I saw the realms of God a personal experience of life beyond life

[Judas130]

I think this is a bad example as well, because while atheists may have faith in science (and as you note, it's not the same kind of faith) it isn't essential.

I think many believers in faith see through their perceptions the one kind of atheist: the militant atheist. What is commonly seens as a threat to religion is the militant and anti-theist atheist, who wants to see an end to religion and bring humanity to view things with free rationality.
When many atheists unite under some organisation or banner they might look like some proto-religion and this is what I feel people are seeing here. What I find funny is if a theist tells you atheism is a religion, and then attempts to debate that Atheism has caused more unspeakable crimes that Christianity, and the atheist says 'well, hey..if you look at Stalin and how he utilised the serfs, or if you look at nazi ideology, its very proto-religion', the believer takes this as an insult, thinking that blaming religion for the crimes of atheism is absurd. Well, they can't have it both ways.
People may mix up faith and religion, both are separate but interact. Although aspects of Atheist action over recent years may appear religious, rest assured it has no faith.

[Alan McDougall]

I think many believers in faith see through their perceptions the one kind of atheist: the militant atheist. What is commonly seens as a threat to religion is the militant and anti-theist atheist, who wants to see an end to religion and bring humanity to view things with free rationality.
When many atheists unite under some organisation or banner they might look like some proto-religion and this is what I feel people are seeing here. What I find funny is if a theist tells you atheism is a religion, and then attempts to debate that Atheism has caused more unspeakable crimes that Christianity, and the atheist says 'well, hey..if you look at Stalin and how he utilised the serfs, or if you look at nazi ideology, its very proto-religion', the believer takes this as an insult, thinking that blaming religion for the crimes of atheism is absurd. Well, they can't have it both ways.
People may mix up faith and religion, both are separate but interact. Although aspects of Atheist action over recent years may appear religious, rest assured it has no faith.

I am not religious but I believe in God, but not the God of any religious persuasion but the "God of my own understanding" which I do not force on anyone else.

It is not a faith, that denotes some sort of trust in a divinity, I simply believe there must be a primordial "uncaused cause for existence" How that belief could offend anyone is beyond my comprehension.

Regards

Alan

[The Atheist]

Much of it was deliberate induced altered states of consciousness, but not drug induced. I also had a profound near death event due a almost successful attempt at suicide due to my depressed state at the time

Were you on medication?

I read the rest of your post, which is entertaining, if a little proselytising.

The only question I have to put in the beautiful picture of [I'll call it, for want of a better term] heaven you painted:

Where does hatred go?

Does it just suddenly disappear, or are people who cannot help themselves harbouring hatred or anger banned from the light place? Does universal knowledge suddenly overcome those negative emotions?

I think many believers in faith see through their perceptions the one kind of atheist: the militant atheist. What is commonly seens as a threat to religion is the militant and anti-theist atheist, who wants to see an end to religion and bring humanity to view things with free rationality.

The most amusing part is that theists see atheists as a threat at all.

Most atheists are rationalists and the contest is pretty straightforward:

In the red corner.... The Omnipotent, the Fantastic, Creator of the Entire Universe!! GOD!!

In the blue corner....... a bunch of humans.

Be over in seconds. I have to say that if I were a theist, the idea of people who disagreed with me wouldn't be worth considering. It's all just another symptom of transubstantiation in action - if I can rationalise my faith to you, then my faith becomes certainty.

Good name - why 130?

Although aspects of Atheist action over recent years may appear religious, rest assured it has no faith.

Just more contradiction. I weaken atheism by calling it a faith, yet the cornerstone of my belief is pure faith.

Cure trick, really. Shows how deep they have to dig.

I am not religious but I believe in God, but not the God of any religious persuasion but the "God of my own understanding" which I do not force on anyone else.

It is not a faith, that denotes some sort of trust in a divinity, I simply believe there must be a primordial "uncaused cause for existence" How that belief could offend anyone is beyond my comprehension.

Regards

Alan

I don't think "offend" is quite the right word. Your views don't offend me at all.

[Alan McDougall]

Atheist,

Try to be a friendly atheist I did not join this forum to debate for or against anyones personal belief.

I puzzled how you can see this thread of mine a proselytising.. If you don't like me or what I post then ignore me and don't read my stuff!!

I consider myself as a rational theist not bound by any religious dogma or doctrine and in fact I despise fundamentalism in all its guises and forms. Believe it or not that includes atheistic fundamentalism as well

Hatred is an unhappy part of the duality we live in , there is love and hate, dark and light, negative and positive, life and death and so on.

There are hells of our own making in the afterlife and heavens of our own making in the afterlife. God does not judge anyone we go where expect to end up and advance from that step in the eternal ladder of life

[Three Sparrows]

I have only one question, how can a mere human induce such a profound experience? I think your testimony was wonderful, and I, too love God, but do not adhere to any denominations. God is so profound, so wonderful, isn't He?
You must feel honored to see so clearly into the After Life.
Praise God, I love him so! He is so good to us.

[RichardHresko]

One does not weaken atheism by pointing out that it involves an act of faith -- namely that reality is completely explorable by the senses (a faith, by the way, that science never claims for itself).

"True believers," whether fundamentalist religionists or militant atheists, want to feel that somehow their belief-system is in some way uniquely true. Religionists make claims about certain experiences or writings they feel are divinely inspired, while militant atheists make unsupportable claims of superior rationality (unsupported since they do not acknowledge that their own underlying assumptions are debatable, and because they arbitrarily trim off realms of experience they find inconvenient).

Clearly atheism is as robust as any other religious position. Beyond that, no claims for it are indisputable.

[The Atheist]

Atheist,

Try to be a friendly atheist I did not join this forum to debate for or against anyones personal belief.

I haven't intended to be unfriendly, and I don't think my posts convey any unfriendliness.

Your position raised a logical question - where does the hatred go? But you only came up with:

Hatred is an unhappy part of the duality we live in , there is love and hate, dark and light, negative and positive, life and death and so on.

There are hells of our own making in the afterlife and heavens of our own making in the afterlife. God does not judge anyone we go where expect to end up and advance from that step in the eternal ladder of life

Which doesn't answer the question at all.

One does not weaken atheism by pointing out that it involves an act of faith -- namely that reality is completely explorable by the senses (a faith, by the way, that science never claims for itself).

Yet again, you choose to use a strawman of atheism to mount the same old attack on it.

It's really very, very simple; an atheist does not believe in god/s, a position which requires no faith at all. That it's a strawman is clearly evinced by the continuing incorrect assertion that atheism has anything to do with this position: "reality is completely explorable by the senses".

Most Buddhists are atheists, your argument is flat wrong.

Do you ever tire of repeating the same fallacies?

[jocky]

Athiest, when I get to heaven, unlikely as that sounds, I am going to look God squarely in the face and say, you dont exist! Once a troublemaker, always a troublemaker. In my view, the position of athiesm is simple, regardless of Hitchens major or Dawkings, we do not believe in the supernatural. Thankfully, there is no such thing as organised athieism.

[RichardHresko]

Just as deciding not to act is itself an action, so is deciding not to believe an act of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. A decision has been reached without proof, which is exactly what belief entails.

There is no defensible scientific atheism, just as there is no defensible scientific theism, since science is not concerned with questions of anything but the material world.

If one wants to adopt a position that involves no belief on the matter, then the correct position is one of agnosticism.

[jocky]

Just as deciding not to act is itself an action, so is deciding not to believe an act of belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. A decision has been reached without proof, which is exactly what belief entails.

There is no defensible scientific atheism, just as there is no defensible scientific theism, since science is not concerned with questions of anything but the material world.

If one wants to adopt a position that involves no belief on the matter, then the correct position is one of agnosticism.

Good point, however agnosticism involves proof, as no one can prove the existence of God one way or another, it is not worth debating. Agnostics do not deny God, they take Tennyson's position of honest doubt. Athiests, or myself, take the view, that heavenly powers are scary stories to fear the kids. Religion is politics by other means. I would never question another mans beliefs, as long as they do not force it down our throats. History tends to reinforce my point.

[RichardHresko]

Good point, however agnosticism involves proof, as no one can prove the existence of God one way or another, it is not worth debating. Agnostics do not deny God, they take Tennyson's position of honest doubt. Athiests, or myself, take the view, that heavenly powers are scary stories to fear the kids. Religion is politics by other means. I would never question another mans beliefs, as long as they do not force it down our throats. History tends to reinforce my point.

Agnosticism is the position that there is no convincing proof in either direction. In that sense it does indeed involve proof.

Atheists have come to a decision about the existence of god. Given that this decision is not based on proof, since as you have admitted, there is no proof either way, atheism involves belief.

While religion (including atheism in the 20th century) has been used politically, this does not mean that that is what religion is. Just as a cow (sacred or otherwise) can raise the objection that she is not a hamburger merely because that is how her kind has been used.

The point of my posts has been merely to counter various unsupportable claims as to what atheism is.

[jocky]

Agnosticism is the position that there is no convincing proof in either direction. In that sense it does indeed involve proof.

Atheists have come to a decision about the existence of god. Given that this decision is not based on proof, since as you have admitted, there is no proof either way, atheism involves belief.

While religion (including atheism in the 20th century) has been used politically, this does not mean that that is what religion is. Just as a cow (sacred or otherwise) can raise the objection that she is not a hamburger merely because that is how her kind has been used.

The point of my posts has been merely to counter various unsupportable claims as to what atheism is.

Richard, everything involves belief. To be agnostic is to take no position at all, basically they sit on fences chewing straw all day, waiting till they die so they can say, I knew there was not a God or, vice versa. Athiesm, as I have already stated, is a much more vigorous argument, we, or I, take the view that the supernatural is just that, and nothing more.

[jocky]

[QUOTE=RichardHresko;7602

While religion (including atheism in the 20th century) has been used politically, this does not mean that that is what religion is. Just as a cow (sacred or otherwise) can raise the objection that she is not a hamburger .[/QUOTE]

Richard you are obviously not a farmer. Any self respecting cow worth her salt would object long and loudly to be compared to bacon. What an insult. Mind you the ways of God are inscrutable. Beefburgers, man, beefburgers.

[JuniperWoolf]

Where did I suggest plagiarism?

You seem to be seeing things which aren't there.

What a perfect retort.
Debating religion has lost it's magic for me, but you've got to love The Atheist's rhetoric.

[RichardHresko]

Richard, everything involves belief. To be agnostic is to take no position at all, basically they sit on fences chewing straw all day, waiting till they die so they can say, I knew there was not a God or, vice versa. Athiesm, as I have already stated, is a much more vigorous argument, we, or I, take the view that the supernatural is just that, and nothing more.

I would not characterize the agnostic position in such passive terms. If there is no definitive way to settle the question of whether or not there is a god it is a mark of intellectual honesty and, I dare say, courage to admit that one does not know.

Atheism, like other religious beliefs, can certainly be argued vigorously. It should be remembered that vigor is a poor substitute for rigor.