atheism, religion, semantic disputes

[sambeatty]

Many presume being atheist implies certain belief in nothing. I dispute this. I don't believe in nothingness. If anything, my views are quite the opposite- I believe in a mysterious infinity, to be explored and considered intellectually.

Personally, I think there is often only a semantic difference between certain religious and nonreligious people-

The wiser (and generally friendlier) religious people usually take their chosen sacred text as a metaphor, and when asked what they actually mean by "God", they are at odds to define it. Therefore, if such a person believes in something infinite and indefinable, then what really is the difference between that person and an atheist who considers the mystery of infinity? I can't describe my hypothetical concept of the infinite, and nor can they.

[mr me]

Perhaps you are agnostic then?

[sambeatty]

Perhaps you are agnostic then?

 

atheist-agnostic, I guess. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive

[toby]

religious people believe though infinite 'IT', has mind and always has, is? An atheist believes what ever there is emerged by chance.

[mutant]

the phrase 'belief in nothing' is totally void of meaning.

An atheist believes what ever there is emerged by chance.

yeah? you're an atheist?

I am and I don't believe it's all chance.

[sambeatty]

Personally, I consider atheism only one facet of my belief- that which relates to religion.

So what do I believe in? I believe in mankind, the solar system, the observable universe, time and that further conclusions about all of the above can be derived from perception-altered states. If nobody had fundamental, unwavering presumptions about the universe, the terms atheist and agnostic wouldn't even be necessary. We shouldn't have to define our beliefs by the religious standard.

[drugo]

Words hold powerful aesthetics that are often tangled up and saturated in earth-bound political processes of the past. Today, God, as a concept, tends to be appreciated in light of historical political disputes over power/knowledge. Grand concepts and ideas only exist for political agendas. We are pack animals and we are going through an exciting and dangerous time of re-evaluation and creation. But be careful, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

When people hear the word God, they usually think of an old fat bearded dude on the clouds firing lightening. I perceive this 'dude' as a personification of energetic law. Religious mythologies seem to often download and transform realities of cosmic consciousness (or energetic law, including love) into digestible stories such as people interacting (bearded man). But, all mythologies (science included) are often animated and obscured by political biases (often especially the older ones that have picked up the most baggage). For example, Western science's methodological 'atheism'/materialistic constraints have suffocated research in psi/spirit, consciousness studies, and para-everything for the last few hundred years. But today the walls are coming down and the light is shinning wide.

Scientism and its steam train of materialistic rationality has tended to "other" and fear the rest (the non-material) ~ Just like how Christians introduced duality (we are sacrad, the rest is profane). True scientific method (empirical curiosity, experimentation) has been comprimised by scientism. It is time to apply scientific methods to ASC (altered states of consciousness) and take seriously the rest of the earth including human, animal, plant and spirit cultures and our galactic neighbourhood. It is time to radically embrace shamanistic/mystic technology.

..........................

Reality requires a system of meaning for it to become conceptually grounded and comprehensible. Scientism, Catholisism, Hinduism and Toaism, as conceptual domains, are but grand structures or metanarratives that attempt to abstract and encapsulate world. Having said that, within the shadows of all of those just noted exist doors into sub-structures that lead down pathways toward integrated awareness, illumination, psi/spirit spheres, cosmic lore, divination and transcendence.

You need to step out of the ballon to begin to percieve the ballon better, and also (if i can stretch the analogy a bit further) to appreciate other ballons and the type of circumstance we are in.

Words are malleable, like play-do. But, at the moment words like God, atheism, material/spiritual are too messed up with historical crap. We need new language; including new words, grammer, and historical stories that illuminate more sophisticated conceptual geomerty.

I suggest to, when hearing or reading the word God, not be paralysed by scientism's dogma. But instead, use intellectual labor and scrutiny (true scientific method) to sort through the mess on both sides of the invisible divide between science and religion.

[toby]

yeah? you're an atheist?

I am and I don't believe it's all chance.

If it all has will, intent or is otherwise 'conscious' or directed by something I would have thought that thing would fall somewhere into the god area and hence be a theistic view? I wouldn't consider myself atheist, I think any extra physical belief would disqualify me from that (i have many).

[nabraxas]

isn't the belief that there is no god still a belief system?

[devance]

The wiser (and generally friendlier) religious people usually take their chosen sacred text as a metaphor, and when asked what they actually mean by "God", they are at odds to define it. Therefore, if such a person believes in something infinite and indefinable, then what really is the difference between that person and an atheist who considers the mystery of infinity? I can't describe my hypothetical concept of the infinite, and nor can they.]

A metaphor is meta many, phor, a likeness but poor[dictionary].

I can and have.

[religious people usually take their chosen sacred text as a metaphor]

Well good luck on that.

Somehow i think you are not going to be the a spokesperson of even a athiestic college students.

Want sex or money or respect, an't going to happen, nongood nluck.

[devance]

The wiser (and generally friendlier) religious people usually take their chosen sacred text as a metaphor, and when asked what they actually mean by "God", they are at odds to define it. Therefore, if such a person believes in something infinite and indefinable, then what really is the difference between that person and an atheist who considers the mystery of infinity? I can't describe my hypothetical concept of the infinite, and nor can they.]

A metaphor is meta many, phor, a likeness but poor[dictionary].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[religious people usually take their chosen sacred text as a metaphor]

Its a 2 way street.

Practical advice as a opposed to die if eaten a pig.

Religion from God is easy, but not if interpretated into a nations states laws which is take common advice and turns it into a nightmare.

Well bad luck on that.

[religious people usually take their chosen sacred text as a metaphor]

Somehow i think you are not going to be the a spokesperson of even a nonreligious college students.

Want sex or money or respect, no women for you, even they can know preditory fool.

[ThunderIdeal]

i like your attitude sam.

however:

atheist-agnostic, I guess. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive

 

i think they are. an atheist denies the existence of god, an agnostic denies the existence of certainty. maybe you are agnostic with a strong impression that there is probably no god.

staunch atheism is just another extreme, another way to make yourself feel safe in a tumultuous world.

as usual telepathogen you shed light like a bright star.

[devance]

odd name telepathogen.

[MORG]

isn't the belief that there is no god still a belief system?

 

Is the belief that there are no unicorns a belief system?

Say it often enough and "belief" looks and sounds like a word as silly as any other.

[paradox]

nearly 7 billion different subjective interpretations of what religion is or what the word 'god' even means..

doesn't the whole argument reek of absurdity?

it seems to me that the term atheist implies a strong certainty & therefore a belief that something is not real. i think it can be interpreted as arrogant as it must also imply a strong belief in the accuracy of your own perceptions. however unlikely the interpretations that you oppose. if you look at a religious concept of god & realize that it's so unlikely that it's ridiculous but at the same time have a healthy level of humility & realize that inevitably your own perceptions are limited also & something as obscure as another persons subjective experience of god will never be truly understood by you anyway, then certainly you'd be called an agnostic?

the reason i don't like the word atheist is because it is has negative connotations as it's like it's simply a direct re-action to a specific interpretation of the universe rather than a positive affirmation of an autonimous view. an atheist is only defined by opposition to something they don't believe in. i just find it a little lame that something that an atheist is so opposed to is so fundamental to their very identity as an atheist. know what i mean?

it's a little like satanism being wholey reliant on Christianity & its therefore almost a christian sect. similarly atheism is wholey reliant on opposing the concepts of religion. i wonder if many people who strongly identify with being an atheist realize that their entire identity is utterly reliant on that which they so strongly disagree with.

richard dawkins for example, though much of what he says i can agree with, i find him to be a little seedy as he seems very unhealthily obsessed with disproving another group of peoples beliefs. i mean he must really take it seriously.. rather than just being happy with his own interpretations & allowing others to think what they like. i mean, humans are crazy & our madness is diverse, isn't it even madder to get worked up because you don't agree with another of the 7 billion insane individuals mad interpretations.

[mutant]

isn't the belief that there is no god still a belief system?

NO! it's a lack of a belief system, it's only refusing a couple of stupid ideas

NO GODS - NO MASTERS

PS: For the record, I don't believe [anymore] that every form of religion is wrong, on the contrary, nowadays, I think most people need it, and not few forms of it are actually beneficial.

PS2: We now know god [if any] is in the head, so we know what it is, so we know it's not really a 'god', just a brain function, which we interestingly haven't officially figured out what we can make of it....

Whatever this is, it's a trait of higher primates. Maybe god module was a direct impact of mushroom consumption, who the fuck knows?

Edited April 11, 2010 by mutant

[devance]

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/93672-Can-Thor-and-Ironman-really-be-in-the-same-movie/page2Well Thor represents a type of magical existence as opposed to Ironman the man of science.

As a child a suspension of belief is automatic.

But for Thor to be equal with Ironman[atomic heart and armor] a scientific reason must be remotely explained for a movie.

Not easy to do, but a 12 universe[string] theory that fluctates as a organic whole accidentally spits poor Thor out might be remotely better than a norse mythology.

So physics of two types[quantum vs.straight line vector physics]] are maybe in conflict or demonstrated.

Arnold Swartznagger might play the part but the governor of California so too busy

[devance]

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/news/Breaking_News/15836-Enhanced_Vision_Creates___039_Sixth_Sense__039_.

I can only thankgod thats not magiclal reality.

[devance]

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/f/philip-jose-farmer/behind-walls-of-terra.htm

[compost]

How about the term "Logos" in the Heraclitean sense. Meaning namely 'sense' (in its broadest sense);

Philosophy, science, mathematics, religion, poetry...all sense makers of the mysterious infinite nothing/something, all different metaphorical modes of understanding.

[nabraxas]

NO! it's a lack of a belief system, it's only refusing a couple of stupid ideas

 

if belief in god would be a matter ov faith, then disbelief would be also?

a total lack ov a belief system one way or the other would be agnosticism?

Atheists like Richard Dawkins are as zealous in their disbelief as any fundamentalist believers IMHO.

[mr me]

Atheists like Richard Dawkins are as zealous in their disbelief as any fundamentalist believers IMHO.

Very true, Dawkins does not seem to even want to challenge his own beliefs. It is good to hold an opinion, but we all should seek to make sure that what we believe in is still "correct".