The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

Never argue with an idiot. It will bring you down to the same level of consciousness.

I tend to start seeing atheists and theists as the same when I observe their debates.

I guess it is like that saying "Don't argue with fools, because people at a distance can't tell who is who."

Some self proclaimed atheists get quite dogmatic, and religious in the sense of "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."


Those are the ones that actually go to religious themed forums to find theists to argue with. They are on their own holy crusade against evil. They too, are invested with a sense of duty to influence the flow and trends of their society. They share the same social mindedness, concern for standardization, collective focus. (this I see as the positive trait they have in common).

It just seems like the theists often feel everyone should be focusing on the interpretation of reality their particular religion has, while the theists feel like everyone should be focusing on the interpretation of reality science has.

They both employ faith- atheists don't trust their own experiences more than what a scientist would tell them,
no more than a theists would trust their own experience over the claims of clergy of their church.

I've personally have never seen an electron, I must have faith in those who we have appointed as wise ones of science to believe they exist.

But, there are even theists that are more individualist, as there are atheists that are, and those people, I don't see as religious; more often they strike me as "spiritual" or "physical".

They both employ faith- atheists don't trust their own experiences more than what a scientist would tell them,
no more than a theists would trust their own experience over the claims of clergy of their church.

reply to post by Bluesma


Science is based on models/scientific theories. The beautiful thing is that once we find out the model doesn't accurately describe the physical phenomena it is deemed flawed and WILL BE revised. When was the last time a religion got revised?

No, you don't need faith for science. A functioning mind will do fine. And yes, nobody has seen an electron, but I assume that the light bulb in your room works fine, and the dishwasher performed its duty.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You're rehashing your personal "God issue" ad nauseam. People who are colorblind will never see, feel, nor understand "color". Just because you're incapable of experiencing "God" it must not exist ...

Originally posted by AllIsOne


Science is based on models/scientific theories. The beautiful thing is that once we find out the model doesn't accurately describe the physical phenomena it is deemed flawed and WILL BE revised. When was the last time a religion got revised?

I guess you need to do some studying up on the history of religions! This is how we get different branches of religions, this is how we get the transforming (doing things like changing certain holiday meanings, the interpretations of scripture, etc.)
Yes, they do so slowly and with resistance... humans tend to have some difficulty letting of deeply conditioned views. This is why we have scientific minds that resist looking into concepts that would mean changing past accepted ideas. Change happens, but it takes a long while.

No, you don't need faith for science. A functioning mind will do fine. And yes, nobody has seen an electron, but I assume that the light bulb in your room works fine, and the dishwasher performed its duty.

Hahaha! That is exactly the same to me as the theist who tells me I can see the evidence of God in the organized state of living organisms! "My explanation works for what you are experiencing" is a fun and effective argument- though it just doesn't rule out other explanations that might work just as well.

(I actually just don't care why the light bumb works or the natural world has order to it. But those that do are free to explain away to their hearts content! )

reply to post by Bluesma

(I actually just don't care why the light bumb works or the natural world has order to it. But those that do are free to explain away to their hearts content! )

And that's why I'm glad you're just ridin' your horse ...

Someones gotta round up the meat, grow the veggies, and pipe the water to keep you guys alive while you argue about where they come from!


Some of us live while others debate existence.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. It is a belief, blind faith.........." I believe there is no God because I cannot see him and humans created religion." vs " I have faith in God, He sent us His word."

See any difference?

reply to post by jiggerj


You are out numbered big time. Better start making a lot of babies and educating them cause religious people are.

The Western World has been brainwashed by Aristotle for the last 2,500 years. The unconscious, not quite articulate, belief of most Occidentals is that there is one map which adequately represents reality. By sheer good luck, every Occidental thinks he or she has the map that fits.

Guerrilla ontology, to me, involves shaking up that certainty. I use what in modern physics is called the "multi-model" approach, which is the idea that there is more than one model to cover a given set of facts. As I've said, novel writing involves learning to think like other people. My novels are written so as to force the reader to see things through different reality grids rather than through a single grid. It's important to abolish the unconscious dogmatism that makes people think their way of looking at reality is the only sane way of viewing the world.

My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything. If one can only see things according to one's own belief system, one is destined to become virtually deaf, dumb, and blind. It's only possible to see people when one is able to see the world as others see it. That's what guerrilla ontology is — breaking down this one-model view and giving people a multi-model perspective.

- Robert Anton Wilson

Okay this seems very intriguing and i will have a point by point reply for you later on, just now however, i was struck by point 1

"No one is born an atheist, agnostic, or theist, for they must first know what deities are before they can have a position concerning the nature of them. "

This is enlightenment, this is God. Before any kind of relative existence is begun, you are in the transcendental existence, this is the true God

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I'm in negotiations on rollout strategies and profit break points, but I think were finally seeing daylight. I'll let you know when all this horsesh*t will be settled. You can blame the lawyers. Friggin' idiots, all of them.

Very nice. I truly cannot wait. It's time to redefine, and to barricade these ceaseless dead ends we spend so much intellectual energy on. One argument to crumble them all.

I think I can honestly say that it does exist, as well as the full explanation for why the God idea originated to begin with. And this is after nearly 4 years on this board - after using other forums before this one - and tossing tiny bits of it up to you folks to take pot shots at it. I've been really careful with it, and the recent physics/quantum physics/quantum mechanics alignment work has been nothing short of startling. It's taken things well out of the realm of logical inference and reasonable extrapolation, and established some really solid connections that are difficult to responsibly dismiss.

It's become pretty compelling and an actual narrative - one that's more than just plausible - has taken shape, especially the development track that explains why the VMAT2 gene could have initiated as a survival predilection for the Homo Sapiens hominid. Yes, I do realize that I'm shorthanding this "God gene" reference, but what I'm referring to is the unlikely notion that the material brain could logically invent a completely imperceptible physical world that's populated by imperceptible people, and ultimately assign its own self to that world, while firmly ensconced within this material realm and dealing from instant to instant with the ongoing process of survival as a material whole. This is the real question that must be answered if Atheism is to ever succeed in liberating the minds of the average human being.

My own view of the religion of Atheism is that it is to dogmatic theism as hate is to love. Two sides of the same coin, and definitely not freedom from religion or the oppression of theology. Indifference is freedom, and if my Twitter feed is any indication, Atheists are just as chained to God as Evangelicals are. Most of these folks that I watch battle with theists (and some simply battling with their own ability to come up with a catch phrase or quotable quote of their own) are completely consumed by the cultural existence of God, and like Ricky Gervais, in spite of raging career developments and opportunities. Damn, that guy must Tweet while he's asleep, and it's all Atheist ballbusts. If he was a Christian, he'd have his own 700 Club.

What's needed is a full explanation of how the hell we ended up so completely dependent on this God concept, and from what I've discovered, it's not just primitive people suddenly misunderstanding their own dreams. That misunderstanding didn't originate with dreams. It affected how primitive people came to see their dreams, but it took some pretty aggressive outreach - over a long period of time - to get that notion implanted to the point where human DNA would evolve to make that notion a survival dictate. That explanation has to be completely in line with primordial requirements, and the simple, direct satisfaction of those requirements. No dramas or heroics based on dramas. Just raw requirements and the most direct means of dealing with them.

Reality is pretty familiar. Even if the true whole of it in integration would probably stun most folks. The pieces are nearly invisible due to how mundane and commonplace they are. It's how the whole actually comes together that will likely cause some real consternation among the big thinkers of this world.

reply to post by bitsforbytes


You don't understand atheism and I don't understand your question.

reply to post by AllIsOne

You're rehashing your personal "God issue" ad nauseam. People who are colorblind will never see, feel, nor understand "color". Just because you're incapable of experiencing "God" it must not exist ...

I a not debating the existence of God. How would I argue with such a point as "if you cannot experience it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist?" And how could you argue the opposite? It's a dead end. You're debating strictly for show of affiliation at this point, not to come to any sort of truth.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I tend to not follow groups never have never will call me what you want I don't believe in god I do not label myself as anything. I really just don't care for the acceptance of others , and isn't this what it is all about , finding people to accept you .

It's interesting the fervent idealistic tendencies of most atheists here, who rather than logically and rationally explain and seek to correct some obvious problems in regards to their chosen label—as I had hoped—defend the label as if it defined their core beliefs, when it is promised to be merely a label of opinion. But what we have here is an avoidance of my arguments, ad hominem, and irrationality—something I think the whole God debate breeds.

An interesting notion is, that despite my godlessness, we can witness atheist mob-instinct and fundamentalism as soon as I put atheism up to criticism. These advocates can simply defend, however irrationally, the stance of atheism as a whole, without considering the irrationality of the debate itself. If that isn't religion, I don't know what is.

Thanks for taking part.

The problem I never can understand when listening to an atheist,
is their claim that the term refers to a " lack of belief" .... and bring up the examples "everyone is born an atheist", and even someone who has never heard the concept of a God and never considered the question, is an atheist (though they are not aware they are).

This is a rather good definition, and a a great argument to use, except that we have the problem of agnosticism then.
Which, by that definition, no longer has a meaning, it fits under atheist, since no belief in a deity is present.

The definition of agnostic as being someone who holds the position that "no one can know if a God exists" is then brought in, but besides being a weak counter argument (for it STILL means no belief in a deity) that is not the full defintiion of agnostic. In dictionaries, it includes the definition of being non-commital, or apathetic on the matter.

Hume's agnosticism about everything except tautologies express my own view best. And yet I have been mocked, insulted, and verbally attacked for being agnostic- by self proclaimed atheists!
The insults are most often the accusation that I am avoiding making a stand on the issue because of some inner desire to be liked by theists, to join them, or a secret belief in God that I am not admitting.
In other words, pressure is put on me to stop being agnostic, and join the atheist proclaimation.

What else can I pull from such behavior? Only that despite their claims of atheism being simply a lack of belief in a diety, for some strong atheists, that is not completely true. They have a position on the issue, on the concept, they have a belief about reality. A belief that no God exists.

Perhaps this schism and lack of integrity between word and act is just a product of irrational drives, perhaps caught in conflicts, they sort of lose it and give a false impression.

But I offer this view just because maybe it can help some atheists understand where and how some people keep acting like atheism is something other than a "lack of belief in a diety". -Because some of your fellow atheists behave as if it is!

... and I am betting that as we discuss the subject each person has memories running through their head of past interactions and events and people they've met, who color their opinions. I do, anyhow.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

When do we call ourselves theist, atheist or agnostic outside of religious discussions?

So many people are confused as to what atheism is overall. Sometimes its best to simply give an example:

Lets do a non-religious example then

Theist (of say, aliens): There is a exact earth replica planet in the Andromeda galaxy in the 12th quadrant, circling a midsized star that houses insect shaped people that fly spaceships. I have no proof of it, I simply believe it.

Atheist: I do not believe in the insect aliens, nor the planet you mentioned. Not saying there isn't a planet there, and that there are no alien bugmen there, just, until there is some proof suggesting the claims, then I see no reason to believe.

And that's about it. an atheist doesn't believe something doesn't exist..rather, they simply don't believe until there is proof to show otherwise...once there is proof, then they will alter their view.
That's -all- atheism is..they do not believe in deities...that does not mean they believe there are none (as that is faith based on nothing).


I also as a skeptic do not believe I have invisible dimensional spiders in my head that are controlling my thoughts and actions...now..it could be true..I may indeed have said spider in my head, however, until there is some proof of it, then meh...sort of pointless to believe

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

Atheism and agnosticism are more or less personal, whereas common religions are absolute and universal.

Then why take the label if its so personal? Do we need to remind ourselves of our position on something we cannot find to exist? No, it's a display of affiliation, and the mark of an advocate to an ideology.

Not quite. A position is just that, a position; in the same way that there are people who are pro gay marriage and against gay marriage, anti-abortion and pro-choice, for big government and for small government, etc, there are those who believe in gods and those who don't.

Again, it's entirely personal. For you to declare yourself a Christian means you deny the existence of the gods of other faiths. For me to declare myself atheist means I deny the existence of the gods in all faiths. As stated previously, there is no structure to atheism, it is simply lack of belief in gods.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


For me and I suspect others, atheism just means a lack in a belief in God or Gods as worshipped by our religions. You don't worship anyone under atheism. You don't have to obey any set of beliefs or rituals. Some people may be spiritual and believe in something larger than themselves, but not something that watches over you and judges you for your actions, demanding you following certain rituals.

Religions are mythologies, from the gods of Ancient Greece to modern Christianity. So depending on when or where you were born, will effect the god you choose to follow.