Atheism

Thirtysixth_Bee

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
343
Likes
2
Points
34
#61
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
That's kind of like the old thing where somebody says "Don't think of a pink elephant" and the first thing your mind does is create the image of the pink elephant....
:lol: Yeah, exactly! But that gives me an idea: Atheism needs a figurehead. A cute airbrushed-pink fiberglass elephant ought to kick atheism into high gear. People need something they can identify with. I know a guy who can do the work. Just have to figure out what to name it now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#62
Before the thread veared off down the age old 'until you've walked a mile in my shoes' route, this popped up which I hoped had not got lost, so here it is again just incase as I thought this posed an important question to the 'metabelief' theory as proposed by Alexius.

Alexius said:
Agnosticism and scepticism are not belief systems (they do not set out to construct an account of the world); rather, they are critiques of belief. They are about belief. They are metabelief.
Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
Alexius said:
An analogy would be logic: logic is not actually critical thought so much as a critique of critical thought.
Wouldn't a critique of critical thought be built upon critical thought, as in critical thought would form the basis of the argument even if it is against "critical thought"?
Are critiques a special form of language?
(I don't know myself, but this is an interesting thread)
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,814
Likes
42
Points
64
#63
Does it really matter if something is a belief or an opinion? It seems obvious that the more logic Agnostics (logic as in "If I can't prove it it is only a theory") have cleared their minds of the big meme wich is religion (in any form). Atheists are trying to do the same but also want to make sure people know they not only don't believe in a god but also don't like religion much. Last but not least the Satanists who are actually agnostic atheists but use an icon to convey their notion of disliking x-tianity. Humans are by nature dependent on their senses to spread opinions, so is it not logic that we all call our opinions something (speech)? It being a belief or an opinion who cares?
I myself BELIEVE that I can have an OPINION and people can in my OPINION BELIEVE whatever makes them happy, just don't bug me with it ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#64
Dingo666 said:
It being a belief or an opinion who cares?
they're one and the same, I think though that when someone starts introducing buzz words, and clarity of definition, that's more like a belief system. A way of viewing things, an opinion if you like, informed by a way of thinking.
 

Alexius4

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,497
Likes
7
Points
69
#65
It being a belief or an opinion who cares?
An epistemic philosopher! :)

Despite the business of words reflecting a 'form of life', and so being unruly sods to deal with, there is something to be said for trying to pin them down. Interesting thing about the discussion so far is the emerging concensus that 'Agnostic' is quite a fluid term while 'Atheist' is quite concrete. It suggests the latter has more meaning than the former.

I'm still going with the notion Atheists believe something while Agnostics have an attitude towards belief - the difference between playing a game and spectating.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#66
Alexius said:
I'm still going with the notion Atheists believe something while Agnostics have an attitude towards belief - the difference between playing a game and spectating.
but it's still all about the game.
 

Alexius4

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,497
Likes
7
Points
69
#67
One of the points emerging from the discussion is that agnosticism becomes a game for some, but not others. Atheism is a game from the beginning.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#68
Alexius said:
One of the points emerging from the discussion is that agnosticism becomes a game for some, but not others. Atheism is a game from the beginning.
Wikipedia gives a summary. Agnosticism is the philosophical / theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown or inherently unknowable. It's also a term used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities. It's about the game. Now, that looks to me like the view that's firmly in the middle. the devout believer and the devout denier met half way by the sceptic. On the fence. All three being in principle an understanding of one thing.

Interestingly though while I was there I found this definition of "Belief system" which pretty much sums up my view of the term belief system hence why I'm of the opinion that Agnostisim is one.

" a belief system really looks like a mathematical logical system with a set of axioms (unproved beliefs) and inferring rules (reasonnings).
Axioms (beliefs) are very debatable since it usually involves beliefs in God(s), supernatural, or even science after all (how many people among you has ever seen and verified an experiment in quantum mechanics? probably not the majority, certainly not my case but I believe in quantum mechanics)
Inferring rules (reasonnings) are usually common to most people. Deduction is the most reliable, induction is used to assert probable conclusions (although I met someone acknowledging only induction as reliable and rejecting deduction).
Fafner 08:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) "

which is pretty much the long and the short of what I've been waffling on about and hence my understanding that an opinion on dieties or faith is a belief system of its own.
 

giantrobot1

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
549
Likes
11
Points
34
#69
There's something I thought would be interesting, and hopefully relevant, to the thread.

In traditional Indian Buddhist philosophy, one of the six elements is space. There are two kinds of space, that formed by an object's cavities, and a more general - and permanent variety - which is defined as "an absence of obstruction".

Interestingly, this is like a kind of 'positive negative'. It has no kind of positive qualities or attributes, it is simply the fact that there is somewhere to put an object into, and the fact that if you try to do so, it won't get blocked. But if it didn't exist, then you couldn't put an object 'in' it since there would be no space for it to exist in.

This all gets interestingly mind-bending, and it reminded me of this kind of discussion, because believing in a negative is still some kind of positive belief of sorts, since it is different to not holding any belief at all (in the way that a baby has no belief in the non-existence of God, just an absence of positive belief) but they are both equivalent in that there is no positive attribute.

Is that at all clear? :oops: :confused:
 

meanderer1

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 31, 2001
Messages
408
Likes
3
Points
47
#71
So what are you if you don't give a flying fig about any of it? I know so many people who have no views about whether there is or isn't a god. Those thoughts just don't occur in their lives. They live, they die, that's it. Where do they fit?
 

Bannik

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 12, 2003
Messages
1,006
Likes
16
Points
69
#72
Well, I was raised a thiest and then considered myself an athiest for a while. It didn't make any difference on how I lived my life or what my personality was like either way, as far as I can tell. Now I don't know what to call myself when it comes to the question of God's existance. I would say I'm an agnostic but agnostics claim not to know the answer whereas I don't even know for sure that I don't know.

It's not so much that I'm indifferent as that I don't know what difference it makes in my every day life (or is that just another way of saying I'm indifferent?). If someone claimed he could prove that God exists how would he know it was god he was detecting and not...something else? God just doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that can be proven or disproven. With me it's more a question of what an individual means when they say "God" - what concept or image (if any) do they have floating around in their head when they use that word?
 

Thirtysixth_Bee

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
343
Likes
2
Points
34
#73
Bannik said:
With me it's more a question of what an individual means when they say "God" - what concept or image (if any) do they have floating around in their head when they use that word?
Good point. So also what personal image of God is an individual denying by being an atheist? One time I asked my dad which side of the Vietnam conflict he thought was "right". I was a little kid in the early 70's and all I knew was that some Americans weren't happy with the war. Dad said he thought there were as many sides to a war as there were people involved in it, and that they were all right. So he didn't answer my question. Anyway, I'll bet everyone who thinks about God(s) does so in a unique way, even if they think they're following someone else's teachings to the letter. Maybe the more useful question isn't so much "Do you or don't you?" as "Here's mine. What's yours like?"

:_pished:
 

MrRING

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,982
Likes
1,077
Points
184
#74
This is the old atheism: is it a belief system or not thread, if anybody wants to weigh in....
 

ghostdog19

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,597
Likes
1
Points
54
#75
Re: Is Atheism A Belief System... or Fact?

MrRING said:
It just struck me - many people who are atheists seem to regard it as a fact, irrefutable. But isn't it a belief system, exactly the same as monotheism, polytheism, or agnosticism? Or is it scientific "fact"? I'm not sure how it's calssified, but it might be scientific fact to a believer in atheism, but just a belief to anybody else....
I think it's a belief system equally as valid or invalid as those other isms.

Scientific fact however is where I think all religions fall apart. For me 'isms' are concepts of rationality or irrationality which set about putting bigger ideas into some tangible context. Never are any of these isms out of the playground of philosophy. I believe the notion of atheism to be as important or unimportant as mono/polytheism/agnosticism, and therefore should be treated with equal regard. But opposing theosophical, philosophical concepts rarely hold such estemed regard for one another.

I don't believe the age old arguments of is there a god isn't there a god are relevant any more since both concepts are so greatly subject to interpretation given way to many thousands of years. It's also, therefore, impossible for ANY of these groups of thought to regard one another subjectively.

The notion that atheism is dying on its ass, well, is subject possibly to the almost seasonal discrediting of some belief system or another as we, out of natural habit, gather to watch the afflicted stumble into town and throw rotten vegetables at it.

Even science is greatly subject to 'the god of gaps' as discussed elsewhere on these boards.

For my money, faith is not about proof, religion is not about evidence. Therein we got lost along the way in understanding that 'god of gaps' or any source of devinity.

But that's just my belief, take that not as some counter point to discredit your own, simply as my rationality of it, may it have some or no influence on your view of it, as long as it provides you only with a perspective you may or may not have considered.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
17
Likes
0
Points
17
#76
Atheism

The atheists believe in logical conclusions based on practical experience and in things present before the naked eye (perception). The real spiritual knowledge can satisfy all these requirements. The human incarnation of God is right before the eyes; in flesh-and-blood. All the bonds with family and wealth are before the eyes and liberation from such bonds, which is called salvation, is also before the eyes. One can experience God through the human incarnation in this world itself and in this very life itself. Infinite love and bliss derived from the special divine knowledge preached by the human incarnation are enjoyed here itself. Enjoyment of love and bliss is the goal of any worldly bond. This is called Jeevanmukti, which means ‘salvation while living’; right here. What ever one achieves while living, that alone continues with the soul after death. Thus perception is the basis for even the invisible future.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
[email protected]
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,644
Likes
819
Points
194
#77
Are you going to post all two hundred items from that website?

This is beginning to turn into a processed pork product.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
17
Likes
0
Points
17
#78
Timble2 said:
Are you going to post all two hundred items from that website?

This is beginning to turn into a processed pork product.
I have noted your concern.

But let me explain about the post a little bit;

The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka. Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked eyes. In fact in the logic (Tarka Sastra) all the means of knowledge are based on perception only. In the inference (Anumana) also, the fire on the hill is inferred by its smoke. But the relationship between the fire and smoke is perceived with the naked eyes only. Similarly other means of knowledge are also based on the perception only. Thus Charvaka forms the basic of the entire logic and without logic there is no knowledge. The statement that the God is above logic must be proved only by perception. The divine miracles performed by the human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the existence of super power above the logic.

If they do not accept this they are contradicting their own basis, which is the perception. The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted. Therefore atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.

The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception and therefore the logic of atheists becomes the basis of the spiritual knowledge. The Lord comes in human form and this human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Even the miracles performed by demons establish the existence of super power. Therefore to convince the atheists the miracles of the Lord are not necessary. When they are convinced about the existence of the Super power (Maya), the possessor of the Super Power, the Lord, coming in human form must be also accepted because the form is seen by the naked eyes. The salvation is breakage of the bonds in this world. Since the bonds of this world exist based on the perception, the salvation is also existing based on the perception.

Since the family members and the money are perceived by the eyes, the bonds with them are also perceived. Thus the salvation (Moksha) must be accepted by the atheists. A single bond with the human form of the Lord is called ?Saayujya? or ?Kaivalya?. Since the human form is perceived, Sayujya or Kaivalya is also perceived and must be accepted by the atheists. The Bliss is derived by the devotee from the divine knowledge of the human form of the Lord. Therefore the Bliss is also true according to atheists. Thus the goal, the means to please the Lord (Sadhana) and the fruit of Sadhana (Moksha and Kaivalya) are perceived and exist in this world itself.

Veda says ?Yat Saakshat Aparokshaat?, ?Pratyagatmana Maikshat? which mean that the Lord in human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Veda also says ?Ihachet Avedeet?, which means that everything is true as seen in this world itself. This is called ?Jeevanmukthi?, which means attaining the salvation while one is alive and not after death. The salvation after the death is not true because that has no basis of perception. Thus if the atheists are little bit patient and leave their aggressive nature of criticism, they are best fitted in the true spiritual knowledge of Vedas. In fact Swami Vidyaranya included the philosophy of Charvaka in his book as one of the logical philosophies (Darsanaas).
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,589
Likes
4
Points
69
#79
Timble2 said:
Are you going to post all two hundred items from that website?

This is beginning to turn into a processed pork product.
And some people thought that the adverts to the side of the posts was a little too consuming...
 

Rrose_Selavy

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
1,636
Likes
10
Points
69
#80
The poster is clearly not actually interested in debate.
These posts flooding the board are simply a form of "witnessing"

in other words, religious SPAM.

Noiw don't forget to quote me in your reply then add some some more evangeliical "cut and paste".
-
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
17
Likes
0
Points
17
#81
Rrose_Selavy said:
The poster is clearly not actually interested in debate.
These posts flodding the board are a form of "witnessing"

in other owrds, religious SPAM.

Noiw don't forget to quote me in your reply with some more evangeliical "cut and paste".
-
There is good discussion going in other threads!!
 

Rrose_Selavy

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
1,636
Likes
10
Points
69
#82
dattaswami2 said:
Rrose_Selavy said:
The poster is clearly not actually interested in debate.
These posts flodding the board are a form of "witnessing"

in other owrds, religious SPAM.

Noiw don't forget to quote me in your reply with some more evangeliical "cut and paste".
-
There is good discussion going in other threads!!
You think so? I suspect you're the only one whio thinks that.

-
 

Slejpner

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
119
Likes
1
Points
34
#83
Timble2 said:
Are you going to post all two hundred items from that website?

This is beginning to turn into a processed pork product.
Please don't ask him any more questions :shock:
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,434
Likes
82
Points
129
#85
And you haven't addressed the spamming issue.

You've done this on dozens of sites:

Link

Link

which is spamming.

Although why do I suspect you'll be moving on to other pastures now your work here is "done"?
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,644
Likes
819
Points
194
#86
I suspect he's already moved on promoting his dingbat swami who thinks he's god.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,434
Likes
82
Points
129
#87
I suspect so - so little time and so many forums.

They have a more detailled PM awaiting them but if this is the end of the hitting nad run spamming (at least it is of a more "emlightened" kind) then I'll tidy everything up later. It is splashed all over the net (by them) if anyone has an urge to read it.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,589
Likes
4
Points
69
#88
Mighty_Emperor said:
I suspect so - so little time and so many forums.

They have a more detailled PM awaiting them but if this is the end of the hitting nad run spamming (at least it is of a more "emlightened" kind) then I'll tidy everything up later. It is splashed all over the net (by them) if anyone has an urge to read it.
Tell me about it - I actually stopped posting on the tittytalk.com forum because this guy started taking up so much of the discussion.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,434
Likes
82
Points
129
#89
ted_bloody_maul said:
Mighty_Emperor said:
I suspect so - so little time and so many forums.

They have a more detailled PM awaiting them but if this is the end of the hitting nad run spamming (at least it is of a more "emlightened" kind) then I'll tidy everything up later. It is splashed all over the net (by them) if anyone has an urge to read it.
Tell me about it - I actually stopped posting on the tittytalk.com forum because this guy started taking up so much of the discussion.
I'm sorry to hear that - it affects us all in different ways.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,589
Likes
4
Points
69
#90
Mighty_Emperor said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
Mighty_Emperor said:
I suspect so - so little time and so many forums.

They have a more detailled PM awaiting them but if this is the end of the hitting nad run spamming (at least it is of a more "emlightened" kind) then I'll tidy everything up later. It is splashed all over the net (by them) if anyone has an urge to read it.
Tell me about it - I actually stopped posting on the tittytalk.com forum because this guy started taking up so much of the discussion.
I'm sorry to hear that - it affects us all in different ways.
It's just boobybabble.com for me now. :cry:
 
Top