
In the end, god is a three-letter word. With a little honest reflection, anyone can recognize that his conception of that which is beyond conceptualization MUST differ completely from everyone else’s. Religions are religions by fostering the illusion that using a limited lexicon (usually “scripture”) to describe the indescribable somehow (mysteriously) confers meaning and a seeming unity of mind on those who use it.
Where do atheists fit on the spectrum of right minded and wrong minded, compared to other standard religions, splinter sects of your religion, minor traditional religions, modern religions like Moonies and Jonestown, modern revivals like Wicca, zombie cult and satanism, and brand new self-proclaimed prophets. Are atheists the “wrongest” of the spectrum or still this side of the fringe?
I don’t have a blanket answer. People become atheists or agnostics for a wide variety of reasons. The WHY makes a big difference in how I think of a person.
IF, for example, the age-old problem of evil and pain (“If there’s a good, benevolent God, why would he allow suffering?”) is at the heart of an atheist’s decision, it’s hard for me to fault him much. That’s a sign, after all, that he’s an empathetic and decent person who hates to see other humans uffer. It’s hard to count that as a character flaw.
2) **Back to mainstream religions, are they “essentially the same” as yours, do they all reflect the same god, the same soul, the same afterlife? **There are bound to be elements of similarity in many religions, particularly the three big monotheistic religions. Beyond that (to quote Chesterton), there are all kinds of men in all kinds of religions- good men in bad ones and bad men in good ones. There are bound to be Hindus or agnostics who, judged b their behavior, are better “Christians” than I am.
But the fact remains, religions are NOT “all the same.” Not by a long shot. I consider Christianity superior to the other options. And I HOPE that Hindus, Muslims, et al. think their religions are better than mine.
3) Are those religions’ holy writings inspired by gods or just made up, old wives tales, fiction for moral instruction, wishful thinking, simple speculation?
All of the above. Some are admirable, some are reprehensible, some are far from the truth, some show a grasp of important truths. There are usually nuggets in all of them that people other other religions could embrace without compromising their own beliefs. There’s al so much that has to be rejected instantly.
4) How do you think the believers of those other religions would answer those questions about yours? Would they think you are closer to them than atheists are, are essentially about the same god, soul, afterlife, and have god-inspired writings?
It’s a mixed bag. Jews probably regard my religion as a weird, heretical offshoot of theirs. Muslims probably regard it as a related religion that gets a lot of the big questions wrong, and blasphemously elevates a mere mortal (Jesus) to godhood.
Nonetheless, I have found (I’m stealing this observation from someone else, but I can’t recall who) that a devout Catholic has far more in common with a devout Orthodox Jew than he has with a wish washy Protestant. A devout Orthodox Jew has much more in common with a fundamentalist Sunni imam than he has with an secular Jew. A fundamentalist Sunni imam has far more incommon with a devout Southern Baptist preacher than he has with a tepid, non-observant Muslim.
