defining the atheist life....

[Cypress]

So, if we define God as natural rather than supernatural, that changes the entire discussion. We would appear to be Gods to most ancient civilizations. I think by definition, God HAS to be supernatural, otherwise we are just talking about a naturally occurring phenomenon that we don't yet understand so we label it as 'God'. I can't even begin to imagine how many of those phenomenon exists, but it's more than one.

Living in the Protestant-dominated USA I believe many of us get caught up in the literal interpretation of God as an old man in a flowing white robe.

That is an extremely limited and simple minded perception of the divine.

The Judeo-Christian God, according to Aquinas and the orthodox tradition, is the immutable first cause of causes, the prime mover of the natural order, existing completely outside time and space, but being utterly incomprehensible and cannot be imagined by the human mind.

Brahma is the manifestation of ultimate reality in Hinduism, and the Vishnu and the pantheon of dieties play their role in the order of things against this backdrop.

The Dao in Daoism is some kind of spritual Way of Nature.

I am not even going to speculate about how Mahayana Buddhism concieves of the Buddha as a diety.

Animism seems to be an expression of human's role in the spirituality of the natural world.

My take away from my limited working knowlege of world religions is they are all trying to put a face on something most humans seem hard-wired to sense by intuition - that there is a deeper reality and an ultimate truth underlying the universe that our sensory perception and cognition cannot directly access.

[BidenPresident]

Living in the Protestant-dominated USA I believe many of us get caught up in the literal interpretation of God as an old man in a flowing white robe.

Besides five year olds, who does that?

[Concart]

Living in the Protestant-dominated USA I believe many of us get caught up in the literal interpretation of God as an old man in a flowing white robe.

That is an extremely limited and simple minded perception of the divine.

The Judeo-Christian God, according to Aquinas and the orthodox tradition, is the immutable first cause of causes, the prime mover of the natural order, existing completely outside time and space, but being utterly incomprehensible and cannot be imagined by the human mind.

Brahma is the manifestation of ultimate reality in Hinduism, and the Vishnu and the pantheon of dieties play their role in the order of things against this backdrop.

The Dao in Daoism is some kind of spritual Way of Nature.

I am not even going to speculate about how Mahayana Buddhism concieves of the Buddha as a diety.

Animism seems to be an expression of human's role in the spirituality of the natural world.

My take away from my limited working knowlege of world religions is they are all trying to put a face on something most humans seem hard-wired to sense by intuition - that there is a deeper reality and an ultimate truth underlying the universe that our sensory perception and cognition cannot directly access.

I disagree with your conclusion. I believe what most human seem hardwired to do is to grasp for a supernatural answer to those things they don't understand. God is, was and has always been the easy answer.

[BidenPresident]

I disagree with your conclusion. I believe what most human seem hardwired to do is to grasp for a supernatural answer to those things they don't understand. God is, was and has always been the easy answer.

Agree. Nothing is more meaningless than appeal to "deeper reality."

[goat]

Example?

Individualism, pleasure, greed is good. Books have been written about Rand's misinterpretation of Kant.

[BidenPresident]

Individualism, pleasure, greed is good. Books have been written about Rand's misinterpretation of Kant.

Kant never argued greed is good. I don't think you know who Kant is.

[goat]

Kant never argued greed is good. I don't think you know who Kant is.

Pleasure and greed are synonymous. Is greed the only similarity you dispute?

[BidenPresident]

Pleasure and greed are synonymous. Is greed the only similarity you dispute?

Kant. Where did Kant say that?

[goat]

Kant. Where did Kant say that?

Again, is greed the only similarity you dispute?

[BidenPresident]

Again, is greed the only similarity you dispute?

So, nothing about Kant.

[goat]

So, nothing about Kant.

Nothing about the similarities between Kant and Rand.

[goat]

So, nothing about Kant.

Where'd you go, BP? Was Rand obsessed with Kant? yes or no.

[BidenPresident]

Where'd you go, BP? Was Rand obsessed with Kant? yes or no.

You have no idea who Kant is.

[AProudLefty]

Actually theism and atheism have to do with belief. Theists and atheists "believe" (guess, suppose, accept without proof) "yes" or "no" on the question, "Are there any gods?"

Yes theism and atheism have to do with belief. I've already said that.

[AProudLefty]

Interesting. But I am not describing myself using the word "agnostic." And I disagree with the nonsense that people who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor would answer "No" to the question, "Do you believe that God doesn't exist?" MOST (perhaps ALL) people who describe themselves as atheists...do, in fact, "believe" (guess, opine, suppose, accept) that this "God" does not exist...nor do any other gods.

I do not KNOW if any gods exist...AND I am not willing to make any guesses or suppositions on the matter. You may think it convenient to box agnostics into only dealing with the "knowledge" element...but many people using that descriptor also go to the "belief" question. Many (not ALL) do not do "believing" on the issue.

An atheist does not try to make a "guess" about the existence of God. They merely ask, "do you have any evidence to the claim that you god exists?"