Atheism is a religion of self-worship

[Agnapostate]

It seems "self-worship" to believe that you're sufficiently important for the creator of all of existence to obsess over each and every one of your individual needs, wants, feelings, and slightest thoughts at every moment of the day throughout your lifetime and beyond, doesn't it?

 

[Care4all]

there isn't an ounce of self worship in my personal relationship with God, it is quite the opposite, more like humbling myself....

 

[Agnapostate]

There are a lot of self-absorbed nuns around too. i'd want to be absorbed there too...

 

[JW Frogen]

If there is no God, by wich I mean an external all being purpose of being, then the ego must become God.

There is no other choice except suicide.

 

[JW Frogen]

If there is no God, by which I mean an external purpose of being, then ego becomes God.

There is no other choice except madness or suicide.

 

[Agnapostate]

Or pointless repetition.

 

[JBeukema]

I have been watching some stuff on the Universe and how our moon was formed, Giant impact theory, on the History channel and thought I could get that topic going again.... it comes closer to matching up the two genesis stories

Actually, it sounds like the Sumerian (Nibiru) and Babylonian (Tiamat) mythologies that the jews adopted, trimmed down and compiled as their own 'cliffnotes' version.

When the bible says 'there is nothing knew under the sun', it's talking about itself

 

[rdean]

It amazes me that religious people take fables such as “Noah’s Ark” seriously.
A God that can make 400 billion TRILLION stars (estimated in the visible universe) and create people out of dirt and turn one race of people into Chinese, Eskimo and everyone else overnight wouldn’t have to make a “flood”. He could just shimmer everyone he didn’t like “away” and we will still have dinosaurs. See how simple, how “tidy”?

Of course, primitive desert people thought in terms of God being nature, hence, floods, fire, epidemics. It’s what they knew.

Let's hope they never lose their religion. You know what they say, "Without God, what's to stop us from rape, robbery and murder?" See, scary.

 

[Anguille]

there isn't an ounce of self worship in my personal relationship with God, it is quite the opposite, more like humbling myself....

If you do not fall into the category of narcissistic theists who project their self-love onto their fantasy of God then you might be one of those who are afflicted with an immature need for an authority figure.

 

[Anguille]

there isn't an ounce of self worship in my personal relationship with God, it is quite the opposite, more like humbling myself....

If you do not fall into the category of narcissistic theists who project their self-love onto their fantasy of God then you might be one of those who are afflicted with an immature need for an authority figure.

 

[JBeukema]

there isn't an ounce of self worship in my personal relationship with God, it is quite the opposite, more like humbling myself....

If you do not fall into the category of narcissistic theists who project their self-love onto their fantasy of God then you might be one of those who are afflicted with the immature need for an authority figure.

Personal responsibility and thinking for yourself are to hard... it's easier to just do what the man at church says magical skydaddy says to do

 

[amrchaos]

Hi mani
(To Big Black Dog--"I swear to Jesus Christ that I am an atheists!")


Let see if I follow the logic of this arguement

1) we all got to worship something
2) atheists brazenly grabbed and knocked down the cloud being and ate the flying pasta dish
3)therefore the only thing left to worship is the individual--ie the self.

Thus Atheism is a religion based on self worship.

Now let me make some statements and ask a couple
1)We all got to worship something--why?

2)Most Atheists try not to believe in fairy tales. Note: I use the term "try not" since I know a self proclaimed atheists that consult an astrologer
(Maybe they are a self-denying agnostic?)

3) How does one worship self? Do you burn incense under you mat, and chant "All praise is due to me"? Hmmmm--maybe I should try it!!

 

[N4mddissent]

Generalizing theists as uneducated makes you sound bigoted and small-minded. One of my closest friends considers himself a deist and is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. He thinks churches are a joke. He despises any assertion of the "truth" of religious claims. He doesn't believe any faith is worthy of any recognition as some sort of "truth". He believes all of our social institutions and important decisions should by guided by reason and our knowledge guided by scientific inquiry. He does not advocate for his personal belief that there is some vague "force" out there because 1) it's his personal, private belief and 2) he doesn't think it really makes a difference whether someone believes it or not, since this "force" doesn't interact or possibly is not even overly aware of our existence. Hell, he doesn't think it matters whether he believes it or not and doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about it.

I disagree with him. But there is no reason to have a debate with him other than mental masturbation. In every important, observable way, our approach to the world is identical. Why would I want to continue framing a debate in such a way that it excludes this natural ally who would be right beside protesting any attempt by religion to assert its authority over any issue in our life? Dogmatic adherence to a traditional definition of atheism like you advocate would exclude Einstein and Spinoza as well. Einstein would be a natural ally. He did not believe in the immortality of the soul, nor did he believe in any personal god. He had a sort of Spinozan view of god as the physical laws governing the universe. But technically he did not consider himself an atheist.

Consider spin in quantum particles. Physicists will tell you that there are not actually "spinning particles", but that spin is a useful way to model and predict the characteristics we do observe. My concept of atheism would take a similar approach. What the person's private beliefs actually are would not matter so much as the usefulness of the model. If a group promotes the primacy of rational thinking in social authority and epistomology, and rejects religious faith and revelation as valid foundations for social authority and epistomology, then this group can accurately be modeled as "atheists".

What is your purpose in debating? What, for you, motivates confrontation with religious beliefs? Is it more than simply entertaining yourself? Are you trolling or trying to promote change?

 

[N4mddissent]

P.S.

And the difference between broan atheism and secularism is that secularism never rejects the validity of religious belief.

 

[JBeukema]

1) Deism is the refuge of the closet atheist

2) Mankind would be better off without the influence (poison) of the vast majority of the world's religions (see my current sig)

3)Secularism rejects the validity of religious claims as a means of reachingany meaningful decision amongst persons or parties. A prime example is the rejection of religious claims that a given legal or etghical code is given by a deity and must therefore be enforced.

 

[N4mddissent]

1) Deism is the refuge of the closet atheist

That's not for you to decide. It's asserting your opinion as fact.

2) Mankind would be better off without the influence (poison) of the vast majority of the world's religions (see my current sig)

And my deistic friend would agree with you. Keep in mind that being religious and being theistic are not synonymous. I certainly would not consider any religious people to be atheists. By adopting a religion, they are necessarily having their theological views influence their life.

3)Secularism rejects the validity of religious claims as a means of reachingany meaningful decision amongst persons or parties. A prime example is the rejection of religious claims that a given legal or etghical code is given by a deity and must therefore be enforced

Secularism does not reject validity. Secularism is merely the absence of consideration. If a legal system is secular, it is created without regard to specific religious beliefs- however, it does not explicitly reject belief systems as invalid. For example, if theft is prohibited, it is because a consensus exists that agrees theft should be prohibited. Whether someone's religious view considers theft immoral is only important to them. It may inform their decision to want theft prohibited, but the legal system is not using that for its basis- rather it is using public consensus for its basis. Therefore it is a secular basis for the law, without rejecting the religious belief that may be held by many who form the consensus as invalid. Atheism, rejects the religious belief as an invalid approach to wanting the prohibition. While the atheist may agree to prohibit theft, it will be on the basis of rational consideration and rejects divine authority as a basis.

 

[JBeukema]

It is the rejecton of consideration, not merely its absence. It is the rejection of consideration of that which is not valid for consideration by thinking people.

 

[Barb]

It is the rejecton of consideration, not merely its absence. It is the rejection of consideration of that which is not valid for consideration by thinking people.

Einstein was a thinking person. Wouldn't you agree? He didn't reject, rather he questioned. There's stuff we don't know.

 

[JBeukema]

It is the rejecton of consideration, not merely its absence. It is the rejection of consideration of that which is not valid for consideration by thinking people.

Einstein was a thinking person. Wouldn't you agree? He didn't reject, rather he questioned. There's stuff we don't know.

He rejected the concept of a personal deity as baseless pipedreams and refused to let such campfire tales of guide his personal or political decisions

 

[THE LIGHT]

If you believe that there is no God then you are the one that defines the morals for your universe. You determine what is right or wrong.

“[I suppose the reason that] we all jumped at the origin [of species] was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” | Sir Julian Huxley, Leading Evolutionist of his day and first Director-General of UNESCO

“It is clear that the doctrine of Evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.” | Sir Julian Huxley, Leading Evolutionist of his day and first Director-General of UNESCO

“Getting rid of the idea of God freed me up to my erotic desires.” | Bertrand Russell

“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God...and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” | G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist


Though we cannot hope for most atheists to be as up front as Huxley, Russell, and Bozarth in their efforts to dispel a God of morals they too still subconsciously seek the goal of removing the presence of a greater power in order to define their own. Nevertheless we as Created beings of the Almighty God have an inbuilt nature to worship someone or something other than ourselves thus you get dictators and tyrants who quickly fill the void from which God has been removed and usurp power over the godless. That void, however much explained away, happens to be only perfectly filled with Jesus Christ.