There are only religious people. Everyone decides they know what entities there are. Which ones are real and which are not. Everyone decides they know the limites of cause and effect. Every ascibes realness to things that they themselves cannot touch effect or sense. Every makes absolute claims about epistemology and how one should and should not accept truth. I see faith everywhere and little humility. I would tend to say my faith is intuition. And I wish others would take responsibility. I wish the monotheists would admit they believe their intuitions are very strong. I wish the rationalists would admit they base much of their opinions, life style choices and sense of superiority to others on intuition. Tirade aside.... to answer your question: yes, technically. But most people mean monotheists when they get into these kinds of arguments. Is a Buddhist a theist or an atheist? Is a mystical believer in Shiva/ I know people in both these groups and I think the answer is not so easy. Even mystical Christians and other mystical monotheists are not so easily lumped with the religious.
It's simply the definition of the word.. :shrug: Actually, I resent that.. I think you will find that atheism is not about destroying things. Religion on the other hand is pretty self-centered in it's world view. I dare to say that, on average, atheists are far more nature loving people than religious people are. Once you apply it yes, but logic in itself cannot be anything other than objective. Hmm but organic material exists just as well as inorganic material exists. I am not denying that organism exist either, or life for that matter. I think you misunderstood. I never said it isn't real. Thoughts are chemical and electrical processes in the brain caused by memory in external input. That is real. What isn't real is how we view it. The results of mental processes are 'presented to us' like an illusion.
Reality can be understood in many ways, in order to know what's real, you have to know first what you define by the word reality.
If you put it like that, I can't really disagree.. I follow intuition.. but it seems rather far fetched to me to say that that is religion. Definitions are everything I suppose.
We are working that out right now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But while it's true that reality can be understood (read viewed) in many ways, there is only one true reality at the base of it all.
We can hide in definitions of words. The whole point of atheism is that someone believe in a being that does not exist. You are a proponent of the dead universe model. For you then, most atheists would be doing the same thing, since they believe in a living entity, themselves. And they believe in it religiously and will turn to violence to defend this hallucinated being. Than the monotheists, perhaps. I would need to see this proven to me. But I do not have to choose between the monotheists and atheists. I can choose earth-based, nature centered religions. But unapplied it is just squiggles on the page. It means nothing. But it is all really dead, it seemed you were saying. Or not alive. I never said it isn't real. Thoughts are chemical and electrical processes in the brain caused by memory in external input. That is real. What isn't real is how we view it. The results of mental processes are 'presented to us' like an illusion.[/QUOTE] I communicate poorly. I am saying it is surreal that you are not bothered by the fact that you are really not alive and in control. (There are many surreal things. This does not make it bad, but to me it is, how about ' amazing') Then I threw in there my opinion that you are wrong. I do not believe in a dead universe. I should have kept those ideas out of the same sentence.
Their bodies exist, their brain exists, their survival instinct exists they are real. In all honesty, there wouldn't be much difference between me and someone that is a follower of a nature religion. I revere nature, but I don't see it as some god or whatever.. For lack of a better word nature is sacred to me. I see, maybe it wasn't such a good point. Still, it stands that it's objective.. lol Not in the way people normally think of it. It's all dead matter, but organized in a particular way that we call life. Or maybe people do see it that way.. but they certainly don't show it.. :shrug: Maybe there is confusion about each others definition of 'dead universe'.. I am not denying life at all. (see above)
As beings that are separate from their environment that last over time? If there is no better word perhaps that is the word. I'm glad by the way that you feel this way. I see, maybe it wasn't such a good point. Still, it stands that it's objective.. lol So they believe one way and live another. They know that they are irrational, not simply intuitive, but irrational. And yet they get upset at others who are irrational. How odd. It is like getting mad at the toaster that holds onto and burns the bread. OK, that's happened to me. But I would never come to a discussion forum and express my anger at toasters or any other essentially dead thing. That just seems to be going too far. Or...? But it seems like you think it is really dead. It is simply the falling of dominoes just like everything else.
That's a matter of definition. Taking in account the way you posed the question, I'd say yes. I can see you haven't been reading my posts much in other parts of the forum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! People don't see themselves like that. It's the way we function.. On the other hand, there are LOTS of people that beat their computer to pulp after it crashes. I would even say that it's pretty common place to aim one's anger at something inanimate. I believe there is even a psychological term for it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, it's not inherently different than a rock or whatever apart from the structuring. The specific structuring allows it to be something that acts in characteristic ways and interacts with it's environment. We recognize that as life. A couple of definitions: 1. Type of organization of matter producing various interacting forms of variable complexity, whose main property is to replicate almost perfectly by using matter and energy available in their environment to which they may adapt. In this definition "almost perfectly" relates to mutations happening during replication of organisms that may have adaptive benefits. 2. Life is a potentially self-perpetuating open system of linked organic reactions, catalyzed simultaneously and almost isothermally by complex chemicals (enzymes) that are themselves produced by the open system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Look Green, how can I ever answer that question ?? How can I say whether I am above or below God when I don't believe in Him ? It honestly 'does not compute'..
You said: There are no such things as souls or God or any other supernatural things? How do you know that? You would have to be above God to be able to claim that "there are no such things as souls or God or any other supernatural things". To do as if you have proven a negative - that is really cheap. I thought you were better than to use such cheap shots. If you already know "there are no such things as souls or God or any other supernatural things", then what is your problem here with this topic on "what is real"?? If a person truly knew "there are no such things as souls or God or any other supernatural things", then I do not think they would have any problems with reality.
