If ‘theism’ is meant to include both the mono- and poly- variants; then, the opposite of ‘theism’ is ‘non-theism.’

>> Non-theism is not atheism

There are non-theistic religions. Chinese ancestor worship and Shintoism, for example. These, of course, do posit the existence of spirits of the dead or of spirits (living forces) within nature.

Theravada Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. One which denies the reality of both the so-called external world and the reality of an internal world — the self. Its theory of knowledge is a pure phenomenalism.

Gods there may be, but they also long for release from suffering. Karma with its attendant doctrine of reincarnation is the last metaphysical roadblock to Nirvana, a condition free from all illusion and outside karmic necessity.

>> religion belongs to culture, not some super-nature

Words like ‘god’ ‘theism’ ‘atheism’ are highly ambiguous (multiple acceptable meanings) and are also vague (criteria for in/exclusion are ill-defined).

Perhaps the atheist is, to use Nietzsche’s word, a complete “anti-metaphysician.” One who opposes any doctrine of a supernatural realm, whether of Platonic ideas, gods, demons, spirits, minds, karma, reincarnation.

“We godless anti-metaphysicians” accept only one world. The world we call ‘Nature.’ And, not to forget, our human handiwork, culture. Religion belongs to cultures embedded in nature.

Religion is a cultural construct.

bipolar2
© 2008

Not true. Atheist = having no belief in God. That’s it–no more, no less. “No belief” is not a type of belief. Sure, everybody believes things. For example, I believe that humans generally try to do good, as they see it. I also believe in causality as a principle. I’m still an atheist, however, because these “beliefs” have nothing to do with what I think about God.

Most atheists do not claim to “know” there is no God. Atheism is a description of non-BELIEF. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a description of KNOWLEDGE, not of belief (or non-belief), i.e., “I do not know if God exists.” Not knowing does not necessarily also mean making no judgment about belief. Technically, everybody is agnostic, because it is impossible for any human being to ever prove or disprove God. So what’s the point of describing yourself that way? The only real issue is what all the evidence and logical reasoning points to as being the most rational position to take despite the fact that we’ll never know for certain.

1) I don’t think any person can be a true atheist, because every person does ascribe to some system of belief, the only question is what set of beliefs
2) My system of belief is not faith based
3) I do not believe logic# The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: is fallable, but I know premises can be
4) Whatever allows people to fill their own void will be what they pursue (religion, politics, hockey, heroine…its all the same)

It seems to me, that most atheists I have met, are mostly familiar with the fundamentalist variety of Christianity.

Fair enough. I’d say that corresponds to my observations.

We are a deep, mystical religion.

What branch are you talking from? The Orthodox and some Catholics are about the only ones I know of who can say this without being laughed off the stage.

According to Christianity, most of humanity will burn in hell. An ink drop in nothingness is far, far superior to knowing that your 12 year old daughter is writhing in agony forever.

—————————-

No, i am not a calvinist, because i believe that he gifts us with both faith and free will.

We all have a choice to make, but the initiation between the divine and humanity, is always initiated by the divine. We cannot have faith unless he allows us, but simply because he allows us does not mean we will choose to follow.

It seems to me, that most atheists I have met, are mostly familiar with the fundamentalist variety of Christianity. If you are to go down the rabbit hole farther than a sociopolitical movement of 20th century america, you will find that there is much about Christianity that is simply ignored by the fundies.

We are a deep, mystical religion. We have many beliefs that cannot be understood on a rational level. But, because we believe in something beyond ration, we do not need to have a rational basis for our faith.

You will call that dodging logic. However my point is that logic is limited. Very Valuable, but limited. It is capable of answering some questions, but not all.

I am not trying to convert you over the internet. People who think they can argue someone to faith is silly. My only goal is to simply open your mind to the concept that logic is not infallible.

In fact, the idea that logic is limited by the brain of the one practicing logical deduction, is itself logical.

——————————————

The more you learn the more you learn you don’t know.

Sure, we know that For every Reaction there is an equal and opposite Reaction. What we don’t know is why there is. What about the mere collision of particles causes them to repel each other?

We know that Gravity is a force that attracts bodies Dependant on their mass. We do not what causes this force, we do not know WHY seemingly unconnected masses move toward each other, other than the one word answer “gravity”.

We know that the current expansion of the universe is due to a “big bang” that occured billions of years ago. We don’t know what caused the Singularity to suddenly expand.

We have hints that there is something we have termed “dark matter” and “dark energy”. We know almost NOTHING about what this is, and what affect if any it has on our existence.

For every question we answer, we create ten more questions.

Only an idiot thinks he understands the workings of physics.

——————————————-

Yep, exactly. No Christian who honestly understands his faith and its teachings thinks that we can prove our faith empirically.

We, have always believed, until the recent fundamentalist movement, that the reason for faith is movement in our lives. Not by trashing evolution (which is obviously the mechanism of Creation) or trying to make the bible make scientific claims that it does not make.

We believe, because he has given us faith, not because I can prove it in a textbook.

Scripture often speaks of faith. Christ Himself said blessed are they who do not see yet believe.

We believe there is Proof, beyond reason. We do have to take a step beyond reason. Only immature Christians will tell you otherwise.

Well, I think that most physicists would disagree, strongly. And, if it’s the case that we cannot prove God’s existence or non-existence (a plausible position), then, of course, if you want to be a theist, you need to make the oft-touted “leap of faith”. At that point, an atheist or agnostic can justifiably ask you, “Why? On what basis do you make it?” And, it seems to me, that the only answer a theist can give under those circumstances is, “Because I want to” or “Because I need to” or “Because I have a feeling that He exists”. As the Dalai Lama always says – if it gives you hope and causes you to behave compassionately, fine. But you (Christians in general, I mean) are expecting the same from people who apparently have no aptitude for such belief – and, in your world view, the consequences of not believing are eternal damnation. It’s completely unreasonable.