Through the eyes of Atheism

I wouldn't rule out some kind of creator of the universe but if there was I wouldn't think what ever it was would set us rules.

reply to post by nenothtu


I think atheism can't be described as being a religion since they don't worship. As far as I know they don't.

Isn't worship a requirement of religion?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think atheism can't be described as being a religion since they don't worship. As far as I know they don't.

Isn't worship a requirement of religion?

Yes, to be considered tax exempt/a religion, by the Gov. There must be a time of worship.

Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

atheism.about.com...

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think atheism can't be described as being a religion since they don't worship. As far as I know they don't.

Isn't worship a requirement of religion?

I think more importantly there are not a static set of beliefs and practices which all Atheists follow.

If atheism is considered a religion then under the same terms Islam, Judaism and Christianity must be the same religion.

Most would call me an Atheist. I do believe that all organised religions are corrupted to the core and those who devoutly follow religious scripture are brainwashed. I do sometimes wonder if we have a purpose for existing. I know that our purpose for existing is NOT to satisfy some egotistical "God", who wants you to sacrifice your precious time worshiping "His" glory.

Religious belief is the human minds solution to death. Most people can't fathom that when you die, that's it, lights out! All that was you, except the memory others have of you, is gone. There is no second chapter, there is no reward. I do believe that deep down everyone knows this to be the truth whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. For me, knowing this doesn't make me feel sad, it makes me appreciate this precious gift I've been given.

reply to post by randyvs


That's absurd. I can relate to where they're coming from now!

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think atheism can't be described as being a religion since they don't worship. As far as I know they don't.

Isn't worship a requirement of religion?

Well, it may be splitting hairs, but since there appears to be a bit of that going around, I'll toss in my tuppence. It seems we have no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a religion here. According to the atheist camp, it appears that in order to qualify as a "religion", a belief system must have a degree of associated baggage, such as worship, dogma, and other things. That is what I would call an organized religion at best, a cult or sect at worst.

The one commonality in all of the "religions" is faith, the belief in that which can neither be proven nor disproven. As the lowest common denominator, atheism shares that with theism. Atheists also have their own missionaries and proselytizers.

So then, it could be fairly said that I jumped the gun, and that a belief system MUST have all of that associated baggage in order to qualify as a "religion", in which case there are a number of things out there formerly known as religion which now do not qualify.

The ONE thing in common is that without objective proof, it's all just faith - baggage or not.

reply to post by yes4141


Nor is there a static set of beliefs and practices that all jews, chrisitans, or muslims follow, even within their own respective categories.

Does that mean that none of those are religions, either?

Originally posted by Darkmask
Most would call me an Atheist. I do believe that all organised religions are corrupted to the core and those who devoutly follow religious scripture are brainwashed. I do sometimes wonder if we have a purpose for existing. I know that our purpose for existing is NOT to satisfy some egotistical "God", who wants you to sacrifice your precious time worshiping "His" glory.

Religious belief is the human minds solution to death. Most people can't fathom that when you die, that's it, lights out! All that was you, except the memory others have of you, is gone. There is no second chapter, there is no reward. I do believe that deep down everyone knows this to be the truth whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. For me, knowing this doesn't make me feel sad, it makes me appreciate this precious gift I've been given.

What precious gift? Given by whom?

Belief is based mostly on experience and faith, not a book or someone that tells you something does or does not exist, i frown at religion and atheists when they try to prove their beliefs. I used to be an agnostic myself, I wanted proof of the existence of a higher being, what I got was a series of bizarre things happening which at first, I thought were mere coincidences and it kept on happening over and over again until it actually begins to slap you in the face with reminders when you begin to have doubt.

there was a time I was an atheist/agnostic but I didn't give up the search. The bottom line as I said, if you don't search you won't find it, but if you do search, add a little patience there and you will see results. Whatever your beliefs are i honestly don't care, each person is entitled to their beliefs. The key thing is to always keep an open mind especially in this world where you have so many people claiming their beliefs is "true" which leads me to believe that its not true at all.

Imo, find your own truths and dont depend on someone to tell you what to believe in. You may aswell go brainwash yourselves at church if that's the case.

Namaste

What business of yours is it what someone else believes? If your belief is so powerful it shouldn't implode because of a small thing like everyone in the whole world not agreeing with you.

You will probably say you are just curious. Sure. Curious and obviously trying to frame your belief as superior. I'm not even an atheist and I find that annoying.

You will probably say you are just trying to understand. Well I'm here to tell you that there are some things in this life you don't need to understand. This is one of them

What precious gift? Given by whom?

reply to post by nenothtu
Existence. I don't have a clue what created everything. Don't really care to know either. I don't think we are meant to understand.

Originally posted by TheLookingGlass
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

 

if you honestly believe them things then your an idiot. most people dont need a divine being for them to live with purpose. i dont believe in god and im doing fine im perfectly happy in life. why dont i believe in a god? no reason i just dont i dont see any reason too and either way it doesnt affect my way of life.

your statement is like saying people only believe in religion because

1. they were taught to by their family

2. they have no sense of free will and prefer a life based around a schedule involving worshipping

3. afraid to live this life as they think life will be better when their dead? really depressing outlook

4. they took a mean dick by a priest and loved it

5. who doesnt like magic?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by grahag
This one quote sums it up quite nicely:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

What an absolutely disgraceful assumption.

I think it's a very good point. And the statement made in the opening post of this thread more of a disgraceful assumption.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

How can I "fail" in TRYING to describe such a thing?

>sigh<

When one tries to do something, one either succeeds or fails. Since you have not provided an explanation of your terms that the rest of us can understand, you have failed to make your point.

I'm going to repost these two descriptions, not as an appeal to authority, but instead to offer the descriptions of others more informed and well educated than I am in such matters, both of which amount to the same thing I'm trying, and apparently failing, to describe in words.

This is the same twaddle you posted earlier. I read it earlier. I read it again and it is still twaddle. It does not serve to explain your terms, it merely confuses things further. Why is it so hard for you to say ‘by “intelligent light”, I mean such-and-such’ and give a simple explanation of it in words?

Well, never mind all that. Let’s take a look at how you are doing today.

So our apparently differentiated universe of forms follows from a function which may be defined as an intelligent subtraction from or a limitation of, the absolute formless potential, as the Source.

That we are and must be in a relationship WITH such a source, as evolved and consciously aware beings surely cannot be denied, unless the human being is particularized as a mere "thing" instead of an intrinsic part of the entire evolutionary process.

When we add to this conceptualization, the proof of non-locality given by Bell's theorem, and the ideas of a holographic universe or of an explicate reality eminating from an implicate order put forward by David Bohm and others, the implications are utterly astounding.

Additionally, within a monistic idealist frame (consciousness, not matter, as primary) the choosing self, prior to choice, and the collapse of the wave of probability, must also be considered a non-local phenomenon (timeless, spaceless), and a monistic idealism offers the only resolution to the various quantum paradoxes ie: consciousness as the very ground of being, and the most essential "stuff" of life, matter and existence.

Thus, as conscious beings, we are, at least in potential, a true "chip off the old OLD block", and how can it be denied that we are not the byproduct of primordial source energy, and thus, through the eternally unfolding present moment, not still in relationship with that same source of all life, right across the entire breadth and depth of all being and becoming? We stand therefore at the threshold of a domain of limitless possibility or what might be called a gateway, of eternal life.

Right. Let’s analyse your argument, using the simplest possible language we can muster.

1. There appears to be a differentiated universe.
   
   
2. It is a universe of ‘forms’. In philosophical language, a ‘form’ is the idealized template for a real class of entities; it has no physical existence, only a mental one.
   
   
3. This universe emanates from a ‘Source’ (undefined).
   
   
4. Human beings are in a relationship with that Source.
   
   
5. a. Physical reality supports non-local phenomena.
   
   b. Physical reality is a projection.
   
   c. Physical reality is constructed from thought.
   
   
6. (Therefore) mind creates physical reality.
   
   
7. Mind is non-local.
   
   
8. Mind is the basic substance of the universe.
   
   
9. We are mind.
   
   
10. (Therefore) we are the basic substance of the universe.
    
    
11. (Therefore) we create the universe.
    
    
12. (Implied) Therefore we are the Source, ie God.

Not so hard to put in plain English, after all. But is it true?

Let us examine your premises.

1. There appears to be a differentiated universe
   
   I am inclined to agree, from empirical observation, that there is a universe and that it is differentiated. Granted.
   
   
2. It is a universe of ‘forms’. In philosophical language, a ‘form’ is the idealized template for a real class of entities; it has no physical existence, only a mental one.
   
   If you are using the word ‘forms’ correctly, then you are assuming what you set out to prove: that the primary ground of reality is not physical but conceptual. In that case, your argument falls at the first hurdle.
   
   If you are using the word wrongly, on the other hand (using ‘form’ to mean physical object) then you are saying that the universe contains physical objects. In this case, empirical observation again verifies your second premise; indeed, it is trivial, because it is contained in the first premise. Let us assume you are misusing the word, that what you really mean is that there is a universe of physical objects. Let us grant that premise.
   
   
3. This universe emanates from a ‘Source’ (undefined).
   
   Let us assume that the universe must have had a beginning in time, and hence a source, which we need not define in any way. It could be a physical event, a physical entity, or a metaphysical one. As long as the source remains undefined the premise is granted.
   
   
4. Human beings are in a relationship with that Source. The terms of the relationship remain undefined for the present.
   
   Since we are part of the universe, we are also, at some remove, derived from its source. Granted, but without any metaphysical trappings.
   
   
5. a. Physical reality supports non-local phenomena.
   
   Derived from Bell’s theorem. Unproven but (provisionally) granted.
   
   b. Physical reality is a projection.
   
   Derived from the holographic-universe hypothesis. This states, however, that the projection is of a physical but two-dimensional reality. Not proven but (provisionally) granted, with the caveat that the ground reality (the projector) is in fact physical – because this is what the holographic hypothesis stipulates.
   
   c. Physical reality is constructed from thought.
   
   Derived from Bohm’s later ideas, which have not been experimentally verified. Empirical observation shows us that physical reality is constructed from matter and energy, neither of which can be directly affected by thought (we shall return to this later). Premise not granted.
   
   
6. (Therefore) mind creates matter.
   
   What is ‘mind’? For the purpose of this argument, it is sufficient to define ‘mind’ as ‘that which has thoughts’. When we apply this definition, we see that proposition 6 is derived only from proposition 5c, which has already been rejected as baseless. Propositions 5a and 5b are redundant; neither of them adds anything material to your argument (though 5a conceals your hidden agenda, as we shall see forthwith).
   
   Proposition 6 is therefore rejected as baseless.
   
   
7. Mind is non-local.
   
   Your chain of ‘logic’ here runs:
   
   – reality supports non-local phenomena (‘reality is non-local’)
   
   – reality is constructed of thought
   
   – thought is created by mind
   
   – therefore mind is non-local
   
   This is inadmissible. It is perfectly possible for my mind, locally present where I am typing this, to imagine a universe that supports non-locality. That does not make my mind non-local; it simply means I have an imagination. To support the claim that mind is non-local, you will have to (a) adduce empirical evidence for non-locality, such as OOBEs, clairvoyance, etc., of which there is none strong enough to withstand scientific scrutiny, and then propose a mechanism through which consciousness can operate locally that can be empirically demonstrated, or (b) support the claim with a logical argument that actually works. This one doesn’t.
   
   At any rate, we are compelled to reject proposition 7 as being logically inconsistent and empirically unfounded. You have adduced no pragmatic, logical or semantic arguments that would incline us to change our minds.
   
   
8. (Therefore) mind is the basic substance of the universe.
   
   Derived from proposition 6, which we have already shown to be false. Moreover, that which creates a substance is not ipso facto itself that substance. Rejected.
   
   
9. We are mind.
   
   We are also matter, which you have not demonstrated to be the same as mind (prop. 6 was rejected). But granted for the purposes of argument. I certainly do not deny that we have minds.
   
   
10. Therefore we are the basic substance of the universe.
    
    Derived from propositions 8 and 9. Since 8 has been shown false, this proposition must also be rejected.
    
    
11. (Therefore) we are the creators of the universe.
    
    Again, that which creates a substance is not ipso facto itself that substance. The proposition does not follow from its predecessor and therefore stands unsupported. It is not part of your argument. We are therefore compelled to reject it.
    
    
12. Therefore we are the Source (i.e. God) or some part of It.
    
    This, of course, is your hidden agenda – the identity of ‘emination’ (as you like to spell it) with Source. It crucially depends on the non-locality of mind, for else how could mind create the universe? however, since the propositions from which it is derived have been shown to be false, this conclusion, too, must be rejected.
    
    Moreover, the failure of your arguments also means that you have failed to demonstrate that the Source is a metaphysical entity.

Now, a word about this:

When we add to this conceptualization, the proof of non-locality given by Bell's theorem, and the ideas of a holographic universe or of an explicate reality eminating from an implicate order put forward by David Bohm and others, the implications are utterly astounding.

First, this statement determines the character of your argument. It is an argument based on empirically established premises – Bell’s theorem, holographic-universe hypotheses and so forth are derived from principles that have, at their root, empirical foundations. It is clear, therefore, that you are trying to derive metaphysical conclusions from empirical premises.

You don’t have a hope in hell. Physical evidence cannot point to metaphysical premises. That is because every physical effect can be shown to have a physical cause, all the way back to the beginning of the cosmos. It is only when we reach the Original Event – the Big Bang or what have you – that we seem to arrive at an effect without a cause. I say seem because it is perfectly possible for that Event to have had a cause – we just can’t say what it is because it exists on the other side of a singularity, a place where the laws of physics – physical causality included – break down. We cannot say what happened ‘before’ the Big Bang, but that doesn’t mean we have to resort to metaphysical explanations. That is simply the old, discredited God of the Gaps argument in New Age slap.

I said to another poster recently that you can’t use rational arguments to prove an irrational proposition, but you can have faith that whatever Power you believe in can bridge the gap between them. Nobody can argue with or fault you there. However, it is necessary to forego the pleasure of arguing with unbelievers, accepting that they will always win, because logic is always on their side.

Trying to prove irrational propositions empirically is even harder than trying to prove them rationally. In fact, it is a hopeless task. Accept this, keep your faith (which I and any other well-bred atheist will happily respect) and don’t tangle yourself up in pseudoscientific nonsense. It will take you nowhere.

I have actually studied physics. You haven’t. Perhaps you are unaware that the holographic-universe concept is a mathematical construct which can be applied to the real universe but need not; and since it cannot be verified by observation or experiment and helps to explain nothing that cannot be explained in other ways, it is merely a philosophical curiosity. You may also be unaware that Bell’s theorem has never been fully tested and that Bohm’s metaphysical arguments are simply that – metaphysics – and are only one of numerous equally plausible explanations for what you call ‘quantum paradoxes’. Other explanations, such as the Many Worlds hypothesis or decoherence, which do not involve metaphysical ‘hidden variables’, are just as good or better.

reply to post by nenothtu


Once, but only just this once, then I am done here. Your post is the beginning of a conversation that will never end with an agreement between us.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Correct term = Disbelief

Originally posted by nenothtu

Disbelief is nothing more than negative belief. In both cases, it is a belief, whether a negative one or not.

Incorrect. Negatives have characteristics, whereas lacking does not. Lacking a belief, is not a 'negative belief.'

Originally posted by nenothtu

It cannot be proven nor disproven.

Why would I want to though? I have absolutely no reason at all, to search for evidence, that disproves that which is nonexistent. That would be equivalent to searching for evidence, in order for me to prove to you, that there never actually was a flying elephant named Dumbo.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Therefore, atheism IS a religion.

nope.

Originally posted by Darkmask

What precious gift? Given by whom?

reply to post by nenothtu

 

Existence. I don't have a clue what created everything. Don't really care to know either. I don't think we are meant to understand.

edit on 25-8-2011 by Darkmask because: (no reason given)

You appear to have been lurking for awhile.
Just want to say, that if you plan to ease your way, into the hot water of these origins forums ? I believe you have the right idea.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Astyanax
Empirical observation shows us that physical reality is constructed from matter and energy, neither of which can be directly affected by thought (we shall return to this later).

Returning as promised, to point out that

1. Physical processes in the brain and body are not set in motion by thoughts, but rather the other way round; the unconscious processes that precede an action also precede the conscious decision to act; and
   
   
2. you can never make that damn’ photon go through the slit you decide to send it through with any more than fifty percent probability.

reply to post by nenothtu


Re: Faith, as a common denominator of all religion, particularly in relation to the "success" of Christianity - there is something that may have been lost on everyone and is worth considering here; an idea lost in translation through the fog of history, or more than likely one that was intentionally glossed over and even obscured by the Roman church when creating it's doctrine, to make the whole thing as palatable for the ignorant masses as possible and for no other reason than to consolidate temporal power from among all the various and differing (competing) offshoots of Christianity as a powerful movement during the reign of Constantine, when the NT cannon was "set in stone" as a socio-political "building block", and that is this:

That Jesus was himself a Jewish mystic, or a gnostic, and was initiated into the "secret wisdom of the ages" by others, in particular John the Baptist, and as such was not dealing in "faith" as much as he was in the practical application of esoteric wisdom-teaching and experiential knowledge (gnosis of understanding) - and that the true emergence of Christianity was due not to a physical apostolic succession of personages (from Peter to Constantine some 300 years later) or even to St. Paul's interpretations and simplifications (to feed the sheep) but instead - via a tradition of initiation and the passing on of this wisdom knowledge of understanding and God-realization, from John to Jesus and then from Jesus in turn through his disciples.

In other words all of our arguments about the Christian "faith" may be moot if such arguments are being made exclusively in relation to the surface, esoteric "religious" interpretations, and thus both believer (in faith), and atheist (lack of faith) could very well both be arguing, for the most part from a position of ignorance - that is, if the original intent, form and function of the movement, which later became a religion of mere faith, was the transmission via initiation, of the "Wisdom of the Ages", something that to be "believed in" had to be first understood, or KNOWN, to be considered useful or of value. In this way the Roman Church, not the early Gnostic Schools of the teaching of "Christification" must be considered the apostate or the heretic, by making of Jesus himself and his own courageous "Great Work" (cross) little more than an exclusive power symbol and idolatry, or statue (of authority). In this way, the actual author (God as spirit and truth) or authority is, in effect usurped, and the movement of God REALIZATION, terminated, by the hijacking of AUTHORITY. So the history was re-written, and the whole process, twisted and perverted for political purposes and the immense power to "rule the world". How devilish is that?

And so now we have this new movement called "atheism" pitted against the "believers" employing reason to deny ignorance and yet both may be ignorant, that the foundation of the actual authority, was never founded upon faith to begin with, but instead on reason, and logic, and a wisdom or gnosis or knowledge and understanding, of the true nature of the human being made in the image of the eternal Godhead.

If true, we have the makings here of a conspiracy underpinning the very foundation, and certain corruption, of Western Civilization, if not by extension, the whole world.

Jesus, would not be pleased..

Perhaps the original seeds can be re-appropriated and replanted again, so that a fragmented world can be made reasonable, and whole again, with the kind of practical integrity the originating author intended..!

To this end, our atheist friends may be of service in helping to till the soil, while God himself will provide the sun and the rain, in preparation for a new harvest, outside the walls of "Churchianity" and perhaps I might get to ring the bell for a new Church, where the meaning of the word church is "to call out from", in this case, from a state of ignorance, on all sides..