The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Can you prove that you are not a jellybean? These are the sorts of questions that lead us no where. Preoccupying ourselves with such unsubstantiated imaginations is a game best left to the one who imagined them, not for any future adherents who find such doctrines pleasurable.

Just because you find no purpose in these kinds of questions, does not mean there is no purpose for them. Much like feeling my way through a dark room, just because I don't know what I'm touching doesn't mean it can't help me find my way.

No, but but I think it right tell another that there are other more real things to have faith in. We cannot remove faith, only irrational faiths—the faith in nothing.

I understand where you're coming from if people are telling you that you're wrong. You're not wrong. But you are wrong if you insist on saying that other people are wrong for choosing to take strength from something that you don't believe in. That's not your place to tell them that. That's the main point I'm making here.

Whether or not there is substance to religion, doesn't mean no one can take strength from it. Even if it's just a psychological trick that people use to draw strength from something they aren't willing to admit is part of themselves, it's an effective method and it works. I've seen it work. And it's not my right to tell them that they can't do it that way because, well...different strokes for different folks. They won't tell me how to wipe after I finish in the bathroom, so who am I to tell them how to find courage and hope?

It's a personal issue that only becomes important to the outside world when your beliefs interfere with the rights of others. Just like your love for ice cream only becomes relevant when you start chucking it at strangers on the street.

True faith is a feeling matter, of the heart, not just based in the mind of logic. Mind and logic can allow for a certain kind of rational hopefulness (that some may even call faith) that, for example, science will find a cure for some diseases currently incurable - but true faith is inherent in the being when we are not in conflict between head, heart, and body - when the whole body-mind is a feeling singularity participating fully in life.

Such participation in life as the whole feeling body-mind allows for the recognition that we all arise in a non-separative field of relatedness/energy or unity. When this is truly noticed, felt, and participated in, then faith in the truth of our essential non-separation with others becomes a real basis for cooperation with (and even love for) all.

But the fixed, unfounded, idealistic, conceptual belief systems of any person, whether they be that of Theism, Agnosticism, or Atheism/Scientific-Materialism do not allow the inherent faith of the feeling being (or heart) to fully flourish.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by izero

 

Lost interest after point 1. Everyone is born an atheist. As no knowledge of religion or associated concepts is atheism at it's purist.

Flawed and poor argument.

I didn't write the post for the illogical.

Have you ever asked a child if he's an atheist? Are children born with opinions on deities? No one is born an atheist. We are born irreligious. Irreligion is not atheism at its purist. Atheism is a religious concern. Irreligion is indifferent to religion. Big difference.

Flawed and poor rebuttal.

Theism is the belief in a God. Where people get confused;

- Atheism IS no belief in god;

- Atheism IS NOT the belief in no god.

It is very important determination. We don't worship no god, we just don't worship full stop and that also represents an uninfluenced baby. The use of the word irreligious tries to explain those who don't care,in most cases they would be atheist(no belief) or agnostic.

When I was 3 I had no interest at all in the religion, to the point where I had no concept of it. I did however love the stars, and loved the stories my father would tell me about them while star gazing and the docos we would watch. The concept of infinity was mind blowing and always led me to internal investigations of my own consciousness (why am I me, why am I not someone else). One day i was visitng my grandmother (my fathers mother) on the other side of Australia and she told me all about God. I pleaded with her to take me to church because it sounded cool and like an explanation to my some of my questions. When they didnt talk about the stars or explain conciousness I thought it was lame and haven't been to a church since (that's 31 years).

Prior to my introduction to religion; I had no belief in god. After my introduction; I realized I had no belief in god. At no point have I had a belief in no god.

My case stands.

Now the question is, will you call me illogical again. I quite enjoy ad hom attacks, as it is a big hint that someone is angry and arguing from an emotional point of view. How do I know? I have been guilty of it myself. Self analysis is a beautiful thing.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Just because you find no purpose in these kinds of questions, does not mean there is no purpose for them. Much like feeling my way through a dark room, just because I don't know what I'm touching doesn't mean it can't help me find my way.

Like I said: they are only useful to the one who thinks them, much like feeling your way through a dark room works for you and your situation.

Also I didn't say I found no purpose in these kinds of questions, only that they were dead ends. Even dead ends have a purpose.

Whether or not there is substance to religion, doesn't mean no one can take strength from it. Even if it's just a psychological trick that people use to draw strength from something they aren't willing to admit is part of themselves, it's an effective method and it works. I've seen it work. And it's not my right to tell them that they can't do it that way because, well...different strokes for different folks. They won't tell me how to wipe after I finish in the bathroom, so who am I to tell them how to find courage and hope?

It's a personal issue that only becomes important to the outside world when your beliefs interfere with the rights of others. Just like your love for ice cream only becomes relevant when you start chucking it at strangers on the street.

I'm only being critical of the hypocrisy and double standards of the atheist's religious mentality, and the failure to admit it. I'm not arguing against religion. I'm arguing against dishonesty.

reply to post by izero


So you're saying ignorance is the purist form of atheism? I can agree with that. That sounds logical to me.

Every time someone takes the label atheist, or calls someone an atheist, it's because they have a general idea of what that label entails. A child's ignorance does not make them an atheist, that makes them ignorant to your argument entirely. They have no opinion on the matter. You should probably allow them to make these choices for themselves.

Now the question is, will you call me illogical again. I quite enjoy ad hom attacks, as it is a big hint that someone is angry and arguing from an emotional point of view. How do I know? I have been guilty of it myself. Self analysis is a beautiful thing.

Simply returning the favour, friend.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by izero

 

So you're saying ignorance is the purist form of atheism? I can agree with that. That sounds logical to me.

edit on 23-4-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

Ignorance to religion can be atheism, yes. I get the feeling that you are leaning toward some kind of Monty pythonesqe witch statement about ignorance though..

If babies are atheist, it's because they are ignorant, therefore all atheists must be ignorant. I like it, it's funny.

reply to post by izero


I think the more accurate suggestion is that all atheists and theists are ignorant in a polar sense.

reply to post by izero

If babies are atheist, it's because they are ignorant, therefore all atheists must be ignorant. I like it, it's funny.

You thought of it! Take the credit sir.

How about these: All babies are communist because they don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. All babies are vegetarian because they are ignorant of steak. All babies are pro-life because their ignorant of abortions.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by izero

 

Every time someone takes the label atheist, or calls someone an atheist, it's because they have a general idea of what that label entails. A child's ignorance does not make them an atheist, that makes them ignorant to your argument entirely. They have no opinion on the matter. You should probably allow them to make these choices for themselves.

A child's ignorance does make them an atheist. They may not know what an atheist is, but sans belief regardless of how one gets there (ignorance, influence or investigation) still makes them an atheist. Atheism is not just a label, it also describes something - no belief. It's like Zero, whichis a label for the absence of something, but just because it's a label, doesnt mean if you dont label it, that there is no longer an absence of something, that something is still absent irregardless of label.

At young age for the most part their ignorance is not static, their brains are spongesand invariably given the chance they will make a decision one way or the other. The best thing we can do as adults is give them access to as much info as possible and let them make the most informed decision on a thing that they can.

I get the sense that you are trying to trap me into saying something that you can then twist, or use to say atheists are hypocrites. Apologies if I am mistaken.

reply to post by izero

A child's ignorance does make them an atheist. They may not know what an atheist is, but sans belief regardless of how one gets there (ignorance, influence or investigation) still makes them an atheist.

That's like saying that in a comparison of 1 vs -1, 0 is the same as 1 or -1. It is a lack of awareness by which to form an opinion or stance, and therefore a lack of opinion or stance. It's not black and white. There is the possibility of remaining neutral due to inexperience.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by izero

 

If babies are atheist, it's because they are ignorant, therefore all atheists must be ignorant. I like it, it's funny.

You thought of it! Take the credit sir.

How about these: All babies are communist because they don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism. All babies are vegetarian because they are ignorant of steak. All babies are pro-life because their ignorant of abortions.

thanks I will.

Straw man argument. They are apolitical. Capitalism is an ideal, communism is an ideal. Knowledge of steak has nothing to do with vegetarianism. You are taking two stances and juxtaposing them. Atheism is not just a stance, it describes something - no belief. You are getting yourself all mixed up.

reply to post by izero

Atheism is not just a stance, it describes something - no belief. You are getting yourself all mixed up.

So if someone had no ability to even process the concept of a deity, or any other ideas that such a concept would entail, this counts as atheism?

I hadn't realized that atheism was the equivalent of having no stance at all on the subject.

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Disbelief is not the same as unawareness. Disbelief is having evidence of the possibility brought before you and rejecting a divine conclusion in favor of another. Unawareness is being unaware that the possibility of a divine conclusion even exists. There is a difference, I believe.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by izero

 

A child's ignorance does make them an atheist. They may not know what an atheist is, but sans belief regardless of how one gets there (ignorance, influence or investigation) still makes them an atheist.

That's like saying that in a comparison of 1 vs -1, 0 is the same as 1 or -1. It is a lack of awareness by which to form an opinion or stance, and therefore a lack of opinion or stance. It's not black and white. There is the possibility of remaining neutral due to inexperience.

You either have belief or you don't. You can't be neutral.

reply to post by izero

You either have belief or you don't. You can't be neutral.

Imagine you're visiting a foreign land where you don't understand a word the natives are speaking to you. In that setting, where you have no clue what is going on or what is being said, you are neutral.

See my post directly above yours.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by izero

 

You either have belief or you don't. You can't be neutral.

Imagine you're visiting a foreign land where you don't understand a word the natives are speaking to you. In that setting, where you have no clue what is going on or what is being said, you are neutral.

See my post directly above yours.

edit on 23-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You are over complicating it ( a common mistake of the theist).

Belief or no-belief. One without belief due to lack of experience can't be 0.5. On or off. 1 or 0.

Atheism is a choice, much like any 'ism'.

ism (zm)
ism |ˈizəm| noun , chiefly
a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement:

"No God" is an ideal in regards to deities.

ideal |īˈdē(ə)l| adjective
1 satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable:
2 existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality:

Now what ideals and philosophies does the child hold? Only the ones we force upon them. Neither you nor Dawkins can force an ideal or ism on any child.

reply to post by izero

You are over complicating it ( a common mistake of the theist).

Belief or no-belief. One without belief due to lack of experience can't be 0.5. On or off. 1 or 0.

1. I'm not a theist.

2. If given the choice, would you umptelize an ufrack or garrionate it? If so, what would you umptelize or garrionate it with? Please explain your choice in this matter.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Didn't you know? Rocks don't believe in gods, therefore, rocks are atheist.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Break the word atheism down

Theos - god
A - without

On or off.

It's that simple and it doesn't care why it is on or off.

reply to post by izero

Break the word atheism down

Theos - god
A - without

On or off.

It's that simple and it doesn't care why it is on or off.

I notice you didn't answer my previous post. And I guess atheism is a very broad term now. We're just one big family!