If you're an atheist...
Posted on: February 7, 2011 - 7:01am
Offline
If you're an atheist...
If you're an atheist, then I can only reasonably assume that you:
- Do not believe nor partake in organized religion.
- Do not believe in life after death.
- Do not believe in a single greater, divine being.
- Do not believe in "destiny" that is forged and controlled by "God."
- Do not enjoy extremism in any religious group because you think their idea is farce.
- Do not believe in the paranormal, or supernatural.
- Disagree with extreme beliefs at all.
However, let me pose a few ideas that I want you to ponder and respond to, with respect to the order I made my assumptions:
- If you don't believe or partake in organized religion, then why do you believe and partake in organized atheism? Would that not make it an organized religion? The belief of non-believing
- No life after death? Okay, I will give you that... but only if you have somehow died and came back to life and told us what happened.
- I can understand that you don't believe in a single (or multiple) greater divine being(s). However, I can tell you that God, whether God is a tangible figure or a farce concept is still an idea that, when spoken on behalf of mankind, has hugely influenced our behavioral evolution since we first organized. From Christian to Atheist, both of you still believe in such an IDEA. It's like saying gnomes are a pagan myth... but they're still an idea.
- I'll give you that one. Quantum mechanical speaking, if there exists two possibilities, then not only are either of them possible (true), but both of them are possible (true). Same goes with destiny. Do I need to repeat myself? Atheism and theism, today, are both as extreme as one another.
- I'll give you that one, again. But I do wonder - what is paranormal? Supernatural? Have we really even come close to explaining the reasons for supernatural situations? One theory, I've heard, is that supernatural occurrences, such as the unknown feelings of fear, your hair standing on end, manifestations of a spirit, or hearing voices saying certain things, are actually random accumulations of energy passing in and out of wormholes at infinite speeds and thus psychologically and physiologically affecting our perception of reality. Pretty neat, huh? But it makes you wonder why that happens... Food for thought!
- I don't need to even say anything about this. Why should one even "rationally" consider being an atheist? Atheists believe they're thinking "rationally" and theists believe they're thinking "rationally." Both ideas are "rationally" considered. If you think one is more rational than the other then wouldn't you be something of an extremist?
Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.
- Login to post comments
Atheism is simply a state of not taking a particular set of ideas seriously as describing some aspect of reality, while still fully acknowledging their existence as concepts. Hardly 'extremist', since it is based on the absence of any evidence that they do correspond to anything more than particular ways of imaging the nature of existence, like any of the rest of the multitude of narratives and myths we create.
Acting as though Harry Potter or God actually existed would be arguably the extreme position.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Would you consider that a personal interpretation of atheism? Or, for all intensive purpose, a "sect" of atheism?
Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.
An idea and its actual manifestation are somewhat different. I think that one would be hard-pressed to equate having knowledge of an idea with belief. Believing something implies hold it to be true...and I don't believe that the idea of gnomes is "true" in the same manner of speaking as I would say about a dog or gravity. For this reason, I think you are making a category mistake. But yes, I am aware of the idea of god and gnomes too.
Things that are paranormal are not necessarily supernatural... I'll make that distinction first. Insofar as the non-supernatural paranormal phenomenon are concerned, they are conceivably possible, but lack credible evidence for such phenomenon, (ie aliens, ufo's etc.) Now without any credible evidence for such things, I will withhold beliefs...
Believing something is true and having good reason to do so would be considered rational belief. Insofar as atheists are concerned, generally speaking, don't see and good reason to believe theism and may have good reason not to believe theism.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Idea versus belief - I don't think I explained myself well enough. I understand that ideas and manifestations are different things, and I may be making a category mistake but my point still stands. An idea is a conception that results from a mental understanding, awareness, or activity. Having said that, God is an idea in both a theist's or atheists mind. Whether or not we choose to believe the idea is irrelevant; the point I'm making is that the idea still exists whether we want it to or not and it still holds such terrible influence on humans.
Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.
Yeah....having an idea doesn't equate belief...that's all I'm saying. Other than that, I don't think what you are saying is that novel.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
If you want to lose your stereotypes, not just of atheists, but of any label, understand that HUMANS are social creatures. Just as there can be right wing Christians and liberal Christians, there can be republican voting atheists and liberal atheists. But "athiest" by itself as a word does not have "sects" anymore than not collecting stamps has sects.
All atheists share the position of not holding a belief in a god or gods, but that is the only thing we have in common. We can be just as diverse in our politics and economic status as any other label. Any difference we have does not mean that the word "atheist" can be split up into sects.
I would suggest that you, stop lumping ANY group of people into "sects" and look at every human as an individual.
Labels are shortcuts we make in human language but they hardly describe the subtleties and range of positions on specific subject matters an individual may hold.
The only thing all people who hold the label "atheist" have in common is lack of belief in god or gods.
What you are doing is attempting to accuse an empty glass having the ability to be segmented.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I partake in organized atheism because of the fact that while I deny that god is real, it is obvious that religion is very real. Religion is still attempting to force it's archaic ideas into law and into much of our ways of life. Therefore, I personally contribute to organized atheism because I wish to let the masses of doubters out there know that they are not alone. As someone who was once religious, I can personally attest that religion was VERY detrimental to my life and the lives of many others around me. I don't care if people wish to believe in religion, but I do care when city councilmen in my city try to FORCE Biblical based agendas upon me. I do care about creationists wishing to interject their bunk science into the classrooms. I do care about so-called "moral" agendas that are nothing more than fundamentalists hiding behind political stages.
Until science can provide some sort of authentic evidence for what occurs after a person's brain is dead, I see no reason to buy into claims of the afterlife since no one has actually been there yet. Absence of evidence of the afterlife, does not mean that we should automatically believe that there must be something there.
And we are understanding more about where that idea came from. Delve over into the anthropology, neuroscience, psychology, and evolutionary biology to just name a few. Simple because primitive man had an idea to answer his questions of uncertainty does not mean that we should keep feeding that delusion if we understand it's true meaning. People once believed that disease was the wrath of god, we know better now. As man becomes more intelligent of the world around him, the less the need for ideas of intangible gods. Many years ago, people thought the rains and the storms were the work of gods, today we know better.
Actually, after a life time of being deeply religious and a lifetime of searching for some sort of spiritual realm, I came to the conclusion that nothing exists. Am I something of an extremist ? Well, you don't see me knocking on people's doors and asking them if they have heard the good news that there is no god.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
When responding to individual posters, click on the quote button at the bottom of their quote and it will bring up a copy of their last reply to you. Then you have the option of breaking the post up and replying, like I did above, or in simply replying to the comment on a general basis. See this thread for how to use the quote function :
THE THREAD ON HOW TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION
It will make your threads and replies flow alot smoother.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Direct, absolute, and personal knowledge are not required to come to a logical conclusion. Demanding absolute knowledge is just more metaphysical conversation tanking.
We come to conclusions using the best information we have available.
This is a social group centered around a theme of topics.
We aren't here to worship the fact that we don't believe in something which makes no sense to believe in. We are here to talk about topics surrounding god belief.
Again, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby - obviously.
Correct. Note, though, that these don't all define atheism or follow directly from the definition. I just agree with them.
It's also because those beliefs tend to influence their actions.
Might depend on how you define "extreme." Some might argue that moral subjectivism is extreme.
Depends on how you define religion.
No evidence for any afterlife and inductive evidence from biology, neuroscience, etc. It would be irrational to believe in any afterlife.
Of course, it's a powerful meme. Doesn't mean God exists.
This again? Referring to concepts in QM is complete bullshit. Probability distributions do not apply at the macro level.
If something supernatural could be explained, then it wouldn't be supernatural.
Define "extremist."
Believing that you're thinking rationally does not equate to actually thinking rationally. Atheism and theism are a dichotomy. Ergo, only one can and must be supported by the evidence or lack thereof and only the people in that group can be completely rational.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
You're creating a strawman.
One is born without any 'consideration' or 'assumptions'.
One is an 'atheist', at birth, by default.
One can 'consider' being something other, depending on their thoughts, and outside influence on their thought patterns.
In context of religion, theists are not being rational to arrive that their conclusions are reality, or absolutely correct. Which is why there have been so many completely different legends and folklores of everything ranging from gods, to sea monsters, to unicorns, to flying fire breathing dragons, to Yeti, to lost cities like Atlantis, and so on.
The christian god and jesus are no more than simply mythology, despite the personal assurance and insistence of 'christians.
Circular reasoning is not considered an astute method of 'rationalizing' what otherwise does not appear to be reality.
No.
That would be a pejorative.
If you want to term being completely correct, as 'extremist', you'd have an agenda you're pursuing.
Right about now, I'd be checking your IP address if I was an admin.
Your posts are very similar to a certain r2thomas character that recently trolled this forum...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I think it's funny how people who come to a website and claim to be 'rational' on certain subjects immediately go in for the kill when they see something they find inferior or wrong. Which, in my personal opinion, isn't a very 'rational' response at all... but who am I to judge? Nobody, I suppose. Seems like Rednef is a popular cat, though.
Anyway! Please, continue.
I know some of you guys noticed that I'm a newcomer, and I remember talking about "Possibilianism" in my other threads that I just wanted to introduce myself in. Some of you asked me to elaborate on Possibilianism. Well here are a few information sites:
http://www.possibilian.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism (gotta throw in Wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_(book) (Sum seems like a good book. I've never read the actual book but I've followed some Eagleman. If anyone has read it, let me know how it is.)
Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.
Well me personally, I can't speak for everyone else, it is really never my intention to "go in for a kill" when I am responding. Now granted, these are words on a screen and I often forget that people can not always read the emotion behind each letter (with the exception of injected smiley expressions and such).
Although I have to admit that I personally enjoy debating and discussing religion. I live in the Bible Belt, where religion is very present in public life and in legislature, and I am an open Atheist here. It is a price I pay that I have to constantly defend myself and debate, but it is something that I choose to do because I believe that Atheism should have an open presence more often. I have to drive by hundreds of biblical billboards in this city for instance, so I think they can tolerate a few Atheists whom are out in the open. I am not complaining, this is almost like something that I have designated as one of my life's passions.
That having been said, I am used to co-workers, neighbors and ohers constantly trying to throw questions and assertions at me that they feel will stump me. So I am always posed to give answers to what I read and hear. This is not really what I feel as an attack or going after someone so much as responding to whatever issue is at hand.
The whole purpose of a discussion is not so much to WIN as it is to exchange ideas in my opinion.
Having been an ultra-religious person for a lot of years, I do have a tendency to react strongly against religion. But that is not meant as a personal attack upon the individual so much as a counter to their claims.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I fail to see how this is novel in any way. Except that he misinterprets the term agnostic as:
What he is describing is the agnostic atheist position that we are taking, only with a Scientology cult feel to it:
I believe that 'holding multiple ideas in mind' is a perfect segue for 'send me all your money in unmarked small bills'.
As for us jumping, believe it or not, that's how you get educated around here most of the time. If you have a fragile ego, this is probably the wrong forum for you.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Then, your personal opinion is wrong, and you don't even understand what "rational" mean.
Ah, so it's not pseudoscience or some New Age thing, ostensibly. That's good. Technically, I would be a "possibilian" based on the definition that is given. I find it to be a rather clumsy term though; I would still prefer "skeptic" or even "wonderist."
I'm not sure about this part:
?
If one story is supported by the evidence, then that would be the reasonable position to hold. Asserting that one is not "interested" in it sounds stupid.
Perhaps I should give it the benefit of the doubt. It could simply mean that it has no agenda and evaluates claims objectively. Since the evidence is insufficient to make a conclusion, it considers many different "stories" to be possible.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That's funny...
Your hyperbole of 'go in for the kill' indicates insecurity. Which is probably at the root of all your claimed 'searching' through various religions, looking for.......ummmm.....answers.
Explain where you believe you've seen 'irrational' responses to your posts.
Here's a little help with some dictionary definitions of what is 'irrational'.
ir·ra·tion·al
–adjective
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
************
1. inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd
2. incapable of reasoning
3. maths
a. not rational
b. ( as noun ): an irrational
Ok, now, demonstrate irrational responses to you....
Nobody special.
But you're free to do so.
But making false allegations, usually does not work in one's favor, in a community.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
That seems to be a slight variation of agnosticism in so many ways. Interesting.
However, I see no real reason to entertain the idea of any sort of deity existing.
While alot of people tell me that god exists outside of space, time, human logic, human thought processes, etc. I personally see no reason to give that notion any credence. If something like that were to exist, then all human conceptions would be completely and totally off base due to the fact that something like that would be completely and totally alien to us.
Even if science could delve to the deepest regions of the universe and find some sort of creative force (highly unlikely in my opinion) it most certainly would not be Yahweh or Allah.
Therefore, I choose to stick to my position that god does not exist.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Rednef, you're a treat.
What do you base your opinions on? On anything, not just me.
I can understand how agnosticism and Possibilianism are pretty much the same thing. I suppose Eagleman is just trying to put a word to a form of agnosticism that a lot of people can't really identify with. I want to read Sum. I don't know if its going to be an interesting book, but he speaks well enough that I could assume he would be able to write clearly. Here's hoping.
Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.
I love science fiction, and he sounds like someone intelligent enough to write an interesting book. As long as he's not another L Ron Hubbard, and not promoting a 'new' school of fought because he finds agnosticism to be 'uninteresting'. I have no problem with new ideas as long as they are labeled properly, in this case, a work of fiction.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Why are you turning the focus on me continually?
Can't debate me?
Or are you just here to waste bandwidth with ad hominems?
That's not the way to game works.
You've made some serious allegations, and I called you on them.
You don't come into a forum and start calling people irrational, and not want to make a point.
Make your point, if you think you've got one to make.
Don't be a pvssy.
Stop running your mouth, if you haven't got the balls to back up your b1tchtalk.
That's the way the game works.
Man up, boy.
Show us what you've got...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I really enjoy getting a rise out of people. It's fun; I like to the stir the pot, but it seems like you're a boiling hot mess though so I should watch out for you, shouldn't I?
Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.
You're being passive aggressive.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I'm a veteran of forums and forum debates. I can smell the stink of a troll as soon as they open their pie hole.
Why would I be upset?
I ain't the one who's a pvssy with comprehension problems...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
A veteran of forum debates. Hm, that's intimidating, I admit.
Rise to the challenge, troll...
Man up.
Might be time to use a dictionary
So I am guessing you have some one that has risen from the dead, a tangible person mind you that could tell us what happened because you seem to be basing your faith off that or at leas a part of it.
WTF I don’t want some one I didn’t vote for talking on my behalf, some one that dose not share many of my views of life. That is just what the English tried to do during the revolutionary war saying that America was virtually represented. And look were that got them, I just hope are separation from religion comes even faster.
How many times have you heard of some one killing in the name of atheism.....? just a thought
Lol, no because I can tell you for a fact that god dose not exist, and I do not have to prove anything to that point. It is you that has to show the proof that he dose exist. The same principle goes for are justice system you cant be guilty till proven guilty, unless your one of those few people that get screwed by the justice system. God cant be real till proven real.
Believe in Thor it's HAMMER TIME!
I do go for the kill right off the bat and I don't see how you think that is irrational.
I see no point when someone ON ANY ISSUE, not just religion, to dance around a claim, when you've asked to look under the hood, and they don't even have a car to look under the hood with.
Your attitude is the same as the guy with the card table on the street corner on the Vegas strip daring you to bet which cup the ball is under and you say, "I'm not going to take that bet because it is slight of hand",
You're the guy running the scam saying, "You calling me a liar?"
The willingness to blindly swallow something, ANYTHING, is why the WWE was once fervently defended as being a real sport rather than staged acting.
I know the starting point of all god believers and I know their end game. Their problem is that they start with a naked assertion and end with a naked assertion. The elaborate crap between doesn't change that their house is built quicksand.
There is no such thing as the super natural. Just as there is no such thing as Big Foot or Loc Ness Monster. There are merely people who swallow something because they want to believe it badly enough, their desire to want it to be true overrides the pragmatism of testing to insure quality of data.
Ockham's razor can be summed up with an old saying, "KISS" "Keep it simple stupid"
I skip the convoluted claptrap and get them to start at their foundation(starting point) and don't let them put the cart before the horse.
The shortest distance between point a and point b is a straight line.
I see no point in dancing down the Yellow Brick road when the believer hasn't a lick of evidence that a cosmic Oz is even a possibility. BY ANY NAME.
The fact is people fall for false beliefs and superstitions like Horriscopes and Ouija Boards, for the same reason people believe in Allah and Vishnu. Not because a god is real, but because they want a god to be real. If you want to believe something badly enough, you will. That doesn't make it true merely because you believe it so passionately.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I was beginning to wonder this myself....
and RThomas2 as well....
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Are you stirring the pot because you have an actual claim or point that you would like to debate or are you stirring the pot simply for the sake of doing so ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Yep. He seems to have lost all sense of a coherant argument so is now just trying to get people angry to get a partial victory from that.
Ch3sty, either admit that you have nothing to add and try to make a gracious exit, or join the debate like a grown up. Trying to get people angry at you is childish - surely you have better things to do with your time?
"I like to fuck with people" is not an attitude conducive to honest debate. Especially when that attitude is made public.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Basically for fun. Brief answer but I lost my more comprehensive reply as I forgot to log in first, forgot my password etc. Whether various activities I engage in such as participating in this forum constitute religion depends on your definition of religion.
Too good to be true. Too convenient that impersonal forces would conspire to make life after death possible.
Don't see why this is significant.
I don't believe that truth always lies in the middle.
I have wondered myself what counts as supernatural and what doesn't. The theory about wormholes etc sounds as if it was made up by a nonscientist.
Everybody thinks at least provisionally that they are right and that everybody who holds a different view is wrong.