My Belief
Offline I see this time, and time again, atheism being called out as a religion, or having a belief system. Atheism to me is simply an indicater, recognizing a lack of belief in a god, or gods. Any associated ideology is assumed from that point, without the addition of evidence. For example, I could be an atheist who holds to buddhism, I could be a secular humanist, and there are probably even cases of atheist who support a theocratic society (Who knows). My point being arguments associated to the existance of god fall under an atheistic category, while those associated with why do we care, tend to relate more to our ideological beliefs, secular humanism for example. I may not care if you believe in god, or not, but I might care if you take a theocratic approach, and attempt to impede our secular society. Any corrections or confirmations would be appreciated, in my opinion this seems to be a common stumbling block.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
- Login to post comments
Offline You're younger than my youngest son. I love Maxine. And I'm almost as old. The hard part is picking out a favorite.
I like Pinky and the Brain, and I'm almost as young. 
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline Yeah, that's Khan. Sheese, this younger generation, doesn't know their history, doesn't know their ST, doesn't know squat.
PS Khan was played by Ricardo Montalban, who was a real looker in his younger days. Which were still way before my younger days.
He played Khan well, but I think many people had a hard time with a character like that being played by the fantasy island guy, quite the opposite of his Khan character. He could have had a midget henchman you know.
Picard was an awesome captain..of the love boat too ><
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Offline Picard was an awesome captain..of the love boat too ><
My problem with Picard is that Stewart is such a better actor than Shatner. Capt Kirk was such a dweeb, no other actor can surpass Shatner's awfulness.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline robj101 wrote:Picard was an awesome captain..of the love boat too ><
My problem with Picard is that Stewart is such a better actor than Shatner. Capt Kirk was such a dweeb, no other actor can surpass Shatner's awfulness.
Nowdays yes, but at the time, I think shatner fit fine, considering mcCoy and spock.
edit: im trek fan enough to have been one of the idiots who paid for a lifetime sub for the star trek online game...I haven't played it in 2 weeks, it's as boring as watching two rocks banging together all day. I haven't even loaded it up on this new comp yet, what a waste. Star trek online, to boldly go across instances to meet new life, and kill it over and over again.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Offline robj101 wrote:Picard was an awesome captain..of the love boat too ><
My problem with Picard is that Stewart is such a better actor than Shatner. Capt Kirk was such a dweeb, no other actor can surpass Shatner's awfulness.
shatner is so much more entertaining now that he's lapsed into self-parody. it's rare one can say that, but in this case it's definitely true. i always loved the priceline.com commercials.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:robj101 wrote:Picard was an awesome captain..of the love boat too ><
My problem with Picard is that Stewart is such a better actor than Shatner. Capt Kirk was such a dweeb, no other actor can surpass Shatner's awfulness.
shatner is so much more entertaining now that he's lapsed into self-parody. it's rare one can say that, but in this case it's definitely true. i always loved the priceline.com commercials.
Did you see Over the Hedge? Shatner voiced the daddy possum. Hysterical - he did this dying act that went on and on. "gasp - Rosebud!" 
I love the strip and loved the movie. He is a lot better at the self-parody schtick.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Nowdays yes, but at the time, I think shatner fit fine, considering mcCoy and spock.
edit: im trek fan enough to have been one of the idiots who paid for a lifetime sub for the star trek online game...I haven't played it in 2 weeks, it's as boring as watching two rocks banging together all day. I haven't even loaded it up on this new comp yet, what a waste. Star trek online, to boldly go across instances to meet new life, and kill it over and over again.
It was no wonder Doohan didn't want to hang out with them after the series was over.
I don't do on line gaming. My internet connection is not always smooth, and waiting for video or sound to download for more than three seconds is too long. 
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline robj101 wrote:Nowdays yes, but at the time, I think shatner fit fine, considering mcCoy and spock.
edit: im trek fan enough to have been one of the idiots who paid for a lifetime sub for the star trek online game...I haven't played it in 2 weeks, it's as boring as watching two rocks banging together all day. I haven't even loaded it up on this new comp yet, what a waste. Star trek online, to boldly go across instances to meet new life, and kill it over and over again.
It was no wonder Doohan didn't want to hang out with them after the series was over.
I don't do on line gaming. My internet connection is not always smooth, and waiting for video or sound to download for more than three seconds is too long.
i think this is appropriate here:
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline i think this is appropriate here:
Huh - I think I agree with just about everything they said! 
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline If I were gay I'd be gay for Patrick Stewart.
Just thought I would throw that in.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Ah, so a lá your definition means an atheist can be a religious figure of some importance, by feigning interest in the theological (and the theocratic, undoubtedly for personal gain of some sort)
this definition allows for pagans to potentially be defined as atheists.
Atheism is a system of belief, in that it exhibits a systematic denial in the belief of a supreme being, and requires the belief in the complete absence of such a being.
re·li·gion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.hmmm... that certainly doesn't apply to atheism... let me try some of the others.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. This could, however, easily apply to atheism... especially the particular schools of atheism; humanism, pantheism, solipsism, naturalism, satanism (not to be confused with devil worship), and (what can only be described as...) anti-spiritualism. There is also the probability of 'pseudotheism'; the use of 'God' solely to establish a collective, social network, or empire (as the Vatican has done for nearly 1500 years.)The phrase "Big Brother is watching you" comes to mind... where Big Brother= ficticious God of the Oligarchist Superstate (all of which bears a disturbing resemblance to Medieval and Early Renaissance Europe)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
In my mind, the only meaningful possible definition for atheism is complete absence in the belief of the spiritual. The people who run this site appear to agree with me (or so I've indirectly observed thus far)
edit: SIGH. Part of my previous post should read
Proof reading is HARD.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
OED defines "atheism":
atheism - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
Here is Webster's definition of atheism:
atheism - n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity
"Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter."
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
I don't believe the spectrum of spiritual is covered under the definition. This is my point your definition is branching into overall skeptisism, and out of the boundaries of atheism alone.
By allowing these vague definitions and abstract usages, we open the door for the creation of false dichotomies (Theism vs Atheism when it doesn't actually apply). When in fact the debate regarding spiritual matters could entail skeptisism as a whole, and might not have any atheistic dependancies.
As an example reincarnation: I could believe in reincarnation, and this line of thinking, falls under the category of spiritual, but does not necessarily have anything to do with god or gods.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
a·the·ism
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.From my point-of-view, atheism is a belief system because it exhibits the systematic denial of belief in a Deity. As one delves deeper into the specific, varying schools of atheistic thoughts, the nature and function of a belief system becomes more abundantly obvious, and does so in a well-defined manner.
I should take this moment to point out (and perhaps tickle my ego a bit) that along these definitions, I qualify as an atheist.
wow.
As much as a I've come to admire Brian, Jake, Hambydammit and Co. regarding their 'crusade for faithlessness' (as best as I can define it)... this part of RRS serves me no practical purpose whatsoever. "Agnostic or atheist" is a(n ideological) false dichotomy. I can disbelieve in a 'universal creator being' while acknowledging it is (scarcely) possible for one such 'being' to exist.
Ergo, I can be an agnostic and an atheist simultaneously. The conundrum is, ultimately, that you (general you) have failed to develop a concise and succinct definition of what comprises atheism. It is, effectively, The definitions thus far developed have been stated on the basis of general 'panaca for blind (irrational) faith' thinking.
Then the definition eludes pure reasoning.
Then the definition ALSO eludes practical reasoning.
It was through "spiritual matters" that (all) theism was created.
And on that note, I say to thee...
(I didn't get any sleep last night... again)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
"neptewn"? isn't that khan? it looks like khan. though i never followed the original series closely...
on that note, i can't resist adding...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Yeah, that's Khan. Sheese, this younger generation, doesn't know their history, doesn't know their ST, doesn't know squat.
PS Khan was played by Ricardo Montalban, who was a real looker in his younger days. Which were still way before my younger days.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
hey i know my ST. i love the films and i was a huge TGN fan. the original series was just too shallow and campy for me, that's all. i never did keep up with anything post-TGN however, though i've thought about looking into enterprise and i've been tempted to read some of shatner's ST novels. any advice?
wow, that was a huge derailment. oh well.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
So before one delves deeper in the specific, varying schools of atheistic thought. Are they an atheist, or is that the qualifier in your point-of-view? Essentially what is the minimum requirments?
Atheism (without belief in god or gods) - This is 'panaca' for blind (irrational) faith thinking? Should I dare ask your opinion on asymmetry?
In my view atheism on it's own, is not a belief system, but it can be adapted to include additional belief systems, ideologies, and perspectives. The problem being these additional points of view are not prerequisites, and the scenario that is created is no two atheist are alike, so the definition becomes inaccurate, without the additon of further labeling (Secular Atheist).
So my question Kapkao is... Are you simply attaching beliefs that would be better suited under some other definition, or are you defining beliefs that are unique to atheism?
That does not mean theism encompasses all spiritual matters.. Which is my point, Atheism is simply an answer for one specific spiritual question.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
You have to understand, when it first aired (I was in high school), it was cutting edge. Women actually serving on a battleship in technical positions? Radical. The episode with the black/white faced guy? Extreme. Yeah, it seems hokey now, but it wasn't then.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
iwbiek and The Doommed Soul's back in town... neat.
Allow me to introduce you to Earth's only remaining... indigeonous... life form.
What do you think?
They killed nearly twenty of my people... including my beloved wife.
Not all at once...
... and not instantly to be humored.
You see, their young enter through the ear and rub themselves around the Cerebral Cortex. This has the effect rendering the victim susceptible to... suggestion. Later as they grow
...follows madness... and death.
That is my belief.
(Note: previous link may be NSFW... but everything after 5:50 makes it well worth watching)
Edit: that'll teach me not to post images without uploading them to photobucket (long story)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Maybe in addition to enjoying TOS (as well as a bunch of other things that are now considered old-fashioned or obselete) about as much as you seem to have enjoyed, I should point out that I'm only 26.
Those whipper snappers... they're quite a troublesome bunch, yah?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You're younger than my youngest son.
I love Maxine. And I'm almost as old. The hard part is picking out a favorite.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
"Minimum requirements" are irrelevant. I am speaking on behalf of functional vernacular.
A panaca and/or cure-all, yes. It is hardly the only one.
"'You may ask.' That's a little joke back on Earth"
Actually... perhaps you should provide a definition for 'asymmetry' as you have used it here. It would be most helpful in terms of discussion.
A better, more practical question (IMO) is "How can atheistic beliefs possibly overlap with matters relating to the spiritual?" and I answer thusly: any child can speak the answer to all questions spiritual; "It's make-believe, silly!"
A strawman argument, perhaps (and a very unsubtle one, at that)... but the sad truth is that after being awake for nearly 34 hours, I simply can't muster the mental fortitude and level of concentration your highly rational arguments have so easily deserved in response.
I can offer a generic assertion: a person can not be atheistic and honestly believe they have an "immortal soul".
That does not mean theism encompasses all spiritual matters.. Which is my point, Atheism is simply an answer for one specific spiritual question.
To me, it does mean Atheism is all-encompassing. Spirituality is, IMO, the construct of an intelligent species' attempt to explain natural and psychological phenomena for which it has no immediate logical explanation for, and which direct (non-mathematical) observation can not.
An obvious example: early paganism. No Gaea, no totemic animals, no legends... simply a belief that a person's immediate surroundings is "holy" because it defies an explanation that is rational.
I can't really tell... but I hope I've given an adequate answer to some of your questions. I would like to know more of what you mean by "Asymmetry"
And now I've had my first yawn... that's always a good sign.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)