Discussions
What makes a Man an Atheist ???
Posted by thoughtfuldelights • 6/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: atheist, God
Have you ever thought how someone becomes an Atheist.??
Do Post Your Comments..!!
User Comments
-
May be their life should have made them an Atheist...!!!
-
Ignorance !-
Ignorance by the society ...right..??
-
read again.. he said Atheist.. not Theist -
When some one is ignored completely by the society he calls god....and If he Feels God has also ignored him...he becomes an atheist...!!!
-
how can he feel god ignored him if he doesn't believe in god
-
i disagree, I'm not an atheist but I don't consider atheists ignorant, I find many religious people to be be extremely ignorant and incapable of thinking for themselves
-
-
Logic and Knowledge-
aye
-
mwahahaha!
I trust you haven't read Aristotle's 14 books of metaphysics, the term of which is the discovery of a First Being (what religious traditions call "God")- the nature of which the neuron can say nothing? Or maybe you have, and can offer some criticism?
Oh, and the logic you speak of was also entirely laid down by Aristotle - in the Organon ("the tool"). As it deals with universals (realities in their abstract mode), logic can say nothing of Being and even less of a First Being.
Atheists are intellectual slackards.
Those with a religious belief are mostly intellectual slackards too, being the fideists that they are, but at least they aren't First Being deniers.
Can we get this straight once and for all? -
BORING
Do you have these replies ready pasted onto your clipboard or do you bother to type out the exact same responses every single time? -
You would find the summit of all human thought boring.
-
Good point Harvey. I've never seen a convincing argument against the Original Being (πρῶτον κινοῦν). The only person that I think came close is Bertrand Russell in Why I am Not a Christian, but all he really succeeded in showing is that the Prime Mover need not necessarily have create the universe at the beginning of what we perceive as history. -
I find you bringing up Aristotle everytime there is a discussion and you behaving as if his word is law quite boring. Read another book, will you?
-
Indeed, I suggest harveyavatar reads something newer than Aristotle or the Bible. Their ideas are all based in what Derrida calls "the metaphysics of presense", the desperate need for something stable that never changes (God or something else). There is whole bunch of philosophers and scientists who proposes a world of endless variation and change (Darwin, Nietzsche, Bergson, Whitehead and Deleuze are my favourites). Sure, they can all be accused for still using some basic static term but I guess that the main problem for us to understand the changes in the world is our habit of representation as Bergson said. We need some static units (God in this case) to create our order, but this is an illusion of our own mind. The transcendent Biblical God is dead (or rather s(he) has never existed), but it is more problematic to dismiss the Spinozan immanent God. -
While I agree that Spinoza makes many compelling points about pantheism, it is hubris to assume that this particular brand of religion or is somehow superior or more scientific than the "transcendental God of the Bible" or any other religion including atheism or the flying spaghetti monster for that matter.
You want to talk about boring then lets talk about Derrida! At least Aristotle made a positive contribution to philosophy, although I think philosophy has been nothing but treading water since Socrates said "All I know is that I know nothing." Or as Wittgenstein put it, "Of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent." -
Sure, we are treading water, if you are one of the first to think about these matters (such as Socrates), you will be a canon for everyone else following him. Yes, Derrida is boring but at least he is right in that religion and science relies on the metaphysics of presense (being rather than becoming).
You seem to have a lot of things to say about "of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent." Is not that a contradiction?That argument is wrong (but, hey, it is just another Wittgensteinian language game). It assumes that there are things we cannot know about (God I guess), but how can you be sure we cannot know there is no god? It is because our habits of representation constraints our mind, no divine god putting a veil in front of our sight or whatever you believe in. -
@Diabolocomix,
Aristotle's followers weren't exactly up to the master. In fact, most translations of his first philosophy have a few serious mistakes in them. The one's who have understood him fully have been able to take him further. Covered by layer upon layer of ideologies, the task of taking up a brute metaphyisical thought is nothing less than arduous: beingandquirckiness.blogspot.com/2009/01/regarding-metaphysics.html
@Haecceities,
By putting the Bible and First philosophy in the same sentence you are comparing something that is of the order of faith to something that is of the order of human pagan reason.
Further, Being is neither historic nor contemporary, neither to the left nor to the right, neither concrete nor abstract: it is.
Regarding the "need" to find something stable (substance-principle), if I observe you think, this implies becoming since as soon as you harbor a thought, you think of something else, and yet you have not changed; becoming does not fundamentallyu alter your being: you are, even if you are permanently becoming. If you do not see that, you will permanently remain mired in logic and language, and your intelligence will never attain WHAT IS.
@SiulaRiun,
Having denied that the neuron can climb up to a First being, I assumed you could at least criticize the father of First philosophy. Fruit of our experience, realistic thought belongs to no one in particular though, so there is no need to quote the Philospher if you have truly understood him. -
You shoud take a look at the Tractatus, Haecc. Far from playing mere language games, Wittgenstein makes a systematic study of all things that can be axiomatically known. Or perhaps I should say that to understand Wittgenstein is to realize that the summit of all philosophy is language games-- ie, knowledge as truth-statements that are only meaningful in relation to other statements. Thus when it comes to questions of beauty, ethics and religion (ie the trancendant), we are left only to the subjective or aesthetic. And "on that which we cannot speak we must remain silent," is not a contradiction at all, but actually a truism unless we want to sound like a blundering fool. Indeed, Wittgenstein didn't come up with this proposition himself but rather it is a loose translation of an old German expression that essentially means "if you don't know what you're talking about then do us and yourself a favor by shutting up."
You may not like the transcendental, Haecc, but this is an aesthetic choice of yours, as the transcendant always is. So you can choose not to acknowledge it or to malign the transcendental, but this cannot diminish the practical effect the transcendental has for a true believer.
Also, I don't really see a difference between a metaphysics of becoming vs metaphysics of presence. How is this distinction not tautaulogical to the point of uselessness? I'm afraid emperor derrida has no clothes. -
the word Knowledge in Hinduism = Jnana, knowledge of Self, one's true identity the divinity at the core of ones being and the same as everyone else's core. So I'll disagree on that word. Maybe logic, but I'm not a mathamatician. There could be a better word than knowledge
-
-
Reoccurring religious threads in forums seems to do it all the time.-
hahaha!
-
you mean 'cause THAT side wins? -
It does tend to turn one off, doesn't it? -
But the Pentalelephantogram has all the answers! You just don't want to believe! -
that's funny, but I disagree, that would just turn someone into a maniac
-
-
Finding out god is a woman.-
I won't agree with that completely...
men also finds god..:) -
she is to some, the Divine Mother
-
-
The same thing that makes a woman an atheist... common sense and emotional maturity.-
I can't say an answer..!!!
-
I almost felt like making a similarly snappy answer based on the gender lingustics. Sometimes I love how common English usage ("man" to mean all people but also being the male gender identity) sets up its own potshots when people say things like this.
From my observations of the atheist community on Mill Ave, there is no gender bias between the reasons why males and females become atheist. Although the street preachers like to make rude comments to their community that it's mostly the boys who speak with them -- it seems to be a cultural problem for them as they sometimes snipe about that while facing down a crowd of girls (focusing only on the boys in the group, no matter how vocal the girls are.) -
not sure if it's emotional maturity, I met a women once who was very mature emotionally and she was religious... each day she would religiously make me breakfast in bed
-
-
Theism results in a-theism. If there were no theists making their ridiculous claims, there would be no theism to be a-theistic about.-
morg, I will be sending you copies of Wathchtower
-
-
Rational thinking. Not believing in an imaginary being.-
Agreed.
But what about the personal experiences that one cannot explain by rational thinking ?? and what about the senses which has a greater power than rational thinking ?? -
Yes. Whatever happened to the senses in the midst of all this faith and logic talk? -
These experiences that one cannot explain are "unknowns." But many people are afraid and uncomfortable with "unknowns" and therefore replace them with "god did it."
-
I imagine lots of beings, why couldn't one of my imaginary friends be God
-
-
Choice. It's a decision one makes whether to believe in God or not.
-
it's not a choice, it's written in your palm, my palmist told me to be a Buddhist and my tarot reader agreed. So I'm going to shave my little panda head
-
-
Some people are more logic-driven than anything else. It is, for those people, a hard concept to grasp that a higher power exists when they may have never seen sound proof of this power. Just "beleiving" has it's benefits for some people, and for some it makes no sense to. I think either should be respected.-
Well said!
Obviously there are some atheists who think very deeply on the subject and some who don't. I think some atheists whose concept of religion is only a superficial caricature derived from its negative aspects and perversions. Consequently they don't really understand some of the deeper, more sophisticated aspects of spiritual thinking.
Logic may or may not be a deciding factor, but sometimes atheism is just a visceral reaction. And I'll tell you this: Some of the shoddiest logic I've seen on these forums has come from atheists' arguments. -
diabolicomix: How true!!
-
Definitely agreed. Balence in all things. I mean, educating yourself on the topic whether you choose athiesm or religion or spirituality... Following anything blindly is ignorant.
-
There may be higher powers out there such as advanced civilizations. I believe everything that exists on Earth can be explained without a belief in God. Buddha believed that worrying about the going on in heaven was a waste of time. What did Bronze Age savages know about the creation of the universe?
A lot of people buy into religion because they think they will get the big pay off, everlasting life. I think when you die, that's it. -
God can't be grasped by logic. You need a different object. Jesus used fishing nets and Krishna was loved a cow herders, the Gopis. The new Godman could us anything.
-
-
George W. Bush representing the alternative, perhaps?
-
i'm not sure who's side he is on
-
-
Going to a religous school as a kid.-
yes, there were pedophiles at my Catholic school and church
-
-
Have you ever thought how someone becomes an Atheist.?
It would appear that we are all born atheists. Yes, every baby is born in a wonderful and blissful state of freedom from religion.
It's our parents and other adults authority figures who brainwash and school us in the required dogma, doctrine, rites and rituals of any religion, just like they fill our heads with stories of tooth fairies, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns or other imaginary beings.-
-
Debates between atheists and religious scholars are interesting, but ultimately few minds are changed. On this forum I think we experience some fundamentalists who have have proudly embraced blind faith and exemplify blindness to their own true nature and their egocentricity.
- Egocentricity may be defined as a state in which a person is concerned with his own defense and the fulfillment of his own ambitions, which ambition, on close scrutiny, turn out to be closely tied to his defenses.”
The import of this is simple. A man is inducted into a religion from birth or at any point in his lifetime. Through the practice of that religion, he is told he can reach to God. He is told that there are certain things he must do to maintain his acceptance as a follower. He might be indoctrinated, he might not be. But now he has a defense and an ambition.
His defense consists of his religion, that this is authentic manner to get to God, because the authenticity of the claim is narrated through tales and books he believes in. his ambition is to become a true follower of that religion, to leave nothing left in becoming an acclaimed follower of his God. And so, he is concerned (this concern varies in people) with that defense and the fulfillment of that ambition. -- John Sanford and George Lough
Open mindedness and egocentricity are diametrically opposed and the degree of egocentricity exhibited hinges on amount of invested interest which is a function of degree of emotion invested. Egocentricity is only the foundation assuming “we feel” confident about an area, or “we feel” proud, passionate, etc, as well as the degree of conviction and unwillingness to yield as discussion branches out.
A belief is not an idea held by the mind; it is an idea that holds the mind. We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are.
The fundamentaliss we experience spouting scripture at us have an agenda which they have made a deep emotional commitment to. It's called The Great Commission ((Matthew 28:18-20), and they use it as their defense for continually pestering and provoking others, who have already rejected the "message" that they keep broadcasting over and over like clanging cymbals.
IMHO a person who has been brainwashed with religion as a child can only come in full circle to becoming as free from religion as they were at birth when they stop cogitating, learn how to meditate and experience their true nature. -
i take great offence to you talking about my imaginary friends like that.
I am a descendant of the blue people
-
-
common sense
-
given the low number of atheists, common sense isn't so common after all.
-
Hmm, that sounds oxymoronic, morgan. Maybe a more logical conclusion would be that having common sense does not necessarily make one an atheist?
-
Common sense is the opposite of science. Common sense says that the Earth is flat rather than round. Therefore "common sense" is not an appropriate argument for atheism.
-
I couldn't disagree more. As I've said elsewhere before, science is nothing less than formalized common sense. To say that common sense tells us that the Earth is flat is only partially correct. Common sense tells us that we do not know anything that we have data to verify. Our limited experiences may lead to the conclusion that the Earth is flat for limited purposes, but with sufficient data that the Earth is round is undeniable.
Furthermore, just as the proposition that the Earth is round is not at odds with common sense, neither is religion. When a person has a strong mystical experience, say a vision or a powerful feeling that God is present, this is in effect a very strong piece of data that says something about the world, and common sense demands that certain conclusions be reached in consideration of that data, ie that God exists. -
@Haecceities
//Common sense says that the Earth is flat rather than round//
how so? the ground itself isn't always flat.. with highs and lows and plataus and what not.. also, have you ever been to the shore and looked at ships sailing away? how they disappear bit by bit from your line of sight.
@diabolicomix
//Furthermore, just as the proposition that the Earth is round is not at odds with common sense, neither is religion. When a person has a strong mystical experience, say a vision or a powerful feeling that God is present, this is in effect a very strong piece of data that says something about the world, and common sense demands that certain conclusions be reached in consideration of that data, ie that God exists.//
you gain the same experience with LSD/Marijuana etc.. -
Of course, I know the earth is round but that is basically from my experience from literature, being on ships and so on. What I meant is that there is no pure "common sense". It is always mixed with earlier experience. A religious person's "common sense" will be different than mine. There is no direct evidence at the place where you currently sit, in front of the screen I assume, that the Earth is round. Looking out of the window it will not appear like a sphere, it will be far flatter (never mind hills, mountains, etc). Now, an ancient farmer would, based on his common sense, claim that the Earth is flat, a contemporary farmer would perhaps claim that it is round, also based on his common sense but with a great deal of school education as well.
-
common sense has nothing to do with religion or God, I know idiots with opposing views on God
-
-
Lack of faith in a higher power.-
Best.Answer.Yet.
-
*bows*
-
-
I became an atheist when I stopped believing in fairy tales. Oh, that and the lack of faith in a higher power as anticsrocks suggests. That'll do it every time.
-
Um, you're born an Atheist. Well, actually no, everyone is born agnostic. It's only after years and years of indoctrination that people 'choose' to become religious fanatics.
If you were to raise a child without ever telling it about god or religion and then one day when it's about 18 years old you tell him about how god is his leader and he should follow the bible. He will laugh in your face. -
Atheists and Theists are the same. Neither can deal with uncertainties.
The Atheist says there is NOTHING! Zilch!
The Theist says this is MY God! The rest? Bullshit!
Only the Agnostic is willing to live with uncertainty. Open to curiosity. "What if..." "Well, maybe...?" "hmm...could be..."-
Not really. A Theist has their religion to account for things they don't understand. Things such as the sky (which they used to believe was heaven).
An atheist simply says, there is no god, period. Doesn't mean they suddenly ignore everything they don't understand. They simply don't care. -
agree with tiger..
Theism and Atheism is a matter of belief.. Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge..
Atheists, do not "believe" in a God(more precisely, a personal God), and rightly so, because there is no proof for the existence of such a God(personal God)
In Logic and science, the Burden of Proof is always on those who make the claim.. The Theists make the claim of "God" and until they can prove it with reason, logic, facts, evidence.. there is no reason for Atheists to believe in the claim. -
I used to be certain of uncertainty, but now I'm not so certain.
-
@dsriharsha
You contradict yourself my friend. On the one hand you acknowledge atheism is a matter of belief, and that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. But just as the burden of proof is on a theist to show that there is a God, likewise the burden of proof is on the atheist to show the nonexistence of God.
So in the end, regardless of what you think about the various arguments for theism, it is the atheist who really has an insurmountable hurdle of proving a negative, which is really impossible scientifically speaking. -
@diabolicomix
Yes, atheism is a matter of belief, a lack of belief
the Burden of proof is on he who makes the claim..
It's the theists who first made the claim of the existence of a God. If it weren't for the claim, there wouldn't have to be the atheists' response of there not being a God until proven..
Taking the same Russel's teapot argument, the burden of proof is on Russel who made the extraordinary claim, to prove himself.. it is not on you or me who do not believe in him. -
If I was to make a claim that there is no celestial teapot then I would bear a burden of proof, and a heavy one indeed. That's why I publicly make no such claim.
The teapot argument is a good case for agnosticism, but in taking it a step farther and affirming atheism the same burden that falls upon the theist falls upon the atheist. -
//Burden of Proof:
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).
//
now,
//If I was to make a claim that there is no celestial teapot then I would bear a burden of proof, and a heavy one indeed. That's why I publicly make no such claim.
//
not necessarily.. because it wasn't you who introduced the concept or made the claim.. it was Bertrand Russell.. so it is his prerogative. There is no truth to the existence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it.
//The teapot argument is a good case for agnosticism, but in taking it a step farther and affirming atheism the same burden that falls upon the theist falls upon the atheist.//
each and everyone is an atheist when born. No one is born making claims of "God". It is when you grow a bit, your teachers, parents, elders make this claim about there being a God. You make no such claim yet because you are alien to this concept yet. Now, it is the burden of those who made this claim to prove it.. until then, to this person, there exists no God and he need not carry the burden to prove. -
People have been saying this thing a lot, that everyone is an atheist when they are born, but I see that as far from self evident. A person is an agnostic at birth, neither believing in the existence of God or the non existence of God.
I certainly never said that theism is proven because atheism cannot be proven. Rather I draw from this a very simply tautology, that atheism cannot be proven and therefore it isn't proven.
You say, "There is no truth to the existence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it." I don't know what to make of this in the context of your overall argument. Consider: There is no truth to the nonexistence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it.
Essentially, I would argue the default state of a person is agnosticism, and one must meet a burden of proof in order to push oneself toward either theism or atheism. The theist has one very real advantage over the atheist, however. Subjective experience is very strong evidence to meet the burden of proof for theism relative to oneself, although this may or may not be transferrable to others (this is much like the question of the existence of other minds -- how do I know that I am interacting with other people who think rather than just mindless zombies?). Intuition does not serve as such strong evidence for atheism -
//People have been saying this thing a lot, that everyone is an atheist when they are born, but I see that as far from self evident. A person is an agnostic at birth, neither believing in the existence of God or the non existence of God.//
"In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities"
Atheism is a lack/absence of belief in God. Of course everyone is born without a belief in God. so everyone is born an atheist.
//I certainly never said that theism is proven because atheism cannot be proven. Rather I draw from this a very simply tautology, that atheism cannot be proven and therefore it isn't proven.
//
Yes.. you never said theism is proven.. I am merely saying atheists need not have the burden of proving the non existence of an Imaginary being because they weren't the ones who made the claim first.
//You say, "There is no truth to the existence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it." I don't know what to make of this in the context of your overall argument.//
The context is that you made a statement saying that burden of proof is also on the atheists to prove the non existence of God, which I said is not necessary.
//Consider: There is no truth to the nonexistence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it//
If the person is both introducing the concept as well as saying it doesn't exist.. he is contradicting himself.. what do I have to consider in this? -
People are born with a lack of belief in God and a lack of belief in the non existence of God. This is agnosticism, not atheism.
You say "atheists need not have the burden of proving the non existence of an Imaginary being because they weren't the ones who made the claim first."
True, but they do carry the burden of proof for their affirmative belief in the non-existence of a particular being. This is not to say it is necessarily insurmountable, but this depends on the criteria one sets for meeting the burden of proof.
If your threshold is low enough then circumstantial evidence can be enough to "prove" certain scenarios are true or false, but when we talk about proof we are generally talking about 100% certainty. Atheism can never be proven with 100% accuracy, whereas theism can by appeal to subjective experience. I would venture to say that direct experience is the only way to prove anything, and how can one have a direct experience of the nonexistence of something?
//Consider: There is no truth to the nonexistence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it//
If the person is both introducing the concept as well as saying it doesn't exist.. he is contradicting himself.. what do I have to consider in this?
Allow me to explain. The above statement is the logical corollary to your earlier statement that "There is no truth to the existence of the teapot until he who introduced the teapot proves it."
-
-
Reason!
The opposite question of course is: what made man a theist? answer: ignorance, or weakness.
Believe is a good thing for personal life, because it really can make you feel save but, this doesn't mean it is TRUE.-
Again, faith does not consist in believing in the existence of "God", but in believing in what it "reveals" to one or the other of what the "immobile motor" is all about. Hence, the religious dimension of man (etymologically, what unites all men) is not grounded in a revelation whatsoever but inheres to human nature, since pagan intelligence can climb up to what antique pagan metaphysics names the First being.
-
@harvey
in simple english please.. -
@dsriharsha,
It couldn't be more simple English. -
I'm with Harsha...that might have been the most confused paragraph I've ever read!
-
But where does fire come from?
And how can it be real if it has no smell? -
@Siul,
This is because you have blown your last neuron. Which logically implies it is no use carrying on a discussion with you. This is something Aristotle suggests. What a man! -
blown my last neuron? ok...
-
-
A better questions is why people care so much what others believe? Isn't it enough to just let people be who they are and not worry if they believe the same thing you do? As long as someone's beliefs don't hinder the rights of another person then that should be enough.-
Culturally, a great deal of dogmatic religions have tenets designed to spread them. If a person belongs to a religion that has a dogmatic pressure to convert other people its adherents will care greatly what other people think/believe. Especially those dogmas that posit that those who don't belong to the same religion are dangerous or doomed.
Psycologically, people like to be validated in their beliefs and are very social about this. They seek out peer groups who think similarly to them; this makes the beliefs of others extremely important. The more fundamental the disagreement the more uncomfortable people are with others' beliefs. It's an in-group, out-group type of behavior and oftentimes seems to be pent up in a sort of tribal thinking.
-
-
at one time I considered myself atheist. As I searched I moved towards an agnostic belief. As I went through life and had experiences that were profoundly coincidental I started to believe their may be something more and greater than me that I am a part of.
As Look back on my journey I realized I didn't have an issue with a God. I had and have a major issue with organized religion. In order to be staunchly religious one has to suspend all faculties of reasoning.
To be atheist is to simply be on the opposite side of religion and as equally regimented. It's analogous to believing that we can put flour, water, eggs, sugar and butter next to each other and in a billion years or so it will spontaneously become cake.
To think as an atheist is not the pinnacle of intellect. it's just denying the obvious.-
Wait, I don't follow your example there. To think as an atheist is denying the obvious. The obvious being... there is a god? Or what? Cuz that's no very obvious to me.
I am an Atheist, but not part of any religion. I just firmly believe there is no god. In the very least not the kind and peace loving god everyone seems to spooge their pants for. If there is some sort of sentient being then it would be closer to a 10 year old playing The Sims on a larger scale.
I personally believe there is 'something'. I don't know what, I can't explain it, no one ever can or will explain it. It's not a sentient being, it's just there. A sort of force keeping everything in check. A sort of computer program doing only what it's meant to do and nothing else.
Whatever it is, man will never, EVER understand how the universe works or why it's there. We can simply not comprehend the complexity of such things. Our brain can not handle the idea of infinity, hence it tries to compensate. Some do that by not caring, others do that by making up a story. Unfortunately for our planet, the people making up stories have gained the upper hand. -
I think you might be a little bit too harsh there, but nevertheless it does require tremendous faith in the divinity of the Universe. Personally, I consider atheism the ultimate "worship the creature instead of the creator." (Some Bible passage, can't remember where.) They will never admit to it, of course, but they are basically putting their faith in the abillity of life and the universe to spontaneously exist. It's not denying the obvious, but there is certainly some faith involved.
For me, I know that I can never logically prove the existence of God but I also know I can never logically prove the existence of me. (Look up David Hume, atheist philosopher and the one who famously said "Do you exist?" Ironically enough, this atheist philosopher did more to defend the intellectual relevance of faith then any of the great christian philosophers like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Tolstoy.)
@TigerXTM: You're not really an atheist. -
Romans 1:25 (KJV) FYI, Jeremy
Now, I'm outta here. -
@Jerremy: I'm an atheist as far as organized religion goes.
-
Okay, but that's not what I was describing, so you're off the hook as far as idolatry of the universe goes.
-
-
I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure what makes a man a Rastafarian.
-
Believing that Haile Selassie is the messiah?
-
Yes, of course! That's it!
-
-
I'm an atheist, but I could just as well be a Muslim or a Catholic. It's a choice I make. But I can't pretend my choice is based on logic or lack of faith or even experience. I don't know why I'm an atheist, I have no good reason for it, except that I say I am. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I may be misguided about everything regarding life and the universe. That's all part of the uncertainty of being alive. I don't think decisions are ever really totally rational, there's always a fortuitous element. Every step we take in life is a leap into the dark.
-
@TigerX,
I can agree with just about everything you said. To not be a part of a religion does not make you an atheist. I am not a part of a religion either but I believe and know with every fiber of my being that there is something more than the physical me. I agree with you that the average religious persons idea of God is one that is extremely egocentric and self centered and limited. they talk as if God is just has human as anyone. If God was human then "IT" would not be God.
Your statements are very profound. You said man will never understand how the universe works. I believe that is partially true. The Universe has infinite possibilities and man tries to explain it with a finite language and a finite physical perspective. It is impossible to fit what "God" is and the universe into our limited experience. However, it is possible to connect to the magnificence of All-that-is.
@nothingprofound,
You are an atheist but not sure why? My friend I can not understand your position but I can respect it. If you are searching I can respect you more that someone that will not even entertain a question, whether they be religious or atheist.
For me it is important to understand my purpose on earth. I have been through a lot of BS in my life and I know there is a bigger reason for me to have gone through it than to simply live and then die. even before religions man believed he was more than the physical. Religions have simply twisted much of the teaching for power and control. See anything about the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
One does not have to be religious to believe and experience the power of All-that-is.To deny it is anyones choice. There is no hell or heaven for that matter. Religious fairy tales get old and unbelievable. -
The real question is what makes someone religious? The answer is we raise children to be religious.
Most religions were created before science to explain the world, the sun, the sky and the stars. Once science matured, The rationale for religion has faded.
It is interesting to see what is happening in Russia. It was an atheistic society for a long time but now religion is allowed. Only 10 per cent of the Russians have become religious.
Religion is simply not essential in a society anymore.-
"Religion is simply not essential in a society anymore."
So we don't need the civil society? No moral order? You are an anarchist I take it? Our entire country was founded on Judea-Christian beliefs. The very freedoms you enjoy as an American come from the moral order of a civil society. Read your founding fathers a bit before you make anymore asinine statements.
But I know it is more fun to make light of religion, it is much more chic to deny that there is a higher power. Don't want you to lose your liberal card. -
@anticsrocks
Our entire country was founded on Judea-Christian beliefs.
This is not true. A history lesson in the civic foundation of this nation would quickly give thee more than enough information to understand why the above statement is false. We are a secular nation who happen to have a Christian majority in our population.
The very freedoms you enjoy as an American come from the moral order of a civil society.
Yes, but it is demonstrable that being religious does not necessiarily make one more or less moral. While it is true our freedoms come from our moral and civic sense it does not follow therefore that religion gave them to us; especially because we live in a government of carefully molded secular laws.
Read your founding fathers a bit before you make anymore asinine statements.
Please do. Also please study the founding documents and pay special attention to the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution of This United States. -
@kytsune - I am sorry, but you are wrong. What do you think the term "unalienable rights" means? Those are rights given by a higher power, hence - God. So your entire rebut is prefaced in a false assumption.
-
I think thou must know better than to argue this.
References to any higher power are deliberately absent form the Constitution of this United States; also, there are no references to “unalienable rights” in it either. (I believe that thou mistake the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.) This is especially important because the Constitution of this United States assumes that rights already exist outside of any granting authority and it simply guarantees that those rights will not be violated.
Further, thou seem to have shifted the goal posts—thy original post appears to want to suggest that the United States is founded on Christian principles, yet in thy rebuttal chose not to demonstrate where the Christian religion is enumerated in our founding documents. (“Higher powers” are not unique to Christianity.) Of course, this would be difficult because the founding documents of the United States, such as the Constitution, are exemplar secular documents; a fact which thou enjoy daily through the merits of being able to express thy religion without the interference of our government.
People should really educate themselves better in the mechanism and necessity of the guaranteed rights that we enjoy. -
And the award for the most loquacious post goes to kystune. Come on man, just talking like you know what you mean doesn't make it so. And no matter how many words you use, or how many "thee's" and "thou's" you throw in won't help your position either.
By the way, YOU brought up the Constitution, not I. For the record I said that our country was founded on Judea-Christian beliefs. But let me educate you, if that is even possible.
So I quote from our Declaration of Independence -
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And the last sentence in the Declaration of Independence:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
I will now quote the Father of our Country, our first President, George Washington from his farewell address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible results....And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."
So you see when our Country was being settled, it was by people, in many cases, escaping some sort of persecution, be it financial or religious. Each colony promoted differing religions with their taxes and land grants. Many even did so after they became states, but these practices were soon abandoned. Once the states bound themselves to the Declaration, they were declaring religious liberty. It is easy to understand then, that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of political AND religious liberty.
Furthermore, I quote Edmund Burke on the transcendent moral order from his writings on the impeachment of Warren Hastings:
"There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity — the law of nature, and of nations."
So there you go kystune. Feel free to look up and check anything I just posted or quoted from. If you need help, lemme know. -
Thumbs up, anticsrocks.
(You changed your avatar while I wasn't looking.) -
*blush* I feel as if someone was watching me in the dressing room, lol. And thank you for the comment.
-
LOL
You're welcome. I appreciate your strength and intelligence. -
Ah yes, when in doubt attack the person instead of their position.
And then…
Thou really want to argue that The Declaration of Independence is a founding document even though it precedes the formation of this union and doesn’t have a stake in the construction of that union that makes up this United States (i.e. the Constitution of this United States)? -
Without the Declaration of Independence, there would have been no United States Constitution. Therefore it IS one of our founding documents. As are the Articles of Confederation, in their own way. Since all were written by our Founding Fathers, each contributes to our Country.
So let me deconstruct your rebut -
"Thou really want to argue that The Declaration of Independence is a founding document Yes it is, as anyone knows.)even though it precedes the formation of this union and doesn’t have a stake in the construction of that union that makes up this United Statescircular logic (i.e. the Constitution of this United States)?"
So my points about the Judea-Christian beliefs in the Declaration of Independence are not something that you are denying? Your only statement that you cling to is that "unalienable rights" appears no where in the Constitution. So therefore our country cannot possibly be founded with the idea of a higher power or of our Creator? That logic is very flawed when you read all the documents that make up the founding of our country.
But you did use some more "Thou's" and that kinda makes your posts a bit sassy and pretty. Very nice.
-
-
His evil little horns and red tail.
-
now my answer, I think it is a very important state of being, a state where one refuses to believe in other peoples version of what they consider to be truth. It is very important not to believe in God, because out of that very state and denial a person may go into deeper exploration into ones possible deeper nature. To believe in God, it could easily get in the way of experiencing God because there is too much mental baggage in the way which creates false gods and imaginary philosophies based on untruth developed by totally ignorant human beings and beings who wish to control society.
-
So if I understand you correctly you're saying that ceasing to believe in anyone else's conception of God enables one to know God better? That's a really interesting idea, I like it!
-
Yes, I think it is very healthy approach, otherwise all you're doing is stack idea upon idea and end up with a concept. I think God would need to be experienced in order for a person to speak objectively of God, until then it is just a second hand idea, a hope that you might be right. Faith is not enough. Faith may be useful up to a point, but how long can a person live on faith and not have a real experience. This is a long conversation really, and I need to go.
-
I'll weigh in on this as well. Yes, ceasing to believe in anyone else's conception of God enables one to know God better. In fact, I don't think anyone who has a personified preconception is likely to experience God.
I don't cogitate, I meditate and when all the things associated with my "self" like greed, anger, hate, etc. dissolve there is no self; there is no distinct being that is separate from GOD.
- Neither male nor female, neither good nor bad, neither light nor darkness but containing all there is and situate everywhere: the universal stream of consciousness flowing through all is god. Hence, god is found in everyone and in everything; god just keeps on is-ing and ♥ ing
The Dream, the underlying element in Jnana Yoga or Advaitism. The Universe is a dream in the mind of God and, God plays all parts and pretends that God is not God.
The One becomes many to experience LOVE. It is nothing but a quest for LOVE, and throughout out time ( I use that term loosely) puts on the garb of billions of beings to experience this.
The journey from self to SELF, is the journey, where God gradually shakes off the ignorance and reclaims the Divinity, or basically is conscious of his/her/its Divine Reality - LOVE. Thus, the smile on the Buddha's face.
God is also a process. The mind is not the tool to analyse God, never was, never will be, it has limitations. God has to be experienced, not dissected by the limited human mind. So really, God hasn't gone anywhere, done anything, but is still seated in the same spot and has dreamed itself as ignorance.
Re: Why? There is lots of literature on this, but to simplify the whole thing, the One becomes many to experience Love. It is nothing but a quest for Love, and throughout out time ( I use that term loosely) puts on the garb of billions of beings to experience this.
-
-
Reality made me this way-
You're a man? And an atheist?
-
-
HIS WIFE!! -
an athiest believes he comes from slime...i think that's the basic indicator. -
anticrocks:
Read the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. It was signed by John Adams and approved by the entire Senate. It was posted in the Philadelphia Enquirer and not disputedwhen published.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
We are a nation of laws, not Christian values or morals. Jefferson, Adams and Franklin believed in God, but not organized religion. they were deists rather than theists. One of them. Franklin perhaps, said lighthouses were more useful than churches.
BTW God is at best an abstract concept. Jews,Christians and Muslims all have different views of God. Buddhism is very close to atheism. Buddha believed the going on in the heavens were irrelevant to life on earth.
It is interesting that that past Bush administration that claimed to be God driven was so intimately involved with war and torture.-
Is that all you got? Come on, that is a pretty weak argument.
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in Tripoli in 1796. And even though the English text of the treaty was approved by the Senate and ratified by President Adams this proves nothing because of a recent discovery. Seems that the US copy of the Arabic version of the treaty not only lacks the quotation, it lacks Article 11 altogether. Instead it seems to contain the text of a letter to the Pasha of Tripoli from the Dey of Algiers.
Joel Barlow was the person who translated the Arabic to English. He was Consul General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine--and an opponent of Christianity. What probably happened was that Barlow made up Article 11, but since there is no Arabic version of that article, it is impossible to say. So Christian hating libs cling to it as proof of fact that the United States was not founded on Judea-Christian beliefs.
You have to take into account that the United States, along with the rest of the world was trying appeasement to deal with the pirates. At the time, we were a new nation and England opposed a free trade agreement with us, stating that the pirates helped keep down American competition. Also at this time, we were at war with France. So the idea of bickering about a treaty was not at the top of our 'to do' list. Any treaty was seen as a positive step. If you knew your history, you would know this.
But it is probably easier to just cling to this faulty translation as proof that you are right.
God is an abstract concept. Hmmm. I pity you, I really do.
Do you think you are smarter because you lack faith in a higher power? That is laughable, really.
Blame Bush? Really that is getting old. Hell even Obama is getting away from that.
-
-
A working brain.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
