The Innocent Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2012, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2012 11:38 AM by kim.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Good on you Egor -you're finding your own way. Keep going and you'll discover so much more about people and yourself. Thumbsup




Exclamation Now, now you skeptics & atheists... credit where credit is due.

After having such a lifelong steady diet of "love" administered with an icepick to the heart, it's going to be a disorienting landscape without a few spikes somewhere. Many of us carry our own baggage... we know about that... and if you say you don't, you aren't being honest with yourself. Undecided

Egor is actually posting some newborn thoughts here... and newborns can be very sensitive and reactive, ad hominem is going to be a bit of the norm, until the old reactionary patterns realize a more logical, complex thought process.


Honesty can be painfully astonishing. Egor's thoughts are new, and therefore very raw. It's honest. He's finding an honest place. He is where he is right now.


Hang in there Egor. Keep thinking; it suits you. Wink

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
[+] 8 users Like kim's post
05-05-2012, 06:13 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
Good point Kim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2012, 06:27 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
I'm not innocent.

I don't think God is impossible. But so highly improbable as to not even be seriously considered.
But if someone tarts the bible talk, and the God is great jibber jabber.... well... that shit is just wrong. Whether I believe in god or not, the bible god, is irrelevant. What that particular god is, as is written, is extremely relevant. People follow the tripe written within the bible out of either fear or love for their god. The things within the bible can be both good and bad. So I end up having a problem with the people who talk about god as if he/it, were all loving, or all nurturing. It's as if they have never read the bible. Old or new. It's scary and dangerous.

I don't mind people who believe in god, so long as it doesn't become my problem, but I do mind ignorance. Willful ignorance is the worst. If you want to go around preaching something you should at least know it somewhat. Not ignore one whole side of it.

I've rambled. Sorry.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like lucradis's post
05-05-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(05-05-2012 06:27 PM)lucradis Wrote:  It's as if they have never read the bible. Old or new. It's scary and dangerous.

I don't mind people who believe in god, so long as it doesn't become my problem, but I do mind ignorance. Willful ignorance is the worst. If you want to go around preaching something you should at least know it somewhat. Not ignore one whole side of it.
Truer words have never been written.
Ignorance and it's perpetuation is the freakiest aspect of a Theist. Who would want to do it and why? Why would anyone feel such a need to share their psychosis? Are we talking, "the more the merrier" here?

I think it's part loneliness and part power trip; seriously pathetic and scary.

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
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
05-05-2012, 06:50 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(05-05-2012 06:39 PM)kim Wrote:  
(05-05-2012 06:27 PM)lucradis Wrote:  It's as if they have never read the bible. Old or new. It's scary and dangerous.

I don't mind people who believe in god, so long as it doesn't become my problem, but I do mind ignorance. Willful ignorance is the worst. If you want to go around preaching something you should at least know it somewhat. Not ignore one whole side of it.
Truer words have never been written.
Ignorance and it's perpetuation is the freakiest aspect of a Theist. Who would want to do it and why? Why would anyone feel such a need to share their psychosis? Are we talking, "the more the merrier" here?

I think it's part loneliness and part power trip; seriously pathetic and scary.
.....with a dash of the Emperor's New Clothes for good measure.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2012, 08:34 PM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(05-05-2012 04:31 AM)Egor Wrote:  Jesus said that the one who finds the world has found a corpse, and of that person the world is not worthy. Isn't religion part of this stinking world?
Actually it's the one who has found Jesus that's uncovered a stinking corpse, and Jesus's corpse has stunk up the world for 2,000 years now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2012, 11:55 PM
 
RE: The Innocent Atheist
I have read all the replies thus far, and many of you are saying what I already know--you don't believe in God, any god of any kind, no supernatural, no consciousness that isn't contingent on a physical living animal. You are materialists, and materialists only. I get it.

My post was meant to classify the motivations for atheism. All of you would like to believe you are atheists because you are smarter than theists, or that you think more clearly, or that you are more mentally healthy, more scientific, more logical, but that's horseshit. Obviously, you're smarter than a lot of religious people, because ignorant people will tend to be religious, not atheists. You have to be able to examine your beliefs and have some learning in order to challenge what everyone around you is saying is true. So, atheists are smarter in general, more clear thinking in general than many religious people. But you're not smarter than the smart theists: Plato, Descartes, Aristotle, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley, Alvin Plantinga, Antony Flew, Jesus Christ, King David, et. al. Smart, very smart, historically smart people have believed in God.

Anyone can look at the world and say, "No God." Anyone else can look at the world and say, "God, absolutely." The conclusion I've come to is that there may be no way to change most people's minds. They may be incapable of changing their own mind (I'm one of those.). What seems to matter more is why a person believes or does not believe. A valid reason for believing is like me: You have experiences you can't turn away from that disallow you to doubt. A valid reason to disbelieve is that the idea of God has been made so unpalitable that to accept His existence is downright horrific.

But either side (of the smart people) have the duty to define that which they say they don't believe in or that they do believe in.

I believe God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

If I try to define him more specifically, I lose sight of Him. If I try to personify Him, I realize immediately that I am doing so only to bring a bit of Him into my mind. If I create theories about Him, I realize that even if it seems like logical speculation, I am only speculating.

More importantly, I don't think that kind of God really cares whether or not we believe He exists. Those who don't are merely parts of him that do not have that attribute of abstract self-knowledge. None of the animals on earth appear to have any concept of God. Most people on earth have strange religious anthropomorphic ideas of God that aren't based in any kind of higher reality (Most religions are just a way of controlling people and have nothing whatsoever to do with God.). Still more people are atheists, and only a few have a glimpse of God as He is, and that glimpse is very limited.

Here's the rub: When we die, I believe our consciousness enters a lucid spiritual plane. There we are aware that we are creating the scenery with our minds, and we can control many aspects of our environment that we cannot control now. But if I am right, God will probably be less apparent then than He is now, because we will be wearing many of the hats that he wears for us now. In other words, the more we become like God, the less God will be apparent to us. One day, we will be unified with the Divine, and we won't have any sense of God at all--after all, God doesn't have a God.

I have gone on a bit here, but I'm bored and depressed today. So sue me. Undecided
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Egor's post
06-05-2012, 12:31 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
I'm a little confused.

So what you're saying is, when we die, we become God? or a part of God.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 01:03 AM
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(05-05-2012 08:21 AM)Logisch Wrote:  
(05-05-2012 06:54 AM)MKilby Wrote:  I will only really believe if I ever saw a deity, none of this finding the meaning in the most obscure of all objects in the most random of places nonsense. Or the you have to find it in your heart.... that kind of thing, gets no one anywhere.

The more interesting question is: what is a deity, what would it look like, how would you know?

When people say a god operates outside our space and time... I ask: "How do you know?"
When people say that we're made in "his image" and you look back at evolution, are we to assume he started out as something far more ugly? Was he dust? How do you know?

Many of us say we would require physical evidence. There's many kinds of evidence that could be acceptable. But many religions have varying ideas of what a god "looks like" or "how it interacts" with things, etc etc.
I've thought about that a lot in the past, as there is such a large array of concepts about deity/deities.

True I would have no clue what one would look like, but hey what else can we work with at the moment other than speculation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2012, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2012 02:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Innocent Atheist
(05-05-2012 11:55 PM)Egor Wrote:  no "god of any kind, no supernatural, no consciousness that isn't contingent on a physical living animal. You are materialists, and materialists only.

But you're not smarter than the smart theists: Plato, Descartes, Aristotle, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley, Alvin Plantinga, Antony Flew, Jesus Christ, King David, et. al. Smart, very smart, historically smart people have believed in God.


Some atheists are "evidentialists". (Materialism is irrelevant, and the pejorative implication is as bad as the "innocent" title). "Show me the money". The thread was conceived as an attempt, as evidenced it's title, to draw a line between "the innocent" and some "other" category, ( which said poster seems to be preparing for himself ???) The projected motive cooked up, is "projection". If there were evidence that consciousness existed as a machine model, (and it may well happen, or have occurred already, and certainly will evolve here, as biological systems and machines become integrated), or ANY other model, than in complex brain systems, some might look at the evidence. There is none.

Who is smarter than whom is completely and utterly irrelevant. Einstein was wrong about many things. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-...t-mistakes The ONLY thing that matters, is the quality and nature of the argument(s). Aquinas was wrong about many things, and admited he did not understand the Trinity. Most of his arguments can be dismissed out of hand, with science. Whom is smarter than whom is not important. (It's also a form of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam). A list of "smart people" is not an argument for god.

" What seems to matter more is why a person believes or does not believe".

Finally. It's about the psychological NEED, for the crutch. It's NOT about evidence. It's the NEED. That IS is what it comes down to. Self INTERPRETING personal experiences as evidence, when they could just as easily NOT be, and indeed are not seen as such by most, does not lead to the truth. God would NOT be "unpalatable" if there were ANY evidence, and indeed the idea could be very comforting. But it's a crutch some NEED to cling to, in desperation, so their world (learned patterns of cognition), won't fall apart, as they have no "palatable construct" to replace it. There is NOT one shred of evidence that individual consciousness survives brain death, and in fact there is a LOT of evidence, that brain death causes a cessation of consciousness, even before death. God does need a god. Otherwise it's the Fallacy of Special Pleading, (and the First Cause, cited as justification for belief, is self-refuting).

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: