A letter from Anerae Brown regarding his religious beliefs...
- Thread starter Fucky McFuckerson
- Start date
I know you're not talking to me, but I wanted to comment on this.
Obviously there are quite a few hyporcrits in the world. Most of them are the ones that claim they are religious but when it comes down to it, most of them don't know God from a can of fucking chicken noodle soup.
If there is a creator, or force that makes the universe work..I BELIEVE...that it wouldn't need your worship or praise to "let you into the light" so to speak...I just can't think of a scientific term for "let you into the light." Basically what I'm saying is, whether or not your religious I don't think it makes a difference because if you know the truth, you know the truth...some people just understand it to be the universe, and some people think it's something that is unknowable.
Anyone who searches for the truth or knowledge on their own is a step ahead of 95% of people in the world cause most people don't give a shit and aren't worth the life they live.
Obviously there are quite a few hyporcrits in the world. Most of them are the ones that claim they are religious but when it comes down to it, most of them don't know God from a can of fucking chicken noodle soup.
If there is a creator, or force that makes the universe work..I BELIEVE...that it wouldn't need your worship or praise to "let you into the light" so to speak...I just can't think of a scientific term for "let you into the light." Basically what I'm saying is, whether or not your religious I don't think it makes a difference because if you know the truth, you know the truth...some people just understand it to be the universe, and some people think it's something that is unknowable.
Anyone who searches for the truth or knowledge on their own is a step ahead of 95% of people in the world cause most people don't give a shit and aren't worth the life they live.
Okay, and even if we accept your definition there remains no real distinction between a theist and an atheist.
Someone who accepts the existence of the Supreme God but hasn't come to the platform of devotion is not necessarily an atheist. This person may be inclined toward studying this concept we call "God" from a philosophical viewpoint and have NO feel for worship or devotion at this time. Such person is NOT an atheist. Now, if someone accepts the existence of the Supreme God but they are inimical toward Him, that can be considered a form of atheism.
Atheism and theism can be limited to a philosophical viewpoint. Neither are required to have any emotional value. An atheist can simply not accept the existence of God. An atheist can also be inimical toward God or the idea of God. That is also atheism. Similarly, theism can constitute one's accepting the existence of God and accepting that God is the right way to go, but not yet be at the stage of devotion.
"Both of these entities" refers to beings who are NOT the Supreme God. So I am making NO contradiction. My point is that belief in the Supreme God (which may begin simply as a belief in God's existence and an interest in studying God's nature) constitutes theism and that belief in a lesser "god", "demigod" or "angel" is NEVER theism since everyone believes in something or someone. There are two distinct classifications here: The Supreme God Who is full of all potencies and eternally independent of the universe, and the living entities who are limited in potency and sometimes become dependent on the universe. That is the distinction between theism and atheism. Not that simply one believes in someone or something. That is utter nonsense. All one has to do is attach the word "god" to whatever they "believe in" or are devoted to and they become a theist. Semantics.
One who believes in the existence of the Supreme God but who is inimical toward Him can be considered atheist. I will give you that. But belief in the existence of the Supreme God without a sense of devotion is not necessarily atheism. It can be a neophyte stage of theism. This means that said person believes in the existence of the Supreme God and is favorable toward Him, but has yet to reach that emotional platform of devotion.
Technically you can say this since the term 'agnostic' means being without knowledge; particularly without knowledge of God. So if the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in fact Sri Krishna with bluish-blackish color and Who plays a flute, dances with the gopis and plays with the other cowherd boys, then you, my friend, are also an agnostic since you lack this knowledge of God. But then, who doesn't lack some knowledge of God? There is no one who can fully understand God. So in a sense we are all agnostic. So once again a distinction needs to be made here. One who believes in the existence of God and who is inclined toward knowing God and following God, but who has not yet gained a sense of devotion toward Him is a theist. What is generally accepted as agnosticism are those who sit on the fence by saying, "There may be a God or they may not be a God". You see, the whole issue with agnosticism is the question of God's existence.
Incorrect. Belief in "some god" does not constitute theism. Nor does belief in the existence of "some god" constitute theism. Krishna, for all Sastric (Scriptural) purposes, is the Supreme God. So this example you give is not comparable to "some god". Theism is to be distinguished as being the belief in the Supreme God. Whether or not you believe that Krishna is the Supreme God, that is another thing altogether. Theoretically we can accept at this point that Krishna is the Supreme God since that is explained in the texts in which Krishna speaks and of which He is spoken.
Whatever it is, everyone is devoted to someone or something. Everyone is serving someone or something. It may not be purely one thing or another. That makes no difference. I am just saying that everyone does it regardless of what they think or say. Atheists don't think they worship anything, but they do. Even if in the end they are really worshipping their own false ego, they are worshipping something. You may be devoted to school as a means to an end. Not that you are devoted and thus worship school. For example, you may study something in school so as to help you make money with the intent on using that money to create a center for teaching people about God and how we should be devoting ourselves to Him.
Who or what can be many things. In general we can say, God or illusion. Or you may be more familiar with, "God or mammon". These are the two classifications all activity falls under; one or the other. There is no such thing as cessation of servitude. It does not exist. So long as there is a living entity, there is service. In the Vedic tradition this is called dharma.
But a person who is not yet at the stage of devotional worship of the SUPREME GOD, but who is inclined toward that prospect is NOT an atheist.
And like I have been saying since we got into this conversation, belief in (or in the existence of) a god or gods who is/are not the Supreme God cannot logically distinguish theism from atheism as I have explained many times now. That point still stands whether or not you define theism to include the necessity of devotional worship. Since everyone (whether they admit it or not) is devoted, worships and serves something or someone, no one is really an atheist, according to your definition. So either you have to admit that we are all theists or you have to find some quality to distinguish a theist from an atheist. I have offered that distinction and I don't see why it cannot be accepted, especially by you, a person who believes in the Supreme God over all others.
Someone who accepts the existence of the Supreme God but hasn't come to the platform of devotion is not necessarily an atheist. This person may be inclined toward studying this concept we call "God" from a philosophical viewpoint and have NO feel for worship or devotion at this time. Such person is NOT an atheist. Now, if someone accepts the existence of the Supreme God but they are inimical toward Him, that can be considered a form of atheism.
Atheism and theism can be limited to a philosophical viewpoint. Neither are required to have any emotional value. An atheist can simply not accept the existence of God. An atheist can also be inimical toward God or the idea of God. That is also atheism. Similarly, theism can constitute one's accepting the existence of God and accepting that God is the right way to go, but not yet be at the stage of devotion.
"Both of these entities" refers to beings who are NOT the Supreme God. So I am making NO contradiction. My point is that belief in the Supreme God (which may begin simply as a belief in God's existence and an interest in studying God's nature) constitutes theism and that belief in a lesser "god", "demigod" or "angel" is NEVER theism since everyone believes in something or someone. There are two distinct classifications here: The Supreme God Who is full of all potencies and eternally independent of the universe, and the living entities who are limited in potency and sometimes become dependent on the universe. That is the distinction between theism and atheism. Not that simply one believes in someone or something. That is utter nonsense. All one has to do is attach the word "god" to whatever they "believe in" or are devoted to and they become a theist. Semantics.
One who believes in the existence of the Supreme God but who is inimical toward Him can be considered atheist. I will give you that. But belief in the existence of the Supreme God without a sense of devotion is not necessarily atheism. It can be a neophyte stage of theism. This means that said person believes in the existence of the Supreme God and is favorable toward Him, but has yet to reach that emotional platform of devotion.
Technically you can say this since the term 'agnostic' means being without knowledge; particularly without knowledge of God. So if the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in fact Sri Krishna with bluish-blackish color and Who plays a flute, dances with the gopis and plays with the other cowherd boys, then you, my friend, are also an agnostic since you lack this knowledge of God. But then, who doesn't lack some knowledge of God? There is no one who can fully understand God. So in a sense we are all agnostic. So once again a distinction needs to be made here. One who believes in the existence of God and who is inclined toward knowing God and following God, but who has not yet gained a sense of devotion toward Him is a theist. What is generally accepted as agnosticism are those who sit on the fence by saying, "There may be a God or they may not be a God". You see, the whole issue with agnosticism is the question of God's existence.
Incorrect. Belief in "some god" does not constitute theism. Nor does belief in the existence of "some god" constitute theism. Krishna, for all Sastric (Scriptural) purposes, is the Supreme God. So this example you give is not comparable to "some god". Theism is to be distinguished as being the belief in the Supreme God. Whether or not you believe that Krishna is the Supreme God, that is another thing altogether. Theoretically we can accept at this point that Krishna is the Supreme God since that is explained in the texts in which Krishna speaks and of which He is spoken.
Whatever it is, everyone is devoted to someone or something. Everyone is serving someone or something. It may not be purely one thing or another. That makes no difference. I am just saying that everyone does it regardless of what they think or say. Atheists don't think they worship anything, but they do. Even if in the end they are really worshipping their own false ego, they are worshipping something. You may be devoted to school as a means to an end. Not that you are devoted and thus worship school. For example, you may study something in school so as to help you make money with the intent on using that money to create a center for teaching people about God and how we should be devoting ourselves to Him.
Who or what can be many things. In general we can say, God or illusion. Or you may be more familiar with, "God or mammon". These are the two classifications all activity falls under; one or the other. There is no such thing as cessation of servitude. It does not exist. So long as there is a living entity, there is service. In the Vedic tradition this is called dharma.
But a person who is not yet at the stage of devotional worship of the SUPREME GOD, but who is inclined toward that prospect is NOT an atheist.
And like I have been saying since we got into this conversation, belief in (or in the existence of) a god or gods who is/are not the Supreme God cannot logically distinguish theism from atheism as I have explained many times now. That point still stands whether or not you define theism to include the necessity of devotional worship. Since everyone (whether they admit it or not) is devoted, worships and serves something or someone, no one is really an atheist, according to your definition. So either you have to admit that we are all theists or you have to find some quality to distinguish a theist from an atheist. I have offered that distinction and I don't see why it cannot be accepted, especially by you, a person who believes in the Supreme God over all others.
If you are talking about the definition/link, again I posted that so we could have something to go on. If you look at my reply to 206, you will see that I said that I agree with the OTHER definition (which I cut and pasted and which may be found in the other link.)
The real distinction is one believes a god and gods exist AND worships gods. The other does NOT believe that god or gods exist OR may not worship a god or gods. You want to make a distinction by involving the "Absolute Truth", and what I am telling you is it is not required in order to make a distinction.
I never said they were atheists. An atheist has NO BELIEF when it comes to god or gods. Go back and READ what you quoted. As soon as the person accepts the existence of a supreme god or one million gods that person is no longer an atheist. I previously said:
With that being said, why are you telling me they are not atheist? I already said the person in your example is NOT an atheist. Listen, if you want to dialog and discuss the subject I have no problem with that. But, when you fail to READ what is being posted, and I have to show you the same thing over in over, OR when you make similar claims like you did with the angel worship, it makes me want to end all dialog.
With that being said, before you reply to this post please READit several times. I am asking this because I do respect your opinions, and I believe growth on both sides (not between you and myself but atheist and theist) will happen if we BOTH read what the other is saying.
Agreed, which is why I said:
I agree which is why I said they were not. Why are we going over this?
If someone accepts the existence of god they are no longer atheist. Once a person says "I believe in the Supreme God" or "I believe in three gods called "BULAPGOJEFF" that person is no longer an atheist. What that person can be classified as depends on that persons ACTIONS towards The Supreme God or Bulapgojeff; which may be philosophical or tangible. However, because this person is hostile towards God, that does not mean the person is an atheist. That could mean the person has enmity between themselves and God, and is in rebellion. But, an atheist CAN be hostile towards god, which is usually expressed outwardly and through action, which is why I say atheism and theism cannot be limited to a philosophical view.
No it cannot, but that is what you are trying to do. However, I will not allow you to limit it to philosophical viewpoints in this thread because atheism DOES involve ACTION and so does theism. It is not purely philosophical when one chooses to embrace a god and proceeds to devote their life to that god. Yes, a persons philosophical view on god or life may change, but the person will also act out these changes in the physical and tangible results will occur. A person who converts from paganism to Islam now has a different philosophical view on "god", and due to the change the converted will now have a change of diet, change of behavior, change of worship, change of sleep, etc. So no, atheism and theism cannot be limited to the philosophical viewpoint. They CAN be DISCUSSED in that fashion, and the DISCUSSION can be limited to that viewpoint, but all of atheism and theism cannot be limited to such. If it were worship would never occur because everything would be philosophical and not tangible.
I haven't denied this which is why I said:
Lets move on:
If they refer to God or Dog is of no real value. The point is knowledge or worship of the Supreme God is NOT a prerequisite to theism. What IS a prerequisite to theism is the BELIEF that gods or gods exist.
My point is belief in a supreme god is not a prerequisite to being a theist, and that in order to be a theist one must believe in the existence AND worship. If they do not do BOTH they can be considered a weak theist (like weak atheist) or they can be classified as agnostic or gnostic depending on how those beliefs are manifest or implied.
I agree with the part that belief in the existence of lesser "god", "demigod" or "angel" is never theism. However, I disagree with the your claim that everyone believes in something or someone (206 doesn't believe in anything you mentioned nor does he believe in anything remotely similar to what you mentioned.) If everyone believes in something or someone that has some type of "power" or something that is god like no one would be an atheist.
This is pure circle talk and clarification is needed. Are you implying that these demigods are the living entities with limited potency or man is the living entity with limited potency? If you say the demigods, I disagree, but if you say man I agree with you because man is limited and has become dependent on the universe to answer questions and to formulate theories/opinions.
Atheism is an EITHER OR while theism is a two part process. Atheism is not the belief of someone or something but a lack of belief that it exists OR a lack of devotion/worship to that which is said to exist.
No, all one has to do is believe in the "god" AND worship the god and they are a theist. Simply attaching the word god to whatever they believe in does NOT make them a theist, but NO BELIEF in the ANY of it makes one an atheist.
I've already addressed this.
I have agreed with this already. If one does not BELIEVE that a god exist that person is an atheist. If one believes that a God exist, but they do not worship they are not an atheist because that belief may lead to worship, pursuit of knowledge or choosing a religion (neophyte, agnostic, gnostic.)
If one does NOT worship a god because they do not believe in the existence of god or they simply do not worship a "god" that person is an atheist because it does NOT lead to ANYTHING--it STOPS.
Belief in = potential to worship.
No belief in = no potential to worship.
(bold emphasis mine.)
So, if the supreme personality of Godhead is NOT Krshna, but was manifest in the flesh in the form of Yeshua, who came to die for the remission of sins, then you, my friend are also an agnostic since you lack this knowledge of God.
You have a BELIEF that Sri Krishna/Krshna is the supreme personality. I do not have this belief, just like you do not have the belief that Yeshua is who he claimed he was. I have knowledge of who people claim krishna is, what was written about him and what is attributed to him; but that is where it stops.
That is something a lot of people need to actually consider. In THIS LIFE we will NEVER understand what we are to understand, but we are to strive for that understanding. You believe in reincarnation and cycles that will ultimately lead to this understanding. I believe God reveals himself to a greater extent in death, and will reveal himself completely at the day of judgment. However, we both believe this world is NOT our home and that the REAL person is the spirit/soul that inhabits this flesh body.
I cannot understand God. I am limited to my understanding because I am limited to rules that govern the flesh. Sight, sound, hearing, three dimensions etc. I am inside of time, God is outside of time. I am in one place at once and God is in all places yet in one place. The only thing ANY of us can do is seek him and get a limited glimpse of him.
He can be called a weak theist because he is INCLINED to knowing and following God, and the fact that he believes IS a step. Atheist LACK this crucial step. However, until he has taken a step towards devotion he is not a THEIST because he may STOP short of this. Simply having the belief is not enough. ACTION and something tangible IS the proof. I can tell you all day long, I believe in God and I worship God, but if my walk betrays me, or my tree bears no fruit I have not been true.
What is generally accepted as agnosticism is one train of thought out of many. You have many versions of it, and it is not simply limited to the existence of God. A lot of it can deal with the aspects of God, or the knowledge of God. I would say that most agnostics don't actually sit on the fence. I believe what they are saying is, "we don't have enough information because of XY and Z."
I never said belief in some god did constitute theism. Belief in some god AND worship of that god is what constitutes theism. Proof that I am saying belief AND worship constitutes theism and not simply belief is found here:
(bold emphasis added)
If the person was a devotee of some god before he or she became comatose that person would still be a theist. If you were a follower of Krshna, got smacked by a truck, became a vegetable and could no longer worship krshna the way you used to does that mean you're not a follower of Krshna? No. It simply means you no longer have the capacity to worship him as you used to.
Theism is not to be limited to krshna, Jesus, The Supreme God or the belief in any of them, and in this thread, I will not allow you to limit it any specific "god" nor will I allow you to limit it to a philosophical view. I do not believe that krshna is the supreme god, and if I do not believe that, you will not see me accepting it as fact in this thread, nor will you see me restricting my dialog and referencing everything towards him.
No, we can not accept at this point that Krishna is the Supreme God since it is explained in the texts in which YHWH speaks and of which YHWH is spoken that YHWH is God. Again, I am NOT going to debate who is the supreme god, but I am not going to limit the scope of convo to one religion, doctrine, or deity. Me mentioning Krshna was done out of respect/courtesy for you (since you believe in krshna), and it would be INAPPROPRIATE for me to force something else on you.
Again, even when people claim they are devoted to themselves, they are not devoted to themselves, for if they were, they would seek God and be devoted to him.
If their belief is manifest in action and devotion, they could be, but until such a manifestation occurs, it is restricted to a philosophical belief or non-belief.
In the biblical scriptures you cease service in this life when your life ends. This does not mean you cease service in the spiritual realm. However, if one falls to apostasy ones service has ceased to exist, and if one was never a servant in the first place servitude has never existed. Again, rendering service to who or what? God or man? By rendering service to God you may actually render service to man (feed the poor, cloth the homeless, visit the sick and mentor the orphans.) Rendering service to man may also mean rendering service in a selfish way or way contrary to what God expects of us.
No, this person is NOT an atheist. I have said it in this post and I have said it in previous posts.
Belief in the Supreme God does not make one a theist. Belief in the Supreme God or WORSHIP of the Supreme God DOES make one a theist, and due to the FACT that THEIST and THEISM is NOT EXCLUSIVE to any one religion or belief, one is a theist as long as one believes in AND worships what they profess to believe in. A "supreme god" is NOT a concept that all people who worship HAVE, BUT BELIEF in "a god" IS something that all people who worship have. I am not going to limit theism to one specific god, and it would be incorrect to do so. The reason it would be incorrect is it restricts different beliefs and it binds one to one specific religious train of thought--which is belief in The Supreme God.
I have said many times that theism includes devotion/worship of whatever it is that the person professes to believe in.
No, due to your inability to critically read and think in the correct manner you believe it is according to my definition. Not everyone worships a GOD or GODDESS, and this is what ATHEIST does not believe in. Atheists do NOT believe in the existence of gods, demigods, all-powerful beings etc, so worship of the self is a non-issue.
I already have. It is the act of worship/devotion to the gods or god, and atheists do not believe in gods or god. We are not all theist because we do not all believe AND worship an all-powerful god, a demi god, an angel, a demon etc. An atheist CANNOT commit an act of worship towards an all-powerful being or god, because they lack the first step; they do not believe in such a being. A person who DOES believe in the existence of god or gods, but is not yet devoted is not an atheist. A person who does NOT worship a god because they believe they do not exist STOPS, where as the person who believes but does not have worship has potential to worship. One is on his way, one is not on his way. One believes in the existence and the other does not.
The reason why is because you cannot limit it to the belief of a supreme god, because if you do, that throws out polytheistic beliefs of a supreme god but WORSHIP of another god. If we limit it to a supreme god we are limiting all other religions and belief systems, and this should not be endorsed. The thing all religions with deities have in common (even paganism) is WORSHIP. It can be ancestor worship (which does NOT involve a supreme deity), worship of the earth (rain god, tree god, wind god) or worship of the muslim god, but they all have WORSHIP which is a result of the initial belief.
Therefore, with that being said, we cannot limit theism to the belief of a supreme god, because as I have shown, an absolute god is not required in all forms of belief.
The real distinction is one believes a god and gods exist AND worships gods. The other does NOT believe that god or gods exist OR may not worship a god or gods. You want to make a distinction by involving the "Absolute Truth", and what I am telling you is it is not required in order to make a distinction.
I never said they were atheists. An atheist has NO BELIEF when it comes to god or gods. Go back and READ what you quoted. As soon as the person accepts the existence of a supreme god or one million gods that person is no longer an atheist. I previously said:
With that being said, why are you telling me they are not atheist? I already said the person in your example is NOT an atheist. Listen, if you want to dialog and discuss the subject I have no problem with that. But, when you fail to READ what is being posted, and I have to show you the same thing over in over, OR when you make similar claims like you did with the angel worship, it makes me want to end all dialog.
With that being said, before you reply to this post please READit several times. I am asking this because I do respect your opinions, and I believe growth on both sides (not between you and myself but atheist and theist) will happen if we BOTH read what the other is saying.
Agreed, which is why I said:
I agree which is why I said they were not. Why are we going over this?
If someone accepts the existence of god they are no longer atheist. Once a person says "I believe in the Supreme God" or "I believe in three gods called "BULAPGOJEFF" that person is no longer an atheist. What that person can be classified as depends on that persons ACTIONS towards The Supreme God or Bulapgojeff; which may be philosophical or tangible. However, because this person is hostile towards God, that does not mean the person is an atheist. That could mean the person has enmity between themselves and God, and is in rebellion. But, an atheist CAN be hostile towards god, which is usually expressed outwardly and through action, which is why I say atheism and theism cannot be limited to a philosophical view.
No it cannot, but that is what you are trying to do. However, I will not allow you to limit it to philosophical viewpoints in this thread because atheism DOES involve ACTION and so does theism. It is not purely philosophical when one chooses to embrace a god and proceeds to devote their life to that god. Yes, a persons philosophical view on god or life may change, but the person will also act out these changes in the physical and tangible results will occur. A person who converts from paganism to Islam now has a different philosophical view on "god", and due to the change the converted will now have a change of diet, change of behavior, change of worship, change of sleep, etc. So no, atheism and theism cannot be limited to the philosophical viewpoint. They CAN be DISCUSSED in that fashion, and the DISCUSSION can be limited to that viewpoint, but all of atheism and theism cannot be limited to such. If it were worship would never occur because everything would be philosophical and not tangible.
I haven't denied this which is why I said:
Lets move on:
If they refer to God or Dog is of no real value. The point is knowledge or worship of the Supreme God is NOT a prerequisite to theism. What IS a prerequisite to theism is the BELIEF that gods or gods exist.
My point is belief in a supreme god is not a prerequisite to being a theist, and that in order to be a theist one must believe in the existence AND worship. If they do not do BOTH they can be considered a weak theist (like weak atheist) or they can be classified as agnostic or gnostic depending on how those beliefs are manifest or implied.
I agree with the part that belief in the existence of lesser "god", "demigod" or "angel" is never theism. However, I disagree with the your claim that everyone believes in something or someone (206 doesn't believe in anything you mentioned nor does he believe in anything remotely similar to what you mentioned.) If everyone believes in something or someone that has some type of "power" or something that is god like no one would be an atheist.
This is pure circle talk and clarification is needed. Are you implying that these demigods are the living entities with limited potency or man is the living entity with limited potency? If you say the demigods, I disagree, but if you say man I agree with you because man is limited and has become dependent on the universe to answer questions and to formulate theories/opinions.
Atheism is an EITHER OR while theism is a two part process. Atheism is not the belief of someone or something but a lack of belief that it exists OR a lack of devotion/worship to that which is said to exist.
No, all one has to do is believe in the "god" AND worship the god and they are a theist. Simply attaching the word god to whatever they believe in does NOT make them a theist, but NO BELIEF in the ANY of it makes one an atheist.
I've already addressed this.
I have agreed with this already. If one does not BELIEVE that a god exist that person is an atheist. If one believes that a God exist, but they do not worship they are not an atheist because that belief may lead to worship, pursuit of knowledge or choosing a religion (neophyte, agnostic, gnostic.)
If one does NOT worship a god because they do not believe in the existence of god or they simply do not worship a "god" that person is an atheist because it does NOT lead to ANYTHING--it STOPS.
Belief in = potential to worship.
No belief in = no potential to worship.
(bold emphasis mine.)
So, if the supreme personality of Godhead is NOT Krshna, but was manifest in the flesh in the form of Yeshua, who came to die for the remission of sins, then you, my friend are also an agnostic since you lack this knowledge of God.
You have a BELIEF that Sri Krishna/Krshna is the supreme personality. I do not have this belief, just like you do not have the belief that Yeshua is who he claimed he was. I have knowledge of who people claim krishna is, what was written about him and what is attributed to him; but that is where it stops.
That is something a lot of people need to actually consider. In THIS LIFE we will NEVER understand what we are to understand, but we are to strive for that understanding. You believe in reincarnation and cycles that will ultimately lead to this understanding. I believe God reveals himself to a greater extent in death, and will reveal himself completely at the day of judgment. However, we both believe this world is NOT our home and that the REAL person is the spirit/soul that inhabits this flesh body.
I cannot understand God. I am limited to my understanding because I am limited to rules that govern the flesh. Sight, sound, hearing, three dimensions etc. I am inside of time, God is outside of time. I am in one place at once and God is in all places yet in one place. The only thing ANY of us can do is seek him and get a limited glimpse of him.
He can be called a weak theist because he is INCLINED to knowing and following God, and the fact that he believes IS a step. Atheist LACK this crucial step. However, until he has taken a step towards devotion he is not a THEIST because he may STOP short of this. Simply having the belief is not enough. ACTION and something tangible IS the proof. I can tell you all day long, I believe in God and I worship God, but if my walk betrays me, or my tree bears no fruit I have not been true.
What is generally accepted as agnosticism is one train of thought out of many. You have many versions of it, and it is not simply limited to the existence of God. A lot of it can deal with the aspects of God, or the knowledge of God. I would say that most agnostics don't actually sit on the fence. I believe what they are saying is, "we don't have enough information because of XY and Z."
I never said belief in some god did constitute theism. Belief in some god AND worship of that god is what constitutes theism. Proof that I am saying belief AND worship constitutes theism and not simply belief is found here:
(bold emphasis added)
If the person was a devotee of some god before he or she became comatose that person would still be a theist. If you were a follower of Krshna, got smacked by a truck, became a vegetable and could no longer worship krshna the way you used to does that mean you're not a follower of Krshna? No. It simply means you no longer have the capacity to worship him as you used to.
Theism is not to be limited to krshna, Jesus, The Supreme God or the belief in any of them, and in this thread, I will not allow you to limit it any specific "god" nor will I allow you to limit it to a philosophical view. I do not believe that krshna is the supreme god, and if I do not believe that, you will not see me accepting it as fact in this thread, nor will you see me restricting my dialog and referencing everything towards him.
No, we can not accept at this point that Krishna is the Supreme God since it is explained in the texts in which YHWH speaks and of which YHWH is spoken that YHWH is God. Again, I am NOT going to debate who is the supreme god, but I am not going to limit the scope of convo to one religion, doctrine, or deity. Me mentioning Krshna was done out of respect/courtesy for you (since you believe in krshna), and it would be INAPPROPRIATE for me to force something else on you.
Again, even when people claim they are devoted to themselves, they are not devoted to themselves, for if they were, they would seek God and be devoted to him.
If their belief is manifest in action and devotion, they could be, but until such a manifestation occurs, it is restricted to a philosophical belief or non-belief.
In the biblical scriptures you cease service in this life when your life ends. This does not mean you cease service in the spiritual realm. However, if one falls to apostasy ones service has ceased to exist, and if one was never a servant in the first place servitude has never existed. Again, rendering service to who or what? God or man? By rendering service to God you may actually render service to man (feed the poor, cloth the homeless, visit the sick and mentor the orphans.) Rendering service to man may also mean rendering service in a selfish way or way contrary to what God expects of us.
No, this person is NOT an atheist. I have said it in this post and I have said it in previous posts.
Belief in the Supreme God does not make one a theist. Belief in the Supreme God or WORSHIP of the Supreme God DOES make one a theist, and due to the FACT that THEIST and THEISM is NOT EXCLUSIVE to any one religion or belief, one is a theist as long as one believes in AND worships what they profess to believe in. A "supreme god" is NOT a concept that all people who worship HAVE, BUT BELIEF in "a god" IS something that all people who worship have. I am not going to limit theism to one specific god, and it would be incorrect to do so. The reason it would be incorrect is it restricts different beliefs and it binds one to one specific religious train of thought--which is belief in The Supreme God.
I have said many times that theism includes devotion/worship of whatever it is that the person professes to believe in.
No, due to your inability to critically read and think in the correct manner you believe it is according to my definition. Not everyone worships a GOD or GODDESS, and this is what ATHEIST does not believe in. Atheists do NOT believe in the existence of gods, demigods, all-powerful beings etc, so worship of the self is a non-issue.
I already have. It is the act of worship/devotion to the gods or god, and atheists do not believe in gods or god. We are not all theist because we do not all believe AND worship an all-powerful god, a demi god, an angel, a demon etc. An atheist CANNOT commit an act of worship towards an all-powerful being or god, because they lack the first step; they do not believe in such a being. A person who DOES believe in the existence of god or gods, but is not yet devoted is not an atheist. A person who does NOT worship a god because they believe they do not exist STOPS, where as the person who believes but does not have worship has potential to worship. One is on his way, one is not on his way. One believes in the existence and the other does not.
The reason why is because you cannot limit it to the belief of a supreme god, because if you do, that throws out polytheistic beliefs of a supreme god but WORSHIP of another god. If we limit it to a supreme god we are limiting all other religions and belief systems, and this should not be endorsed. The thing all religions with deities have in common (even paganism) is WORSHIP. It can be ancestor worship (which does NOT involve a supreme deity), worship of the earth (rain god, tree god, wind god) or worship of the muslim god, but they all have WORSHIP which is a result of the initial belief.
Therefore, with that being said, we cannot limit theism to the belief of a supreme god, because as I have shown, an absolute god is not required in all forms of belief.
I am talking about how with your definition, the problem of requiring distinction remains. This is actually what I said. I meant what I said.
Why is this the "real" distinction? Please explain what constitutes a "god" aside from the concept of a Supreme Being and then show me how this "god" title isn't applicable to anything devoted to or worshipped. In that way I will be able to accept this distinction as "real".
YES. You DID say they were atheists.
"An atheist may be one of two things; A person who does NOT believe that gods or a god exists OR a person who has no belief IN a god or gods meaning they don't WORSHIP any god or gods." -Heresy
(emphasis added)
This second part of your definition, namely that an atheist can be someone who does not worship any god or gods, automatically presumes that there is at least an acceptance of the existence of said god or gods. Otherwise, the second part of your definition is unnecessary and meaningless since surely no one will believe in something if they don't first believe in that something's existence.
Therefore my reply was applicable to what YOU said.
You contradict yourself. You say that such a person is not an atheist, yet you define atheism as someone who, accepting the existence of a god or gods, does not believe in them (i.e. worship them), which is what my example encompasses. Someone has failed to read what they themselves wrote.
And what we are saying ourselves, as well.
Do you agree? Your definition suggests otherwise. Which one shall I accept?
Because you contradict yourself.
How is it possible to not accept the existence of a god or gods but still consider a possibility of worshipping (believing in) said god or gods? It isn't possible. Therefore part two of your definition is superfluous and misleading. Certainly an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods because they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods in the first place.
So let me get this clear. An atheist is someone who never accepts the existence of God, yet can become inimical toward this entity that doesn't exist? Even insane people accept the existence of the voices in their heads (that acceptance is why they are considered insane). What you are describing is a whole new level of insanity.
I have explained this in regard to our actions. You should know that we do not disagree in this regard. One either serves God or they serve illusion.
But I am not including this in the definition of theism and atheism because it is possible for a neophyte theist to not be at the stage of devotional service, and such a person would be no more an agnostic than anyone since we all lack some knowledge of God. In other words, if he is an agnostic, then we are all agnostic. Why do you draw the line of distinction at devotional worship? Please show me that logic. And then once you do that (if you do that), please show me how since devotional worship of mammon would ergo constitute "theism" that you have made a "real" distinction between theism and atheism.
That's fine. My purpose in this conversation is to rectify the only possible distinguishing factor between the definitions of theism and atheism. So far, if we accept your definitions, the conclusion is that everyone is both a theist and an agnostic. We all worship a "god" or "gods" but yet we all lack some knowledge of this "god" or "gods".
...
So I take it that you are accepting the dictionary definition herein and henceforth, at least for this conversation..? Okay then, since we are past considerations of devotional worship, your definition of theism comes down to attaching the title "god" onto whatever existence it is someone believes in. Why is believing in the existence of Indra anymore theistic than believing in the existence of George Washington? And if it is not any different, then how is anyone not a theist?
Gnostic (adj.)
gnostic Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. (dictionary.com)
Assuming that spiritual knowledge refers to knowledge of, from or relating to God, why do you insist that devotional worship be the distinguishing factor of theism since everyone is devoted and worships something as a "god"?
Not everyone will say, "I believe in ______" or "I worship/serve ______" but the fact is that everyone does just this. How can you avoid it? 206 believes in something. He believes in that which he knows will gratify his senses. We serve God or we serve mammon. Therefore everyone serves/worships, they just don't call it that. People like to think that they are in control and are independent. This mentality is exactly what constitutes our being fallen souls. For something to be "god-like" (excluding the definition of God as referring to the supreme being) all one has to do is worship/serve that something, regardless of being conscious of one's propensity to do this.
Both.
Why?
Ok.
Certainly, one who lack belief in the existence of a thing also lacks belief in said thing. Therefore why include a two-part definition of atheism? It implies that it is possible for someone to not accept the existence of a god or gods yet still proceed to 'believe in' them, which is why you appeared to be in self-contradiction.
what is "the god"?
Then please address your definition of atheism that implies the possibility of not accepting a god's or gods' existence, but still believing in them.
I think it is generally accepted that an agnostic is one who doubts the existence of God. Otherwise where is the real distinction if since everyone lacks some knowledge of God, therefore everyone is an agnostic of some degree? I have already addressed the gnostics. You make the distinction by including devotional worship (i.e. who/what we serve) but it remains that we all must serve someone or something, i.e. God or mammon. And once again, those who serve mammon may not consider it worship or devotion, but their considerations have no value toward the reality of the fact. I think this is what your argument boils down to. In your thoughts, a theist is defined by the conscious consideration of a noun being worshippable. You just aren't taking into consideration that our being conscious of or lack of being conscious of our propensity toward a person, place or thing is not changing the fact of worship, both in physical act and mental contemplation. Some men worship vagina. They may not consider it worship, but THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
So wait a minute... You are again implying that a person can not believe in the existence of a "god" but still worship that "god". Read what you wrote again here:
"If one does NOT worship a god because they do not believe in the existence of god or they simply do not worship a "god" that person is an atheist" -Heresy (emphasis added)
Or (conj.)
Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other. (dictionary.com)
So please show me how someone can not believe in something as an alternative to not believing in that something's existence.
You mean, belief in the existence of, right?
Yes. Therefore there is no alternative for an atheist to "simply (...) not worship a "god"".
I already admitted that we are all 'agnostic' since we all lack some knowledge of God. I was just using Krishna as an example.
Yes.
Yes, by His mercy, at that.
That is fine. Weak theist or neophye theist. I would also say that a gnostic is a weak theist. That is, assuming that gnosticism is the study of knowledge of, from or about God.
I agree that since in the practical sense everyones' actions must fall into one of two categories (serving God or serving mammon) therefore a TRUE theist is one who follows through in their conviction. Nevertheless, what I am defining as a belief in the existence of God constitutes that future. In other words, a person who is only at the stage of being convinced of God's existence will eventually rid themselves of their bad habits. Someone who is 'iffy' about God's existence is an agnostic. If someone claims to believe in God only to later reject His existence completely, they never really believed in God in the first place. So I have been presuming that belief in the existence of God constitutes a sincere endeavor for becoming His devotee.
Ok.
Ok. I was therein regarding "belief in" to mean the worship of. Since you have made the distinction, I have been saying "belief in" and "belief in the existence of" to refer to 'worship' and 'accepting one's existence', respectively.
Yes. Because worship is irrespective of facility. It means that you use what you have. If you still have a mind, if your mind is engulfed in thoughts of God then you are worshipping. So that may be a possibility. I was just considering comatose patients as a possible atheist. The example may not be perfect. We can move on from that.
I am not saying that you must accept Krishna as the Supreme God. So why do you say this? I am saying that theism requires a real distinguishing factor that it now lacks. That distinguishing factor is in the understanding that one either serves God or they serve illusion. No matter what it is being served, if it isn't the Supreme Lord, it is illusion. Therefore REAL theism constitutes first the knowledge of the existence of the Supreme God and furthermore the initiative to become His devotee. (<< The Conclusion). Belief in the existence and worship of other entities who are not the Supreme God falls under the category of serving illusion/mammon. This is the real distinguishing factor.
I said theoretically, as in, according to the statements of Vedic texts. That is all. Don't get all hung up on it. That isn't the point of this conversation. The original reason I brought up Krishna was to use Him as an example of you not knowing something about God, and this was under the assumption that Krishna is the Supreme Lord. That is why I included the word "IF". Moving on...
Yes. Because if they were truly devoted to themsleves, they would actually be devoted to God instead since the highest welfare one can receive is in reciprocation with God. In another context I may refer to people "worshipping themselves" in the sense that they seek sensual enjoyment for themselves. It would be more appropriate to say that they worship the senses, which are illusory in the sense that they are temporary.
Everyone worships something in action, unless you are comatose (for example). People who indulge in sexual gratification are worshippers of the illusory material energy. People who worship Thor are worshippers of the illusory material energy. The list goes on and on.
God or illusion.
Illusion (n.)
An erroneous perception of reality. (dictionary.com)
For example, a man serves his senses under the presumption that this is the highest form of service. Also remember that many things we presume are not done so consciously. This means that a man may serve his senses as though they are the highest servable object, but not actually consider them in this way.
So either one serves the Most High, or they serve something else under the illusion that that something is highest.
And you should realize by now why I kept stating that such a person is not an atheist.
The only "specific god" I am entertaining is the SUPREME one. I am not making any specific remarks as to Who is supreme aside from what is given in Sastra/Scripture. In other words, I am accepting (at least theoretically) that the "supreme" God described in various literatures is referring to the same entity. You are implying a difference between Krishna and Yhwh, of which I completely DISAGREE, but that is an entirely DIFFERENT conversation. Let's leave it at that.
And I have said and shown how you are incorrect. The only way you can escape this fate is if you admit that everyone is a theist. But in that case, the definition loses contrast and thus loses meaning. What results is something akin to Buddhism or the Mayavadi philosophy wherein since everyone is a theist, consideration for the particular and exclusive worship of a supreme God becomes nil.
Worship of the self (i.e. the senses) is an issue (or "non-issue") as much as is the worship of a god or goddess since both constitute worship of ILLUSION.
No. An atheist simply does not ADMIT the worship of anything. Practically, everyone can see that those who worship the vagina are the same who take shelter in it purely for pleasure purposes. They may not admit that they worship the vagina, but words and FACTS are two different things. Words may be facts, but they may not be. Facts may be spoken in words, but they may not be.
You just don't like the distinction I am making because it is not palatable for all so-called religious distinctions. Consider the facts as I have laid them down. One either serves/worships God or they worship illusion. A "polytheist" (as you call it) who believes in the Supreme God, may also do what you consider "worshipping" another deity. This is how it works: the THEIST offers his/her obeisances unto X-god/goddess due to X-god/goddess' being themselves a great devotee of God. You may consider that polytheism, but the fact is that they are not worshipping this god/goddess as the all-in-all supreme being. They are recognizing this entity as being closely associated to the Supreme God. I gave a similar example with school. You may devote yourself to school because you draw a connection between what you study and it's application in your serve to the Most High. Same concept. Once again, as it stands and as I am repeating it for the umpteenth time, GOD OR ILLUSION. This is the distinction.
It is not a question of what is required in "all forms of belief". It is a question of making a distinction between worshipping that which is the highest worshippable object versus worshipping that which is NOT the highest worshippable object under the presumption that it is.
Why is this the "real" distinction? Please explain what constitutes a "god" aside from the concept of a Supreme Being and then show me how this "god" title isn't applicable to anything devoted to or worshipped. In that way I will be able to accept this distinction as "real".
YES. You DID say they were atheists.
"An atheist may be one of two things; A person who does NOT believe that gods or a god exists OR a person who has no belief IN a god or gods meaning they don't WORSHIP any god or gods." -Heresy
(emphasis added)
This second part of your definition, namely that an atheist can be someone who does not worship any god or gods, automatically presumes that there is at least an acceptance of the existence of said god or gods. Otherwise, the second part of your definition is unnecessary and meaningless since surely no one will believe in something if they don't first believe in that something's existence.
Therefore my reply was applicable to what YOU said.
You contradict yourself. You say that such a person is not an atheist, yet you define atheism as someone who, accepting the existence of a god or gods, does not believe in them (i.e. worship them), which is what my example encompasses. Someone has failed to read what they themselves wrote.
And what we are saying ourselves, as well.
Do you agree? Your definition suggests otherwise. Which one shall I accept?
Because you contradict yourself.
How is it possible to not accept the existence of a god or gods but still consider a possibility of worshipping (believing in) said god or gods? It isn't possible. Therefore part two of your definition is superfluous and misleading. Certainly an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods because they don't believe in the existence of a god or gods in the first place.
So let me get this clear. An atheist is someone who never accepts the existence of God, yet can become inimical toward this entity that doesn't exist? Even insane people accept the existence of the voices in their heads (that acceptance is why they are considered insane). What you are describing is a whole new level of insanity.
I have explained this in regard to our actions. You should know that we do not disagree in this regard. One either serves God or they serve illusion.
But I am not including this in the definition of theism and atheism because it is possible for a neophyte theist to not be at the stage of devotional service, and such a person would be no more an agnostic than anyone since we all lack some knowledge of God. In other words, if he is an agnostic, then we are all agnostic. Why do you draw the line of distinction at devotional worship? Please show me that logic. And then once you do that (if you do that), please show me how since devotional worship of mammon would ergo constitute "theism" that you have made a "real" distinction between theism and atheism.
That's fine. My purpose in this conversation is to rectify the only possible distinguishing factor between the definitions of theism and atheism. So far, if we accept your definitions, the conclusion is that everyone is both a theist and an agnostic. We all worship a "god" or "gods" but yet we all lack some knowledge of this "god" or "gods".
...
So I take it that you are accepting the dictionary definition herein and henceforth, at least for this conversation..? Okay then, since we are past considerations of devotional worship, your definition of theism comes down to attaching the title "god" onto whatever existence it is someone believes in. Why is believing in the existence of Indra anymore theistic than believing in the existence of George Washington? And if it is not any different, then how is anyone not a theist?
Gnostic (adj.)
gnostic Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. (dictionary.com)
Assuming that spiritual knowledge refers to knowledge of, from or relating to God, why do you insist that devotional worship be the distinguishing factor of theism since everyone is devoted and worships something as a "god"?
Not everyone will say, "I believe in ______" or "I worship/serve ______" but the fact is that everyone does just this. How can you avoid it? 206 believes in something. He believes in that which he knows will gratify his senses. We serve God or we serve mammon. Therefore everyone serves/worships, they just don't call it that. People like to think that they are in control and are independent. This mentality is exactly what constitutes our being fallen souls. For something to be "god-like" (excluding the definition of God as referring to the supreme being) all one has to do is worship/serve that something, regardless of being conscious of one's propensity to do this.
Both.
Why?
Ok.
Certainly, one who lack belief in the existence of a thing also lacks belief in said thing. Therefore why include a two-part definition of atheism? It implies that it is possible for someone to not accept the existence of a god or gods yet still proceed to 'believe in' them, which is why you appeared to be in self-contradiction.
what is "the god"?
Then please address your definition of atheism that implies the possibility of not accepting a god's or gods' existence, but still believing in them.
I think it is generally accepted that an agnostic is one who doubts the existence of God. Otherwise where is the real distinction if since everyone lacks some knowledge of God, therefore everyone is an agnostic of some degree? I have already addressed the gnostics. You make the distinction by including devotional worship (i.e. who/what we serve) but it remains that we all must serve someone or something, i.e. God or mammon. And once again, those who serve mammon may not consider it worship or devotion, but their considerations have no value toward the reality of the fact. I think this is what your argument boils down to. In your thoughts, a theist is defined by the conscious consideration of a noun being worshippable. You just aren't taking into consideration that our being conscious of or lack of being conscious of our propensity toward a person, place or thing is not changing the fact of worship, both in physical act and mental contemplation. Some men worship vagina. They may not consider it worship, but THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
So wait a minute... You are again implying that a person can not believe in the existence of a "god" but still worship that "god". Read what you wrote again here:
"If one does NOT worship a god because they do not believe in the existence of god or they simply do not worship a "god" that person is an atheist" -Heresy (emphasis added)
Or (conj.)
Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other. (dictionary.com)
So please show me how someone can not believe in something as an alternative to not believing in that something's existence.
You mean, belief in the existence of, right?
Yes. Therefore there is no alternative for an atheist to "simply (...) not worship a "god"".
I already admitted that we are all 'agnostic' since we all lack some knowledge of God. I was just using Krishna as an example.
Yes.
Yes, by His mercy, at that.
That is fine. Weak theist or neophye theist. I would also say that a gnostic is a weak theist. That is, assuming that gnosticism is the study of knowledge of, from or about God.
I agree that since in the practical sense everyones' actions must fall into one of two categories (serving God or serving mammon) therefore a TRUE theist is one who follows through in their conviction. Nevertheless, what I am defining as a belief in the existence of God constitutes that future. In other words, a person who is only at the stage of being convinced of God's existence will eventually rid themselves of their bad habits. Someone who is 'iffy' about God's existence is an agnostic. If someone claims to believe in God only to later reject His existence completely, they never really believed in God in the first place. So I have been presuming that belief in the existence of God constitutes a sincere endeavor for becoming His devotee.
Ok.
Ok. I was therein regarding "belief in" to mean the worship of. Since you have made the distinction, I have been saying "belief in" and "belief in the existence of" to refer to 'worship' and 'accepting one's existence', respectively.
Yes. Because worship is irrespective of facility. It means that you use what you have. If you still have a mind, if your mind is engulfed in thoughts of God then you are worshipping. So that may be a possibility. I was just considering comatose patients as a possible atheist. The example may not be perfect. We can move on from that.
I am not saying that you must accept Krishna as the Supreme God. So why do you say this? I am saying that theism requires a real distinguishing factor that it now lacks. That distinguishing factor is in the understanding that one either serves God or they serve illusion. No matter what it is being served, if it isn't the Supreme Lord, it is illusion. Therefore REAL theism constitutes first the knowledge of the existence of the Supreme God and furthermore the initiative to become His devotee. (<< The Conclusion). Belief in the existence and worship of other entities who are not the Supreme God falls under the category of serving illusion/mammon. This is the real distinguishing factor.
I said theoretically, as in, according to the statements of Vedic texts. That is all. Don't get all hung up on it. That isn't the point of this conversation. The original reason I brought up Krishna was to use Him as an example of you not knowing something about God, and this was under the assumption that Krishna is the Supreme Lord. That is why I included the word "IF". Moving on...
Yes. Because if they were truly devoted to themsleves, they would actually be devoted to God instead since the highest welfare one can receive is in reciprocation with God. In another context I may refer to people "worshipping themselves" in the sense that they seek sensual enjoyment for themselves. It would be more appropriate to say that they worship the senses, which are illusory in the sense that they are temporary.
Everyone worships something in action, unless you are comatose (for example). People who indulge in sexual gratification are worshippers of the illusory material energy. People who worship Thor are worshippers of the illusory material energy. The list goes on and on.
God or illusion.
Illusion (n.)
An erroneous perception of reality. (dictionary.com)
For example, a man serves his senses under the presumption that this is the highest form of service. Also remember that many things we presume are not done so consciously. This means that a man may serve his senses as though they are the highest servable object, but not actually consider them in this way.
So either one serves the Most High, or they serve something else under the illusion that that something is highest.
And you should realize by now why I kept stating that such a person is not an atheist.
The only "specific god" I am entertaining is the SUPREME one. I am not making any specific remarks as to Who is supreme aside from what is given in Sastra/Scripture. In other words, I am accepting (at least theoretically) that the "supreme" God described in various literatures is referring to the same entity. You are implying a difference between Krishna and Yhwh, of which I completely DISAGREE, but that is an entirely DIFFERENT conversation. Let's leave it at that.
And I have said and shown how you are incorrect. The only way you can escape this fate is if you admit that everyone is a theist. But in that case, the definition loses contrast and thus loses meaning. What results is something akin to Buddhism or the Mayavadi philosophy wherein since everyone is a theist, consideration for the particular and exclusive worship of a supreme God becomes nil.
Worship of the self (i.e. the senses) is an issue (or "non-issue") as much as is the worship of a god or goddess since both constitute worship of ILLUSION.
No. An atheist simply does not ADMIT the worship of anything. Practically, everyone can see that those who worship the vagina are the same who take shelter in it purely for pleasure purposes. They may not admit that they worship the vagina, but words and FACTS are two different things. Words may be facts, but they may not be. Facts may be spoken in words, but they may not be.
You just don't like the distinction I am making because it is not palatable for all so-called religious distinctions. Consider the facts as I have laid them down. One either serves/worships God or they worship illusion. A "polytheist" (as you call it) who believes in the Supreme God, may also do what you consider "worshipping" another deity. This is how it works: the THEIST offers his/her obeisances unto X-god/goddess due to X-god/goddess' being themselves a great devotee of God. You may consider that polytheism, but the fact is that they are not worshipping this god/goddess as the all-in-all supreme being. They are recognizing this entity as being closely associated to the Supreme God. I gave a similar example with school. You may devote yourself to school because you draw a connection between what you study and it's application in your serve to the Most High. Same concept. Once again, as it stands and as I am repeating it for the umpteenth time, GOD OR ILLUSION. This is the distinction.
It is not a question of what is required in "all forms of belief". It is a question of making a distinction between worshipping that which is the highest worshippable object versus worshipping that which is NOT the highest worshippable object under the presumption that it is.
NO SPELL CHECK USED EXCUSE ALL TYPOS.
Ok, lets see how good my memory is...
Distinction is made through the act of belief AND worship (or lack) of a "god", and does not require God or a Supreme Being.
This is a real distinction for several reasons. The first reason is worship is a tangible step beyond belief. Belief does not have to be expressed outwardly, but worship IS expressed outwardly. The second reason is atheist don't believe in God (Supreme Being) or gods, or spirits or nature gods etc. Since they do not believe in them you cannot use theism to mean belief of a Supreme Being because atheist don't believe in ANY beings that can or could be considered "gods".
A god is someone or something that has power beyond that of mortals. A god does not have to be a Supreme Being, and can easily be subjected to death or other ailments. Take the god Osiris for example. This god was not the "all powerful god" (which was Atum or a varient of Ra/Re), but he was a "god". Another example of a god may be found in Norse paganism with Odin/Wotan. Odin is considered an "all seeing god", yet Odin is not all powerful, for he falls at Ragnarok to Fenrir. the same may be said for the greek/roman god Zeus/Jupiter. He is a god yet he himself came forth from a titan (Cronos.) A Supreme Being is in all places at the same time, cannot die, always was, is self sustaining, has all knowledge and is all powerful.
In cultures/religions were Henotheism is accepted you'll see (as I have previously mentioned) that one God (all powerful being) is worshipped, but other "gods" are believed to exist. These gods may or may not be as powerful as the "god" that was worshipped (based on what the people believed about the gods in the first place or what roles changed over time.)
The reason why it is not applicable to anything devoted to or worshipped is because you have two elements missing. The first element comes from the "god" itself. Is it more powerful than a human and it DESIRES worship. The second element is the devoteds belief that the god desires worship (regardless of if the god has expressed this.)
A car is not a "god" in the tangible sense. No one is making a shrine to it, no one is praying to it, no one is singing hymns in praise of it. The car can be considered a "god" based on philosophical positions and because one may place too much emphasis on the car thus making it a priority over all (which would earn it the title of "god".)
No, I did not say they were atheists. All cognacs are brandy, but not all brandys are cognac. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. All 96 Impalas are cars, but not all cars are 96 Impalas.
Now lets take a look at what you quoted:
(bold emphasis added.)
Do you see that? I am saying an ATHEIST may be one of two things. I am NOT saying the person in your example is an atheist, because clearly he is not an atheist.
No, it could simply be they don't have a form of worship, they don't have the time or interest for it (Apatheism), or that they have never considered such a possibility. However, I have spoken with some "atheist" who DO say that gods could exist, but that they don't worship them, but they often classify themselves as agnostic atheist, and I also classified the person in your example as an agnostic. The person in your example could endorse a form of Methodological Atheism which does not allow them to pick a religion or God/god but to simply study them.
No, you are incorrect. The second part is necessary and meaningful because atheist do not do such a thing. Also, I disagree with your statement that no one will believe in something if they don't first believe in the existence. On the surface this may appear true, but when you take it from a biblical perspective you'll see that bible speaks of many people who worship, yet don't know what they worship, and people who profess to believe in God but really DON'T believe in God. Also, due to tradition and culture, people can still keep the non-existent around for whatever reason (think about Santa Claus.) Yes, prior knowledge goes a long way in belief, but as I have already shown, this is not the case for all non-believers.
No it wasn't.
No, I am not contradicting myself, and you simply are not thinking and reading critically. If I say "I am going to take my automobile to work" does that limit me to a car? Can I take an SUV to work? How about a Mac Truck?
Such a person is NOT an atheist because they accept that the "god" exists, therefor they could be considered an agnostic or gnostic because they have not closed the doors to worship. An atheist HAS closed the doors to worship. One IS NOT GOING TO and the other has the POSSIBILITY TO, and until that person makes a choice he is NOT the atheist that I am referring to. Can he be considered an atheist? Yes, he could be considered an agnostic atheist, but I would not consider him one.
Also, your view is LIMITING the worship to God (The Supreme Being), while my version is saying ALL gods (including The Supreme Being.)
No, it does not. It appears that you believe Atheism is confined, but what I am showing you is that it is not confined and my branch into several different arenas.
No, you simply do not have the ability to read or think critically in rgeards to what I am saying and have yet to come to grips with the reality that atheism may overlap other belief systems.
Sure, it is possible, which is why you have weak atheist who don't rule out the possibility and will say they would worship a god IF tangible proof existed, ANDthe god desired worshipped or needed to be worshipped,
but the strong atheist says: NO GOD(s) EXISTS, NO POSSIBILITY AND NO PROOF WILL EVER COME FORTH. Some weak atheist fall on the agnostic side and some don't and this is how worship might be a possibility, yet existence is presently denied or rejected.
,
This is one "type" of atheist, yes.
Yes indeed and I'll explain this.
Pay attention to the atheists on this forum who pop up out of the wood works and make crazy posts. I'm not talking about the atheists that regularly post but the atheists who pop up from nowhere. You'll see these people saying things like "I HATE GOD", "GOD IS DEAD", "SATAN IS GOD", "666 NOT 777." Yes, in order to hate something you must believe it exists in the first place, but the way many of these people get off when called on this obvious insanity is they claim to hate the "concept" of God (or god.) It is my belief that these people do more harm than good because they do not appear to understand atheism from a philosophical position, and what these people practice can be considered misotheism, yet they call themselves "atheist."
For the most part we could all be considered as agnostic because we do not have the complete idea of god yet, and some atheists and agnostics believe that since we do not have the complete idea (or possibly never will), there is no room for belief in or worship of, and this is attributed to what they feel is a lck of evidence.
On the flip side, it is possible that we could not be considered agnostic, if we take agnotsic to mean one who believes the existence of God (or god) cannot be proven. The reason why we could not be considered as such is because we believe and worship. The fact that we worship can be shown as proof that we believe a god exists, but the agnostic does not worship (yet.)
Because worship is the final act of belief. You can profess to believe in a god all day long, but true belief comes in the form of worship if the god desires/commands worship OR teh devoted feels the need to worship.
I also draw the line because we are talking about atheism and theism. Atheist do not believe in ANY type of "god" whether he be an all powerful being that is omnipresent or whether he is the god of sandwich makers. Also, they do not WORSHIP a god, and since this is the case the same should apply to theism, and it should not be restricted to God.
First of all, like I have previously said, you CANNOT limit theism to the belief in the existence of God because ATHEISM is not simply the lack of belief in the existence of God, but of ALL things that are considered or worshipped AS "god". Now, if you were comparing THEISM to ANTITHEISMyour definition would fit, but comparing theism to atheism is actually WRONG because you are NOT taking into account that atheism involves ALL "gods".
So you have one of two things you can do:
1. Compare theism to antitheism
2. Limit the definition of theism so that it is the exact opposite of atheism
Now, concerning mammon that is easy to explain. Mammon does not have the desire to be worshipped and people do not believe mammon has the desire to be worshipped. They place too much emphasis on mammon, but they do not pray to mammon, bow to mammon, sacrifice to mammon, sing or chant to mammon etc. This is a "god" in the philosophical/rhetorical sense, but not a god as a "being" or "entity" that has knowledge and power.
Now, in regards to the DEMON named Mammon people DO worship him. Again, this is a demon, which is considered more powerfu than humans. He desires worship and people worship him, therefore he is a god to them. This is a "god" in the tangible/exact sense, because it is said to be a demon that has knowledge and power.
The distinguishing factor is atheist don't believe in ANY type of god nor do they worship a type of god. This is why I keep saying theism should be changed instead of using it to define belief in the existence of God.
No, we don't all worship a "god" or "gods". Atheist do no such thing. As I have shown before, we can be considered agnostic and a theist depending on what definition is used, but what is more important is what the person has chosen to label themselves as.
Since you do not understand what I am trying to convey about atheism I can limit the definition.
Atheist 1 = A person who lacks the belief in the existence of "gods" and does not worship them. (This is called weak atheism.)
Atheist 2 = A person who believes no god exists and does not worship them. (This is called strong atheism.)
Do you understand the difference? One is a LACK of the belief, while the other is firm that none exists (btw, these are terms that atheists use to describe themselves.)
The reason why believing in Indra is more theistic is because Indra is said to have desired worshipped and became angry when he didn't. Brahmins worship Indra, so that would mean they have the desire to do so or feel he has the desire to be worshipped. The same cannot be said about george washington. He does not have the attributes or powers as Indra, he does not desire to be worshipped, nor do people feel he has the desire to be worshipped or is deserving of worship.
One because atheist don't worship, and since they don't worship it is incorrect to say they worship something as a "god." The second part is worship is the last step in belief of. Can one not take the step? Yes, but in the majority of cases the person does take the step.
Ponder the four bottles:
Bottle #1 is full of water and people will drink from it.
Bottle #2 is full of water and people have the possibility to drink from it.
Bottle #3 is empty, it is cracked, and no evidence of water ever being present has been found.
Bottle #4 is empty, it is not cracked, has no evidence of water ever being in it, but it can be filled.
Do you understand what I am telling you? You do NOT have to post an answer or explanation.
206 does not worship a "god". He does not worship a being/entity with powers and knowledge. No, everyone will not say "I believe" or "I worship" which is why you have a distinction when the person DOES worship. Can that person worship falsely and do it just because of current status quo? Yes. Does that mean all people who do acts of worship are not sincere? No.
No, for something to be "god-like" certain attributes have to be given to it. In the tangible sense the idea of mammon is not god-like yet people worship mammon by placing too much emphasis on it. Are they worshipping a "god" that has powers? No. However, all one does have to do is believe that the object desires worship, apply superhuman attributes to the object, and that something (inanimate object) will be worshipped as a "god". (This is why idols are worshipped.)
A car can be god-like in the sense that it is a priority in a persons life when it should not be, but the car is not worshipped in the way gods are worshipped. No shrine is dedicated to it, no prayers are offered up, no religious sermons are given etc.
Because demi-gods are often promoted to god status by their deeds, or demi-gods are promoted to god status due to cultural changes in society, or because of changes in doctrine/dogma. Also, a demigod can simply be a lesser god. It doesn't mean that he needs the unviverse to help him sustain himself.
Because some atheists do it.
Which is what some atheist actually say they believe in, and which is why some people are considered agnostic-atheist.
Whatever the being is that has superhuman powers and attributes, OR whatever people believe this being to be. However, they must believe this "god" has some type of power or else it is not a "god".
I've addressed this several times in this post.
An agnostic can be one who doubts the existence of god, but it may also be a person who does not doubt the existence of god because no proof of god exists (to them.) Depending on what definition of agnostic is applied you are either correct or incorrect. For the most part agnostics are concerned with the evidece (or lack of) as it pertains to god or God, and some believe god/God is unknowable. For the most part, a theist does not believe god/God is unknowable.
I have addressed this issue.
A theist is someone who believes in gods, spirits or an all powerful being AND worships one or all. Some men do worship vagina, but not in the sense of religious context--that is unless they practice sexual magick or have a tendency to lean towards the sacred feminine. They place too much emphasis on it and thus this is considered worship, but they do not do it in religious observation (unless it is in context to what I just listed.)
Technically yes, many forms of buddhism promote this and so do other non-theist. Also, this is why the person would be considered an agnostic-atheist. The type of person you just mentioned would be a weak atheist because they lack the belief IN (worship of) and not the belief IN (which can be belief of existence.) Yes, it takes some time to get used to, but that is due to the fact that NONE of this is clear cut (except for strong atheism), and that atheism often overlaps other philosophical teachings/beliefs.
I believe I have already done this, but if you believe I have not please clarify yourself.
In that instance yes.
Yes, alternatives exist. Worship a god and no longer be considered an atheist or non-theist. But, once worship is done that person is NO LONGER an atheist.
But, simply lacking some knowledge of god does not make one an agnostic unless you use a specific definition. Remember, you worship. You have chosen a god. I worship. I have chosen a god. The agnostic, although he is concerned with knowledge, has for the most part not chosen because he does not have enough evidence, but he is not ruling out the possibility. You and I have ruled out the possibilities and we have come to the conclusion that a supreme being exists and that he should be worshipped.
Yes, a gnostic can be considered a weak theist, and now you are starting to see how these things can overlap. I would say the ONLY things that are almost etched in stone is the strong atheist view point, and the theist viewpoint of God existence and worship of. Everything else can fall into other philosophies and teachings.
(bold emphasis mine)
And your words in bold is the reason why I would not say they are an atheist. They have yet to come to the state of worship and are working towards such a state (whether they know it or not.) The atheist are NOT working towards this state, so while both lack worship, both are based on DIFFERENT circumstances. Neither has arrived, and one will NEVER arrive unless he changes his train of thought completely.
You're catching on. This why people are considered apostate.
Because of the way you worded your statement. No harm done.
If your definition is used you cannot fully compare it to atheism. One must compare your version of theism to antitheism or one must change your definition so it is the exact opposite of atheism. Atheist do NOT make a disntinction. Vishnu, Yhwh, Mars, Loki, Dagon, Allah; they are all beings that do not exist.
I agree with the words originally in bold, but the opposite of that would be antitheism and not really atheism, because atheism does not accept ANY god whether that god be the supreme god or the god of corn crops. What you are basically saying would be the equivelent of certain christians saying "all those who do not worship God are heathen." Yes, depending on your definition this can be true, but this is not true in all cases. What you are failing to grasp is atheist have already made the distinction and that distinction is actually NOT making a distinction amongst individual gods and eliminating ALL "gods".
I agree with this 100%. The bible speaks of people who are lovers/worshippers of themselves, and it also teaches that you are to crucify the flesh (which is your carnal mind/carnal spirit) DAILY, because trying to fulfill the needs of it will only lead to sin, which leads to death, which leads to a seperation from God.
All, I am saying is that worship is different from religious worship. Is it worship? Yes. Religious worship? No (unless one practices sex magick or worships Thor by prayer, sacrifice etc.)
I have no problem with this. If you do not serve teh most high what you are serving somethign else which is why I am saying people believe the "god" desires or needs to be worshipped.
I do, and I am not saying that person is an atheist.
What I am saying is atheist don't endorse ANY entity. They do not entertain a specific god and place all gods (or things that can be considered as gods) in one big barrel: They don't exist.
I am talking about religious devotion or worship of a being that is considered a "god." Such a person is a theist.
Again, this is not the case with atheists. They do not believe in "god" or THE SUPREME GOD. They do not worship such beings, and since they do not worship such beings the worship of sense is actually a non issue. Now, you CAN talk about this, and it is considered worship, but it is not the sense of worship that atheists reject.
The atheist does not worship a being that can be considered a "god."
The only people who worship vagina in the religious sense are those who I have previously mentioned. Placing too much emphasis on it does make it an object of worship, but it is not an object of worship like an idol or "god."
The reason why I do not endorse your distinction is because it limits atheist. What you are saying would be true IF the theist in your example believed that the "lower god" was an extension of the higher god, but this is not the case in all religions where polytheism is practiced. In some cases the people DO worship the lower god or as all powerful being, but a lot of times this is the result of class change, power struggle within the religious community and syncretism/assimilation.
Atheist don't care if it is the highest or lowest form of an object that is considered a god.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/atheist-God.htm
I had no time to correct this, I know many typos may be found. 916, you may have the last word since I'll be M.I.A for at least a week or two.
Ok, lets see how good my memory is...
Distinction is made through the act of belief AND worship (or lack) of a "god", and does not require God or a Supreme Being.
This is a real distinction for several reasons. The first reason is worship is a tangible step beyond belief. Belief does not have to be expressed outwardly, but worship IS expressed outwardly. The second reason is atheist don't believe in God (Supreme Being) or gods, or spirits or nature gods etc. Since they do not believe in them you cannot use theism to mean belief of a Supreme Being because atheist don't believe in ANY beings that can or could be considered "gods".
A god is someone or something that has power beyond that of mortals. A god does not have to be a Supreme Being, and can easily be subjected to death or other ailments. Take the god Osiris for example. This god was not the "all powerful god" (which was Atum or a varient of Ra/Re), but he was a "god". Another example of a god may be found in Norse paganism with Odin/Wotan. Odin is considered an "all seeing god", yet Odin is not all powerful, for he falls at Ragnarok to Fenrir. the same may be said for the greek/roman god Zeus/Jupiter. He is a god yet he himself came forth from a titan (Cronos.) A Supreme Being is in all places at the same time, cannot die, always was, is self sustaining, has all knowledge and is all powerful.
In cultures/religions were Henotheism is accepted you'll see (as I have previously mentioned) that one God (all powerful being) is worshipped, but other "gods" are believed to exist. These gods may or may not be as powerful as the "god" that was worshipped (based on what the people believed about the gods in the first place or what roles changed over time.)
The reason why it is not applicable to anything devoted to or worshipped is because you have two elements missing. The first element comes from the "god" itself. Is it more powerful than a human and it DESIRES worship. The second element is the devoteds belief that the god desires worship (regardless of if the god has expressed this.)
A car is not a "god" in the tangible sense. No one is making a shrine to it, no one is praying to it, no one is singing hymns in praise of it. The car can be considered a "god" based on philosophical positions and because one may place too much emphasis on the car thus making it a priority over all (which would earn it the title of "god".)
No, I did not say they were atheists. All cognacs are brandy, but not all brandys are cognac. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. All 96 Impalas are cars, but not all cars are 96 Impalas.
Now lets take a look at what you quoted:
(bold emphasis added.)
Do you see that? I am saying an ATHEIST may be one of two things. I am NOT saying the person in your example is an atheist, because clearly he is not an atheist.
No, it could simply be they don't have a form of worship, they don't have the time or interest for it (Apatheism), or that they have never considered such a possibility. However, I have spoken with some "atheist" who DO say that gods could exist, but that they don't worship them, but they often classify themselves as agnostic atheist, and I also classified the person in your example as an agnostic. The person in your example could endorse a form of Methodological Atheism which does not allow them to pick a religion or God/god but to simply study them.
No, you are incorrect. The second part is necessary and meaningful because atheist do not do such a thing. Also, I disagree with your statement that no one will believe in something if they don't first believe in the existence. On the surface this may appear true, but when you take it from a biblical perspective you'll see that bible speaks of many people who worship, yet don't know what they worship, and people who profess to believe in God but really DON'T believe in God. Also, due to tradition and culture, people can still keep the non-existent around for whatever reason (think about Santa Claus.) Yes, prior knowledge goes a long way in belief, but as I have already shown, this is not the case for all non-believers.
No it wasn't.
No, I am not contradicting myself, and you simply are not thinking and reading critically. If I say "I am going to take my automobile to work" does that limit me to a car? Can I take an SUV to work? How about a Mac Truck?
Such a person is NOT an atheist because they accept that the "god" exists, therefor they could be considered an agnostic or gnostic because they have not closed the doors to worship. An atheist HAS closed the doors to worship. One IS NOT GOING TO and the other has the POSSIBILITY TO, and until that person makes a choice he is NOT the atheist that I am referring to. Can he be considered an atheist? Yes, he could be considered an agnostic atheist, but I would not consider him one.
Also, your view is LIMITING the worship to God (The Supreme Being), while my version is saying ALL gods (including The Supreme Being.)
No, it does not. It appears that you believe Atheism is confined, but what I am showing you is that it is not confined and my branch into several different arenas.
No, you simply do not have the ability to read or think critically in rgeards to what I am saying and have yet to come to grips with the reality that atheism may overlap other belief systems.
Sure, it is possible, which is why you have weak atheist who don't rule out the possibility and will say they would worship a god IF tangible proof existed, ANDthe god desired worshipped or needed to be worshipped,
but the strong atheist says: NO GOD(s) EXISTS, NO POSSIBILITY AND NO PROOF WILL EVER COME FORTH. Some weak atheist fall on the agnostic side and some don't and this is how worship might be a possibility, yet existence is presently denied or rejected.
,
This is one "type" of atheist, yes.
Yes indeed and I'll explain this.
Pay attention to the atheists on this forum who pop up out of the wood works and make crazy posts. I'm not talking about the atheists that regularly post but the atheists who pop up from nowhere. You'll see these people saying things like "I HATE GOD", "GOD IS DEAD", "SATAN IS GOD", "666 NOT 777." Yes, in order to hate something you must believe it exists in the first place, but the way many of these people get off when called on this obvious insanity is they claim to hate the "concept" of God (or god.) It is my belief that these people do more harm than good because they do not appear to understand atheism from a philosophical position, and what these people practice can be considered misotheism, yet they call themselves "atheist."
For the most part we could all be considered as agnostic because we do not have the complete idea of god yet, and some atheists and agnostics believe that since we do not have the complete idea (or possibly never will), there is no room for belief in or worship of, and this is attributed to what they feel is a lck of evidence.
On the flip side, it is possible that we could not be considered agnostic, if we take agnotsic to mean one who believes the existence of God (or god) cannot be proven. The reason why we could not be considered as such is because we believe and worship. The fact that we worship can be shown as proof that we believe a god exists, but the agnostic does not worship (yet.)
Because worship is the final act of belief. You can profess to believe in a god all day long, but true belief comes in the form of worship if the god desires/commands worship OR teh devoted feels the need to worship.
I also draw the line because we are talking about atheism and theism. Atheist do not believe in ANY type of "god" whether he be an all powerful being that is omnipresent or whether he is the god of sandwich makers. Also, they do not WORSHIP a god, and since this is the case the same should apply to theism, and it should not be restricted to God.
First of all, like I have previously said, you CANNOT limit theism to the belief in the existence of God because ATHEISM is not simply the lack of belief in the existence of God, but of ALL things that are considered or worshipped AS "god". Now, if you were comparing THEISM to ANTITHEISMyour definition would fit, but comparing theism to atheism is actually WRONG because you are NOT taking into account that atheism involves ALL "gods".
So you have one of two things you can do:
1. Compare theism to antitheism
2. Limit the definition of theism so that it is the exact opposite of atheism
Now, concerning mammon that is easy to explain. Mammon does not have the desire to be worshipped and people do not believe mammon has the desire to be worshipped. They place too much emphasis on mammon, but they do not pray to mammon, bow to mammon, sacrifice to mammon, sing or chant to mammon etc. This is a "god" in the philosophical/rhetorical sense, but not a god as a "being" or "entity" that has knowledge and power.
Now, in regards to the DEMON named Mammon people DO worship him. Again, this is a demon, which is considered more powerfu than humans. He desires worship and people worship him, therefore he is a god to them. This is a "god" in the tangible/exact sense, because it is said to be a demon that has knowledge and power.
The distinguishing factor is atheist don't believe in ANY type of god nor do they worship a type of god. This is why I keep saying theism should be changed instead of using it to define belief in the existence of God.
No, we don't all worship a "god" or "gods". Atheist do no such thing. As I have shown before, we can be considered agnostic and a theist depending on what definition is used, but what is more important is what the person has chosen to label themselves as.
Since you do not understand what I am trying to convey about atheism I can limit the definition.
Atheist 1 = A person who lacks the belief in the existence of "gods" and does not worship them. (This is called weak atheism.)
Atheist 2 = A person who believes no god exists and does not worship them. (This is called strong atheism.)
Do you understand the difference? One is a LACK of the belief, while the other is firm that none exists (btw, these are terms that atheists use to describe themselves.)
The reason why believing in Indra is more theistic is because Indra is said to have desired worshipped and became angry when he didn't. Brahmins worship Indra, so that would mean they have the desire to do so or feel he has the desire to be worshipped. The same cannot be said about george washington. He does not have the attributes or powers as Indra, he does not desire to be worshipped, nor do people feel he has the desire to be worshipped or is deserving of worship.
One because atheist don't worship, and since they don't worship it is incorrect to say they worship something as a "god." The second part is worship is the last step in belief of. Can one not take the step? Yes, but in the majority of cases the person does take the step.
Ponder the four bottles:
Bottle #1 is full of water and people will drink from it.
Bottle #2 is full of water and people have the possibility to drink from it.
Bottle #3 is empty, it is cracked, and no evidence of water ever being present has been found.
Bottle #4 is empty, it is not cracked, has no evidence of water ever being in it, but it can be filled.
Do you understand what I am telling you? You do NOT have to post an answer or explanation.
206 does not worship a "god". He does not worship a being/entity with powers and knowledge. No, everyone will not say "I believe" or "I worship" which is why you have a distinction when the person DOES worship. Can that person worship falsely and do it just because of current status quo? Yes. Does that mean all people who do acts of worship are not sincere? No.
No, for something to be "god-like" certain attributes have to be given to it. In the tangible sense the idea of mammon is not god-like yet people worship mammon by placing too much emphasis on it. Are they worshipping a "god" that has powers? No. However, all one does have to do is believe that the object desires worship, apply superhuman attributes to the object, and that something (inanimate object) will be worshipped as a "god". (This is why idols are worshipped.)
A car can be god-like in the sense that it is a priority in a persons life when it should not be, but the car is not worshipped in the way gods are worshipped. No shrine is dedicated to it, no prayers are offered up, no religious sermons are given etc.
Because demi-gods are often promoted to god status by their deeds, or demi-gods are promoted to god status due to cultural changes in society, or because of changes in doctrine/dogma. Also, a demigod can simply be a lesser god. It doesn't mean that he needs the unviverse to help him sustain himself.
Because some atheists do it.
Which is what some atheist actually say they believe in, and which is why some people are considered agnostic-atheist.
Whatever the being is that has superhuman powers and attributes, OR whatever people believe this being to be. However, they must believe this "god" has some type of power or else it is not a "god".
I've addressed this several times in this post.
An agnostic can be one who doubts the existence of god, but it may also be a person who does not doubt the existence of god because no proof of god exists (to them.) Depending on what definition of agnostic is applied you are either correct or incorrect. For the most part agnostics are concerned with the evidece (or lack of) as it pertains to god or God, and some believe god/God is unknowable. For the most part, a theist does not believe god/God is unknowable.
I have addressed this issue.
A theist is someone who believes in gods, spirits or an all powerful being AND worships one or all. Some men do worship vagina, but not in the sense of religious context--that is unless they practice sexual magick or have a tendency to lean towards the sacred feminine. They place too much emphasis on it and thus this is considered worship, but they do not do it in religious observation (unless it is in context to what I just listed.)
Technically yes, many forms of buddhism promote this and so do other non-theist. Also, this is why the person would be considered an agnostic-atheist. The type of person you just mentioned would be a weak atheist because they lack the belief IN (worship of) and not the belief IN (which can be belief of existence.) Yes, it takes some time to get used to, but that is due to the fact that NONE of this is clear cut (except for strong atheism), and that atheism often overlaps other philosophical teachings/beliefs.
I believe I have already done this, but if you believe I have not please clarify yourself.
In that instance yes.
Yes, alternatives exist. Worship a god and no longer be considered an atheist or non-theist. But, once worship is done that person is NO LONGER an atheist.
But, simply lacking some knowledge of god does not make one an agnostic unless you use a specific definition. Remember, you worship. You have chosen a god. I worship. I have chosen a god. The agnostic, although he is concerned with knowledge, has for the most part not chosen because he does not have enough evidence, but he is not ruling out the possibility. You and I have ruled out the possibilities and we have come to the conclusion that a supreme being exists and that he should be worshipped.
Yes, a gnostic can be considered a weak theist, and now you are starting to see how these things can overlap. I would say the ONLY things that are almost etched in stone is the strong atheist view point, and the theist viewpoint of God existence and worship of. Everything else can fall into other philosophies and teachings.
(bold emphasis mine)
And your words in bold is the reason why I would not say they are an atheist. They have yet to come to the state of worship and are working towards such a state (whether they know it or not.) The atheist are NOT working towards this state, so while both lack worship, both are based on DIFFERENT circumstances. Neither has arrived, and one will NEVER arrive unless he changes his train of thought completely.
You're catching on. This why people are considered apostate.
Because of the way you worded your statement. No harm done.
If your definition is used you cannot fully compare it to atheism. One must compare your version of theism to antitheism or one must change your definition so it is the exact opposite of atheism. Atheist do NOT make a disntinction. Vishnu, Yhwh, Mars, Loki, Dagon, Allah; they are all beings that do not exist.
I agree with the words originally in bold, but the opposite of that would be antitheism and not really atheism, because atheism does not accept ANY god whether that god be the supreme god or the god of corn crops. What you are basically saying would be the equivelent of certain christians saying "all those who do not worship God are heathen." Yes, depending on your definition this can be true, but this is not true in all cases. What you are failing to grasp is atheist have already made the distinction and that distinction is actually NOT making a distinction amongst individual gods and eliminating ALL "gods".
I agree with this 100%. The bible speaks of people who are lovers/worshippers of themselves, and it also teaches that you are to crucify the flesh (which is your carnal mind/carnal spirit) DAILY, because trying to fulfill the needs of it will only lead to sin, which leads to death, which leads to a seperation from God.
All, I am saying is that worship is different from religious worship. Is it worship? Yes. Religious worship? No (unless one practices sex magick or worships Thor by prayer, sacrifice etc.)
I have no problem with this. If you do not serve teh most high what you are serving somethign else which is why I am saying people believe the "god" desires or needs to be worshipped.
I do, and I am not saying that person is an atheist.
What I am saying is atheist don't endorse ANY entity. They do not entertain a specific god and place all gods (or things that can be considered as gods) in one big barrel: They don't exist.
I am talking about religious devotion or worship of a being that is considered a "god." Such a person is a theist.
Again, this is not the case with atheists. They do not believe in "god" or THE SUPREME GOD. They do not worship such beings, and since they do not worship such beings the worship of sense is actually a non issue. Now, you CAN talk about this, and it is considered worship, but it is not the sense of worship that atheists reject.
The atheist does not worship a being that can be considered a "god."
The only people who worship vagina in the religious sense are those who I have previously mentioned. Placing too much emphasis on it does make it an object of worship, but it is not an object of worship like an idol or "god."
The reason why I do not endorse your distinction is because it limits atheist. What you are saying would be true IF the theist in your example believed that the "lower god" was an extension of the higher god, but this is not the case in all religions where polytheism is practiced. In some cases the people DO worship the lower god or as all powerful being, but a lot of times this is the result of class change, power struggle within the religious community and syncretism/assimilation.
Atheist don't care if it is the highest or lowest form of an object that is considered a god.
http://mwillett.org/atheism/atheist-God.htm
I had no time to correct this, I know many typos may be found. 916, you may have the last word since I'll be M.I.A for at least a week or two.