Is Atheism a religion of War?

reply to post by Serdgiam


I don't convert, I promote awareness. As in, "I don't care if you like it or not, but at least know more about it." Same with any other subject.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I don't convert, I promote awareness. As in, "I don't care if you like it or not, but at least know more about it." Same with any other subject.

Regardless of thread titles saying otherwise, I was saying it as a general statement that was not necessarily directed at you. I would think from our previous conversations that you would have come to an understanding that "converting," in any form, is viewed by me to be much less productive than learning the subjective interpretations of the same data set.

Even in your wording, you take the position that the other person has to "know more about 'it,' whether they like it or not." I see the same position in many religions.

As you may have also picked up from prior conversations, I view it as myself who has to know more about "it," as I have no objective measure on what another actually does or does not understand.

Basically, I feel that working together to better explore and understand the universe is more beneficial than claiming that what I understand will apply anywhere outside of my own mind.

But really, we have been over this as you know. Are you really that interested in having the same conversation with yet another "heathen" to your philosophy?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MamaJ

 

When you have a gathering of like minded people pushing a selfish agenda, war prevails. Call it whatever you like..... I call such a cult.

The "agenda" I advocate is simple: proactive self-determinism. The less you rely on a god, the more you find yourself capable of, and willing, to accomplish. Which, in my opinion, is the first step in preparing to make this world a more knowledgeable and understanding place to be. That's my goal in sharing my atheistic perspective.

I understand sharing a perspective. You know I share mine and I think it's great to share thoughts and ideas.

Some people rely on a God because they are broken down by the world and or choices they have made in the past. Some people are so broken by death that has surrounded them. Some rely on a God because it makes them feel better about life and death.

Some people do not need a God for anything. They rely on their own thinking and their own perspective and or philosophy of life without a Deity.

Its a great mixture when it is sharing ideas and thoughts. When it becomes a war of words and actions it is when it is not great... neither perspective.... because it then becomes I am right and you are wrong. A battle of egos so to speak and a selfish one at that. When two or more are warring about God verses no God it becomes a battle of the blind vs the blind. Neither knows whats beyond the veil of this life UNLESS they have personally experienced something that validates for them either way.

I know there are those things which I cannot do for myself. I cannot make my skin grow, I cannot make myself breathe, I cannot make my heart beat, and so on. There are those of us who can see both sides of the coin and then there are those of us who cannot see the other side of the coin because there is no desire to turn the coin over and see it, much less see it from another perspective. These people from my pov are selfish in that respect. It's all about them and what they see and how they see it. To hell with someone else's views and understandings of life's experiences.

reply to post by MamaJ

Some people rely on a God because they are broken down by the world and or choices they have made in the past. Some people are so broken by death that has surrounded them. Some rely on a God because it makes them feel better about life and death.

Completely understandable. But then there's the point at which, in order to feel better about life and death, you must adhere to this philosophy that in many ways is far more detrimental than if you had no philosophy at all. Some feel this is a small price to pay. I feel it is more comprehensive and encompassing than they realize.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

This place has basically turned into the "right on brother" YEAH "right on brother" club. It's comical.

The hypocrisy in this sentence is staggering.

Staggering, but true.

reply to post by MamaJ


I think its important to add that there are so many views on the topic that it is difficult to truly summarize in one post.

There are some who believe in a God/s but do not look to them for motivation, help, or even inspiration. I think that by looking solely to supernatural (I dont think any supernatural exists, personally) sources for these things, that we miss out on all the ways these things can truly manifest.

A word, a song, anything can motivate and help us, but I know for myself, if I look directly for it to happen in supernatural means, I will miss all of it entirely.

reply to post by Serdgiam


That's a lot of what I'm trying to say. Thanks! Sometimes, I have problems vocalizing a concept that's more emotion than it is actual words and stuff. I just know I have this innate understanding, and it's hard to translate. So thanks.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

That's a lot of what I'm trying to say. Thanks! Sometimes, I have problems vocalizing a concept that's more emotion than it is actual words and stuff. I just know I have this innate understanding, and it's hard to translate. So thanks.

I have issues with that too, as you know.

I think we all have that innate understanding, but it is not in words for ANY of us. So, we try to whittle it down, we find concepts that apply, and then we try to force a 2 foot concrete block through a half inch round hole.

Then, when it comes out differently for each one of us, we sit around and talk about how each one is different, and we cant understand how another got a different "shape" at the end of the process.

Words are really incredible in how we perceive them. Even if I say a simple word like "couch," it is next to impossible to actually see if we are really talking about the *exact* same couch. Even using pictures, we cant determine how similar they are down to molecular structure, fabric weave, etc.

When we all try to have a discourse based on all of us understanding we dont have an effing clue what we are talking about, then we can start to see what the concrete block looked like before we mangled it.

reply to post by Serdgiam


For what it's worth, I think we have more in common, understanding-wise, than we realize. I'm excited to find out what we can add to each other's database...and a little scared to find out it's a false hope.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Describe a person who has no philosophy. I didn't understand your post but I would like to.

For, a persons philosophy may be detrimental to me, however who am I to say it is for them? I have my own. I think it is natural for each person to have their own. To think is to philosophize.

reply to post by RUFFREADY


I love Michio Kaku! I've been watching his segments on Big Think on youtube.

I definitely believe in water too! Wind too!

I aplogize to the other person for being snappish, but it's sickening when an atheist has to explain a religion- or even what a religion IS to a religious person.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

For what it's worth, I think we have more in common, understanding-wise, than we realize. I'm excited to find out what we can add to each other's database...and a little scared to find out it's a false hope.

I think we do too, we are looking at exactly the same thing, just with different eyes. Neither one of us has the whole picture, but four eyes are better than two (except maybe in high school ).

I am not sure hope can be false. I think it can be lost and gained, but when we have it, it is so real that it can motivate us more than any external or supernatural force. The results of that can be as real as your hand and my hand.

A bit OT, but I really would appreciate your input on the threads in my signature. They have nothing to do with religion, but I think you (and everyone really) can provide valuable input. Its a long read, but it is all years in the making with enormous amounts of effort. The goal is to approach things differently, but with the idea that we dont need to actually change the structures in place (like government, the internet, finance, manufacturing) we can just USE them in a different way to get completely different results. Once we change the foundation, then the structures will just change as a natural matter of course.

Originally posted by Hushabye
reply to post by RUFFREADY

 

but it's sickening when an atheist has to explain a religion- or even what a religion IS to a religious person.

I think what you see is from those who are not personally invested into the topic, but see the same actions from both atheists and the religious (just using different words).

Almost everything about their interactions is exactly the same, and to an "outsider" it looks exactly like a muslim arguing with a christian.

Zealotry can exist regardless of whether or not one believes in a God/s, and to many, that is one of the most negative attributes of religion. So, in this perspective, many atheists seem religious about their convictions.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Believing Jesus died on the cross for our sins so you can get into heaven is only looking after your own selfish and personal interests too, so I see no difference between the two.

We don't have a choice in that. His modus operandi demands it, if you want to blame someone blame him.

You know the whole.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

But we're talking about Atheists here so, Atheism is a religion of war. You just proved me right because your very first post was to attacking Christianity.

Christ Consciousness might be the way but that can be achieved without religion and saying Jesus name but if you want to with the Christian faith as your ideal then do it.

You can say things with your mouth and then you can say things with you actions and behaviour. There are Atheist that by what they are, say love and symbiosis every day. God knows who are the souls that are ready for the next stage. Even if you believe all other religions/science to be a mistake it does not make it so. They are all idols from my point of view but that is because they do not tell the whole truth of "what is".

To any atheist who do not believe in anything more than science and that all spiritual is a figment of imagination. Are you willing to put your convictions to the test by doing chakra meditation for a few months and see if something happens with your body?

reply to post by LittleByLittle

To any atheist who do not believe in anything more than science and that all spiritual is a figment of imagination. Are you willing to put your convictions to the test by doing chakra meditation for a few months and see if something happens with your body?

Energy control? Oh, that's real enough. Still doesn't prove the existence of a god though, sorry.

Originally posted by LittleByLittle
Christ Consciousness might be the way but that can be achieved without religion and saying Jesus name but if you want to with the Christian faith as your ideal then do it.

You can say things with your mouth and then you can say things with you actions and behaviour. There are Atheist that by what they are, say love and symbiosis every day. God knows who are the souls that are ready for the next stage. Even if you believe all other religions/science to be a mistake it does not make it so. They are all idols from my point of view but that is because they do not tell the whole truth of "what is".

To any atheist who do not believe in anything more than science and that all spiritual is a figment of imagination. Are you willing to put your convictions to the test by doing chakra meditation for a few months and see if something happens with your body?

I think my only issue with the word "spirituality" is that it carries a direct connotation (to my perspective, of course) of "supernatural."

I think that science, by its nature, is able to explore anything with a pattern. I think that what many call the "spiritual" can be explored directly by science. Perhaps even more directly than many other areas of exploration. But, those who have relegated it to the supernatural also insinuate that it is out of the reach of logical explanation. And the industry of science has been increasingly more reluctant to explore it, because there is almost a battle between religion and science that has been created by culture. By even attempting to explore it, it carries the idea that there is at least something there to explore. If there isnt anything, then it might not be perceived as rational to devote any time whatsoever to scientifically exploring it. Thats how it was for me, anyway. Due to essentially the dogmatism of science, I thought that not only would it be a waste of time, but that it would also validate my "opponent."

We can find some interesting things when we do not allow ourselves to be restrained by culture in this way.

I think you bring up the most important part though, and that is what we communicate through our action. Our actions are what have the largest impact when we interact with the world. Our words can vary, but the theme of our actions can be the same (for better or worse). I think it addresses a much more core principle to the universe than our differences in words or belief.

reply to post by Serdgiam


I think the key would be frightening to the religious because they feel it would detract meaning from their beliefs. Even as science and religion could finally come together as the two halves of something greater and more comprehensive than anything we imagined, the religious would reject it as detracting from the meaning they have ascribed to the one half, as though the whole isn't worth nearly as much as the one solitary half. I don't think that's their decision, but they care more about their personal stake than what it means for the rest of the world.

This is the impression I've gotten.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Atheism is a religion of war. It wars on other religions around it, making fun of people in an attempt to make them appear backwards for the sake of ridicule, but more often than not the religion of choice to attack always primarily seems to be Christianity.

You never think it's because Christianity is just wrong?

The proof is right here in the religion forum, just take a look. Their posts make my case as they relentlessly attack Christians, often for the sake of just being malicious.

I wonder if your ancestors would have heard out the Pagan's pleas as they were "relentlessly attacked"?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I think the key would be frightening to the religious because they feel it would detract meaning from their beliefs. Even as science and religion could finally come together as the two halves of something greater and more comprehensive than anything we imagined, the religious would reject it as detracting from the meaning they have ascribed to the one half, as though the whole isn't worth nearly as much as the one solitary half. I don't think that's their decision, but they care more about their personal stake than what it means for the rest of the world.

I think a lot of the "power" of God in religion is that nothing is explainable. Once we claim to be able to explain something, or find a pattern in something, then I think many feel it takes away from that "power." By remaining inexplicable, except through proprietary means (like buildings and specific "special" people), it also works much better as a system of control and profit.

Since religion has directly affected everyones cultural story, this results in the idea that the things we can explain must not be God. And lately, that it directly disproves a God/s all based on a premise that originated in religion! Kind of an interesting sociological impact to me.

But, I think that when eplxoring something that is defined as omnipresent (amongst other things), it has to be considered that these patterns are part of a God/s by definition. If they werent, then that God/s is not omnipresent inherently.

In the end, we are all exploring a place that is so incredibly vast and complex, that it is taking a very long time to even get the basics solidified. And just when we think we do, something like the theory of relativity comes along and starts everything up again

We are bound to come to different interpretations of the universe, as each one of us is almost a universe unto ourselves. Some of us are much more emotional, some are more rational, but in that difference we can see all of the ways the universe can manifest.

I think the scientific method itself has been discarded by many religions, and I think the industry of science might just be doing the same (though it hasnt yet). Its too bad, because it is the one of the best communication tools we have to share our experience with one another. I still strongly believe it should be taught much, much earlier in education as it is a very simple process. We would then teach our children how to learn before what to learn. The other way around leads to stagnation, in my opinion.

All religions, or belief systems / political parties, etc. by their very nature are religions of war. Atheism has a chance, though, to change that -

By understanding that they have a more open viewpoint - but also by understanding how culture works, and how religions work - denying their mechanics exist is ultimately not in Atheism's best interest.