Bravely and onward we go? Tinker ..., Why are you presuming that Gods B-Z require the same thing as God A? This is exactly what I'm after. You're objecting to your own conception of God, and I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't. Rather, I would point out that this is all you're objecting to. This is why some of us, whose notions of God have nothing to do with an invisible man in the sky and what he thinks, find atheism to be a bit ridiculous and an anti-identification. Atheists frequently, daresay constantly, invoke a specific image of God to reject. The rejection of God depends specifically on the image invoked. Who says "God" is an invisible man in the sky who judges you? Who says "God" wants you to know and love "him"? Who says God is "him"? Who says God has a "proper message" specifically? The vein of discussion you've noted to A4Ever is much similar in this sense to the topic and posts to which I referred you. Gee, and to think that part of the reason I'm a "bur in everyone's saddle" is at least in part for pointing out this particular aspect of atheism: If your philosophy doesn't make sense, then I won't even give you the time of day. It's all well and fine for establishing oneself as an individual, but it does nothing toward one's relations with other people. Did you ever have a family member who went off with some strange religion and everyone got annoyed with them? Did you ever wonder why that happened, or is it just that suddenly this person wasn't worth the time of day? It's a valid way of conducting oneself, but it doesn't lend toward any greater harmony. It measures success or happiness solely in terms of oneself, and is a similar device that leads the rich to assume that the poor must be happy. (And that's not any particular stretch, either.) So a group of Christians is causing problems in society. Maybe it's a mere conceptual misunderstanding, but to apply the philosophy you've put down for us here means we'll never know because those people aren't worth giving the time of day. I called it selfish, self-centered, arrogant, egocentric, and a number of other things that seem to have annoyed people. If it's perfectly acceptable behavior to them, I wonder why they're so annoyed. I'm not going to pretend anyone is operating sympathetically if they're not. Woo-hoo. An atheist doesn't understand it so it's not worth consideration. Seems to me that by the same standard, atheism isn't worth the time of day. Everyone's happy enough to say it's a logical something or another, but that's like anything else. What do you do with it? What does anyone do with it? Since nobody can convincingly tell me what it is (after all, tomorrow another atheist will tell me that I'm wrong) why should I give atheism the time of day? Perhaps because I share the planet with these and all people? Because if I decide that something isn't worth giving respect because another human being can't adequately explain it to me, well, I doubt anyone in the world would really be worth giving respect. It seems rather arbitrary to draw a line and say, alright, every idea on this side of the line needs to be explained to me in order to be worthy of my respect, and I give a free pass to every idea on the other side of the line, no matter how similar, interdependent, or otherwise intrinsically connected the ideas are. Sounds bad, doesn't it? But where does anyone draw the line? Where do you draw the line? I'm not about to say that atheism and atheists are not worth giving the time of day, but if I apply the standard you've put forth, what choice would I have? Pointing out this circumstance seems to annoy people. Principles seem quite fine, in general, until they are put back to the beholder in the mirror's eye. Right, and this is what I mean when I point out arbitrary starting points or "subjective objectivity". The logic which arises within the structure exists only when bolstered by the presuppositions of the philosophical paradigm. Belief is a far cry from giving a person the time of day. One need not believe another's religion in order to respect its function. Of late I've been considering the possibility that atheists don't know entirely what it is they're rejecting when they proactively reject God. The rejection, when limited to the atheist's inner perspective, is independent of this issue. But to look around, for instance, at the message sent from atheists to theists, I'm not entirely sure the atheists grasp the entirety of what they're attacking. Whether or not we agree with any particular religion is almost beside the point. Almost. But far more important is what it does. It is well enough, for instance, to point out that Christianity has many failings, causes many problems, incites division, &c. But the basis upon which we call these things negative results cannot be demonstrated at this time objectively. What seems to be the issue is that such offensive behavior is fostered by the illogical conclusion that God exists and the further doctrinal accretions that come with the religion in question. (1) Why does it have to? (2) Are you familiar with the Primum Mobile? A cosmological concept the result of which is a view of the Universe as finite and mechanical, with the Earth as it's center? Could Pope Leo X, for instance, have conceived of the notion of an infinite, expanding Universe, or of cosmic background radiation? Just because people could not conceive of it does not mean that it is not real. In this sense, we can look at the assertion that God is greater than that which can be conceived, and identify it as representing a specific state, condition, or event. One need not look at the statement and assume that it claims any specific god is bigger than one can conceive; so long as we focus on a god, this distracting idea will persist. Rather, we can simply say that none of what we identify about God in our holy books is anywhere close to correct. At present, I'm brushing up on an essay on Sufism that I included in a topic ages ago, and which Xev and I are undertaking at present. Part of that will deal with something along these lines. The names and conducts of gods in our holy books are secondary. In those religions exist certain ideas, largely pertaining to the relevant relationship between human beings and the mysteries of the world around them. Take away the names of God, the conduct and standards of God--for those are merely relativist (at best) accretions of the human perception--and you're left with a set of ideas, many of which are common, and some of which are geographically or culturally unique. These we can consider in their own due time, but when we set those aside for a moment, we are left with a number of pure concepts about life, people, and the Universe. Here we find the most direct riddles of God. The rest of it is distraction. (3) It provides no proof of any specific God. It's a declaration of the God concept. It has no obligation to. It's a little bit like the closest thing to an accurate dictionary definition as you'll find for the word. It's like saying that ice is frozen water. Certes, it offers no proof of frozen water, but without the word "ice", you'd be calling it frozen water. At this point, "God" becomes a word, and merely that. And that's all it should be. So am I. The last thing I need right now is another skirmish. Just for reference ... you'll notice that, of the current people I'm a burr to, none of them thought it that disrespectful when I challenged the Christians that way. In the end, it becomes a choice between hushing yourself and saying what you think. It's all part of a seemingly self-defeating life cycle: damned if you do, damned if you don't. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Godless ..., Maybe not entirely AFI, but the point is both noted and agreed. There's a few other bad concepts going on. While I acknowledge, accept, and also appreciate this definition, it is my unfortunate duty to log it as Definition of Atheism #4,326. In terms of human diversity, I accept that idea. In terms of representing atheism clearly, it is problematic. I look to Tinker's proposition and remind myself of why I do not hold that standard: I mean, nobody can tell me what "atheism" is. People can tell me what their own atheism is, but nobody seems to like acknowledging that, "I believe that my atheism is rooted in logic." They don't seem to want to reserve the idea to the self, but that is, essentially what is taking place. But y'all are worth giving the time of day. If not, how can I ever learn what the heck it is y'all are telling me? If I presume that you're not worth it, and that presumption is wrong, how would I ever note the error in order to correct it? That works well between religions, say, the difference between Islamic and Christian. But what about the Buddhists, Sufis, atheists, and the nonevangelical pagans? Buddhists and Sufis generally look past the religious accretions and strike after the heart of the matter. Nonevangelical pagans, much like atheists, are prone to not care until the issue is presented to them. I will also assert that one cannot have a subconscious reaction concerning an issue of which they are ignorant or unaware. One is definitely aware of an issue in a subconscious process, merely not consciously aware. It's a fine line, I admit, but in the long run it could prove important. I find it interesting that you would raise the moral question, Godless. Namely, I find it interesting because: (A) we haven't seen that assertion for a while, as it largely comes from angry, proactive Christians, and (B) we have seen a retreat in the atheistic position to a more purist form, which does indeed, make no moral declarations. From this point, atheism is amoral; the moral character of atheists comes from whatever moral structure the elect according to their own criteria. Pekoff seems to be focusing on the idea of a god versus a larger idea of God. Consider the maxim that God is greater than that which can be conceived. We can at least conceive of the idea of the Universe as large and seemingly infinite as it is. God is more than that. It is, perhaps, space and time, and the whole of what occurs in it. Nothing about it says that it has to have a personality or a name; God describes at this point a condition in the Universe--the totality of all that exists. At this point, we see a striking similarity between Pekoff's Existence exists and God is. They become almost synonymous. At some point, everybody does this. Objective demonstrations of moral propriety may seem objective, but generally are not. The objectivity is established by a perception of limitations (e.g. is subjective; subject to perception and interpretation). You and I agree that murder is wrong. But why is it wrong? Can you show me a purely objective reason? Objectively, to a child, the explanation that gravity keeps you on the ground and makes you fall down is functionally workable. But it is, in fact, inaccurate. Gravity is a force which connects all objects in the Universe, but the downward aspect of it seems to be the one most immediately relevant. It is not an objective picture of gravity, but one subject to what is relevant to human beings. "Guns are designed to kill" is an objective truth. Well, an observable truth. It doesn't mean a gun can't be used for another purpose. (Light switch, TV remote ... or so says Homer Simpson. But it can be the device that lets you out of a locked room if absolutely necessary. However, nobody at Smith & Wesson said, "Hey, let's make a pyrotechnic, gas-explosion-propelled universal door-opener. Objectivity is consistently subjective. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Atheism and identification Originally posted by tiassa Why attach the moral weight of should? That is, why presume the correctness of a data set in order to attach a moral necessity to the concept of atheism? Actually I was being sarcastic in demonstrating that I can say "you should be atheist". But your question still stands. The "should" does not come from atheism. The "should" comes from other beliefs that I have; the most relevant being that rational logical thought and beliefs based upon such are the most conducive to being happy and well adjusted and also lead to a society that functions better and can provide more happiness to its members. Atheism, being rational and logical, is one such belief. Are we dealing with a confused terminology, since there is a further philosophy attached to atheism in your statement? No, I'm happy to elucidate my philosophical beliefs as they become relevant to the discussion. And that is an example of what's at the heart of this debate for me. I can fully accept the answers and ideas I'm presented, but only in their theoretical state. People are attempting to identify a state that does not seem to exist in them, and attach themselves to it. In regards to a religious discussion, there is a valid theoretical position termed Atheism. Granted, this position is not as comprehensive as the whole set of beliefs we term religion and this should be stated. God, however, is a maxim of most religions, and if it founders most religions go down with it. It therefore becomes a central argument for any irreligious position. Regardless of the accompanying philosophy those who take an irreligious stance will include themselves under the label of Atheist for such purposes as easy identification and debate. In that sense, it's kind of like the Christians telling us about the ideals of their religion and how great it is without ever examining the real manifestation of those ideas. I find the manifestation of beliefs in actions to be a different topic. Although I agree it is quite interesting and definitely important in valuating such beliefs. I've listed before what I "get" from Atheism itself. Being a simple belief it has somewhat limited effect. But people are hammering home the point (on the one hand) that atheism is _____ (any number of variations on a rejection of god/religion/ideas) and that's all there is to it, while continuing to attach other ideas directly to it. I agree that this does happen and as I've stated I find it largely to be a problem of terminology. One needs be specific. And, as we see, the idea that "there's not much to atheism"--one which you seem to agree with--seems to upset some of our atheists. Why is this? Probably because they've identified themselves and their beliefs under this label. Personally, the most common, casual use for the term Atheist that I have is as a simple response to the question, "What religion are you?" While "None" would be an appropriate response Atheist gives the questioner a better understanding that this is an active stance rather than a passive stance that might be given by a lapsed Catholic. Of course, I am rarely get further questioning into what my philosophies and beliefs are. I can see how, over time, this simple response becomes an identification. I'm having difficulty with the concept that I'm responding to one person's idea of atheism while being contradicted by another person who doesn't hold that same view of atheism. It would seem that, for a simple concept, some agreement could be had on what it is. But as we fan some of the dust out of the air, some of the glaring issues of the problem of atheism's definition and implementation are showing through with sparkling clarity. I agree. I will, and have, happily debate other Atheists on the issue. Adam and I made some good headway in another topic. ~Raithere
Yep, the reason you will get different opinions, Tiassa, is because atheism is not an entire philosophy, merely not accepting the religious or theistic philosophy. Slightly related... Last night I passed through Dandenong with a friend, and we stopped for a cheap pizza. This is a grotty town, Dandenong, drug addicts everywhere (seriously) and vomit all over the place. Horrible area. Anyway, three christians had set up an open van and some chairs to dish out free tea and coffee and such, and one was playing a guitar, right across from the pizza shop. Their idea was that tea and biscuits and a chat might accomplish two things: while people were having a snack and chat with them, they wouldn't be shooting up; and they might even get some converts. Damn good idea, really. The same could be done by any non-religious organisation, but these guys had that conversion incentive driving them. Whatever, it was ok. However, one of them approached us with a handful of pamphlets, and held them out toward us. My friend, being more sociable than me, took one and said "thanks". Then the guy looked up at me like that pathetic, hopeful kid from Oliver asking for more food, holding out his bits of paper. Now, in general I dislike organised religions; they've done too much damage to the human race for me to forgive. I also dislike pamphlets and other junk-mail; they're an unnecessary waste of trees. So unlike my more sociable friend, I said "No. Go away." I may be an arsehole, but at least I'm an honest arsehole about my beliefs and sticking to them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiassa, But I'm not making any presumptions. I'm outlineing an "If and Then" scenario. If God B-Z require the same thing of God A ( the one I've rejected )Then why should I follow it? If God B-Z have different requirements, then I will exaime them individually, and judge thus wise. I think the problem here is terminalogy. When I say " God " I'm referring to the idea of an invisble man in the sky. I use this defintion because it's by-far the most popular ( That I've found ) defintion to be associated with him. Also, if God is none of these things, as you say, then why describe it with the word, " God "? Don't you think it's a little un-needed? I think you mis-understood what I said. I did not say " If I don't understand it, then I won't give it the time of day. " Let me restate it, and this time, point out the word which I feel you ignored or missed. Do you see? When I say should, I mean, if their is a moral imperitive. If you show some fancy of way of thinking, and then tell me that I should follow it, I'm going to ask you why I should. Now, had I said what you thought I had, then Iw ould in complete agreement with you. "If it doesn't make sense, I'm not going to care " is a little too simplistic, and holds the chance of missing something very valuble. I'm not sure what it is your driving at here. If you saying that Humansim is fallible, I'm more than happy to agree with you. If Humanism stood up and said " I am the truth, the light, the way " then I would just as easily critize it as I would any other "absolute" truth. And I agree, judging a person solely on their beliefs isn't very reasonable. And I can acknowledge that religion can inspire people to do good things, in which I'm all for. And I would go as far as to say many atheists are like this. Some of us don't give a flaming hoot about religion. It's when the religionists try bringing us under their point of view, and then chastise us when we don't ( in any matter of speaking ) that I think the conflict arises. Of course, thats solely my own speculation. When you say that atheists don't know the God they're rejecting, I have to disgree. I feel that many athiests reject "God" as is define by Websters Dictionary. Main Entry: 1god Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god Date: before 12th century 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler Now if your definition of God ( or anyone elses ) is diffrent, then I would ask that you point it out, and we'll go from there. However, as I said earlier, if your defintion of "God" doesn't mean this one, then "God" isn't a nessacary word for you to use, and I would suggest you find a word better suited for it. Otherwise, your going to cause a great deal of confusion. And I agree, "God" is just a word. However, I should point out, it's word that has a very important meaning ( meaning to religion, anyhow ) As I said earlier, I think the problem is terminalogy. Indeed, what maybe "God" to you might be a very different thing than what Joe Average thinks "God" is. I'm just using the definition thats been accepted throughout most of the Western World. So please, do forgive me if I appear that I appear confused. I imagined said atheists said nothing because they'd rather have you critizing religion than critizing them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Euh, late and partial response, but I just received the mail. Mes excuses. Well, a theist would say yes. He would say nothing compares to the awareness of the presence of God (as a cover all term for whatever spiritual there may be) but it would be quite arrogant to impose this view on atheists or other people, cause there is no scientific proof, which they so eagerly need before excepting something. In short: no, you don't need any concept of spirituality to live a happy and fullfilling life. Maybe that is one of God's greater gifts: you may try without me. But because I know you'll screw up to some amount, I'm just gonna limit the time for you to try, ok? Wait, I'll invent time first. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So man is free to do what he want. He must 'finish creation' as said in the Bible. But that doesn't mean you can't be aware of his presence or that he can't help you. Euhm... no you don't need a concept of spiri... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I just wanted to say that atheism should not be the opposite of an old man with a long beard in the sky, cause that makes it ridiculous, and it's unrespectful for other peoples views.
Tiassa Do you know any spanish?, there is a saying which I will translate, " you are drowning in a glass of water" Quote: "While I acknowledge, accept, and also appreciate this definition, it is my unfortunate duty to log it as Definition of Atheism #4,326. In terms of human diversity, I accept that idea. In terms of representing atheism clearly, it is problematic. I look to Tinker's proposition and remind myself of why I do not hold that standard". The definition of atheism stands at it's most simplistic way of looking at the term, Theism, A-theism. Simply put, a willfull rejection of religious idealogy!. To go beyond that definition requieres a phylosophical point of view, which includes the term atheism, as one of prerequisite to follow such philosophy. As mentioned I'm an objectivist. Quote: "At some point, everybody does this. Objective demonstrations of moral propriety may seem objective, but generally are not. The objectivity is established by a perception of limitations (e.g. is subjective; subject to perception and interpretation). You and I agree that murder is wrong. But why is it wrong? Can you show me a purely objective reason? Objectively, to a child, the explanation that gravity keeps you on the ground and makes you fall down is functionally workable. But it is, in fact, inaccurate. Gravity is a force which connects all objects in the Universe, but the downward aspect of it seems to be the one most immediately relevant. It is not an objective picture of gravity, but one subject to what is relevant to human beings. "Guns are designed to kill" is an objective truth. Well, an observable truth. It doesn't mean a gun can't be used for another purpose. (Light switch, TV remote ... or so says Homer Simpson. But it can be the device that lets you out of a locked room if absolutely necessary. However, nobody at Smith & Wesson said, "Hey, let's make a pyrotechnic, gas-explosion-propelled universal door-opener. Objectivity is consistently subjective." Agreed, the only reason you've come up with this conclusion is perception, all perception is subjective, this is fact. However when dealing with the outside world, one chooses wether to believe in fairy tale, or reality as perceived by an individual. Why do we know killing is wrong? not necessarily, wrong, it depends on the cituation, are you beign threatend?, is your life in danger?, then you kill someone to save your own hide. This scenario of killing is justified. Anyhow killing just for the thrill of pleasure for an individual, this is of course is wrong, the individual in this scenario is a psychopath. Quote: "I mean, nobody can tell me what "atheism" is. People can tell me what their own atheism is, but nobody seems to like acknowledging that, "I believe that my atheism is rooted in logic." They don't seem to want to reserve the idea to the self, but that is, essentially what is taking place. But y'all are worth giving the time of day. If not, how can I ever learn what the heck it is y'all are telling me? If I presume that you're not worth it, and that presumption is wrong, how would I ever note the error in order to correct it?" Atheism is the rejection of theism!. That's it, nothing need be added, or need to be perceived. However you've seem to confuse the term with some philosophical ideal, it is not!, there's no philosophical ideal in atheism it is just as simply put, a willful rejection of theistic claims, and any variant of religious claims. All atheists have their own philosphical stance, wether be objectivist, humanist, secularists, what ever. Their inclusion of the term "atheist" in their philosophical ideal is purely personal. Some philosophical ideals require of you to be logical, and contain reason, for this objectivist choose atheism. Objectivism comes to the conclusion that it is not logical to believe in objects that are not explainable by objective means. i.e. "Faith" Since there's is not way for a thiest to demonstrate their god, we are requiered to have faith, on what? thier say so?.
Godless, I like your quote, "You are drowning in a glass of water." Would you be so kind as to give it to me in Spanish? I'd like to jot it down in my journal. Thanks, Michael
no downside Theres is no downside to atheism in my situation. I am completely self reliant in a spiritual sense and the point to my life is getting as close to immortality as possible, I know I sound crazy but you might just hear about me one day in the future.
Hey Revolutionman, That's cool. As long as it's something good we hear about you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Michael
sorry I would like to tell you more but i've been through so much to get where I am it would be like throwing it all away to people I don"t even know.
See thats where atheism is good, its about individuality. Theres no need for taught spirituality as one can find it oneself. Its possibly people that are brought up to be religious, yet lapse, that are truely bad people as they have no independant sense of what is right and wrong. Hmmm.. the downside to being an atheist is that one still tends to 'believe' in things. Everybody has something that they are passionate about and that they model the way they think around the belief of. So really your not a atheist (that being that your are rejecting theology). It'd be better to say you are independant in belief and you reject taught religion and believe what you want. The downside really is that you are a individual, and you get picked on by those who are backed up by a group, that is a organised group religion. As for me my religon is rave culture. Every weekend or two I'm out on the local dance party scene, I'm very into it and DJ and produce a little myself. Its comparable to any religious experience or church. Theres a great atmosphere of a huge crowd of people dancing and having a great time, theres a big sense of unity. Most of all everyone is nice to everyone else, even complete strangers. The music (and optional chemicals - not my scene that) ensure lots serotonin flowing in peoples brains (the brain's natural happy chemical, which is stimulated by dance music). Infact the ravers creed is P.L.U.R. or peace love unity respect. Its such a postitive and forward looking culture compared to everything else in society and it really is a great escape from the 9 to 5 weekday slog of life. The media portrays it as a drug binging frenzy. But the reality is that it isn't. Two things you'll never see at a rave compared to a regular bar/niteclub are 1) A fight between a bunch of drunk idiots 2) some guy sleazing on to a girl and getting slapped etc. So thats what I do and what gives me my spiritual buzz, my communitiy. So even if you are atheisit you probably still have a religion. we could define what your own relgion is: 1) What is it you do weekly or monthly etc. that brings you the greatest senses of pride, community, spiritual being. 2) What you think about most often, especially that you think about to give yourself a lift. 3) What you learn things from, either about yourself, other people, things, skills, facts etc.
Tinker ... It seems to me, then, that we're back at the topic I directed you to, and the issue I took with a post in it. On the one hand, I would point to the Top 40, to electoral results, and other statistical results of human decision and ask when the most popular was ever actually right, except by accident. To the other, you're exactly right. You've nailed it exactly. The rejection of God becomes the rejection of a God. The concept exists in history. I've mentioned for various purposes in several topics the limitations of power and conduct as applies to the ancient Greek theism; a host of gods which essentially amount to a monotheistic cause. The Unmoved Mover, the Unnamed Namer, the representative cause of the Universe. I feel a little like I'm arguing algebra against arithmetic. As if I'm insisting that x+y=z and being told that 2+2=4 and that all variations of x+y=z are actually 2+2=4. Actually, I was cutting to the point. It is becoming quite apparent to me that atheists tend to think the rejection of God is simpler than it really is. We are, in dealing with the concept of God, dealing with the ineffable. I don't expect anyone to adhere to definitive declarations about God, but a rejection of God is a definitive declaration. The equivalent is widely accepted in life: Because that's the way it is. This may not serve to justify the miniscule gods of earthsick holy books (e.g. Bible, Koran, and others) but these limited conceptions of God are part of the pursuit of the larger sense of God. Certain parts of the God-factor are ineffable; exactly what God is, for instance, cannot be expressed in human terms. To reject a concept for its immediate ineffability is a surrender to the magnitude of the concept. It is too big, and cannot be figured out. But it can, actually. Just not by any one person. It can be rightly said that should humanity last until "the end of the Universe", we will, in fact, have an opportunity to look upon the face of God. Short of that, God, when stripped of shallow accretions--assigned both by religionists and anti-religionists--represents that unnamed knowledge, ideas and things undiscovered, and the knowledge that comes from the relations of these ideas and things. Thus, one can give you a perfectly legitimate reason why you should give such and such consideration to this or that idea, and you can still miss it entirely because of the inner presumption of your own correctness. But in the end, that's what it comes down to. I can lay out the entire history of what the idea of God points toward, and if you choose to operate only according to, say, one possible definition of what God is, then the should cannot be expressed, because the should will be applied to an incorrect concept. Were we limited to ideas of conduct, like sexual prohibitions or getting tattoos, then I'm with you all the way. But in terms of the rejection of God, the path can be as simple as acknowledging the mysteries that compel people to the God-myth and attempting to thus better understand the human condition. How can one make the should of that path seem appropriate in the face of a limiting presupposition? And, having failed to give that path propriety, why should you give the idea the time of day? The existence of the same drawbacks in any philosophy as we find in religion is what I'm driving after. The subjective boundaries of what constitutes an objective truth. Without a firm, objective root for any system of philosophy or conduct, the starting point of right and propriety is largely arbitrary, or at best reactionary. I won't argue with you there. But these are the specific gods being rejected, and those rejections speak nothing of the larger godhead. A very Western interpretation, but I won't argue that this is the conception of God that most atheists are rejecting. However, this dictionary definition may be all that atheists think they're rejecting. They're not rejecting the morality that comes with God, but rather the foundation of that morality. It seems easy enough to flick the switch and turn off God, but it requires, for most people, a complete reconstruction of worldview, from the ground up. Combined with the pressures of earning a living, possibly the raising of children, and so forth, if we expect people to undertake that full rebuilding, then we need to create a socio-economic structure that allows that examination, planning, and construction. In the meantime, the atheist's rejection of a dictionary definition is a direct challenge to the best explanation of the meaning of life religious individuals know. If atheists intend to ask for a full-blown installation of a new paradigm, then they're going to have to give difficult ideas of the ineffable the time of day, and even a little more. I find that highly offensive. Just because an atheist can't open their mind enough to understand that the focus of their anti-identification does not comprise the whole of what they identify against, it's my obligation to change my vocabulary to suit them? Should I look back at the number of false definitions of atheism we have to slog through because nobody wants to restrict themselves to the definition? I mean, we have from our atheists a number of definitions that include the rejection of religious ideas, that the rejection of God is not the only possible result of atheism, that gods are or aren't important to atheism. People seem to mislike dictionary definitions when they contradict their own. In the case of God, you're welcome to refute a dictionary definition of God, and I will, in fact, join you in that refutation. But in rejecting "God" in general, one is rejecting far, far more than that. I don't see how an atheist can pretend to understand the relationship between that which is rejected and that which the rejected affects. And I don't see a rejection of God being so limited to dictionary definitions as to leave those associations intact. Should we pretend that such an important meaning is uniform across the diverse spectrum of religions? To what end would religion be diverse, then? Actually, whether atheist or theist, you've tagged a specific problem. Joe Average, whether believing or disbelieving God, is regarding a specific conception of God which is necessarily limited by the doctrinal accretions which define it. If I agree, am I inappropriately assailing anyone's character? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Again with the definition of "ATHEISM" We've have come a long way from the given matter of this thread, which asked "Is there a downside to atheism" some have tried hole harderly to stay on topic, others have come to the conclusion that to be atheist, must cary some philosophical view. Of which I've stated that it does not, the term "atheist" is applied to a person who willfully rejects a theistic belief. It does not state that "there is or is not a god". In order to argue an existent such as "god" of which there is no emperical proof is pointless. A wider view of atheism then would be that we refuse, or reject the "assumption" that a supernatural existent exists. No one can state with certainty, and emperical proof that there exists a god or not. And all the other rant is just that a rant. No better than trailer trash, from half ass educated want to be intelectuals. When a person rejects theistic beliefs, he/she may still believe in mysticism of other forms, such as scientology, per say. This will also lead a person to other types of enlightenment, but not always, it depends on the individual. Quote: "To reject a concept for its immediate ineffability is a surrender to the magnitude of the concept. It is too big, and cannot be figured out. Good point Tiassa, and since religion comes from "ignorance" the explanation to what ancient man could not explain they simply found the easy way out. "god"
Godless .... I don't see that in the dictionary Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I can only accept this definition of atheism when considering your atheism specifically. Like I noted in my earlier post: In other words, it's a valid definition, but not necessarily of atheism; it is more appropriately a definition of your atheism. And, as I noted to Tinker ... well, I've got atheism rejecting God, but no, rejecting religion ... and then the idea that a rejection of God is not the only conclusion of atheism ... and so on. And all of this is subjective. I see little real difference between believing something because God say so and ... well, why is murder wrong? Another definition? Actually, I just go based on what the atheists say. You'll notice that they didn't really make much of an effort to separate atheism from its cohort philosophies (e.g. Humanism &c) until it became problematic to fail to do so. More to the point, though, and I've had a couple of discussions with a poster about this idea, though it has been demanded of me that I not mention his name ... oh, wait, that's only if someone else mentions him ... well, now you see how confusing it's getting .... Nonetheless, your definition will only hold until it is inconvenient for yourself or any other atheist. And then some other word will be put in the sentence to patch it over. A rejection of god. No, of religious ideas. No, of spiritual things. No, of theism. No, of the supernatural .... One cannot say much about atheism in general. It would seem one can only speak of one's own atheism. Certes, we can speak of atheism in a broader sense, but just as I cannot expect every theist on the face of the earth to accept my definition of God, nor can I expect every atheist on the face of the earth to accept your particular version of the anti-identification. One down, and how many to go? Keep slaying minor gods one at a time. It's fun and easy to do. For instance, I am aware of circumstances under which the theist need not do much to demonstrate their God; to refute God is to refute existence. I can understand why atheism wants to stay in the minor leagues. Very simply, God is a word which represents a certain totality of existence; the idea does exist in the world, and if atheists want to spend their time knocking off miniscule gods, I'm not going to object. However, to dust their hands, grin, and believe they've slain God itself is more than a little dishonest. I mean, it really does appear that atheists wish to invent gods to slay. What is wrong with taking on the ideas of God that already exist and affect people? God is not a mere being. God is an idea that people have pursued from the first superstitions of fear. It represents the sum of their fears, the sum of their ignorance, and the sum of all that exists, has existed, or will exist; it is everything, every event, every being, every thing, every association, everything. Anyone who surveys diverse religions beyond their need to refute or reject them will find certain common aspects, often psychological among religions. And yet there is a religion that points out the accretions that hide this central essence, and they stand unrefuted because they make very few, if any, claims that can be refuted. When they say there is a divine power, it's hard to refute because that power remains (largely) unidentified and without description. It's the state of recognizing what cannot be described. Words are thus far inaccurate to encompass the whole of what that divine power is, and history shows that to put words to it makes that reduction of the truth into a limited religion, and thus creates a godhead which is easily refuted. Consider a line from the song Weary, by Floater: I've seen the face of God, and He hates me with disinterest. In actuality, the part about disinterest is true. Lately, I've pointed to the Greek pantheism being monotheistic in respect toward whatever authority limited the conduct and power of the diverse gods. The Unmoved Mover, the Unnamed Namer, the Disinterested Interest, whatever you would like to call it. But the notion of the face of God, the notion of "he" as an entity, and the notion of hate are all symptomatic of perspective. The song tends to react to a specific image of God, one familiar to our atheists and to Western minds in general. Given the nature of that godhead, the idea of the real disinterest of the true manifestation of the godhead can easily be interpreted from the human perspective as being hateful. I'm not sure God can be sought, attained, or otherwise contacted. God simply is, and even by the most satisfactory (to me) expressions of God in the world at large, I still don't think people have figured it all out. However, those satisfactory expressions are also humble--they generally acknowledge that they are insufficient. You know, we can describe an Easter egg. It's hard-boiled, and the one we're arguing over has been dyed sky-blue and has glitter sprinkled all over it. Easy enough? We can't do that with the God idea or else we get something ludicrous. One of the first debates I ever took part in at Exosci/Sciforums was a simple question: If we say that God is something, what becomes of those things which God is not? Think of the "majority" idea of God ... while I'm always happy to see that idea go down, it does beg the question of how tough that really is. As I may have mentioned elsewhere--Top 40, electoral results, Nielsen ratings°, &c. How often is the majority "right", except by accident? I dare anyone to find a synonym for the full potential of God. I'm not talking about crusty old farts in the sky or other childish, easy notions. But what word goes to encompass everything that the God-concept represents when we strip away the ritual accretions? Notes: ° Nielsen ratings: Perhaps the name has gone international, but if not, AC Nielsen is the company which for decades has been the top surveyor of television popularity and viewer "ratings" in the US. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What's that about definitions, Godless? Forgive the poor, asshole cavemen for not inventing the Hubble Telescope and you'll see what's wrong with that. Right, and limiting God to a "supernatural existent" is your own error. Choosing to subscribe to the limited notions of God which have served politics throughout human history is worthy enough, but only insofar as one keeps things in perspective. All things supernatural become natural when known. Yet the mysteries of the Universe persist, foremost among them the purpose of human consciousness and existence its very self. I must admit, though, that this is not something I can necessarily expect an atheist to understand. It seems to be a realization among those who chose to study what hurt, frustrated, or angered them instead of taking the easy route and rejecting it. Religion exists and compels people to believe in gods. It is well enough to say that gods don't exist, but they do have an effect in the world, which presents an interesting consideration. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Atheism 101 Hey Tiassa! what's the freaking meaning of "theism"? What would then make the prefix "a" added in front of "theism"? in other words, A-theism is with out theism!!!!. By the book, ATHEISM THE CASE AGAINST GOD, BY GEORGE H. SMITH: The scope of Atheism, Chapter II "The Meaning of Atheism "Theism" is defined as the "belief in a god or gods." The term "theism" is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god-the personal god of monotheism-but as used throught this book, "theism" signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absense of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural beign is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no god of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absense of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who "believes" that a god does "not" exist; rather, he does not "believe" in the existence of a god. As here defined, the term "atheism" has a wider scope than the meanings usually attached to it. The two most common usages are described by Paul Edwards as follows: (First, there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if he maintains that there is no god, where this is taken to mean that "god exists" expresses a false proposition. Secondly, there is also a broader sense in which a person is an athiest if he "rejects" belief in god, regardless of whether his rejection is based on the view that belief in god is false.) Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense. "Atheism" is a private term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. If we use the phrase "belief-in-god" as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is "no-belief-in-god"--or, in "without theism" or the absense of belief in god. "Theism" and "atheism" are descriptive terms: they specify the presence or absence of a belief in god. If a person is designated as an theist, this tells us that he believes in a god, not why he believes. If a person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not believe in a god, not why he does not believe. There are many reasons why one may not believe in the existence of a god: one may have never encountered the concept of god before, or one may consider the idea or a supernatural being to be absurd, or one may think that there is no evidence to support the belief in a god. But regardless of the reason, if one does not believe in the existence of a god, one is an atheist; i.e., one is without theistic belief. In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an athiest; there is no other choice. One either accepts the proposition "god exists" as true, or one does not. One either believes in a supernatural being, or one does not. There is no third obtion of middle ground. This immediately raises the question of agnosticism, which has traditionally been offered as a third alternative to theism and atheism. I hope this helps you, to understand atheism better, if not buy the book, read it then draw your own conclussions. Atheism is not an organized institution such as religious institutions are, athiesm is on a private level, so yes you are correct when given a definition of what atheism is to one of us, you are going to get different answers and assertions. It's on a private level, just as god is on a private level of those who belive in subjective fary tales.
