The Religion of Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism.

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by izero
 




Break the word atheism down

Theos - god
A - without

On or off.

It's that simple and it doesn't care why it is on or off.



You forgot the most important part! By design I'm sure...


-ism |ɪz(ə)m|
suffix
forming nouns:
1 denoting an action or its result: baptism | exorcism.
• denoting a state or quality: barbarism.
2 denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement: Anglicanism | feminism | hedonism.
• denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination: racism.
3 denoting a peculiarity in language: colloquialism | Canadianism.
4 denoting a pathological condition: alcoholism.
ORIGIN from French -isme, via Latin from Greek -ismos, -isma .


Apparently it does care whether it's on or off.



Sematics, and possibly a slight mistake by myself (it's rare) but yes I will play. Yes there is an atheism movement. However an atheist ( the no/off state on religion) does not necessarily have to subscribe to the movement. Thus an infant with no influences from religion or atheism is an atheist by default, but does not practice atheism nor theism.

Lets look at it from another perspective. Some one maybe A-political. meaning that they don't give a damn (yes a baby is also a-political) but they do not have to follow a movement if there is such a movement as A-Politicalism. You are either Political or Apolitical - it only cares if you are communist, capitalist, libertarian once you have selected that on state of being political.

Someone also may be A-sexual. meaning without sexuality. A baby has no concept of sexual preference and is therefore is a-sexual, but they do not necessarily follow an a-sexualism movement. This one does get a bit grey as genes possibly come into it.

Etc and so on.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Welll I guess if you're comparing yourself to a monkey then that's already setting pretty low standards for your life. How can someoning coming from a logical standpoint think there was no intervention? You have to ask yourself, if we've evolved so perfectly without intervention why are we so much different than animals? why can all animals communicate with eachother in a way but we can't? if we grew up with the damn animals and we "evolved" into what we are now why would we loose our connection with our animal family? Animals don't need doplar radio cause they can sense when a storm is coming, why can't we? By now shouldn't our ape ancestors be able to think harder than a 5 year old but without the ability to perceive other consciousness's? if they've been evolving for millions and millions of years they shouldn't be THAT far behind, I mean, it takes a human 3 years to develope that ability. As in apes do not have the ability to perceive "hey that person is looking at me and is thinking about what I am thinking as I look back at him" they just never reach that level. And they never will.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by izero
 

I love semantics, especially with labels people so liberally apply and defend.



Someone also may be A-sexual. meaning without sexuality. A baby has no concept of sexual preference and is therefore is a-sexual, but they do not necessarily follow an a-sexualism movement. This one does get a bit grey as genes possibly come into it.

I have to agree with you. It would show that a baby is in fact a-everything, so it is safe to call him an atheist—well, more of a nihilist really. But that would make him a-atheism too, because he has no concept of atheism. Maybe we're getting too ridiculous here. Apologies.

Nonetheless, if a baby being an atheist amounts to us simply calling him an atheist, it would be no different than someone else calling him a theist—the child will take whatever you give him. You see him as being born without deities, and others see him being born with deities. The child is indifferent, and therefore he is whatever label you give him. In this case, an atheist.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


I've been enjoying your eloquent posts tremendously. This sentence tho stopped me in my tracks:


So, not a "freak accident," but more of a concerted effort of conscious will to be better


I probably don't understand what you're trying to say. But your statement hints at "mind over matter" in evolution. A concept that is mere wishful thinking, while any credible scientist would argue that it is random mutation that has advanced life on this planet.

evolution.berkeley.edu...
edit on 24-4-2013 by AllIsOne because: link added



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


Your post is a prime example why evolution will always be questioned by certain people. You would need to spend maybe an hour on evolution 101 to understand why your "ape ancestor" argument is a non sequitur. The answers are out there ...
edit on 24-4-2013 by AllIsOne because: clarity



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Well you're saying we're trial and error for traits that work the best. Then please explain to me how our physical attributes are the results of adapting to the wild environment?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buehler
Well you're saying we're trial and error for traits that work the best. Then please explain to me how our physical attributes are the results of adapting to the wild environment?


Come on, don't be lazy ....

evolution.berkeley.edu...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I will concede that point.. Without having any scientific backing outside of my logical deduction I am 99% sure that the baby/child is atheist. A theist would be 100% sure their child is theist.

Now comes the moral clincher, despite being an atheist of the atheism movement myself and being certain that my as yet unborn baby is atheist prior to any external influence, would I then label said baby an atheist. Nope, not a chance in hell. I would never reference my baby/child as atheist nor would i as apolitical or asexual. out of respect to its uninfluenced (or A) state. Does this mean I have a problem with theists labeling or referencing their child as theist. Sure does.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I would say atheists are closer to an ideological religion than some religions are. Just because you have a building and a book and practice it, it doesn't mean you have more 'faith' than an atheist, they have 'faith' in what they believe in, they don't know what's out there but they have faith that what they don't know is out there isn't out there, so if you think about it, they believe they know everything when science itself tells them they are idiots for making such a claim.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by malchir
I would say atheists are closer to an ideological religion than some religions are. Just because you have a building and a book and practice it, it doesn't mean you have more 'faith' than an atheist, they have 'faith' in what they believe in, they don't know what's out there but they have faith that what they don't know is out there isn't out there, so if you think about it, they believe they know everything when science itself tells them they are idiots for making such a claim.


I have never met an atheist (and i know a lot) that is so arrogant to assume 100% correctness. In fact the majority I know will believ anything and change their views if there is enough evidence. That is not to say there arent ay out there.

Atheism isn't a religion. Movement yes. Atheists do not have any common beliefs or ideals. The only forced commonality is the lack of belief in a deity.
edit on 24-4-2013 by izero because: Remove unrequired stuff



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   


I have never met an atheist (and i know a lot) that is so arrogant to assume 100% correctness.
reply to post by izero
 


Then he or she is more likely an Agnostic ... ;-) You can't be just a little pregnant.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by malchir
I would say atheists are closer to an ideological religion than some religions are. Just because you have a building and a book and practice it, it doesn't mean you have more 'faith' than an atheist, they have 'faith' in what they believe in, they don't know what's out there but they have faith that what they don't know is out there isn't out there, so if you think about it, they believe they know everything when science itself tells them they are idiots for making such a claim.


It boggles the mind how self-made definitions of Atheism persist. That must be some sort of agenda in itself ...


I know it's hard to understand, but for Atheists the concept of a god(s) is non-existent, meaning they spend as much thought on the subject as you think of a fire-spewing dragon on top of the Hollywood sign here in LA. And yes, it is impossible to proof 100% that there will never be a dragon sitting on that sign, but I have a hunch about that matter too ...

And just for the record I'm not an Atheist, but at least I care enough to educate myself about the movement. It is interesting how many Christians willingly distort and flat out lie about the Atheist movement ...
edit on 24-4-2013 by AllIsOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 
Scientism, although typically atheistic, should also be added to this list of religious options. The discipline of science, which presumes that the physical/material world is objective, is the search for knowledge and control of objects - not the actual truth. Science involves the observer abstracting oneself from one's object(s) of study to minimize one's impact on the results. This is all a very useful tool for discovery and there is no question of the scientific method providing great knowledge.

Such scientifically-discovered knowledge however is not all benign. The method of science, which has the observer abstract himself from the observed, though useful within the realm of science, is not based in reality or truth. No one arises in a vacuum - everyone and everything arises in a vast (apparently infinite) field of non-separate relatedness. Everyone is dependently related to one's environment, and others for birth and sustenance.

So while the method of science is useful enough, its need for abstraction and dissociation of the observer allows for false notions about truth/reality because no one is actually separate from what is arising. This presumption that we are separate allows science, for the sake of discovery, whether good or bad, to be pursued. In the hands of scientists or any amoral or deluded, idealistic, religious fanatic, science can also be extremely destructive, as we often see on the news.

The method of dissociation from life is generally what is common among atheism, scientism, and any belief-based forms of theism. To the extent that they are idealistically-based, this dissociation from life occurs - and this dissociation is what causes great problems in the world.

Scientism has become the new world religion, with its presumptions that only the material world is real and with all of its great power, control, and knowledge backing it up. Once again, science is fine as a method of discovery of knowledge, but it certainly is not the only method, nor even the best one for discovering what is actually the truth.

As a world religion or philosophy, science just does not account for the whole picture, and more importantly, it creates a false belief that only the material world is real, and that matters of consciousness and many other self-evident dimensions of life, are at best inferior to, and arising out of, the material - if they are even considered to exist at all.

This approach furthers the dissociation between mind and life for not just the scientists but also all the believers in the ultimacy of science. This allows all kinds of false presumptions to follow, including a sense of superiority and control over all objects and creatures in the world - and the destruction of life, the environment, etc., is also often justified.

Scientism as a way of life is false - it is abstracted from life, not embracing life - and this allows many to presume only a mental, even amoral, disposition towards not just scientific discovery but life itself.

Is this what we the people want as our religion, as our way of life? Regardless, this is the new world religion that supports our obsession with materialistic consumerism along with other notions that we are actually dissociated/separate from our environment and others, and therefore can exploit them - whereas it is self-evidently obvious that no such abstraction from life is true.

So LesMis, I think scientism should be added to the list of religions, especially since it has become a more acceptable religion than atheism these days.

edit on 24-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


But what is a god?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



but for Atheists the concept of a god(s) is non-existent


That isn't true at all. Atheists love the concept God. They argue it constantly, use it as the prime subjet of their arguments, and peddle their opinions and reasonings on the very concept of God. And since God is a concept, and they utilize this concept in almost every fashion save for praying to it, they are not "without God" in the slightest. In fact, they need the concept to consider themselves atheist.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I am an atheist an agnostic and a theist...which really makes me agnostic.

Hardly ever an atheist, i think i see what you are saying in reference to atheism and it would seem more due to the view of it as fundamentalist or to make it less provocative - absolutist. Could not be a religion in the classical sense of the word...imho.

Number 8 -


On a census, how does an atheist or agnostic label his religious beliefs? What he answers defines his religious beliefs.


Pretty sure "Non-Religious" would suffice.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


How are you atheist, theist, and agnostic all at once? That's gotta be one whacked-out philosophy.
edit on 24-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Malcher
 


How are you atheist, theist, and agnostic all at once? That's gotta be one whacked-out philosophy.


It is not all at once. I think that is basically a description of agnosticism. Actually any feelings toward atheism are superseded by agnosticism. Interestingly enough, i recall being made aware of atheism but not agnosticism because i had that awareness when i left the factory.

Edit: Wanted to add that last line about awareness factors into number 1 on the list. So i feel i had awareness in that respect.

I tend to be agnostic about most things.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Agnosticism is not a mixture of the three. It basically can be visualized as a dude cocking his head at them and saying, "How can you be sure?" It's the fence rider.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Atheists love the concept God. They argue it constantly, use it as the prime subjet of their arguments, and peddle their opinions and reasonings on the very concept of God.


What do you have to say about an atheist who constantly argues against the concept of atheism? C'mon, Les. You're an atheist, you don't like categorizing yourself, so you don't "admit" it outright, and you want other atheists to join you in rejecting the label. I get it.






top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join