Atheism - A clearer understanding
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2012, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 01:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
Does one have to have a have a position on whether there is an undefined "something" (Chevy ?) orbiting Pulto. ? No.
Is there is no coherent definition of "god" or "godness" that is coherent ? No.

In every instance the concept is *employed" as a "app" for something ELSE, (generally a "god of the gaps as a Universe Creation Utility/Place Holder), in the ABSENCE of a better explanation and rests IN DANGER, of ANY other better explanation. If there were a god, it would be pretty pissed , being relegated to the "explanation" utility shelf.

Put all gods, ideas about gods, and writings about gods.
Put them in a box marked "shit, handle with care".
Take the box to the edge of the Grand Canyon.
Kick it over the edge.

What you have left, is a-boxofshitism a-theism, absence of theism, a-boxism, absence of boxism.

Clear enough ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 01:12 PM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
Alright, so there seem to be varying opinions on this, and I can't respond to them all right now.
I'll respond to a post that drew most of my attention..
(03-11-2012 01:20 PM)kim Wrote:  Yes, Atheism is different for every Atheist, and as you said, that is fine.
Atheism is an umbrella term, much the way philosophy is an umbrella term for the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A lot of ground is covered in numerous areas; there are many facets to every idea.
It is all so sordid. Dodgy (caution: that was a sarcastic remark)

***
There is not "belief" when there is nothing to believe.

Do you "believe" in Spock? I can show you pictures of him. I can quote a shit load of stuff he said that I admire. I can even love him more than I love (like) Kirk (but not as much as I love the fuck out of Bones!)... but none of that makes me "believe" in Spock. I know a few Trekkies who all love Spock and will endlessly debate with anyone upon his life and philosophy. Not one of them confuses anything about that Trek world with this world, by believing in it. I even know one Trekkie who goes to Renaissance festivals AS someone who has "beamed down" to an Elizabethan Earth to commune with the rest of her anachronistic cohorts... and not ONE of them "believes" in any of that shit.

You can love it all you want, admire it all you want, you can even live by what you've learned from it... that doesn't make it real.

***

You stated: One can say "I have a belief that the weather will change dramatically in the western hemisphere because of such and such past weather patterns" and that is simply an empirical observation.

I would say that would be an educated guess, rather than an "empirical observation"... but then, I'm not a meteorologist... nor am I into predicting the future.

Maybe try exchanging the word "believe" for the word think. I think or don't think... rather than I believe or don't believe... It might help in your quest for understanding. Shy

Believing and thinking are very different things.
Belief and thought are very different things.

For me, thought puts me closer to the knowledge of reality than belief does. Knowledge of reality is what I need to live.

I hope it turns out well, too.
One phrase really stuck out to me - "There is not "belief" when there is nothing to believe. "
From this it seems you are implying that if the object of your belief does not factually exist, then the belief does not therefore exist.
I don't believe that is true (pun?)
A human being can believe whatever he/she wishes to believe and that person can believe it in a complete and factual way. If God does not exist, my belief in Him does not therefore become non-existent, it just becomes a wrong belief.

The next thing you've pointed out is similar - "You can love it all you want, admire it all you want, you can even live by what you've learned from it... that doesn't make it real. "

This is completely true and just goes to show the mechanics of objective reality. Wishing or believing something doesn't exist does nothing at all to the actual objective existence of it.
If something exists, it just does. If something does not exist, it just does not exist whether I believe it factually or not.
That is actually a little off topic to the issue on what Atheism is and is not, but it's somewhere in the same genre.



Now, let me try and give a response to the major point repeated so far -

Basically, what I think you guys are saying is: Atheism is not really something in the sense that it can be pinpointed and ultimately defined.
That's fine. All I can do right now is make an observation on every individual about their view of the world.

Here's my very simple definition of Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.
So far what I'm gathering is that some of you believe there are "passive" and "positive" Atheists. The passive ones just don't have an opinion on the matter, yet somehow, when confronted with the question, respond that they don't believe in the existence of God (passive).
The positive ones actually have arguments against His existence and sometimes go and get into discussions with those who have arguments for His existence and so on.

This understanding seems to be obscure and somewhat avoiding.
To me, it's just avoiding the questions about reality.
I may be very wrong about this, but when someone tries to push against the idea that they have a worldview and it is firmly that God does not exist, they are just trying to get out of what they think is ridiculous organized beliefs.
It's not ridiculous to organize and keep track of your beliefs.

If someone comes up to me and somehow we get into a discussion on the existence of God and he/she says they are passive and says they don't believe God exists - they fit the description of Atheism. I would definitely categorize them into Atheism, and it's neither passive nor positive - it's just Atheism, the belief or theory that God does not exist.
The same goes for the Atheist that comes up to me and says that Atheism is just kicking a box of "shit" called "ideas about God" off a cliff in a manner of disgust for bad ideas.
It is still Atheism because the term has been established, and so has the Theory on the existence of God. It is a widely held theory that so many find compelling regardless of whether you agree with that or not.
It's almost as if you're saying that Atheism is the condition of the humans mind in that it is healthier.
I know many of you find that to be fact, but it's not. The understanding of certain philosophies and theories to lead to the belief that a deity may actually exist does not do anything to take my intelligence level to that of the state of being unhealthy.
That is purely an opinion of yours guided by your disgust for the idea itself.


(I guess I should have quoted Bucky Ball for this last part lol)

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 01:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
(04-11-2012 01:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Alright, so there seem to be varying opinions on this, and I can't respond to them all right now.
I'll respond to a post that drew most of my attention..
(03-11-2012 01:20 PM)kim Wrote:  Yes, Atheism is different for every Atheist, and as you said, that is fine.
Atheism is an umbrella term, much the way philosophy is an umbrella term for the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A lot of ground is covered in numerous areas; there are many facets to every idea.
It is all so sordid. Dodgy (caution: that was a sarcastic remark)

***
There is not "belief" when there is nothing to believe.

Do you "believe" in Spock? I can show you pictures of him. I can quote a shit load of stuff he said that I admire. I can even love him more than I love (like) Kirk (but not as much as I love the fuck out of Bones!)... but none of that makes me "believe" in Spock. I know a few Trekkies who all love Spock and will endlessly debate with anyone upon his life and philosophy. Not one of them confuses anything about that Trek world with this world, by believing in it. I even know one Trekkie who goes to Renaissance festivals AS someone who has "beamed down" to an Elizabethan Earth to commune with the rest of her anachronistic cohorts... and not ONE of them "believes" in any of that shit.

You can love it all you want, admire it all you want, you can even live by what you've learned from it... that doesn't make it real.

***

You stated: One can say "I have a belief that the weather will change dramatically in the western hemisphere because of such and such past weather patterns" and that is simply an empirical observation.

I would say that would be an educated guess, rather than an "empirical observation"... but then, I'm not a meteorologist... nor am I into predicting the future.

Maybe try exchanging the word "believe" for the word think. I think or don't think... rather than I believe or don't believe... It might help in your quest for understanding. Shy

Believing and thinking are very different things.
Belief and thought are very different things.

For me, thought puts me closer to the knowledge of reality than belief does. Knowledge of reality is what I need to live.

I hope it turns out well, too.
One phrase really stuck out to me - "There is not "belief" when there is nothing to believe. "
From this it seems you are implying that if the object of your belief does not factually exist, then the belief does not therefore exist.
I don't believe that is true (pun?)
A human being can believe whatever he/she wishes to believe and that person can believe it in a complete and factual way. If God does not exist, my belief in Him does not therefore become non-existent, it just becomes a wrong belief.

The next thing you've pointed out is similar - "You can love it all you want, admire it all you want, you can even live by what you've learned from it... that doesn't make it real. "

This is completely true and just goes to show the mechanics of objective reality. Wishing or believing something doesn't exist does nothing at all to the actual objective existence of it.
If something exists, it just does. If something does not exist, it just does not exist whether I believe it factually or not.
That is actually a little off topic to the issue on what Atheism is and is not, but it's somewhere in the same genre.



Now, let me try and give a response to the major point repeated so far -

Basically, what I think you guys are saying is: Atheism is not really something in the sense that it can be pinpointedand ultimately defined.
That's fine. All I can do right now is make an observation on every individual about their view of the world.

Here's my very simple definition of Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.
So far what I'm gathering is that some of you believe there are "passive" and "positive" Atheists. The passive ones just don't have an opinion on the matter, yet somehow, when confronted with the question, respond that they don't believe in the existence of God (passive).
The positive ones actually have arguments against His existence and sometimes go and get into discussions with those who have arguments for His existence and so on.

This understanding seems to be obscure and somewhat avoiding.
To me, it's just avoiding the questions about reality.
I may be very wrong about this, but when someone tries to push against the idea that they have a worldview and it is firmly that God does not exist, they are just trying to get out of what they think is ridiculous organized beliefs.
It's not ridiculous to organize and keep track of your beliefs.

If someone comes up to me and somehow we get into a discussion on the existence of God and he/she says they are passive and says they don't believe God exists - they fit the description of Atheism. I would definitely categorize them into Atheism, and it's neither passive nor positive - it's just Atheism, the belief or theory that God does not exist.
The same goes for the Atheist that comes up to me and says that Atheism is just kicking a box of "shit" called "ideas about God" off a cliff in a manner of disgust for bad ideas.
It is still Atheism because the term has been established, and so has the Theory on the existence of God. It is a widely held theory that so many find compelling regardless of whether you agree with that or not.
It's almost as if you're saying that Atheism is the condition of the humans mind in that it is healthier.
I know many of you find that to be fact, but it's not. The understanding of certain philosophies and theories to lead to the belief that a deity may actually exist does not do anything to take my intelligence level to that of the state of being unhealthy.
That is purely an opinion of yours guided by your disgust for the idea itself.


(I guess I should have quoted Bucky Ball for this last part lol)
No !
I said it's "what is LEFT, AFTER you kick the shit over the cliff.
NOTHING is left !!
It's not the box, dummy. Tongue
That's why I'm an Igtheist.
There is no coherent definition of "god" or "godness", or "godery" or anything else about it.
Absence is just absence. A room with nothing in it, has nothing in it.
a-symptomatic means "no symptoms"
a-symmetrical means "no symmetry"
a-theism means "no godery" ... or whatever
a-theism makes no further assertion
a-theism is absence of theism
there is nothing to BE disgusted *about* after the box goes over the cliff.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:30 PM
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
(04-11-2012 01:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's why I'm an Igtheist.
There is no coherent definition of "god" or "godness", or "godery" or anything else about it.
Absence is just absence. A room with nothing in it, has nothing in it.
a-symptomatic means "no symptoms"
a-symmetrical means "no symmetry"
a-theism means "no godery" ... or whatever
a-theism makes no further assertion
a-theism is absence of theism
The problem is that it is only in your Atheism that the theory of the existence of God is incoherent. It is your opinion or view and has no bearing on whether it actually is incoherent or not.
The Theory on the existence of God is not Universally incoherent by the opinion of the masses.
I understand that my being a Theist makes sense in the light that I understand the Theory of Gods existence to be coherent.
And I hope you understand that your being an Atheist makes sense in the light that you understand the Theory of Gods existence to be incoherent.

So are you implying that it is Universally understood that the Theory of Gods existence is incompatible and incoherent?
Or are you implying that it is 'Atheistically' understood that the Theory of Gods existence is incompatible and incoherent?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:33 PM
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
Except that there is no coherent "Theory of God". Stick a Methodist, a Baptist, a Mormon, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Lutheran, a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Coptic, a Hasidic Jew, a Sunni, a Shiite, a Hindu, a Neo-Pagan, a Jainist, a theist Buddhist, a Shintoist, a Deist, and a guy who doesn't really know what religion he is but still believes in God... Stick them them all in one room and see what Theory of God emerges. Tell me the end result is coherent, after you're done mopping up the blood.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
04-11-2012, 01:36 PM
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
(04-11-2012 01:33 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Except that there is no coherent "Theory of God". Stick a Methodist, a Baptist, a Mormon, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Lutheran, a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Coptic, a Hasidic Jew, a Sunni, a Shiite, a Hindu, a Neo-Pagan, a Jainist, a theist Buddhist, a Shintoist, a Deist, and a guy who doesn't really know what religion he is but still believes in God... Stick them them all in one room and see what Theory of God emerges. Tell me the end result is coherent, after you're done mopping up the blood.
Your entire statement is heavily opinionated and hugely lacks substance.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:39 PM
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
(separate post in case you're replying to the above)

The point I'm trying to make isn't just that religious people disagree. The point is that religion shards into an ever expanding cosmos of conflicting ideas and viewpoints, an enormous bifurcating tree to rival the model of evolution, an endless progression of disagreement and conflicting notions of what god is and what god wants. You don't see a billion people coming together, coming closer to all understanding God in the same way. You see a billion people arguing and bickering and dividing into ten million contradictory sects with different ideas of what god is.

To claim that there is a "theory of god" and that this "theory of god" is coherent just because YOUR version makes sense to YOU is to be colossally fallacious. There is no coherent Theory of God, because there is no Theory of God. There are five thousand million hypotheses of god, all disagreeing with one another to various degrees on every point imaginable, and they all have the exact same amount of evidence:

NONE

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:39 PM
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
(04-11-2012 01:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Here's my very simple definition of Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

If that is what you decided after reading the responses, I'm afraid that you missed the point.

(04-11-2012 01:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So far what I'm gathering is that some of you believe there are "passive" and "positive" Atheists. The passive ones just don't have an opinion on the matter, yet somehow, when confronted with the question, respond that they don't believe in the existence of God (passive).

"Don't believe" is active. Go back to Phaedrus' post#6 and re-read.
Passive = absence of belief

Given this tiny error, you will then see that the conclusions you have drawn in the rest of your post are also, erroneous.

Keep trying though, I feel you might be on the verge of a breakthrough.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:42 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 01:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
(04-11-2012 01:30 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 01:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's why I'm an Igtheist.
There is no coherent definition of "god" or "godness", or "godery" or anything else about it.
Absence is just absence. A room with nothing in it, has nothing in it.
a-symptomatic means "no symptoms"
a-symmetrical means "no symmetry"
a-theism means "no godery" ... or whatever
a-theism makes no further assertion
a-theism is absence of theism
The problem is that it is only in your Atheism that the theory of the existence of God is incoherent. It is your opinion or view and has no bearing on whether it actually is incoherent or not.
The Theory on the existence of God is not Universally incoherent by the opinion of the masses.
I understand that my being a Theist makes sense in the light that I understand the Theory of Gods existence to be coherent.
And I hope you understand that your being an Atheist makes sense in the light that you understand the Theory of Gods existence to be incoherent.

So are you implying that it is Universally understood that the Theory of Gods existence is incompatible and incoherent?
Or are you implying that it is 'Atheistically' understood that the Theory of Gods existence is incompatible and incoherent?
There is no universal anything. There are only individual understandings. (Or have you done a poll ?)
You have YOUR idea of theism, (and stop capitalizing it), and atheism.
So does everyone else. You have yours, every individual has their's. There is no "poll data", or reason to even look at it, if there were.
I, as in "me" could care less about the *masses*, and neither do you.
I have seen no coherent theory, ever, of what a god is, or could be, or would be, so I stand in front of an empty room, FOR ME.
I have no clue what goes on in other collections of brain cells, and neither do you. I am not disgusted about that which does not exists to be disgusted about.
Make sense ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-11-2012, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 02:15 PM by kim.)
RE: Atheism - A clearer understanding
If someone were to define some existent or non-existent thing they called "god", it would be irrelevant. Someone did and it is irrelevant.


Speaking for myself, belief or faith or god is irrelevant to my existence. It's not become that... I've always been that way. If someone came up to me and somehow we got into a discussion of existence, god/faith/belief would not enter into the discussion.

If god/faith/belief did enter into the discussion, we would cease to be discussing existence, we would then be discussing something emotionally akin to desire... fear, perhaps... emotion would be at the core of that discussion. And since my emotions are my business, you better be a damn good friend if you broach such a discussion.


One might also think twice about producing informative media which might subjugate my emotions. I am(and others are) starting to not be so content at being hoodwinked. Jovial deceit of the powers that be has worn out it's welcome.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: