A question for atheists

[Theoryofrelativity]

Do you believe in the story of Jesus? The Bible? The Koran?

NO

I don't believe in stories, and for the record the heads of the Christian religion don't believe them either! I watched a doc on this only very recently.
Religions are man made institutions and are not in line with my way of thinking at all. But I respect the religious as I respect the atheist, I just don't respect Q.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Religion: a belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Hmm.. it appears you don't know the difference. Let's see.

Ok , don't start whining if I appear a little 'rude', a reasonable response to this I feel:

You're right, 'thinking' IS useless for a theist.

Get down on your knees and pray for a solution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

"Problems with definitions:
The English word "religion" is derived from the Middle English "religioun" which came from the Old French "religion." It may have been originally derived from the Latin word "religo" which means "good faith," "ritual," and other similar meanings. Or it may have come from the Latin "religãre" which means "to tie fast."
Defining the word "religion" is fraught with difficulty. All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might include belief in a personal deity or some supernatural entities. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and religious Satanism which have no such belief.
Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.
Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion -- fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.
Some define "religion" in terms of "the sacred" and/or "the spiritual," and thus necessitate the creation of two more definitions.
Sometimes, definitions of "religion" contain more than one deficiency.



Our compromise definition:
This website's essays use a very broad definition of religion:"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."(A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist. "


This is my view of religion:

Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.

I have no association or shared system of belief, no rituals etc.

[Theoryofrelativity]

http://www.mittymax.com/Archive/0084...iginOfGods.htm

Something interesting on the 'origins of gods' that further adds to this discussion,

"One of the main characteristics of man is that he has always been an inveterate god maker, having fashioned thousands of them worldwide during his 2 million year evolution – down to and including these last four: Jehovah of Christianity, Allah of the Moslem faith, Brahman for the Hindus and Buddha. Essentially, man created God instead of God creating man.

Mankind created all these gods for a good and logical reason. He has but three motives in life: Security, Satisfaction and Recognition. The one element in security he could not provide for himself was protection from death and oblivion. He, therefore, concocted gods, souls, Heavens, Nirvanas and assorted Valhalla's to which he could escape after death, thus providing eternal life for himself.

Over the millennia religion has served a useful purpose for man even though it has been very expensive in terms of religious strife, wars, pogroms, etc. It is now, however, rapidly outgrowing its usefulness. Since the world is so much smaller than hitherto, religion brings on cultural clash, Jihad, ethnic cleansing and unprecedented political, social and religious intolerance as never before in history.

This book seeks to point out that religion is an evolutionary element that all mankind must and has grown into and out of as an essential part of development. Gods do not change while the minds of men keep expanding. Already, some 20% of us have escaped the clutches and associated mass hypnosis of the gods.

This book also seeks to accelerate and perpetuate the escape of all humanity from any further tyranny of the Gods. To escape that tyranny we must unite into a Universal Brotherhood of Athenostics and truly accept one another as brothers and equals at last."

Intrestingly me belief would include the aim of this book, although what an athenostic is I have no clue, it reveals nothing in google except this link!

[(Q)]

Ok , don't start whining if I appear a little 'rude'

You're the one who called everyone else rude piss holes. I suppose you don't consider that whining?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.

Silly in the extreme. They consider the lack of knowledge and lack of beliefs to be a belief system about deities? Too funny.

This is my view of religion:

Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.

I have no association or shared system of belief, no rituals etc.

Clearly, your view of religion is as imaginative as your view of reality.

And you have also shown that you don't know the difference between stupidity and ignorance.

Yes, you have a shared system of belief, that is the shared system of belief in a god. Your version of that god is different than any other, but that is par for the course, so to speak, since no one has yet to agree on anothers' version of their gods.

Rituals can be simply defined as stereotyped behaviours, which you exhibit with your beliefs.

Hence, you're religious.

[Theoryofrelativity]

You're the one who called everyone else rude piss holes. I suppose you don't consider that whining?



Silly in the extreme. They consider the lack of knowledge and lack of beliefs to be a belief system about deities? Too funny.



Clearly, your view of religion is as imaginative as your view of reality.

And you have also shown that you don't know the difference between stupidity and ignorance.

Yes, you have a shared system of belief, that is the shared system of belief in a god. Your version of that god is different than any other, but that is par for the course, so to speak, since no one has yet to agree on anothers' version of their gods.

Rituals can be simply defined as stereotyped behaviours, which you exhibit with your beliefs.

Hence, you're religious.

irellevant contribution to this thread and No I'm not religious, God to me is not a deity. Next........

[(Q)]

irellevant contribution to this thread and No I'm not religious, God to me is not a deity. Next........

Does the fact that you changed the font color demonstrative of your passion to refuse to accept your religion?

If you weren't religious, then you wouldn't have beliefs in the supernatural, but you do, so you are religious.

What part of that don't you understand?

The contribution was that some people don't automatically start praying to a god when faced with crisis, they actually think, instead, of solutions to the crisis.

That fact that appears to contradict your religious beliefs in no way makes it any less relevant nor is a lack of contribution.

If you only wished to hear the narrow-minded views of people like yourself, then you should have said so.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Does the fact that you changed the font color demonstrative of your passion to refuse to accept your religion?

If you weren't religious, then you wouldn't have beliefs in the supernatural, but you do, so you are religious.

What part of that don't you understand?

The contribution was that some people don't automatically start praying to a god when faced with crisis, they actually think, instead, of solutions to the crisis.

That fact that appears to contradict your religious beliefs in no way makes it any less relevant nor is a lack of contribution.

If you only wished to hear the narrow-minded views of people like yourself, then you should have said so.

I do not believe God is a deity, what do you define as supernatural? Are people who believe in the supernatural religious? Does believing in ghosts make you religious? Interesting, so Einstein was religious too was he? Interesting, I put my words in red cos you're just not getting it are you? You don't know what I define as 'god' you are projecting your own 'beliefs' onto me, you are wrong on all counts, no deity, no rituals. No religion, the end.

Your contribution was crap, one liner of nothingness. I am VERY inertested in what atheists have to say on this matter, some have been very generous in their contribution. I respect the atheist view, I am not interested in anyone sharing my view. That is not what the thread is about, but you wouldn't know that as you haven't read it. Now get lost!

[(Q)]

I do not believe God is a deity, what do you define as supernatural?

Not existing in nature.

Are people who believe in the supernatural religious?

Yes, those supernatural entities they consider to control human destinies.

Does believing in ghosts make you religious?

Only if they believe those ghosts control mankinds destinies.

Interesting, so Einstein was religious too was he?

That is far too stupid a question to warrant a response... oops, I just responded.

Interesting, I put my words in red cos you're just not getting it are you? You don't know what I define as 'god' you are projecting your own 'beliefs' onto me, you are wrong on all counts, no deity, no rituals. No religion, the end.

So what, you have your own definitions that you made up. Only you would agree with them.

Your contribution was crap, one liner of nothingness.

I say more in a few words than others do with paragraphs. You appear to revel in quantity rather than quality.

Now get lost!

The dog barks, but the caravan still passes.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Hi thank you for your inetresting reply. The post I was directing to was post 9.38. Talks of how babies and children first view themselves as omnipotent (as babies) and then the parent and then when they are about 4, they realise the parent is not omnipotent but this need FOR an omnipotent parent still exists within us, hence our need for 'God', the ultimate parent. Afterall religion and the idea od 'gOd' which exists in all cultures came from soemwhere and I think this a good explanation of the origin of the concept at least. One that is acceptable to atheists?

Myself I believe in God through personal experience and observation and not in religious contexts. I expect this was also the case for others pre religion which reinforced their 'natural' need for a God (as mentioned above) with some kind of personal evidence of something more than they could see or understand, a reassurring interference in their lives, just as the parent was pre 4yrs old.

I think from a science perspective where everything pertaining to humans is about reproduction, it would be inetresting to hear sciences explanation of why it is we are designed to experience the idea of omniopotence, first in ourlseves and then in others. What would be the advantage of this to our 'survival'? I guess believing the parent is omnipotent means we would trust them blindly as children and follow them away from danger instead of resisting? Maybe this would be the argument, who knows, but the need in humans to have 'meaning' in their lives, and desire 'more' than is available is surely unique in the animal world.

Humans have the largest capacity in their brains for learning, learning what?
Why did we evolve with such a HUGE capacity for learning and very little in the way of innate knowledge. Innate knowledge assistsd other species a great deal more than a blank mind when they are born.

Why did our brains evolve to create a greater need for learning and less of a need for innate knowledge, how does learning over innate knowledge enhance our survival rate?

This may seem obvious in that learning enables us to adapt more efficiently to our environment etc, but other species manage to avoid predators and adapt without needing to 'learn' everything from scratch. Humans in the wild without parents would perish. We are inefficient in that respect. We evolved (or were designed) to be in groups and to know and have a need for 'omnipotent ' beings. Why?

Hope that makes sense?

In case posters forget what this thread is about

[Theoryofrelativity]

That is far too stupid a question to warrant a response... oops, I just responded.
.

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publication...1/torrance.htm

You are correct Einstein was 'religious' here are his own words on the matter:

"Later in life in a speech delivered in Berlin, he gave this illuminating account of himself:

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

Either way, my alleged 'religiousness (absent of a religion) or not' is irrelvant and not what this thread is about, I have not contradicted any atheist view as atheists views are what I am after. Your one liner view WAS NOT quality, I asked you to elaborate you were unable to do so.

[(Q)]

In case posters forget what this thread is about

You made it evidently clear what this thread was about:

"Myself I believe in God"

You are correct Einstein was 'religious' here are his own words on the matter

I never said such a thing, but I understand you're ability to synthesize is seriously lacking, so I'll overlook that.

Einstein was not religious. Get over it.

Either way, my alleged 'religiousness (absent of a religion) or not' is irrelvant and not what this thread is about, I have not contradicted any atheist view as atheists views are what I am after. Your one liner view WAS NOT quality, I asked you to elaborate you were unable to do so.

There is nothing alleged about it, you admitted to believing in a god, that's religion, numbnuts.

[Theoryofrelativity]

[QUOTE=(Q)]

Einstein was not religious. Get over it.

QUOTE]


"http://www.ctinquiry.org/publication...1/torrance.htm

"Later in life in a speech delivered in Berlin, he gave this illuminating account of himself:

Einsteins own words:

"Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

Ha, so you presume to tell Einstein what he believed? He said in his own words, he was 'religious' by the definition he provided, which fits your definition, whats the matter 'Q', so offensive to you that your hero doesn't agree with your non belief that you ignore his own words. Get lost troll. I want interesting atheist views on the questions posed, not dialogue with a retard like yourself.

[(Q)]

Ha, so you presume to tell Einstein what he believed? He said in his own words, he was 'religious' by the definition he provided, which fits your definition, whats the matter 'Q', so offensive to you that your hero doesn't agree with your non belief that you ignore his own words. Get lost troll. I want interesting atheist views on the questions posed, not dialogue with a retard like yourself.

I don't presume anything. You, with your over-active imagination and lack of thinking skills have muddled up in your mind Einsteins quotes, as do most other theists here.

Either you are just like them in that you really, really want Einstein to be religious, like you, or you simply can't understand the written word.

Which is it?

[Theoryofrelativity]

I don't presume anything. You, with your over-active imagination and lack of thinking skills have muddled up in your mind Einsteins quotes, as do most other theists here.

Either you are just like them in that you really, really want Einstein to be religious, like you, or you simply can't understand the written word.

Which is it?

Ah so you are a liar too, the quote is exactly as was stated in the link.
YOU really do want to change your hero's views don't you, so painful the truth Q?

Einsteins own words on people like you:

" The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind"

[Crunchy Cat]

TOR,

I've actually gone through 2 crisis experiences in the past couple of years so I have some answers relatively fresh on my mind. On a side-note the first question implies that "merely hope" is somehow of less value to something else (I'll speculate that would be prayer). For the purposes of your questions, I'll assume the relative is somsone whom I care about and that the situation is something that can be recovered from (i.e. no terminal illness / no terminal injury / hospice choice).

When a relative is ill, or in an accident, do you merely hope they will get better?

I do hope that recovery will occur and I'll take personal action to influence the outcome. That influence can be anything from instilling a positive attitude in the relative to collaborating with a physician network and be part of the treatment decision-making process.

When sitting exams you merely hope you will do well?

If the question is, do I apply hope when undergoing a medical examination by a doctor, the answer is no. It's just an examination.

I have asked these questions of atheists before and they have admitted asking God to help, "please God..etc" to which I ask them 'what god, you don't believe', they then look confused. As do I.

They might not be atheists or they might be atheists whom had a heavy religious background and are conditioned by their parents with thinking such phrases.

What runs through your minds in times of great personal crisis?

It really depends on what that crisis is. I can give a better answer with an example crisis. What I can say, is that if the stress is intense, I'll apply spirituality with fantasy meditation to diffuse it. By spirituality I am talking about intense appreciation of the things I find attractive. Fantasy meditation is phrase that I coined. It's a deep and relaxing state where you can focus on fantasy experiences (visual, audio, tactile, etc. sensations). Combine that with spirituality and it's a winning combination diffuses stress and recharges you to take on the world.

PLEASE READ POST MADE BY ME AT 9:38, MAKES MORE SENSE OF WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

ok.

Basically here I am trying to figure out why even when some do not believe in a god they seem to have a 'need' to believe in one. There is actually a psychological reason for this as I recently found out, hence referring you to the other posting.

That's an excellent question and I might have the answer. I've been observing the behavior of 'believers' and 'non-believers' for quite some time to understand the same thing.

I have discovered that emotionally healthy 'believers' achieve an intense relationship with *something* and emotionally healthy 'non-believers' achieve an intense relationship with *something*.

Both groups exercise that relationship with any combination of day dreaming, meditation, and focused thought. The individuals whom combine all three of these tend to have the best relationships AND those mental activities affect the blood flow, and therefore stimulation, of the part of the brain that controlls the sense of self (i.e. the part of the brain that lets you distinguish between 'self' and 'other'). Prolonging the mental activity for some people will result in a significant decrease of blood flow to that area of the brain (this is all measurable and reproducible btw). When a person loses their sense of self, they have a euphoric hallucinatory experience where they become "one with everything".

We can now extrapolate an answer to your question from this information. The healthiest believers and non-belivers have an intense relationship with *something*. The process of relating to that *something* affects the part of the brain that controlls the sense of self; therefore, the affect literally applies to the 'self'.

In other words, the healthiest believers and non-belivers have an intense relationship with themselves and that's the answer. The more you exercise that relationship the more you want to because it has very positive recharging affects and the promise of a euphoric experience of feeling "one with everything" (which might even be addictive).

-CC

[Theoryofrelativity]

TOR,

I've actually gone through 2 crisis experiences in the past couple of years so I have some answers relatively fresh on my mind. On a side-note the first question implies that "merely hope" is somehow of less value to something else (I'll speculate that would be prayer). For the purposes of your questions, I'll assume the relative is somsone whom I care about and that the situation is something that can be recovered from (i.e. no terminal illness / no terminal injury / hospice choice).



I do hope that recovery will occur and I'll take personal action to influence the outcome. That influence can be anything from instilling a positive attitude in the relative to collaborating with a physician network and be part of the treatment decision-making process.



If the question is, do I apply hope when undergoing a medical examination by a doctor, the answer is no. It's just an examination.



They might not be atheists or they might be atheists whom had a heavy religious background and are conditioned by their parents with thinking such phrases.



It really depends on what that crisis is. I can give a better answer with an example crisis. What I can say, is that if the stress is intense, I'll apply spirituality with fantasy meditation to diffuse it. By spirituality I am talking about intense appreciation of the things I find attractive. Fantasy meditation is phrase that I coined. It's a deep and relaxing state where you can focus on fantasy experiences (visual, audio, tactile, etc. sensations). Combine that with spirituality and it's a winning combination diffuses stress and recharges you to take on the world.



ok.



That's an excellent question and I might have the answer. I've been observing the behavior of 'believers' and 'non-believers' for quite some time to understand the same thing.

I have discovered that emotionally healthy 'believers' achive an intense relationship with *something*. Emotionally healthy 'non-believers' have an intense relationship with *something*.

Both groups exercise that relationship with any combination of day dreaming, meditation, and focused thought. The individuals whom combine all three of these tend to have the best relationships those mental activities affect the blood flow, and therefore stimulation, of the part of the brain that controlls the sense of self (i.e. the part of the brain that lets you distinguish between 'self' and 'other'). Prolonging the mental activity for some people will result in a significant decrease of blood flow to that area of the brain (this is all measurable and reproducible btw). When a person loses their sense of self, they have a euphoric hallucinatory experience where they become "one with everything".

We can now extrapolate an answer to your question from this information. The healthiest believers and non-belivers have an intense relationship with *something*. The process of relating to that *something* affects the part of the brain that controlls the sense of self; therefore, the affect literally applies to the 'self'.

In other words, the healthiest believers and non-belivers have an intense relationship with themselves and that's the answer. There more you exercise that relationship the more you want to because it has very positive recharging affects and the promise of a euphoric experience of feeling "one with everything" (which might even be addictive).

-CC

wow very interesting! I shall read that again and ponder and then formulate a more suitable reply.

(Re the merely hope thing, I dealt with that in reply to Wes, it wasn't meant to sound derogatory

[(Q)]

Ah so you are a liar too, the quote is exactly as was stated in the link.

And you didn't get it.

YOU really do want to change your hero's views don't you, so painful the truth Q?

I hate cross-posting, but in your case, its necessary to dispell the myths you so easily gobble up.

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

~~Einstein

[Theoryofrelativity]

TOR,

I've actually gone through 2 crisis experiences in the past couple of years so I have some answers relatively fresh on my mind. On a side-note the first question implies that "merely hope" is somehow of less value to something else (I'll speculate that would be prayer). For the purposes of your questions, I'll assume the relative is somsone whom I care about and that the situation is something that can be recovered from (i.e. no terminal illness / no terminal injury / hospice choice).



I do hope that recovery will occur and I'll take personal action to influence the outcome. That influence can be anything from instilling a positive attitude in the relative to collaborating with a physician network and be part of the treatment decision-making process.



If the question is, do I apply hope when undergoing a medical examination by a doctor, the answer is no. It's just an examination.



They might not be atheists or they might be atheists whom had a heavy religious background and are conditioned by their parents with thinking such phrases.



It really depends on what that crisis is. I can give a better answer with an example crisis. What I can say, is that if the stress is intense, I'll apply spirituality with fantasy meditation to diffuse it. By spirituality I am talking about intense appreciation of the things I find attractive. Fantasy meditation is phrase that I coined. It's a deep and relaxing state where you can focus on fantasy experiences (visual, audio, tactile, etc. sensations). Combine that with spirituality and it's a winning combination diffuses stress and recharges you to take on the world.



ok.



That's an excellent question and I might have the answer. I've been observing the behavior of 'believers' and 'non-believers' for quite some time to understand the same thing.

I have discovered that emotionally healthy 'believers' achive an intense relationship with *something*. Emotionally healthy 'non-believers' have an intense relationship with *something*.

Both groups exercise that relationship with any combination of day dreaming, meditation, and focused thought. The individuals whom combine all three of these tend to have the best relationships AND those mental activities affect the blood flow, and therefore stimulation, of the part of the brain that controlls the sense of self (i.e. the part of the brain that lets you distinguish between 'self' and 'other'). Prolonging the mental activity for some people will result in a significant decrease of blood flow to that area of the brain (this is all measurable and reproducible btw). When a person loses their sense of self, they have a euphoric hallucinatory experience where they become "one with everything".

We can now extrapolate an answer to your question from this information. The healthiest believers and non-belivers have an intense relationship with *something*. The process of relating to that *something* affects the part of the brain that controlls the sense of self; therefore, the affect literally applies to the 'self'.

In other words, the healthiest believers and non-belivers have an intense relationship with themselves and that's the answer. The more you exercise that relationship the more you want to because it has very positive recharging affects and the promise of a euphoric experience of feeling "one with everything" (which might even be addictive).

-CC

excellent contribution thanks

[Crunchy Cat]

wow very interesting! I shall read that again and ponder and then formulate a more suitable reply.

(Re the merely hope thing, I dealt with that in reply to Wes, it wasn't meant to sound derogatory

Cool. I think the last section may be the part you're really interested in . An damn that Wes, he duped me again! BTW, re-read my original post, I fixed some spelling & grammatical errors since you replied.

[wesmorris]

I spent an hour on my goddamned tangent. Someone read it damnit.