The Myth of the Unbeliever in Religious Nomenclature.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's true. I agree. And.....? What is the problem with that? I don't really care where it came from. It fits.

Other people first approached me and told me that I'm "harsh" in my communications. I now have a word that I can inform others about myself. I don't care that I didn't come up with it myself. I don't care that it came from someone else.

I’m just saying it is contradictory to employ a term while at the same time repudiating where it came from. These terms compelled people to burn other people at the stake, and should be remembered, acknowledged and buried as such, as a historical evil propagated by irrational dogmatism and propaganda. These people didn’t die for their “non belief”, they died because they were slandered convincingly enough by these labels and those who would bestow them. To wear that same label, to play the unbeliever in accordance with church doctrine, is to breath life into the ecclesiastical character of the unbeliever; and to use that very same label as a talking point from which to continue the very same dogmatism, and same petty politics, is insidious—in my opinion, of course.

As I think of unbeliever I cannot help but recall Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever. Conflicted, to say the least, as he both "unbelieves" and believes.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

It's worth mentioning that the word "atheist" originated with the Greeks, where it means essentially the same thing it does today. Any further connotations are derived from context, which means that the contempt and ridicule you describe is a product of interpretation, rather than direct translation.

It does mean the same thing. The context has always been “God”. It is the root and majority of the word. In that sense, the atheist is never without God in the slightest, and in fact carries it with him close and dear—assuming, of course, God isn’t anything more than a word and idea.

Atheism was a crime in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. It was a crime during the inquisition. It does mean the same thing today, but without the laws to enforce it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I avoid all words and doctrines where God and superstition is the root. Theism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism—all of these are positions regarding the same overused, empty and useless concept. Are there not more important things to consider?

Free will is hardly free if you don't allow yourself to use it freely. Going through life doing things only as they are demanded and required strikes me as a dull existence.

Because I am against one side does not mean I am for the other. I am for and against all of them.

So you're on the fence. Good to know that you don't allow yourself a stance by which to be criticized, as you do others so often.

Theism was first. How can one be without God if God was never there to be without? It’s like defining the people of the middle ages by saying they were without computers. Sure, it is logically and evidently true, but it’s meaningless. When these terms were used, they were devised under the idea that there was a God there to be without. Take Socrates for instance. If there were no gods to be without, he wouldn’t have been charged with being without gods.

Socrates was punished for rejecting an ideal. Otherwise, those gods would have come down and punished him themselves.

Can you paint picture of a colour that doesn’t exist? Then how is it that people are able to picture a deity, and indeed, to paint their images, build their statues and pray to them, if they do not in some way exist?

My Ufrack, which you might find in various posts throughout these sorts of threads, is based on a hybrid of the Pokemon Venonat and the Woola creature in the John Carter film. I envisioned a nonexistent creature using ideas that already existed. So if you take an architect and imagine him as a giant being hovering just out of sight in the sky, there you go. God. Because that's the function he represents to you. A huge, invisible architect. You act as though you have no idea how these things work, and I know you do.

Also, you can't paint a new color because you can't rebuild the electromagnetic spectrum. Duh.

Let’s look at the properties of a deity—and no, no make-believe properties such as omnipresence, omniscience and the like; such properties are also myths. Gods possess the exact same properties as Orcs, as Tom Sawyer, and Holden Caufield. In that sense, they do exist.

They exist as long as the people who believe in them exist. If I killed every theist on Earth and burned all of their holy books, where would their god be? Who would defend them, besides other humans and some well-trained animals? It's a horrid concept to consider, but it's also very revealing. God doesn't exist except through the people who choose to emulate the ideal he represents. Effectively, the Christians are a Conglomerate God. And that's as close as they will get.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Rivals?

Yeah, about a year ago when you split I was bummed so as a 'hail Mary" to try and keep you from bailing out I "rivalled" you and defaced your wall (just kidding about the wall).

Seriously, though, your posts, and posts by the likes of NorEaster are what usually keeps me around when I lose interest in the other forums.

I've looked around; ATS has something special here with this P&M forum, I haven't found another like it.

I think that if we all ganged up we could probably blow out the politicos on the front page.

But no one ever flags the P&M threads.

Even the folks that post on them.

We need to break that trdition so that we can show our numbers.

Thanks again for doing what you do, it's folks like you that put the P in P&M.



OMG I just realized this is in the RTF forum. That's cool too: the dialectic by any other name smells just as sweet.

I suppose your exposition could be considered political philosophy, couldn't it? I'm just getting my feet wet with the stuff..

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I’m just saying it is contradictory to employ a term while at the same time repudiating where it came from.

I'm not repudiating religion. It's a part of our culture. Some people find great comfort in it. I don't disapprove of religion. In fact, there's a lot about it that I do approve of. I disapprove of how some people USE it.

a reply to: Bybyots

Yeah, about a year ago when you split I was bummed so as a 'hail Mary" to try and keep you from bailing out I "rivalled" you and defaced your wall (just kidding about the wall).

Seriously, though, your posts, and posts by the likes of NorEaster are what usually keeps me around when I lose interest in the other forums.

I've looked around; ATS has something special here with this P&M forum, I haven't found another like it.

I think that if we all ganged up we could probably blow out the politicos on the front page.

But no one ever flags the P&M threads.

Even the folks that post on them.

We need to break that trdition so that we can show our numbers.

Thanks again for doing what you do, it's folks like you that put the P in P&M.



OMG I just realized this is in the RTF forum. That's cool too: the dialectic by any other name smells just as sweet.

I suppose your exposition could be considered political philosophy, couldn't it? I'm just getting my feet wet with the stuff..

My pleasure, ByByots. Thanks for reading.

Yes I too have tried to find other forums to write about philosophical matters, but in those serious contexts there is no room for my sort of rhetoric. They prefer the cold, dead boredom of scholasticism and logic, whereas here I can continue the entertaining style without losing points, and retain the hyperbole, irony and confrontation under which I hide my insight for more serious readers. The P&M forum is mostly like the self-help section in a bookstore, but it has potential.

I don't wish for flags or stars or any sort of front page. I always write walls of text in order to dissuade casual readers, and in doing so, likely scare off many people. I actually gauge my threads by how little stars and flags they get. It means I'm doing something right.

Yes I put the thread here in the Religion, faith and theology section of the website because, paradoxically, this is where the atheists hang out. I likely would have done more to attract them if I would have put "God" in the title.

Cheers.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

So you're on the fence. Good to know that you don't allow yourself a stance by which to be criticized, as you do others so often.

The fence is around pig pen, full of mammals trying to gain an upper hand with their mouths. Can you really blame me?

I’m glad you give me something to criticize. If you think it pertains to you then maybe there’s some truth to it. If not, then I am not speaking about you.

Socrates was punished for rejecting an ideal. Otherwise, those gods would have come down and punished him themselves.

Exactly. Gods are ideals. That is the only thing he was ever without. Saying one is without God, however, is perpetuating the myth that one can be with or without Gods.

My Ufrack, which you might find in various posts throughout these sorts of threads, is based on a hybrid of the Pokemon Venonat and the Woola creature in the John Carter film. I envisioned a nonexistent creature using ideas that already existed. So if you take an architect and imagine him as a giant being hovering just out of sight in the sky, there you go. God. Because that's the function he represents to you. A huge, invisible architect. You act as though you have no idea how these things work, and I know you do.

It sounds like fan-fiction to me. What you are really saying is that you can use existing ideas to create more existing ideas. You did not create something that does not exist. You created out of existing ideas another existing idea. What that idea represents to a person is of no consequence.

Also, you can't paint a new color because you can't rebuild the electromagnetic spectrum. Duh.

That’s right. These non-existent colours actually do not exist. We cannot even imagine them, let alone take other existing colours to construct an image of them.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm not repudiating religion. It's a part of our culture. Some people find great comfort in it. I don't disapprove of religion. In fact, there's a lot about it that I do approve of. I disapprove of how some people USE it.

Then we have the same view. There are many good religious and non-religious people, just like there are many evil religious and non-religious people. Because of this seemingly random effect, It cannot be said that religion itself is the cause.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The fence is around pig pen, full of mammals trying to gain an upper hand with their mouths. Can you really blame me?

I’m glad you give me something to criticize. If you think it pertains to you then maybe there’s some truth to it. If not, then I am not speaking about you.

You are criticizing my philosophical position as being watery and unnecessary. Perhaps not my position specifically, but your strafing certainly covers my corner of the philosophical map.

Exactly. Gods are ideals. That is the only thing he was ever without. Saying one is without God, however, is perpetuating the myth that one can be with or without Gods.

Without belief in a god. Without a construct resembling a divine authority. I don't understand what's difficult to grasp about that. Gods don't have to exist for us to invent them or borrow from others who have invented or borrowed them. We can construct gods in our minds because unlike physical reality, gods don't require flesh or substance to generate an influence. They can be nothing more than fictional characters in our heads that we choose to regard as real, which is all it takes to be influenced, inspired, terrified, humbled, or burned by them. Psychosomatic stuff and whatnot. I don't participate in that game, except as a critic, nor do I ever intend to, which is what makes me an atheist.

It sounds like fan-fiction to me. What you are really saying is that you can use existing ideas to create more existing ideas. You did not create something that does not exist. You created out of existing ideas another existing idea. What that idea represents to a person is of no consequence.

Allow me a moment to explain my use of the word "create". When I use that word, I am not talking about fabricating a concept out of the ether. I am not talking about manifesting matter from pure air. I am talking about generating a new identity from pieces of other identities. That is, in my mind, as much a creation as any you might cite from a plethora of holy texts and science fiction novels. When I bring pieces of an idea together, I am creating a new idea. I have named it, given it form, and it now rests in my mind. No one else possesses it unless I have given it to them, like I gave it to you. It is my creation in the same manner that Harry Potter is J.K. Rowling's creation, or Legolas is Tolkien's creation. I was inspired by other ideas, but those ideas are not identical to the one I produced as a result. Truth be told, I invented the Ufrack specifically for debate purposes, although I've grown fairly fond of it.

With that said... "What that idea represents to a person is of no consequence"

Pardon my bluntness, but that is an ignorant statement. This world was born from ideas, ever since man first walked on two feet. Everything we are familiar with is the result of ideas, or is influenced by ideas. Ideas are of very great consequence. Sometimes terrible consequences. People kill for ideas, die for ideas, change lives and establish nations and turn the world on its head through and for ideas. Ideas are the only thing that keeps us going sometimes. Hope is an idea, the idea that things will get better. Even if you have no reason to believe it. Love is an idea, beauty is an idea, truth is an idea, infinity is an idea. But that doesn't stop us from taking them very seriously. Because when ideas are put into action, mountains will move. Figuratively speaking, anyway.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

You are criticizing my philosophical position as being watery and unnecessary. Perhaps not my position specifically, but your strafing certainly covers my corner of the philosophical map.

If atheism is a philosophy, it is the exact same one children hold when they stop believing in Santa Clause. In other words, not believing something is not a philosophy. What atheism is concerned about is theology.

Without belief in a god. Without a construct resembling a divine authority. I don't understand what's difficult to grasp about that.

No. Without belief in an idea; without belief in a promises; without belief in a book; without belief in scholastic philosophy. No god ever enters the equation.

Pardon my bluntness, but that is an ignorant statement. This world was born from ideas, ever since man first walked on two feet.

Well pardon my honesty, but that is an ignorant statement. Perhaps you haven't thought about it. Ideas change nothing. They have no causal power, no volition, no material, no hands, no feet. You're attributing supernatural powers to a pile of words arranged in a certain way—the epitome of superstition.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If atheism is a philosophy, it is the exact same one children hold when they stop believing in Santa Clause. In other words, not believing something is not a philosophy. What atheism is concerned about is theology.

Exactly. They stop being good for toys and start being good because it's the right thing to do. I consider that an upgrade. As for not being a philosophy, I tend to disagree. In the absence of a deity, I am forced to do one of two things: believe I am inherently of value, or believe I am inherently worthless. Then I proceed from there. And that's the beginning of a philosophy.

No. Without belief in an idea; without belief in a promises; without belief in a book; without belief in scholastic philosophy. No god ever enters the equation.

As a construct resembling a divine authority, yes. Even if it's just a fictional character that we take very seriously for whatever reasons we feed ourselves and our children.

Well pardon my honesty, but that is an ignorant statement. Perhaps you haven't thought about it. Ideas change nothing. They have no causal power, no volition, no material, no hands, no feet. You're attributing supernatural powers to a pile of words arranged in a certain way—the epitome of superstition.

Ideas change minds. Minds change people. People change the world. And then the world changes ideas. Observe birds flying, wonder why we can't, devise means of allowing us to fly, revolutionize travel with the airplane. Rinse and repeat. You see it everywhere. You know that phrase "There is nothing new under the sun"? That's because ideas which have been around since the dawn of man have compounded over the centuries, building up with our diligent guidance into the marvels we see today, both in technology and in society. Ideas change nothing? Then how are you not an adult with the mind of an infant?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I grew up inundated with religion. For me, atheism has been a process of critical thinking and selective rejection.

It takes a great deal of personal fortitude courage to stand up and deny traditional beliefs that go contrary to one's personal moral compass, and even harder to separate what is one's personal morality and what was a morality that is foisted upon an individual.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

If atheism is a philosophy, it is the exact same one children hold when they stop believing in Santa Clause.

Do you mind if I take this Santa Claus analogy and run with it a little bit? I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

The experience of waking up on Christmas morning and finding presents under the tree is real. When a kid stops believing in Santa, the presents don't stop coming. It's just the story of the presents that changes.

The experience of God is real. Science shows that beyond reasonable doubt. When someone stops believing in God, the experiences don't have to stop. It's just the story of the experiences that changes.

Atheism is a reaction to the story of the experiences, not the experiences.

If a kid cuts himself off from Christmas presents when he finds out Santa isn't real, then that kid has over-reacted.

If an atheist cuts himself off from the experience of 'God' when he finds out the story of the experiences isn't real, he too has over-reacted. The story has changed, but the experience doesn't have to. The atheist has over-reacted.

A kid can still get Christmas presents after he stops accepting the exoteric Santa story.

By the same token, an atheist can experience 'God' after he stops accepting the exoteric God story.

So lets talk about the presents.

STATES OF UNITIVE CONSCIOUSNESS
Research Summary

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness Sources Wuthnow, Robert (1978). Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being.
(Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

Long-Term Effects

-Say their lives are more meaningful, think about meaning and purpose
-Know what purpose of life is
-Meditate more
-Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
-Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
-Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
-Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style
-Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
-Less authoritarian and dogmatic
-More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient, intelligent, relaxed
-High ego strength, relationships, symbolization, values, integration, allocentrism, psychological maturity, self-acceptance, self-worth, autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude, increased love and compassion

Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)

-Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
-Likely changes in self and the world, space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate
-Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends
-Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions

csp.org...

a reply to: BlueMule

Atheism is a reaction to the story of the experiences, not the experiences.

If a kid cuts himself off frrom Christmas presents when he finds out Santa isn't real, then that kid has over-reacted.

My atheism is a reaction to both. Although it's interesting to read about someone who isn't atheist telling me what my atheism entails and derives from. Please, tell me all about how your experiences in not being atheist have educated you in atheism.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

My atheism is a reaction to both.

oH rly. Well here is my reaction to your story about your atheism. I don't believe it. And here is why. I've seen no indication from you, in all your posts, that you know anything about the experiences. All you know about is the story, and you've demanded to recieve no presents as a result. So all you get is lumps of coal.

a reply to: BlueMule

oH rly. Well here is my reaction to your story about your atheism. I don't believe it. And here is why. I've seen no indication from you, in all your posts, that you know anything about the experiences. All you know about is the story, and you've demanded to recieve no presents as a result. So all you get is lumps of coal.

So why do you think I'm an atheist? Just out of curiosity.

Also, you don't know the full story. I haven't shared it on here. Maybe an abridged version, for the sake of context, but I haven't gone into a full out autobiography of my atheism because quite frankly, I don't need to. So maybe you don't believe it because you've only got a fraction rattling around in your skull somewhere.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Because of statements like this:

"I am AfterInfinity, and I am a staunch atheist with no interest in recovery."

"My atheism is a reaction to both."

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Because of statements like this:

"I am AfterInfinity, and I am a staunch atheist with no interest in recovery."

"My atheism is a reaction to both."

Such is my position at this time. And chances are, it will take a lot more than you or anyone on this forum to change it. My requirements are clear to the concerned parties, and as of now, they have not seen fit to meet them. That's what I know.

A name is not just a label.A name is the nature and character of the thing or person named.A name itself is a "name"because words are names.Atheist is a weak name on it's own because is doesn't fully illuminate a persons "name" and paints an incomplete picture of the person being named.A person has a myriad of reasons for their beliefs and that is what it all comes down to belief…perception by observation through experiences.

.The amalgamation of a persons experiences form their belief in faith of their Belief System religion.That is their "name".Their Belief System religion is the "nature of man….it is a name ALL of mankind wears prominently on their sleeve whether "they " believe it or not..Atheism is not"A religion" however it is religion(belief).When a person does not perceive of "God" they are atheist.However it is MUCH more layered than a statement...for example..

A person that can't perceive certain(or all) colors is a certain type of color blind.It doesn't make the person "good or bad" it is just one of their names.Most color blindness is genetic but some is caused by a damaged brain.With that type of color blindness the person has all of the receptors in the eye to "see" color but can't.None of the "color blind" are making a "choice" to not see color..it is their nature to not see color.The reality about color is even those that "see" color it is still only perception.The fact is nothing is the color it "looks" like.It is only reflecting that color(s) it is in reality every color BUT that color…a sea of gray.The clinically color blind person is in one sense perceiving "color" much more closely to reality than the "clinically"color sighted person.

The reality is that color sighted people "learn" by experience what those colors are and give them names.The real reality is there are an infinite amount of "colors" to be perceived and there are an infinite amount of colors that can't be seen by even the most perceptive eye at all yet they do exist.In effect everyone is "real color" blind.

A person that cannot perceive God has not made a free will choice(because there is no such phenomena) to "not" believe in God they simply don't have the receptors or something in their brain is preventing them.Again this isn't a judgement it is their nature.They are like the genetic or brain damaged color blind that have many degrees of color blindness each unique to the persons perception.

I do agree just like many "names" atheist has become a "derisive "name.It could be compared to 'n-word' which in it's root means black or dark.There is a reason this "name" calling effects people so much(positively and negatively and sometimes both simultaneously)..is because it is a box.One of a boxes purpose is something to keep things in.It can protect them help organize or have a multitude of purposes.A derisive name effects the namer as much (if not more) as the named.

When something or someone has a "name" it proceeds them.It is in effect judgment…again both positive and negative or both.The name can be true or false(and no I'm not latently postulating dualism).The "naming" of things effects everything we do even if it isn't said.When your "perception" of a things "nature and character" is not true then you have changed it's name.That can have very disastrous results.If you perceive a gun as an apple the results will not be beneficial if you are hungry and all you see is an apple.

This "naming" of things is something mankind just "does".Most of it is subconscious because it all comes back to mankinds "base" nature…religion.All of a persons experiences form their Belief System(BS) religion which is "how" they perceive their life in this "world".Everyones experiences do not originate with the person.There were a multitude of causes and effects so much so that it is impossible to link any of them to the person as being the originator.It is the amalgamation of ALL of those experiences (that were caused by other experiences)that form your life and your name(s).

A person doesn't "become" themselves overnight" it is cumulative.It is a slow painstaking evolving process that is impossible to observe the causes and effects to sum the equations.There may be BIGGGER "perceived"events that shape a new sum however many causes and effects preceded it.

If there was a way man wouldn't "watch"(observe) their "pot boil"their "life" would be very different.The act of observation actually changes the result.Quantum physics has "observed" this phenomena(the double slit experiment) that makes no sense in relation to the "reality" man lives in.The downside is there is no way to "know" what the result of the observation will be…man lives in a box called "observation"…judgment…giving things names.They perceive everything in the box.Nothing can be perceived outside the box because man "lives" inside their box of perception.So in effect ALL of mankinds perception through observation of what is "named" God is false(God blindness) so ALL of mankind are atheist.

This God blindness has many forms.The main group(and smallest) are those that can't perceive of God at all.They are what are typically "named" atheist.It is not in their nature or character to "believe" in God.It isn't just "one" condition it is as many people that are natural atheist.The larger group "believe " in a God but they are God blind also.Their perception is false.They "see" their God in a multitude of colors that are only "reflecting" what they believe "their Gods" name is.

The most reasonable thing to do would be to drop the whole name calling game of perceived judgement…on both sides of the fence.A God believer will NEVER convince a non God believer to change their name and vice versa.If a non believer comes to believe it is their own delusion ….not someone else's. Personally I could care less what someone believes.It can't change or help me or them one bit.I am me and you are not me and you are you and you are not me and never will the twain meet.That doesn't mean I have to "like" ANYONES Belief System( which I don't).They are all false with some more whacked out false than others.If you are a believer or non believer I'll figure it out however more importantly if you are an asshole I'll figure that out.I prefer not to be around an asshole.