It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheists and Agnostics don't believe in God but want spread their nothing word

page: 25
25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Doesn't sound like someone who wants to meet in the middle.


But he advocates and practices rational mysticism.


Now, why would you identify a part of the religious population (the fundamentalists) but don't seem to recognize that atheists can also be further divided?


Because there is a pronounced schism dividing the religious population into fundamentalists and liberals. The two camps are opposing each other. It has been so for a very long time. There is not a pronounced schism in the atheist population. They present a more or less unified front. But I would be in favor of dividing atheists into fundamentalists and liberals as well. The liberals would be the ones most open to advocating and practicing a rational mysticism, it seems to me.


The term popped up earlier in the thread, and it seems to me that the middle ground that you seem to think holds the answers, is where the spiritual atheists are at.


Maybe. Are you a spiritual atheist? A rational mystic?

👣




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
IMO a true Monotheists...

But that opinion is not shared by everyone.


We need to practice asking ourselves when we take something from someone,what it is that we are trying to replace it with.

I think die on it's own means that the believers themselves just let go of it. Nobody is trying to actively replace it with anything.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, now I feel like I can't even talk to you without offending you. Maybe I'm being too sensitive. Maybe I'm being too forceful. If so I apologise. I don't think you're ignorant, deluded, or stupid. Quite the opposite, actually, which is why I try to engage you in conversation. We do have a mutual opponent, after all.

👣



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
But he advocates and practices rational mysticism.

I just posted what I found.


There is not a pronounced schism in the atheist population. They present a more or less unified front. But I would be in favor of dividing atheists into fundamentalists and liberals as well. The liberals would be the ones most open to advocating and practicing a rational mysticism, it seems to me.

Sure there is, that is what people have been trying to point out and what you and others keep negating.


Maybe. Are you a spiritual atheist? A rational mystic?

Had not heard of rational mysticism but after a quick look it doesn't seem to be incompatible with theism so it seems like these two concepts overlap near the middle.

I guess I would be more in line with spiritual atheism but I would prefer to use gnostic atheist.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
. . . since 9/11 he feels that it is important to generate an international opposition to theocracy. The reason being that these monotheistic religions seem to want, more than anything, the destruction of this world.


Organized religion has forced atheists and Humanists to organize.

There is a difference between having faith and trying to control the world by God force.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: BlueMule
But he advocates and practices rational mysticism.

I just posted what I found.


I realize that. That's why I added the distinction.


Sure there is, that is what people have been trying to point out and what you and others keep negating.


I'm not negating it. If atheists want to be consistent with their qualifiers, I'll get onboard. Are you an atheist fundamentalist, or liberal?

But look. Even though I'm a religious liberal, I share a mythos with my fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We just have very different ways of interpreting it.

Atheism is also a mythos. I'm not using that word in a derogatory way, just in a comparativist way.



Had not heard of rational mysticism but after a quick look it doesn't seem to be incompatible with theism so it seems like these two concepts overlap near the middle.


Did you mean to say atheism?


I guess I would be more in line with spiritual atheism but I would prefer to use gnostic atheist.


Gnostics practice mysticism to achieve altered states of consciousness (gnosis). Do you?

👣


edit on 722SundayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I would prefer to use gnostic atheist.


Explain meaning of gnostic atheist, please.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I agree but BM said something about reaching our potential as a species.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that means either.


I'll explain. In recent years, the Dalai Lama has been working closely with Western scientists regarding meditation. Science has seen that there are many powerful benefits to be gained from it. Meditation is an ancient and universal mystical discipline that can be practiced in a religious context or an atheist context, as Sam Harris demonstrates.

Neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama Swap Insights on Meditation

The benefits are numerous. But there is one in particular I want to focus on. You may have noticed my references to parapsychology. Well, meditation increases the psychic awareness of practitioners. In my opinion we aren't going to reach our potential as a species without heightened psychic awareness and a rational mysticism that the religious and irreligious alike can embrace.

That means we need a secular academic environment where cutting-edge religious studies and parapsychology can go on without harassment from either the religious or the irreligious.

'The origins of the discipline of religious studies in nineteenth-century Europe are not primary mystical or even religious. A highly developed secular sense is a sine qua non of the discipline and its social sustainability anywhere on the planet (hence its virtual absense outside the Western academy).' -Jeffrey Kripal

👣


edit on 769Sunday000000America/ChicagoMar000000SundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule



In my opinion we aren't going to reach our potential as a species without heightened psychic awareness and a rational mysticism that the religious and irreligious alike can embrace.


Mysticism is by definition, irrational.

So is anything psychic for that matter.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
I never really did understand the need for atheists to push their 'belief' in the non-existence of god/gods.


Maybe because they see religion preventing us from evolving to the next step in our evolution. I don't have the need to do so because I know I'm going to die some day. Why waste time preaching to someone who already has their mind set on what they believe. Only thing that can come out of that is a fight. I'm tired of fighting with them. I walk away when they (religion) start preaching to me.
edit on 29-3-2015 by LOSTinAMERICA because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

The stuff you keep talking about is old news to me.

I was raised in Earnest Holmes church way back in the 50s. Christian minister combined with a psychiatrist, and Ernest Holmes teachings: "Science of Mind". And Norman Vincent Peale.

Of course the church, Religious Science (not Scientology, not Christian Science) has evolved since then, the church is now called: "The Center for Spiritual Living".

I find: "The Law of One" far more fascinating.


edit on 29-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: BlueMule



In my opinion we aren't going to reach our potential as a species without heightened psychic awareness and a rational mysticism that the religious and irreligious alike can embrace.


Mysticism is by definition, irrational.

So is anything psychic for that matter.



The vast majority of atheists would agree with you. Which means, the vast majority are wrong about something vital to our understanding of ourselves and reality itself.

👣



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: BlueMule



In my opinion we aren't going to reach our potential as a species without heightened psychic awareness and a rational mysticism that the religious and irreligious alike can embrace.


Mysticism is by definition, irrational.

So is anything psychic for that matter.



The vast majority of atheists would agree with you. Which means, the vast majority are wrong about something vital to our understanding of ourselves and reality itself.

👣


This has nothing to do with the lack of belief in gods, more the lack of evidence to support such claims and the number of exposed frauds claiming to be psychics and/or mystics.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

This has nothing to do with the lack of belief in gods, more the lack of evidence to support such claims and the number of exposed frauds claiming to be psychics and/or mystics.


Since there is no such lack of evidence, it has to do with a blind spot that the majority of atheists share.

👣



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Thanks Gryphon66
daskakik, I get that alot about my opinions.It's actual part of the reason I put them out there, and adapt an aggressive stance with those who want to see the world burn.I've met my share of atheists who thank Goodness and don't mind what I call them as long as I spell theor name right!

I read the first post ITT, and maxzen2004 wrote about someone appearing to stand in an airport and preach not to believe anything.I didn't see the special, though am familiar with Atheists reaching out.Typically, they mean well and are trying to behave proactively about the negatives of religious dogma.

As a theist, religious belief gives hope to many that they don't find in more material philosophies.I've been through many dark nights, and consumed by melancholy before.Those experiences force someone to question their beliefs, and examine themselves.Rock bottom or hitting the pavement, lol.

There isn't much left another can come up with, that I haven't looked at myself when it comes to questioning my faith, so atheists sharing their perspective doesn't raise many flags for me.Growing up though, this scenario made me feel like someone was trying to get me to sell out.The understanding religion attempts to teach and spirituality provides isn't for sale.

Many atheists can see the hypocrisy of organized religion and the scapegoat it has become for individuals to avoid grabbing the beast by the horns and practice owning a growing sense of responsibility.It's a huge challenge and hiding behind differences or using that to judge others is much easier then pushing oneself harder for a deeper, more productive understanding.The understanding that creates change, rather then simple forms of division.Religion is no excuse to shelf our rationality, logic or any of the higher gifts we have been given as humans.

Sometimes theists have told me, "They don't understand," or "They have something to hide," or "They are scared of the truth."Maybe sometimes, but just as many atheists who do have eyes to see and ears to hear and have turned their back on what Religion has become, because they don't want to be part of the problem.They may have even found it in some very deep waters, ones hidden in places that few ever dare tread.(Lol, i'm getting a little dramatic with that, I'm just saying that it's naive to think those who feel different about religion haven't pushed themselves past the same limits theists have.)Who has a monopoly on truth?
edit on 29-3-2015 by dffrntkndfnml because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Prezbo369

This has nothing to do with the lack of belief in gods, more the lack of evidence to support such claims and the number of exposed frauds claiming to be psychics and/or mystics.


Since there is no such lack of evidence, it has to do with a blind spot that the majority of atheists share.

👣


Majority of atheists. Really?

How many atheists do you know?



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Prezbo369

This has nothing to do with the lack of belief in gods, more the lack of evidence to support such claims and the number of exposed frauds claiming to be psychics and/or mystics.


Since there is no such lack of evidence, it has to do with a blind spot that the majority of atheists share.
There's no lack of evidence. There's a lack of credible evidence, because I've reviewed the evidence and agree with Dr. Park that it appears to be pathological science

Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions".


I have expertise in statistics that most people lack so I probably see the experiments differently than many as a result, but even experts in the parapsychology field like Daryl Bem who reported positive psi results admit that it can be a minefield of being tricked into false positives.


Physicist Robert Park states that parapsychology's reported positive results are problematic because most such findings are invariably at the margin of statistical significance and that might be explained by a number of confounding effects; Park states that such marginal results are a typical symptom of pathological science as described by Irving Langmuir.
So it's not a blind spot. I've examined many studies and they typically are at the margin of statistical significance despite claims to the contrary. For example the claim that getting 31% right on a 4 choice multiple answer psi test is proof of ESP, because random chance would only yield 25%.

Even if that was true it's not very impressive, but the arguments about why 31% is so statistically improbable aren't very convincing when you consider all the confounding factors that must be considered. Now if the results were 75% when the null result should be 25%, would be impressive, but there's never been any study like that without problems that I'm aware of.

edit on 29-3-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004

Since I believe it is the ultimate hubris to define what a 'god' can do or not do and that it is impossible to 'divine' its intents, my POSITION is that all of this discussion is extraordinarily moronic.

You and I know nothing and we collectively and individually guess at what is real. We can exist within a black hole, be a hologram, be a statistical fluctuation of the Quantum Foam, whatever!!!

Thinking that that blob of protoplasm sitting in that cranium of very limited capacity is on top of the root causes of reality, because some primitives got a load of psycho-reactive pharmaceuticals and babbled in a somewhat coherent fashion, is a an epic flight of fantasy.

To think because you CHOOSE to not believe has any effect on anything other than other humans' comfort levels, is a as false a concept as it comes.

We do not need to confront stupid systems of belief. We do need to displace it by acting as if it is unimportant to our evolution as a species. If the dolts persist in believing, having faith, holding opinions instead of formulating positions (Positions can be changed because they are rationally based on 'best' knowledge generated form falsifiable premises. They are not 'fixed' and further inputs can modify or replace them.), they will eventually fail and be shunted into a dead end.

We need to concentrate on causing functionality and responsible behaviors to be what we aspire to. How can anyone suggest otherwise without resorting to the sham totems and writings created by a debate of 'god' and its desires? How can we think that a god or lack of god will influence our outcomes as the Universe grinds on in creating the future? A Universe designed to kill YOU. A Universe that forces evolution. A Universe that will eliminate it's baryonic content in the next quadrillion years (best guess again) no matter what we 'feel' about a god's presence.

How about we stick this entire set of time wasting exercises aside and both enjoy our lives, attempt to make others' existences enjoyable and proceed rationally into a future of trepidation honestly?

At best god doesn't care and at worse he's pretty much a mass killer. Fingering his intentions out of the easily perceived malevolence of his actions, clearly defines what the SOB is. Not necessarily what he wants. Those purposes may be shown at some future date but in the meantime it doesn't matter to ourselves.

I do not recommend being a fatalist, it is contrary to having some fun or allowing a future to evolve with US in it. Just quit thinking that there is a plan and just observe what is present and make YOUR plans accordingly. I hope that you are relatively benevolent because long term that is THE survival trait that works and makes most people happy.

Living is worthwhile because the Universe allows it. Don't screw it up.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

When I was ten, the Philadelphia Bulletin had a pull out magazine called The American Weekly. In one edition it had a Test Your ESP piece. In it was a set of ten cards containing five duplicates. You were to sit back to back with a companion and attempt to match the order of the cards after they were laid down by either initiator.

My sisters (6 and 4 y/os) and I arranged ourselves so- one sat on a bed to monitor the proceedings and the other two did sit back to back on the floor before the monitor. Each pairing of my sisters and I (they did not test against themselves-Hey, it was my test and I was bigger than them!) went through twenty rounds and logged the results on a sheet of paper.

With my older sister we matched perfectly 18 out of the 20 and had two sets with four errors total. 96 0f 100 correct. (One mistake will cause two errors.) With my youngest sister 16 of 20 were perfect and four had two errors each. 92 of 100 correct. (Once again one mistake, two errors.)

When folks speak of paranormal from a lofty perspective, I admit to be being amused, If you would do the math, I think you will see why I have this view.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
I'm not negating it. If atheists want to be consistent with their qualifiers, I'll get onboard. Are you an atheist fundamentalist, or liberal?

It doesn't matter or at least it shouldn't until you get to that point in a conversation.


But look. Even though I'm a religious liberal, I share a mythos with my fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We just have very different ways of interpreting it.

Atheism is also a mythos. I'm not using that word in a derogatory way, just in a comparativist way.

I understand how you are using it but I don't share your opinion.



Did you mean to say atheism?

No, theism. Obviously "spiritual atheism" isn't going to appeal to the theist looking for the middle ground.


Gnostics practice mysticism to achieve altered states of consciousness (gnosis). Do you?

Yes, but I didn't mean gnostic as in the gnostic schools but just the word "know".



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join