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.

 

Why Atheists Just Don't Get IT.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Information
Knowlege
Wisdom
Opinion
Intent


You also meant to include Faith didnt you ?????

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

You also meant to include Faith didnt you ?????

Thanks,
Orangetom


From the perspective of an antheist there is nothing to have faith in, except theirselves, and the standards of humanity. Faith is not only not acknowledged by them, but also despised. It seems to me they look at faith as a mass delusion.

Thanks,
John



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
From the perspective of an antheist there is nothing to have faith in, except theirselves, and the standards of humanity. Faith is not only not acknowledged by them, but also despised. It seems to me they look at faith as a mass delusion.


:shk: Sorry. Your assumptions are showing.
This is a total sweeping generalization not to mention incorrect.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
From the perspective of an antheist there is nothing to have faith in, except theirselves, and the standards of humanity. Faith is not only not acknowledged by them, but also despised. It seems to me they look at faith as a mass delusion.


I suppose I could contend that unless you are an atheist, you do not have the ability to properly empathize with the mind of an atheist. Sound familiar?

However, as BenevolentHeretic pointed out, this is a sweeping generalization. Not all who don't believe in deities despise faith. Your comentary applies mostly to philosophical naturalism/positivism, which I imagine forms a small subset of atheists.

My perspective as a philosophical naturalist is that faith is not mass delusion, but individual delusion. Some amount of faith is unavoidable. We live in a world where everything we know (other than that known simply be definition) is known through induction. But induction can be wrong. Yet we can not live without proceeding as if we know things, so faith in induction is axiomatic, and should probably be called by some other word to make the distinction.

It is nonaxiomatic faith, aka wishfull thinking, that I despise. To accept faith where faith is not necessary, is to give up on truth in exchange for a security blanket.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
And I, on the other hand, do not despise faith in the least. Other people's faith in God, gravity, fidelity or a flat earth is none of my concern. I may not share their faith and I may not respect their faith, but I certainly don't despise it.

I have faith in many things. But faith in God or a deity is not one of them.

Just a thought. Don't Atheists actually practice faith? A faith that there is no God... Don't they, in fact have very strong faith that a deity doesn't exist. Why would they bother proclaiming it otherwise?

I would almost think that an Atheist's faith is stronger than some believers'. Simply because the consequenses, if they're wrong. are much greater...

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
From the perspective of an antheist there is nothing to have faith in, except theirselves, and the standards of humanity. Faith is not only not acknowledged by them, but also despised. It seems to me they look at faith as a mass delusion.


:shk: Sorry. Your assumptions are showing.
This is a total sweeping generalization not to mention incorrect.

I agree.. if someone has faith I don't consider them deluded.. unless they are insisting the universe is only 6000 years old or think there is nothing wrong with killing others to honour their chosen deity.

I should also mention that buddhists are atheists and they do not depise other faiths. Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they have no consideration for the beliefs of others.. it also does not mean that they are incapable of being spiritual. I see this assumption alot and it's ignorant and kind of insulting. I am very spiritual.. but not believing in god does not prevent me from exploring that side of myself.

It's not a matter of 'getting it'.. it's a matter of not needing it.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just a thought. Don't Atheists actually practice faith? A faith that there is no God... Don't they, in fact have very strong faith that a deity doesn't exist. Why would they bother proclaiming it otherwise?


I suppose some have faith in the nonexistence of deities, but I don't know any. Concluding there are no god's is just an inductive judgement like any other. Inductive judgements are not known with absolute certainty.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would almost think that an Atheist's faith is stronger than some believers'. Simply because the consequenses, if they're wrong. are much greater...


Without the ability to know about the existence of deities, we also don't have the ability to know the mind of the deities we don't know about.

Just as there is no reason to even suspect there might be deities, there is similarly no reason to even suspect that deities would care whether or not we believe they exist, under the hypothetical condition that they exist. Based on observing the universe and noting the total lack of dependency on deities it has, a better conclusion is that if a hypothetical deity exists and it concernes intself with our beliefs, it must want us to be atheists.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
From the perspective of an antheist there is nothing to have faith in, except theirselves, and the standards of humanity. Faith is not only not acknowledged by them, but also despised. It seems to me they look at faith as a mass delusion.


I suppose I could contend that unless you are an atheist, you do not have the ability to properly empathize with the mind of an atheist. Sound familiar?


True. So let's take a look at what self proclaimed atheists have to say about what they think of faith:

Originally posted by Spamandham in authored thread Faith in Faith:


Faith in faith

Faith.

What is it about this word that people find virtuous? Why should it be considered a good thing to believe things that are hidden or unprovable?

I find the concept repulsive and the root cause behind the enslavement of mankind to both religious and political thinking.


originally posted by Esoteric Teacher:

Faith is not only not acknowledged by them, but also despised.


After further review I do not believe this to be true of all atheists. However, it does stand true for some. It was not meant to be a generalization of all atheists, only the ones who express said beliefs.



However, as BenevolentHeretic pointed out, this is a sweeping generalization. Not all who don't believe in deities despise faith. Your comentary applies mostly to philosophical naturalism/positivism, which I imagine forms a small subset of atheists.


You are both right. I did present it in a way which was contrary to what I do feel is true. Perhaps a different way of putting it is:
1) "Some atheists recognize a necessity for faith, for the benefit of what they may percieve as weaker minds that have nothing else to believe in, or nothing else they can fall back on for support." This was explained to me yesterday by a Senior Master Sergeant who is an atheist and a dear friend as well.
2) Some atheists believe that faith is repulsive and the root cause to humanities problems. Essentially they are battling faith.
3) Some atheists view religion as a mass delusion.
4) Some atheists give it little thought.
5) Some atheists think they are believers.
6) Some atheists either don't know what they really think, or don't express it verbally, but just in their actions.



My perspective as a philosophical naturalist is that faith is not mass delusion, but individual delusion. Some amount of faith is unavoidable. We live in a world where everything we know (other than that known simply be definition) is known through induction. But induction can be wrong. Yet we can not live without proceeding as if we know things, so faith in induction is axiomatic, and should probably be called by some other word to make the distinction.


I must admit I'm ignorant about certain specific aspects of philisophical naturalism. The statements above caused me to ponder some. Kudos to Spamandham once again. It appears to me that this portion of humanity is also attempting to ascertain answers in an interesting and worthwhile fashion. Spamandham is addressing questions worth considering.

Can we convince ourselves the human mind was ever capable of forming such an intangible and abstract concept as a perfect supreme entity (God)? To answer this question we must understand the human thought process.

I comprehend the concept that humans were capable, and the catalyst for justifying such an abstract concept was the contemplation of one's own death, and the fear of the unknown.



It is nonaxiomatic faith, aka wishfull thinking, that I despise. To accept faith where faith is not necessary, is to give up on truth in exchange for a security blanket.


True. However, wishful thinking is discovering what to look for, which is still a prerequisite for finding it. All science facts were first science fiction in the eyes of man. And, my personal experiences and interactions with humanity tell me that wishful thinking has its positive aspects.

Is it not plausible reasoning to consider the probability that our interpretations of other people intentions are reliant upon how we choose to percieve peoples intentions, and the how and why things were introduced to humanity.

You know there is truth in atheism.
I know there is truth in atheism.
We know there is truth in atheism.
Are those truths the only truths?

We are attempting to identify we can ascertain and understand. We are calculating probablities which are still confined to what the human mind is capable of. But, the chance that there is something beyond the human mind exists in the minds of humans. Why then are some so adament in their beliefs while some of us can't percieve the why they come to their conclusions given the same information?

Perhaps we all we can currently ascertain is we are all currently stuck in a struggle to understand. We analyze:
1) The intentions of those who sent/send the message (s).
2) The intentions of those who recieve the message (s).
3) Ourselves, and our intentions. (maybe this one should be first).
4) The intentions of the message (s) itself.

It is easy for some to see how intentions define a person, not through their words alone, but their actions and behaviors. Some people are oblivious to how they telegraph their intentions with their nonverbal communication.

If we are true to ourselves first, then we learn to admit to ourselves we are wrong.

Some of us at a specific age may have had to make certain decisions. The decision had to be made, but we knew we did not have all the facts. We may have known FACT 1, FACT 2, FACT 3, FACT 5, FACT 6, and FACT 7, but fact 4 was our best educated guess, based on our opinions, shich fit into the equation perfectly, so we thought. And, through time, we conditioned ourselves to make the outcome of that decision based on 5 truths and 1 educated guess our automatic response in similiar situations. However, we never went back to revisit the choice to plug in the variable, say 10 or so years later, with our accumilated experience. Sort of like de-fragging the mind. By not re-evaluating our choices when we are introduced to new stimuli and new experiences, we are selling ourselves short and holding back our true potential. Could this all be true? Yes, it could. Is it? Not necessarily. Is it worth looking into? That is dependant upon the individual's choice. But, perhaps the people who have learned to do this feel obligated to whatever means to show us, but their intent should be considered, but know what intentions we are looking for with the knowledge we only recognize what it is we know to look for. Hence religion and spirituality maybe the widest medium for spreading humility and tolerance, and does serve a purpose. However it is plausible that we may not be able to differentiate between intentions that determine the purposes of individuals' faiths.



[edit on 17-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Just a thought. Don't Atheists actually practice faith? A faith that there is no God... Don't they, in fact have very strong faith that a deity doesn't exist. Why would they bother proclaiming it otherwise?

I would almost think that an Atheist's faith is stronger than some believers'. Simply because the consequenses, if they're wrong. are much greater...


Those thoughts are awesome. But, for them to have turned they would have had to have known someone even stronger in their faith and the willingness and persistance to keep inviting them.

This does not take away from your thoughts in any regard. I like the consideration that atheists' faith is strong because they are introduced to the concept of the consequences. But, what if they are living the consequences and are not aware of it?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But, for them to have turned they would have had to have known someone even stronger in their faith and the willingness and persistance to keep inviting them.


You think much more in terms of external influence than I do. ALL of my spiritual beliefs are internally generated. No one external advises me, teaches me, coerces me, invites me. I did not 'turn' away from faith adn belief in God because someone convinced me to. I did that all on my own.

Everything I know, I know from my internal self.

I have everything I need.

And if my current existence is the consequenses of not believing in God, I will take it! Heaven is within me.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Hence religion and spirituality maybe the widest medium for spreading humility and tolerance, and does serve a purpose.


If they are, they certainly aren't doing an effective job. To believe you have truth without having had to work to obtain it is the height of arrogance. The greater your belief in this unearned truth, the greater your belief everyone else is wrong, and the greater your sense of importance over those you considered "deceived" which breeds intolerance, not tolerance.

The most humble and tolerant individuals I know are those who admit ignorance.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
This does not take away from your thoughts in any regard. I like the consideration that atheists' faith is strong because they are introduced to the concept of the consequences. But, what if they are living the consequences and are not aware of it?


What if they base their beliefs on what they think is actually true, rather on what they percieve as the consequences of beliefs? Wouldn't that indicate they value truth over consequences?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
This does not take away from your thoughts in any regard. I like the consideration that atheists' faith is strong because they are introduced to the concept of the consequences. But, what if they are living the consequences and are not aware of it?


What if they base their beliefs on what they think is actually true, rather on what they percieve as the consequences of beliefs? Wouldn't that indicate they value truth over consequences?


It would indicate they value truth, the truth of what they think based on their beliefs. Beliefs and intentions are still inter-related in such an equasion, aren't they?

Edited to add:
The consequences a lot of faiths teach are fear based consequences. It helps some acknowledge and recognize how their fears may overide their true intentions.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It would indicate they value truth, the truth of what they think based on their beliefs.


...or would it indicate they value the ideal of truth, and not simply their own belief of what is true, since they are willing to face consequences in the quest for truth?

This all assumes the said consequences are bad rather than good, and that certainly isn't clear to me. I lost the security blanket of thinking I would live forever. On the other hand, I no longer need a security blanket like that, and I know longer have to peek through the fibers of a security blanket to see the world around me. There are no longer any areas of thought that are off limits.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Beliefs and intentions are still inter-related in such an equasion, aren't they?


I think so.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But, for them to have turned they would have had to have known someone even stronger in their faith and the willingness and persistance to keep inviting them.


ALL of my spiritual beliefs are internally generated. No one external advises me, teaches me, coerces me, invites me.


If I were to subscribe to that brand of thinking, I wouldn't be in this forum.

If you do not choose to be advized, taught, coerced, or invited, what would lead you to a spiritual forum on BTS? One logical answer is your internally generated spiritual beliefs, (I am assuming).



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It would indicate they value truth, the truth of what they think based on their beliefs.


...or would it indicate they value the ideal of truth, and not simply their own belief of what is true, since they are willing to face consequences in the quest for truth?


I like your whole post here. Especially the quote above.



There are no longer any areas of thought that are off limits.


This may be true, it may not be. I don't know, nor is it my place to say. However, we still can only recognize specific areas of thought if the prerequisites are there for us to associate with. If there is nothing accepted as truth (truth being a specific thought or idea accepted as truth by us internally) within us, then we cannot connect the neuronet to accept as true new unexplored stimulis that is imposed on us every moment, but we may not be experiencing it consciously. Dreams tell us how the majority of information is integrated subconsciously, which in and of it's self tells us we are a duality.



Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Beliefs and intentions are still inter-related in such an equasion, aren't they?


I think so.


I have never thought to word this question like this, here it goes:

Do our beliefs define our intentions, or do our intentions define our beliefs? Could they be equal?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If you do not choose to be advized, taught, coerced, or invited, what would lead you to a spiritual forum on BTS?


What led me into this thread (I look at new posts, not the spiritual forum per se) is the title of this thread.

Why Atheists Just Don't Get IT.

Curiosity. I wondered who could be speaking for Atheists and what do they think they know about Atheists? Perhaps there will be an interesting discussion to be had.

Religion and Spirituality are some of my favorite subjects to discuss. And debate is a favorite pasttime.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Curiosity. I wondered who could be speaking for Atheists and what do they think they know about Atheists? Perhaps there will be an interesting discussion to be had.


I see through atheists eyes, because I feel obligated to do so, and because I've been one.

It is only an illusion we believe in different things, not due to true believers' perceptions, but those who see seperation first, instead of unity.

Heaven is reading "The Art of War" and seeing God's word.
Heaven is reading "The Joy of Sex" and seeing God's word.
Heaven is reading "A tale of Two Cities" and seeing God's word.

Hell is being alone in a crowded room.
Hell is being alone when you are talking to yourself.
Hell is knowing the box is a box.

Heaven is not recognizing the labels installed by those who divide all that exists.

The difference between the two is one is always questioning right from wrong, and one is just doing what they know is right. Not by my or anyone elses standards, but by their own standards.

How do we justify our intentions to ourselves?

The most profound secret in existance is everywhere. This is a culmination of my experiences to date.

I know other people have other experiences. And, I strive to learn from them all I can. Communication is best when it is more than a 1 way street.

Sender ...... . . .. . Medium (how message was sent) .. . . . .. . reciever

I need a new shirt, but the store is out of extra-medium sizes.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I guess what I'm trying to say in the last post is we are gathering information. Information that is not needed to make the choice. Choosing.

Choosing between being one who is supporting unity, and being one who is supporting division. To choose both is to be one who is choosing division, because you are still dividing the whole. Your intentions as you know your intentions, not as how you think others know your intentions.



[edit on 18-11-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Choosing between being one who is supporting unity, and being one who is supporting division.


And what indications do you have that a person is choosing unity? How do you know? What does a person who is 'choosing division' look like? What's the basic difference?

Is it:

Atheist = Choosing division
Believer = Choosing unity

??

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join