Why are you Atheist? page 139

3495 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:


As a more general question to everyone. Do you feel there is a separation between being religious and theistic? Assuming so, does that line hold any real relevance to your views and opinions?

I’ve always thought of the term “religious” as something entrenched in some form of dogmatism, a continuation of history and rite. Theism, on the other hand although also encompassing Religious, I feel holds no opposition to God assumptive Agnostics.

To your first question above. Yes and No. Yes because they mean different things and No because someone can be both and there are many different shades of being one or the other and thus also many possible combinations.
Also religion is commonly not just about a belief system. Due to intermingling with the hosting culture religion generally also becomes a culture system and collection of world views that go beyond the spiritual/occult. This means that very often members of a religion identify with the religion even though their personal beliefs differ extremely from the organized religious teaching on belief.

 
Flag Post

I think that religion is another word for dictatorship and is a weakness or crutch for weak people to lean upon.

 
Flag Post

I’m an atheist because God doesn’t make any sense and people can’t bring a scientific proof that He exists.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

As a more general question to everyone. Do you feel there is a separation between being religious and theistic? Assuming so, does that line hold any real relevance to your views and opinions?

Yes. {{KKK’s "towards phase >}} If you have a religious view, it means you follow the beliefs as set out by your church leader, and you obey what is handed down to you as a system of belief. You take part in ceremonies, rituals and the like formed from the religion’s codex. {{KKK’s “in phase” >}}Simple theism on the other hand, is more of a personal belief system involving the existence of deities or deity-like beings. It can quite easily be that this belief system is the one given to you by your religion, or one which you have assembled yourself without being told what to believe by others (or at least not listening to them).

Yes, vika….that very well describes my personal “progression” towards and in that which could probably be called the “ethereal” by the large majority of ppl. Also, this might very easily be applied to most all kinds of religious beliefs in their various forms.

And then, I went well “beyond”:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I know where you are coming from, but when I’m trying to convey my belief to others, theism is the term closest to what I’m trying to say. I believe in the high probability of beings that are both more powerful than us, and very very<?b> {{I add: VERY, VERY, VERY}} different to us. Daemons is probably the closest term (in the original meaning).


I also believe many or even most such have no interest in us beyond perhaps individual familiarity, or as something to prey upon.


On top of all that, there are the beings composed of the group-think mindsets of many of our species, and probably other species besides. Any being that can transcend a single physical body and exist in multiple at any one time, can be considered to be greater than that which lies in any single physical body.


Many of those concepts are transhumanist, whilst others are not. However, when trying to explain them to others, theism is the only term I’ve come across which really fits. After all, I do believe in the Christian’s god, just not in the same way they do. They see it as a deity which created the universe, and I see it as an emergent being using every believer’s brain as a node in a group-think overmind.


Because I do believe in it, my views towards their deity are not atheist or agnostic, but at the same time I have no desire to worship it or be a part of it. What other possible term that is communicable, could there be?

As I’ve already stated that I am (as best any definition can be “applied”) ignostic.
This postion of mine well corresponds to what ya said above: “…theism is the only term I’ve come across which really fits.”
My ignosticism would emend that to say: theism is the term that even begins to go in the direction that could begin to “establish” a basis for a discussion in this area.

NOW, seeming to appear to be somewhat “hypocritical” because I “say” that I am ignostic…I AM going to “venture” (or hazard a “guess”) as to what some of the talking points might be in trying to discuss what, who, etc. “God/theism” is. In an effort to make that sentence have some relevance, the below (from the link) hopefully helps:

“Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,1 while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.”

I’m going to start explaining MY concept/“definition” of the “ethereal” by the use of a very CRUDE analogy. Our human sense-of-sight (visible light) works well enough for us “to get by” in our world. However, such capability IS QUITE LIMITED when it is compared to the actually existing full spectrum of light.

I think our “capability” to “understand” God/theism is also “limited” in a similar manner. I think faaaarrrrr toooooo many people fail to grasp this relevant “possibliity” that their (our?) capability to “know what God wants/thinks” In fact, some of us go quite the opposite,,, firmly believing they are the actual “conduit” of God and speak via his “authority”.

I guess if we were were able to GROK the essence of infinity, we just might be able to have the START of having an INKLING of where we MIGHT/MAYBE could begin to “define” God/theism. This would be so only cursory that said “definition” would be analgous to seeing ONLY the cover of a book w/ the full understanding that we obviously couldn’t say any too much about what the contents are.

vika, just as YOU say that “theism is the only term I’ve come across which really fits”, the term GROK is the one I’ve found:
GROK”:Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.

vika, your statements of: “…the beings composed of group-think mindsets…,,,(and) ……any being that can transcend a single physical body and exist in multiple at any one time, can be considered to be greater than that which lies in any single physical body.” somewhat correspond to the position I CURRENTLY hold on this subject.

Since there is ASSUMED to be this “commonality” that ALL the material in the universe came from the “same place” (Big Bang),,,then we humans are truly “one-with-&-in-all” that exists. I see this commonality to go beyond the simple “material world”. Since one might assume that the entire universe is made up of atoms and the commonality of the “energy” (E=MC²) they are “made of”,,,,I tend to veiw (wonder?) if this energy just might not be able to have applied to it the term we call “spirit”.

Thus, we humans could then be seen as being “connected” by this UNIVERSAL SPIRIT.
Then, “God” isn’t somewhere “out there”, “God” isn’t even “in” us, we ARE A PART OF “God”. This is why I believe that when we “die”, it is ONLY the material body (house of the “spirit”) that ceases to “function”. Our “soul/life spirit” merely continues its constant “connection” w/ the universe.

The common, superficial valediction here in America is: “Have a nice day”.
My rejoinder is: Only if you will…we are all in “this” together.
Hopefully, they are able to, at the very least, grasp that I mean our daily life issues. Maybe even a few can see it as being this very thing we can “life-on-Earth”.
But, my true meaning is that the “this” I speak of is that totality of “spiritually energy” that makes up the entire universe & “connects” us all.

As I said, my “theory”—just like ME—is a “work in progress”. LOL

 
Flag Post

Why did you even post? Please point me to your awesome contributions to discussions, and the endless ramblings. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do anything more than make personal attacks on these forums when someone doesn’t automatically agree with your appeals to tradition.

There has yet to be a coherent redress of the basic points I’ve presented recently. Try tackling that instead of bandstanding?

It’s not an appeal to tradition. Even if it was, that doesn’t make it illogical. It IS a personal attack though, problem is that’s not illogical either if it directly relates to the point: you’re a hypocritical gasbag and no one wants to debate the topic with you because of that character defect. I spoke up because your attention-whoring is rather distracting, please stop m’kay?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

If you’re still lurking about Janto I had a question for you that I was thinking about earlier in this section actually. Do you self identify as “religious”? With what little I know about your persuasion, it’s not something I’d associate you with. But curious if you hold the same position.

As a more general question to everyone. Do you feel there is a separation between being religious and theistic? Assuming so, does that line hold any real relevance to your views and opinions?

I’ve always thought of the term “religious” as something entrenched in some form of dogmatism, a continuation of history and rite. Theism, on the other hand although also encompassing Religious, I feel holds no opposition to God assumptive Agnostics.

Nope. At best if i’m reading something with a religious context to it, I’ll temporarily subscribe to the belief in question in order to get a better feel for it, but that’s it…it’s hard to read religious philosophy if you’re coming to it from an outsider or hostile POV. Apart from that, I barely think about religion at all unless I notice someone making a lot of noise about it (for or against). I’d agree that to be religious is to be dogmatic, I just don’t find that exceptionally problematic in a pluralistic society. There are dogmatic liberals and conservatives and a hundred other persuasions. They all get sidelined for religious dogmatism, which makes no sense, particularly because the political dogmatists tend to have more power to interfere in an individual’s life.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Why did you even post? Please point me to your awesome contributions to discussions, and the endless ramblings. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do anything more than make personal attacks on these forums when someone doesn’t automatically agree with your appeals to tradition.

There has yet to be a coherent redress of the basic points I’ve presented recently. Try tackling that instead of bandstanding?

It’s not an appeal to tradition. Even if it was, that doesn’t make it illogical. It IS a personal attack though, problem is that’s not illogical either if it directly relates to the point: you’re a hypocritical gasbag and no one wants to debate the topic with you because of that character defect. I spoke up because your attention-whoring is rather distracting, please stop m’kay?

“You’re a [nonspecific character attack]! Everyone doesn’t like you because of it!” There’s a lot of flaws you could have picked on here, and you’re a little closer with the attention whoring, but hypocritical? I’d say one of my only well maintained goals is consistency.

I still have no idea why you posted, who peed in your cornflakes, and what you’re trying to accomplish by crying about it? Show us on the doll where Serious Discussion touched you.

 
Flag Post

I’d agree that to be religious is to be dogmatic, I just don’t find that exceptionally problematic in a pluralistic society. There are dogmatic liberals and conservatives and a hundred other persuasions. They all get sidelined for religious dogmatism, which makes no sense, particularly because the political dogmatists tend to have more power to interfere in an individual’s life.

Yes certainly. I did not mean dogmatic with any particular venom, just the idea of an inheritance of values or beliefs. Religion to me seems entrenched within the transmitter/receiver paradigm. One is told X about Y. Which isn’t inherently bad but as spirituality moves away from an objective authority, traditions and values then it seems to me as being less “religious”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

To you with religious leanings, have you noticed those who are the harbingers of society all claim to be atheists? You may have also noticed they all have really oddball personal lives and political leanings. Sad, isn’t it?

Odd ball personal lives and political leanings…fits in well with a lot of religious people I have meet and read about.
As for it ‘being sad’ — nothing wrong with odd ball lives if they don’t hurt others, same with oddball political leanings.

 
Flag Post

I’m atheist because religion causes war.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by julesofwar:

I’m atheist because religion causes war.

So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?

 
Flag Post

So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?

More than you should have if you passed by an Atheist Conference or something. =)

 
Flag Post

i’m an atheist because i don’t believe any religion to be telling the truth. science ftw!
for example, if god created everything, what created god?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by qssc:

i’m an atheist because i don’t believe any religion to be telling the truth. science ftw!
for example, if god created everything, what created god?

exactly he does not exist

 
Flag Post

I am atheist because I personaly find the existence of bigger forces unlogic.

And no, I have nothing angainst religion, everyone is free to belive what they want, as long as they don’t fanatic and such.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?

[…]

Am I the first one that finds this post very disturbing?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TuJe:
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?

[…]

Am I the first one that finds this post very disturbing?

No because in context it’s criticizing the idea that religions themselves cause wars. Way to not read and immediately jump to conclusions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

No because in context it’s criticizing the idea that religions themselves cause wars. Way to not read and immediately jump to conclusions.

Oh, you are correct. Thank you for pointing that out.

… Though no concept causes war in itself. The intended use of some religions may be to cause war, but they still need someone else to start it… No reason to hate all religions if only few of them actually does advocate for war (for example some interpretation of islam seem to advocate for war, a “holy war” concept twisted to suit the needs of various empires and ideological groups).

 
Flag Post

I absolutely don’t disagree with that, and have a hell of a time convincing other atheists or anti-theists of that fact.

 
Flag Post

… Though no concept causes war in itself.

Disagree. Every concept that creates an imposition, leads to war (subject to scale). Every push snaps back sooner or later. The claim to divinity, is the claim to superiority, and will forever breed dissent and abuse.

No reason to hate all religions if only few of them actually does advocate for war

I would suggest they need make no claim. It is in their nature by separating true from false, right from wrong, man from another.

 
Flag Post

PEOPLE do those things. Religion doesn’t. Religion is the name for what happens when people do this, and isn’t the thing itself. You are misusing your brain by identifying the intangible concept that we use to describe something as an agent of action itself. This is abusing your animalistic mind and your more modern analytical mind. It’s a false dichotomy. The statement that Religion doesn’t have agency isn’t an opinion or a discerning point, it’s a structural falsehood in what you’re saying. Please understand this.The closest thing to truth that the statement that affords religion the power to influence others is that humans influence eachother. Many people have been influenced by sunrises to kiss their loved ones. Sunrises aren’t actively romanticing you, YOU find them romantic.

This frustrates me because of technicality and because it’s the exact same material agency that enables wars, the very thinking that Gods are influencing your life, and that abused deserve their punishment. It’s the personification of concepts that leads to superstition. Worse than all of that, it loads the responsibility of individuals off onto the non-specific group, or worse the influences of a group. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with identifying the structural manipulation of logic inherit in belief systems that make people think a father figure is constantly watching them, or whatever other problem you or I could have with that concept. The difference is we’re talking about a logical trap that is static and requires human interaction and agency to spring, not a force of change that controls the actions of an individual. The one who set the trap, and the one who sprung it have agency. At no point did the trap have agency, you can’t “blame” the trap.

(Vika might mention here, and I will as well, that the concept of idea agency could actually be a real thing in a universe or simulation where ideas can be shared more discreetly as unified packages. Like a PDF virus, an idea could literally infect a person and their ability to decide between believing the idea would be negated. In this scenario ideas would literally take on whatever agency their creator gave it, or could even spontaneously generate itself given the right conditions. One could even argue that all of our beliefs are selected and thus are evolved things, but then again we’re just affording the agency of our brain to the ideas we ourselves have. It’s like trying to introduce yourself in a mirror, and then saying that guy is an asshole.)

Example: I REALLY fucking hate landmines. They’re the most despicable creation of man. They kill indiscriminately, last well beyond their intended use, kill more unintended people than those intended to be killed, and have the practical effect of literally taking land off of the face of the earth as far as human habitability goes until someone either sacrifices their lives, or they’re somehow hopefully discovered without someone dying. Landmines still aren’t “the problem.” Yeah, someone invented them and now we have to deal with them, but saying “We really need to stop those landmines from blowing up our kids.” is only a colorful sentence, and implies that you actually mean we should get people to stop using landmines. Landmines cannot stop being landmines if we ask them to.

Religion isn’t an object, or even a group. Neither is Christianity. It’s a label, an identifier.You can say religion sucks, you can say religions are involved in everything awful about the world, or even that people are brainwashed when they enter a religion or whatever other opinion you might have, but the practical translation of that sentence is “People who are religious suck/were involved in everything awful/brainwashes other people.” You can’t invent a box that dampens religion. You can’t correct “religion” on its morality. You can’t ban religion/books/superstition/opinions. They’re not identifiable, tangible, active things.

Goddamn the way English and many other languages works really fucks with our brains. And by that, I mean the way people have developed our Language ;)

 
Flag Post

PEOPLE do those things. Religion doesn’t. Religion is the name for what happens when people do this, and isn’t the thing itself. You are misusing your brain by identifying the intangible concept that we use to describe something as an agent of action itself. This is abusing your animalistic mind and your more modern analytical mind. It’s a false dichotomy. The statement that Religion doesn’t have agency isn’t an opinion or a discerning point, it’s a structural falsehood in what you’re saying. Please understand this. The closest thing to truth that the statement that affords religion the power to influence others is that humans influence eachother. Many people have been influenced by sunrises to kiss their loved ones. Sunrises aren’t actively romanticing you, YOU find them romantic.

I disagree with you, I believe Religion is precisely the name for when people do this, and is ultimately the thing in and of itself – or rather a subset of it. I can’t conceive of a religion that makes no claim to truth. If you feel that in unfair, please demonstrate a hole in the notion. Religion doesn’t need agency to cause war, it only needs consequence, causality. The pieces are aligned, and they fall as destined – without will or intent.

I understand that the big scary cloud of religion is not lurking about the skies brainwashing people to do bad things. Rather, that the set of values aligned with religion – that a given person of their own agency takes up for whatever reason – is inexorably set for war. You are setting up individual reactions as a destruction of any concept. X is not Y, unless Zed decides X is Y. Sun rises are not romantic, unless they are found to be romantic. Which means ultimately without the blessing of the individual in question, nothing is anything. My question, in turn, would be ‘Do sunrises have anything to do with the sun?’ ‘Because, they do not make me think of the sun.’ Do we have any sort of reality outside of personal vetting?

As I see it Religion remains inexorably tied to narratives of power, truth, and morality. And given the values and nature of Religion, I see those that adopt it engaging in conflict. Certainly not exclusive to religion, but I’d say exacerbated by it, though that this is something of another matter.

If concepts cannot be given agency or influence, then men do nothing out of hunger?

EDIT: Either I overlooked a great deal of your post, or you Ninja’d me.

Worse than all of that, it loads the responsibility of individuals off onto the non-specific group, or worse the influences of a group.

I dare say that the responsibility may be upon the group. Do you believe in free will? I lend more towards determinism, especially in any practical sense. I find that individual responsibility is a very important fiction, it creates favorable outcomes. But if we’re speaking more philosophically I am not sure how much responsibility the individual has at all, it is simply a function of his environment.

The one who set the trap, and the one who sprung it have agency. At no point did the trap have agency, you can’t “blame” the trap.

Not the trap as an object, nor does the concept of traps have agency, but the concept of traps here remains a problem. No notion of traps, no one gets trapped. People cannot engage in trapping, without the notion of traps. So although without personal blame, it remains tied to our problem.

Example: I REALLY fucking hate landmines. They’re the most despicable creation of man. They kill indiscriminately, last well beyond their intended use, kill more unintended people than those intended to be killed, and have the practical effect of literally taking land off of the face of the earth as far as human habitability goes until someone either sacrifices their lives, or they’re somehow hopefully discovered without someone dying. Landmines still aren’t “the problem.” Yeah, someone invented them and now we have to deal with them, but saying “We really need to stop those landmines from blowing up our kids.” is only a colorful sentence, and implies that you actually mean we should get people to stop using landmines. Landmines cannot stop being landmines if we ask them to.

But landmines are an object, as well as a concept, and we starting hitting some identity problems. Do landmines in general blow things up? Sure. Do those landmines, over there in particular? Perhaps not. Given your example, I’d suggest that the statement “We need to stop those landmines from blowing up our kids” is pretty fair. Having people stop using landmines, as you suggest, is not going to help them. The landmines are already there, stating future directives isn’t going to effect those landmines in particular any more then asking them to stop existing.

Religion isn’t an object, or even a group. Neither is Christianity. It’s a label, an identifier.You can say religion sucks, you can say religions are involved in everything awful about the world, or even that people are brainwashed when they enter a religion or whatever other opinion you might have, but the practical translation of that sentence is “People who are religious suck/were involved in everything awful/brainwashes other people.” You can’t invent a box that dampens religion. You can’t correct “religion” on its morality. You can’t ban religion/books/superstition/opinions. They’re not identifiable, tangible, active things.

I disagree that Religion is not an identifiable thing. It remains a concept only by nature of it’s identifiable characteristics. If it had none, it would be nothing, it would be gibberish. But if you consider “the adoption of religion, causes wars” as agreeable over “religion causes wars” Then I have to agree with you. I’m not sure if you convinced me or if we just hashed out a different understanding of the problem.

 
Flag Post

… Hunger isn’t a thing. Hunger is what you call wanting to eat. Hunger didn’t make you want to eat. You’re taking the name for things and making them things in their own right. Anger doesn’t happen to me, I get angry because I have agency. Even if I didn’t decide to be angry, anger is describing what I feel and isn’t the feeling itself. You’re making this into a discussion about something that it’s not. It isn’t that I’m advocating subjectivity, that sunrises are whatever you make them to be. I don’t even know where you got that. It’s really really really really really simple. If I say “That’s a romantic sunrise,” do you think I mean that the sunrise is romanticizing me, or that I find the sunrise romantic? When you say that religion causes people to do something, are you denying that the exact same sentence is “The ancient beliefs of others causes people today to do things.”

I get what you’re trying to say, even. The belief that you can be absolutely right, or that you can know the universe’s thoughts is demonstrably bad, and always will be bad. That. isn’t. religion. It’s what you call religion. It’s an idea that other people had and convinced other people of. An individual is not religion, they are religious. I don’t know how to get this across to you any clearer. This isn’t my opinion, it’s a misnomer of language.

We should stop rape doesn’t mean we should stop the idea of rape. You can’t, it exists. You can stop people from raping. Kids playing sometimes gets them hurt. Playing doesn’t hurt kids, kids playing hurts kids. Dogs bark, barks aren’t things we can stop or identify or even measure whether something is or isn’t a bark because it isn’t a thing, it’s a description of a thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by TuJe:
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?

[…]

Am I the first one that finds this post very disturbing?

No because in context it’s criticizing the idea that religions themselves cause wars. Way to not read and immediately jump to conclusions.

BSG, I think ya’ve greatly further explained what you mean by what you said above. So, the main reason I’m posting the entirety of the posts to show the context involved in effort to show how, as ya say, ppl tend to read that which they prefer & _immediately jump to conclusions.

Since TuJe omitted what Holy said & left out what julesofwar said that my response was about, I’m assuming that TuJe was finding what I said to be very disturbing. I’m not sure why he finds this so. But my intent about saying _guns when going by a church" was to entice julesofwar to tell me more on why he believes: religion causes war.

.

Originally posted by TuJe:
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by julesofwar:

I’m atheist because religion causes war.


So, I should have my gun “at the ready” when I pass by a church?


More than you should have if you passed by an Atheist Conference or something. =)


Am I the first one that finds this post very disturbing?


Originally posted by TuJe:

By the way, your quotes are broken, they show the wrong names.

Thanks for the heads up, TuJu.
I’ve now fixed it…somewhat anyway.
I’m still working on how to make it look “right”.
Aha….success.
LOL

 
Flag Post

Oh, I just saw HolyLasagna quoting a text and it didn’t cross my mind to search for who even wrote the quoted text. I should’ve searched for original context.

By the way, your quotes are broken, they show the wrong names.