Is Atheism a "religion"?

[PaulYeah]

pashley said:

No, actually the person who believes in a higher power is not ego-centric; if he were, he believe HE is the highest power, like David B, Spirtus Mundi or Neutron Star

So by your definition, is it impossible for someone who believes in a higher power to be ego-centric, despite the fact that they believe that the entire universe was created for them, not to mention that many of them think they know exactly how the universe began, how it operates and how their god thinks? Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the word ego-centric.

What do you call someone who believes that nothing is a higher power, neither your god-construct, nor mankind itself?

Paul Yeah

[Czarcasm]

Ego-centric. Truth. Fact. Science. Religion.
“Words mean what I say they mean. Nothing more and nothing less.”

When did this turn into an Alice in Wonderland thread, anyway? Is there a English-to-Religion, Religion-to-English dictionary out there for reference?

[pashley]

Originally posted by PaulYeah:
**
So by your definition, is it impossible for someone who believes in a higher power to be ego-centric, despite the fact that they believe that the entire universe was created for them, not to mention that many of them think they know exactly how the universe began, how it operates and how their god thinks? Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the word ego-centric.**

1)Not impossible to be ego-centric, but unlikely.
2)Where do you get the idea we believe everything was created for us? Conversely, I’d submit it was created for God.

**What do you call someone who believes that nothing is a higher power, neither your god-construct, nor mankind itself?

Paul Yeah**

If someone doesn’t believe God is the higher power (which, by definition, He is), then they must deny His existence. By default, that’s an atheist. Mankind, again by default, would have to be the most powerful.

What was the point of your post?

---

Patrick Ashley

“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown

[Nen]

Originally posted by pashley:
Mankind, again by default, would have to be the most powerful.

How so? Why not dolphins or dragonflies or organ pipe cacti or streptococci or basalt lattices or photons?

[David_B]

Somebody said: “athiests survive and prosper” and Andros responded:

In this world, perhaps. But they are dead spiritually.

Depends on how you define “dead” and “spirit.”

Is a rock “dead”? Or is it merely not living?

That is to say, depending on how we define “spiritually” (which we’ll tackle below), if we for the moment assume “spirit” can only come from belief in God, is somebody without belief “dead” or merely a nonbeliever?

Now, as for “spiritually,” what do you mean by that? Can’t somebody be spiritual without believing in a god? Can somebody have spirit? I know that Libertarian repeatedly talked about Gaudere’s beautiful spirit – but you seem to be saying that she doesn’t have it (now, of course, since you are her, you might know ).

[Wes2K]

First post, so bear with me…

Mentioned above:

“2)Where do you get the idea we believe everything was created for us? Conversely, I’d submit it was created for God.”

I would not doubt this assertion, based on God’s history, as presented in the historically accurate bible, of being an egotistical megalomaniac.

Think of the inherent joy in creating millions of faithful followers, watching them worship Your graven image, absolving You of all wrongdoing when things go wrong, and pleading for your grace as you cast them into lakes of fire… Quite an impressive job description. Where do I sign up?

But if I was elected God, I would make some basic PR alterations. I would pick an idiom (such as Wrathful and Destructive or Forgiving and Loving) and stick with it. No switching personalities when the polls turn bad. I would make sure ALL my creations were well provided for, free from oppression, disease, hunger, etc. And I would make DAMN sure they knew I was around.

I would be slightly more tolerant, and not give My creations an ultimatum of “Choose me or Suffer Eternal Peril.” And I would not destroy My creations in berserk tantrums.

Over the last term, the current God has demonstrated His unpredictable nature in innumerable accounts of flooding the Earth, sending plagues, burning, slashing, smiting, and feeding His followers to fish. Even if such an entity existed, He would not be worthy of My worship.

So in conclusion, I do not beLIEve that we were placed here to serve an invisible, immaterial, unpredictable unknowable, AND omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving, and all seeing entity. Especially when such a being is theoretically impossible.

---

<!>Skepticism is a Virtue</!>

[David_B]

Wes2K’s sig said:

<!>Skepticism is a Virtue</!>

Subscribe to Brill’s Content?

[PaulYeah]

Originally posted by pashley:

1)Not impossible to be ego-centric, but unlikely.
2)Where do you get the idea we believe everything was created for us? Conversely, I’d submit it was created for God.

What does God need a physical universe for, if he didn’t specifically create it as sort of a terrarium in which to contain us? What I get from Genesis is that he created it as a place for us to live.

I am still wondering why it isn’t ego-centric to claim that mankind is the pinnacle of creation of a perfect Being.

** If someone doesn’t believe God is the higher power (which, by definition, He is), then they must deny His existence. By default, that’s an atheist. Mankind, again by default, would have to be the most powerful.

What was the point of your post?
**

To debunk the notion that honest, objective people are necessarily ego-centric, just because they refuse to accept an apparently manmade mythology without a certain amount of empirical evidence.

Paul Yeah