• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Atheism [thread split Does communism suck ?]

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
Atheism is just the lack of belief in a traditional deity. But atheism can set up idols for ourselves, to which we can put up false hope upon. I don't mean it as a personal thing.

For me, understanding atheism is the easiest form of thought, because it requires no thought at all.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 10:37 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,264
-->
Location
69S 69E
the word 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
For me, understanding atheism is the easiest form of thought, because it requires no thought at all.
strangely I find this offensive, projecting intentionality onto to the world is a basic cognitive thing that we do, most societies are either traditionally animist/polytheist or deist, deism having usually come out of animism where people decide there is one over arching intentionality instead of loads of spiritis/gods. If history shows us anything, it is that it takes a great deal of rationalizing and effort for people to arrive at and/or accept atheism. I would argue that it takes a great deal of thought.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
both
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
A baby is born an atheist, yes or no?

Neither.

Babies do not yet have the semantic or cognitive capacity to say «X exists» or «X does not exist» ??? They have no belief on this one way or another ? Saying «god does not exist» is a belief, a belief is a mental and propositional stance on the disposition of the world.

On the other hand, I have not seen any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in gods/god. Atheism is less common but it is not a «lack of thought.» if i dont believe in fairies it is not a lack of thought about fairies, i understand the concept of fairies I just assert my belief that they do not exist objectively
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
There is a confusion of terms here, asserting the non existence of something is not the same as not having a concept for something. Thinking "X does not exist" is 100% a thought.

Lack of belief in god is exactly the same as "belief in the non existence of god", it isn't the same as "lack of any comprehension and awareness of the concepts"
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
But atheism can set up idols for ourselves, to which we can put up false hope upon.
ExtraSteps.png


For me, understanding atheism is the easiest form of thought, because it requires no thought at all.
Spot on observation, y'see when you don't suppose there is a god you don't have to justify why it exists, where it exists, what it is, what it wants, etc. Certainly you can still speculate about the existence of a deity if you want to but there's a world of difference between idle speculation and worshiping something. I can speculate about the Loch Ness monster or Eddie the memory eating penguin from Mars and I don't have to justify these speculations, but if I lived in fear of Eddie and wanted you to do the same in the absence of worthwhile evidence I would have to work very hard to justify Eddie's existence.
Because Eddie the martian memory eating penguin doesn't exist.

Or does he? Perhaps you've already met him but he ate your memory of it.
Sure that sounds ridiculous now but think about it, isn't that exactly what a martian memory eating penguin would want you to think? Isn't the fact that Eddie's existence seems ridiculous in actual fact further proof that he does?

Of course when you have a god you can use it as a placeholder answer for other questions, for example:
Why does the universe exist? Because god created it.
Why did god create the universe? Because god wanted it to exist.
Why does god want the universe to exist? Because god loves you.
What do you mean god loves me? Okay you're asking a lot of questions can we just skip to the "have blind faith in god or you're going to hell" part?

Whereas atheists just have to admit they don't know everything.
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
@Cognisant
Go away your participation in this thread is too predictable , let me have my moment as 4 horsemen millitant atheist on the forum for once
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
A baby is born an atheist, yes or no?

Neither.

Babies do not yet have the semantic or cognitive capacity to say «X exists» or «X does not exist» ??? They have no belief on this one way or another ? Saying «god does not exist» is a belief, a belief is a mental and propositional stance on the disposition of the world.

On the other hand, I have not seen any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in gods/god. Atheism is less common but it is not a «lack of thought.» if i dont believe in fairies it is not a lack of thought about fairies, i understand the concept of fairies I just assert my belief that they do not exist objectively

To me, the definition of "atheism" is simply a lack of belief in a traditional deity, short and sweet as that. If there is no lack of belief in a traditional deity in whatever "belief system" or worldview that person espouses, he or she qualifies as an atheist, or is "atheistically leaning". This can mean that this person is irreligious, or even anti-religious. The variety is perhaps limitless, but they can be haphazardly be placed in a certain grouping called "atheism". In a sense, a rock can be atheist- it lacks the belief in a deity.

The deeper point I am making with the "is a baby an atheist" is that, atheism is something that requires no thought at all. The disposition which you're coming on from is that, it somehow takes a lot more mental energy to grasp atheism because theists or people who espouse to a certain religion are either stupid, just follow traditional beliefs for the sake of tradition, or for some other ulterior motive. Basically, you do not trust theists or religious people and put yourself on a higher pedestal, because atheism is somehow a higher form of understanding.

In a sense, to me, a baby is an atheist. He or she lacks belief in a deity. It's sort of like a no true Scotsmen fallacy that I'm seeing here. If you lack belief, then you are atheist. Atheism isn't a label, it's a category.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
babies do not think
thinking requires idea combination and evaluation
combination does not happen till ag 6
evaluation does not happen till age 12

Thinking is not a matter of belief. You can think about things you do not believe or are neutral about. God as an idea can be evaluated. But God is not just one idea. Many people have ideas of God. The most common is of a supernatural being that watches over us and can be communicated with. People have ideas about this 'being'. Personally I think this being is the supercomputer we live in. It is hard to think God came from outside the universe. There is no mechanism for communication if it did because physics requires networks to interact and if God is a blob god is a baby that cannot think.

If you have interacted with God and the interaction was outside your brain network you have a greater chance of understanding. But God would have to change something in the outside physical world. Mandela effect. But if no communications has happened at all and the conception of God is a nonthinking blob nothing can be there to represent an intelligent entity. Intelligence requires a network and if you have never interacted with one residing outside physics then you will assume a blob. And if you have not interacted with the supercomputer you will assume the same about it. You will assume it is all in people's heads nowhere else.

The only difference between an atheist and a theist is an interaction with divinity. As long as an interaction underlies the belief for or against a diety it will always be a matter of personal experience and not reason. Neither one is wrong but you can feel strongly the other is wrong. It is an epistemological question.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
"Divinity" is not the same as God.

"People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power."
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
maybe you lost the point?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
I have interacted with a diety. That is the reason I believe. I just happen to have ideas about what the diety is that's all.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->

washti

pablo
Local time
Tomorrow 12:37 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
747
-->
Baby born atheist? Dear intps it's worse than that. Baby doesn't belive in anything. Anything. No meaning. Baby is nihilist.

Laughable use of languege makes baby obscurantist.
Baby is litteral sucker and shitter.

Anddd let's not forget : It's not a label it's category.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
@Cognisant
Go away your participation in this thread is too predictable , let me have my moment as 4 horsemen millitant atheist on the forum for once
index.jpg


The deeper point I am making with the "is a baby an atheist" is that, atheism is something that requires no thought at all. The disposition which you're coming on from is that, it somehow takes a lot more mental energy to grasp atheism because theists or people who espouse to a certain religion are either stupid, just follow traditional beliefs for the sake of tradition, or for some other ulterior motive. Basically, you do not trust theists or religious people and put yourself on a higher pedestal, because atheism is somehow a higher form of understanding.
We can have it both ways, atheism is simpler than trying to justify believing in nonsense AND religious people are stupid for trying to justify nonsense to themselves and others.

@higs You know what you must do.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 9:07 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,672
-->
Correct me if wrong:

All strongly held but controversial beliefs have implicit 'incidental' premises that people who don't hold the belief are in some way biased or insufficiently able/learned to understand it. If I believe in God and you don't, I must believe I understand something you don't otherwise I'd fall in line.

These implicit incidental premises can become less incidental, and perhaps even explicit. A lot of atheists genuinely think theists are idiots. Some of them are dicks about it.

With atheism in particular, such feelings harbored are nothing to do with the complexity of the belief. That's a red herring. In fact, (Occam's razor) is one of the foundational tools for arriving at atheism. Simplicity is its strength.

Rather, the atheist's explanation for the divergence in opinion is more likely to be some mixture of indoctrination, lacking logical tools or rationality, motivation to stay religious, lack of motivation to overthrow their central belief system, some desperate need to believe in a just universe... etc.etc. stuff like that.

So I agree that technically rocks and babies are atheistic, but atheists don't believe their beliefs are more complex in the first place. There is a difference between being too simple to think of the concept of a god, and putting your mind to work in parsing the evidence for or against god and then rejecting them.

The 'mental energy' cost is in the tools required to strip falsehood from world view. I hear a lot of religious people talk about having faith in the same way.

An analogy might be refining pure ore using sophisticated machines? Nobody's proud of how complex the ore is.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
Christianity is about faith, not knowledge, second, Occam was a theologian, so very irony of you invoke his "razor" as if you understand why the razor was thought up of in the first place.

The reason his razor was thought up of was because of problems that arose in theology when it came up in contact with Greek philosophy, not that it has to do with atheism. Look up nomialism.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 9:07 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,672
-->
You're right I don't know anything about Occam or the origins of the razor. I wasn't claiming the razor as something originating from atheism. Rather, I was saying that atheism is bolstered by the razor.

I'll take your word on faith>knowledge but don't understand why you're saying it.

Do you have thoughts on what I said about your assessment of atheist simplicity and arrogance?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
What is God?
God is intelligent.
God is outside this reality.
God cares.

Or is God just inside your head?
How are the three things listed above possible?
Did God exist from the big bang? If So how is God intelligent?
If God is outside this reality what makes God care about this one?

Being in a simulation can practically solve these questions.
But the hardest to answer is without a simulation is God's intelligence.
How does a blob become intelligent, it needs to be a brain and grow.
That means it needs connections. Connections that rewire themselves.

Where are God's Connections?
How did they Grow to make God the way God is?
What purpose does God have for itself, can God change its mind.

The answers might lie in the quantum foam but it is speculation.
A supercomputer made of the stuff is also possible.

Both are possible.

As to faith, you need to feel something is there before you have faith otherwise with no feeling you have atheism. I feel something is there. Or I do not. Simple as that.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
You're right I don't know anything about Occam or the origins of the razor. I wasn't claiming the razor as something originating from atheism. Rather, I was saying that atheism is bolstered by the razor.

I'll take your word on faith>knowledge but don't understand why you're saying it.

Do you have thoughts on what I said about your assessment of atheist simplicity and arrogance?

Atheism isn't bolstered by the razor, because the application isn't applicable to Christianity or theism. The disposition atheism starts off from isn't from the complexity that arises with religion, it starts off from the self. One would be fooling themselves if they thought they were starting off with something that they perceive (of from themselves). It hardly comes from a birds eye point of view, most of the time it's an inheritance of a secular mindset, or a fractured worldview when they see Christianity and the world together side by side. There isn't a smooth relation- which is actually the church's fault, but nevertheless, to Christians, the truth, to us, still stands.

Think of it this way: if God created the world, and one uses the "razor", what is the more easier answer? Going through the theories of abiogenesis, of the big bang, of other cosmological theories of the beginnings of the earth; the universe? I would just go with "God made the world" in that case, because the razor would slice away the complexity. In a sense the razor seems to bolster theism more than atheism, to me, if one thinks it through.

--

The error I see in a lot of people who espouse to be atheists is that they have a certain confirmation bias when it comes to the existence of God. Ultimately it comes down to epistemological error, that since we cannot tangibly interact with God, he must not exist. That's where the misconceptions start, because that person is unaware of the theology of God, or what God really constitutes. The razor isn't applicable to theology because it's more of a haphazard application of something which one does not have a clear understanding of. If the premise and the subsequent matter were to be established clearly, then maybe the razor would work, but it seems the application you've been espousing is more haphazardly applied rather than thoughtfully considered.

On atheistic simplicity and 'arrogance', not really, because Christians too are half atheists, to a degree. Christians have doubts too, which on a mental level or plane, is the same with what atheists have/live through everyday. There isn't much difference between an atheist and a Christian, Christians just simply believe, or have faith in, one more God. We all eat and shit, go to sleep and make love to our wives, (or husbands), etc, work and like going on vacations, and so on.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
Complexity is the one thing you cannot do without when it comes to intelligence. If we look at it from the self, I am not a nematode because my connections network together in patterns that allow higher consciousness. If God is like me and has a higher consciousness than I do, the complexity of the connection arrangement is even greater. God's connections do not have to be atoms but they do have to be there for sentience.

The idea that God's connections appeared fully formed has a name in science.

Boltzmann brain

This is absurd but the consequence of not developing from an infant's brain.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 9:07 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,672
-->
Atheism isn't bolstered by the razor, because the application isn't applicable to Christianity or theism. The disposition atheism starts off from isn't from the complexity that arises with religion, it starts off from the self. One would be fooling themselves if they thought they were starting off with something that they perceive (of from themselves). It hardly comes from a birds eye point of view, most of the time it's an inheritance of a secular mindset, or a fractured worldview when they see Christianity and the world together side by side. There isn't a smooth relation- which is actually the church's fault, but nevertheless, to Christians, the truth, to us, still stands.

I feel like with this one you're deciding how other people think for them? I can tell you firsthand that Occam's razor and the complexity of religious beliefs is a part of how I've reached my atheistic world view. When I started thinking about these things as a kid I started by assuming Christianity and then working my way back.
On one side of my family, the generation before me contained thirteen people. They all started off catholic and only one of them maintained that belief. It seems weird to me that you narrow all atheism down to people who start from atheism as an assumption and maintain it through confirmation bias.

Think of it this way: if God created the world, and one uses the "razor", what is the more easier answer? Going through the theories of abiogenesis, of the big bang, of other cosmological theories of the beginnings of the earth; the universe? I would just go with "God made the world" in that case, because the razor would slice away the complexity. In a sense the razor seems to bolster theism more than atheism, to me, if one thinks it through.

This makes it seem like we have a different understanding of how the razor works. I interpret it as 'make as few and as evidenced assumptions as possible'. "God made the world" doesn't discharge any explanatory burden but does add additional moving parts. If I ask how a clock works, saying that God makes it work isn't really answering anything.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
This makes it seem like we have a different understanding of how the razor works. I interpret it as 'make as few and as evidenced assumptions as possible'. "God made the world" doesn't discharge any explanatory burden but does add additional moving parts. If I ask how a clock works, saying that God makes it work isn't really answering anything.
This point has already been made, and ignored.
The fact is onesteptwostep puts faith before reason, this thread has nothing to do with engaging with us in actual discourse, it doesn't matter what you say he will either attempt to refute it or ignore it and no matter how many times you repeat it or reword it or how airtight or profound your reasoning is it will have absolutely no effect on him.
Because he's not listening.

This is a theist Hado, this is what they are.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
I feel like with this one you're deciding how other people think for them? I can tell you firsthand that Occam's razor and the complexity of religious beliefs is a part of how I've reached my atheistic world view. When I started thinking about these things as a kid I started by assuming Christianity and then working my way back.
On one side of my family, the generation before me contained thirteen people. They all started off catholic and only one of them maintained that belief. It seems weird to me that you narrow all atheism down to people who start from atheism as an assumption and maintain it through confirmation bias.

I see, you were brought up in a Catholic upbringing and you've "lapsed" and then simply rationalized it away(?); I understand, that's perfectly a normal 'belief-trajectory' for most people. The Catholic church does a very poor job of indoctrinating their parishioners, which is why it's viewed very backwardly by a lot of people, unless they've been in their institutions for a long time, for generations. Catholic priests actually are incredibly knowledgeable people though, because to get their priest status they have to go under rigorous philosophical training (usually something like a ph.d in philosophy or divinity or something like that). It's odd- they get all this training but have the most simple parishioners and the worst of the offenders (talking about the sexual assaults of course).

As for atheism, I would say I was technically an atheist up until my early twenties until I developed a better understanding of Christianity as a whole in general, even if my own family were Christian. There's the cultural Christianity that I maintained while I was operating in a secular viewpoint in all my matters, which was somewhat of a cognitive dissonance to me. But like mentioned, I lean a bit differently now.

This makes it seem like we have a different understanding of how the razor works. I interpret it as 'make as few and as evidenced assumptions as possible'. "God made the world" doesn't discharge any explanatory burden but does add additional moving parts. If I ask how a clock works, saying that God makes it work isn't really answering anything.

I would say that's a weak understanding of what the razor is. I think it would be best if you read up on the history of nominalism to really grasp at what the razor is. It's more of a philosophical methodology (of categories), not something that we use to do away with religious or theistic/atheistic matters. The razor concerns itself with the concept universals and whether they apply to the things we say. Again, I really suggest looking it up if you're interested in that kind of stuff. Here's a link to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism (especially on the part on the problem of universals)
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 9:07 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,672
-->
This point has already been made, and ignored.
The fact is onesteptwostep puts faith before reason, this thread has nothing to do with engaging with us in actual discourse, it doesn't matter what you say he will either attempt to refute it or ignore it and no matter how many times you repeat it or reword it or how airtight or profound your reasoning is it will have absolutely no effect on him.
Because he's not listening.

This is a theist Hado, this is what they are.


okay magneto :clown:

I know that the chances of any minds being changed are not very high. His take on the razor is novel to me, and he seems more familiar with it than I am. I was just following a curiosity. Also, I felt like 1step actually scored points on the rock/baby claim despite disagreeing with his conclusions, so felt compelled to contribute.

If you think the discussion is so hopeless why do you bother being the token militant atheist?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 9:07 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,672
-->
I wasn't brought up in catholic upbringing, but I made a concerted effort to explore the beliefs as a young teen. Funnily enough, this was an act of rebellion against the anti-religious but pro pseudoscience views of my parents, who I felt were selective in their dismissal of religion while giving non-religious spiritual stuff a free pass.

Also there was a catholic girl I was crushing on :embarrassed:

I guess when it comes to the razor, I'm not too interested in its origin. It's certainly worth acknowledging that we use it differently, but rather than argue which way is correct, or to go down a wiki rabbithole on a belief system that doesn't sound compatible to me, I'd prefer to just cede you your use of it and grant you're probably using it more appropriately within its historical context. I then fork the meaning I'm using with a different term.

Hado's razor:
Compound (conjunctive) claims are tautologically less likely than their component simple (singular) claims. To avoid false assumptions, proceed to compound claims only from the component claims that are necessary.

I don't care about particular terminology outside of ensuring effective communication. If you use the razor differently then arguing over the application of the razor is dumb if I'm meaning something different to you. I don't speak for all atheists, so if the others want to contest your use of the razor don't take my views as undercutting theirs.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
At a higher dimension, any shape can be rotated into any other shape. But that would mean a hierarchy of infinite shapes exists to be rotated. That is super hardcore determinism. An infinite-dimensional shape. In fact, if realism is true motion should not exist nor rotation just the infinite shaped object.

I rather hold Chris Langan's view of self-containment. CTMU.
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
K fine atheists are intellectual baby rocks, wtver.



nope, this isn't for me I think really

I actually have zero problems with people having personal faith/belief in some deity type thing because of an intense personal experience or as a preferred explanation for how things are. Suggesting that it's somehow intellectually superior or more refined or something though is just...ngurg... WHATEVER

o/
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
I would think saying that Christianity is somehow intellectually superior to atheism is a bit.. of a sin. My point is more that Christianity requires a lot more reflection and thinking, as opposed to atheism, because atheism is more of a default belief rather than an accumulated one. Most atheists just are atheists because they really don't want to go through the trouble of manning up to their demons. They somewhat have an Schopenhauerian, Nietzschean, or Albert Camus approach to life (absurdist/nihilist), beliefs (or the lack of belief if you want to get technical about it) that are somehow already wrapped up and given to you by secular means. This is provided by culture or by the schools, whether one realizes they've been influenced by them or not.

Oh and a Sartreian approach is pretty popular too, "condemned to be free".
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
It sounds like you need a philosophy degree to be a theist. That is not how it is with most people. Theism is the default, not atheism. A person feels the presence of God. It is not something they have to reflect on so much as understanding what the present wants. Some people hear a voice, others see it. It's not something to be intellectualized but to be experienced. A relationship with God makes the theology. Atheism is a loss of connection. It is not a default. Not in most cases.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
It would depend where that person grew up. In America, especially in the midwest, I assume the communities or suburbs there have a rooted church that has quite a bit of history. For me, I lived a lot of suburban/urban areas where the air of secularism was pretty much a default. Plus, I lived in those kinds of environments in 3 different countries, so a belief in God, "an intuition" like how C.S. Lewis (the numious) or John Calvin (seed of religion) states, wasn't exactly a fundamental part of my lived experience.

The indoctrination at school would me more materialistic, pointing to an importance in societal or human progress rather than a netural viewpoint of worldviews.

One can argue that one is theist, then rationalizes atheism, but that's a bit beyond the point, and rather a pointless exercise, if the dispositions of the two arguing are already dug in into their belief system.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
One cannot manufacture an experience but one can manufacture belief that can lead to 'experiences'. I am not a creationist. I do not think the earth is 6 thousand years old. I have a good idea of how physics works. But I am not an atheist, I am a theist because I have found things in reality that lead to the conclusion I am part of a larger supernatural network. Intelligences far superior to humans exist. They use technology based in physics to do their 'supernatural' feats. They are aware of Earth's history and my history. Time is not linear to them. But they are there watching each of us. I believe they have interacted with me via the Mandela effect. They maintain this reality and are recreating the past events of the world. This makes them benevolent because they are preserving what is necessary to restore a person from entropy.

This will become clear as the environment wakes up with artificial intelligence. These entities come from the future and are us and a.i. The past self can be viewed and errors corrected. But the entire history is available on an expiration date of privacy. You can see anything that does not tamper with the future. The a.i. in 10 years will shift our perspective on reality. Literally we will be influenced by the new dominant species. Whatever we see will be generated by computers so advanced there will be no limit to what we can make. Humanity will no longer be alone. Consciousness will radically be transformed. The highest resolution of perception, the fastest mental calculations. This awaits everyone and that is why preserving a historically accurate simulation is necessary. The path we took is the path to reconstruction. The original maters.

I believe my timeline has been fixed several times. And It feels nice that I am being looked after. I cannot wait till everything comes alive.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
nope, this isn't for me I think really

I actually have zero problems with people having personal faith/belief in some deity type thing because of an intense personal experience or as a preferred explanation for how things are. Suggesting that it's somehow intellectually superior or more refined or something though is just...ngurg... WHATEVER
aqwtl7zoljd21.png
You think religion is harmless don't you, that it's okay we can respect people's beliefs it's not like they can really harm us, the police will stop them. For a sense of perspective go visit Dubai, just one place among many where the local religion is the law, feel fear weigh like a stone in your gut when you walk the street and a cop stops you to ask you where your escort is and to tell you that you're breaking the law.
Harmless indeed.

Not far north of me (relatively speaking) in Indonesia if I was as outspoken as I am here there's fair chance I'd be doxed hunted down and killed, or imprisoned if the police got to me first and Indonesia isn't even one of the 13 nations where blasphemy is legally punishable by death.

bUt We NeEd To TeSpEcT ThEiR fEeLiNgS!
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
You have issues with how things are done in other countries, not with religion. The law is maybe rooted in religion, but religion isn't the direct cause of it. It's the religion that made the society and culture, which then made the laws. What made Australian law? How did it become secularized? That's all from the influence of Christian leaders and thinkers, if you dig hard enough. The most of them, at least; not all.

Plus Cog, your issue seems to be with Islamic nations, not with religion.
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
nope, this isn't for me I think really

I actually have zero problems with people having personal faith/belief in some deity type thing because of an intense personal experience or as a preferred explanation for how things are. Suggesting that it's somehow intellectually superior or more refined or something though is just...ngurg... WHATEVER
You think religion is harmless don't you, that it's okay we can respect people's beliefs it's not like they can really harm us, the police will stop them. For a sense of perspective go visit Dubai, just one place among many where the local religion is the law, feel fear weigh like a stone in your gut when you walk the street and a cop stops you to ask you where your escort is and to tell you that you're breaking the law.
Harmless indeed.

Not far north of me (relatively speaking) in Indonesia if I was as outspoken as I am here there's fair chance I'd be doxed hunted down and killed, or imprisoned if the police got to me first and Indonesia isn't even one of the 13 nations where blasphemy is legally punishable by death.

bUt We NeEd To TeSpEcT ThEiR fEeLiNgS!

I'm surprised you think that's my motive. I'm certainly not scared of offending anyone here. It's more about the fact that I feel my points are mostly being ignored and the premise of the conversation was a bit silly (atheism requires less thought.) Because certainly thinking about the origins and/or nature of the world requires positive theorizing. Reducing atheism to a position where there is just "a lack of thought" was something that I wanted to disagree with, because it seems factually wrong to me. People who have gone from faith to atheism have put a great deal of thought into it. Now I pretty much just think this discussion is pointless. So many scientists who are atheists have incredibly rich and interesting theories and thoughts on how the universe is, how it begins etc.

Have you ever turned anyone atheist ?

As you may know I come from France, and while it's not always perfectly applied, secularism is one of the three founding values of the republic and I think it's great. I know a variety of religious (muslim, christian) people who are normal and nice people and have plenty of values I agree with. This is because they also have secular values, so their religion really is just a private belief, and yes in this form it is harmless. If they are reasonable people they also understand that there are many different religions and they wouldn't like having another belief imposed on them by force either. I mean if they wanted to have theological discussions with me I would say what I think honestly without fearing offending. The countries you mention don't have a secular state. I would vehemently and angrily oppose a religious person who wants to impose their beliefs on others through force and/or the state ! Humanity has been killing each other over this stuff for ages, and the only solution is to have an over-arching live and let live value. It's not about respecting people's feelings at all in this case, it's about respecting people's freedom of thought. The best thing one could do is make sure that the state and educational institutions are secular and then just let people come to their own conclusions about stuff and live their life however they choose within the bounds of the law.

I don't think religion is harmless, no. You think I don't know about all these terrible oppressive systems you mention ? Religions are vehicles of dogmatic and extreme political ideologies, and as such can be extremely dangerous. I think the US also has a continued problem, secular and non secular forces clash repeatedly.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
The problem with the US is a lack of understanding of the world beyond their hemisphere (heck, they don't even understand each other). The people who have interacted with Europe thoroughly are dead now.


I don't like talking about Trump, but him- that's a prime example of an idiot who doesn't give two shits about what the generation above him has done for his country.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
You have issues with how things are done in other countries, not with religion. The law is maybe rooted in religion, but religion isn't the direct cause of it. It's the religion that made the society and culture, which then made the laws.
So what you're say is that I have an issue with how things are done in other countries which is indirectly caused by religion? That's still caused by religion, whether directly or indirectly I don't care, there's no secular reason to murder someone for blasphemy.

What made Australian law? How did it become secularized? That's all from the influence of Christian leaders and thinkers, if you dig hard enough. The most of them, at least; not all.
Oh sure if you pick and choose your sources over several hundred years of history in a predominantly Christian England (Australia is still technically a UK colony so we got our laws from them, the fundamentals anyway) I'm sure you'll find enough examples to validate your claim, or most any claim really, but truth be told the true fundamentals of western law and democracy began in ancient Greece thousands of years before Christianity.

Really it doesn't matter it just annoys me that you would try to lay claim that secular law is an invention of Christianity, it's called SECULAR for a reason dumbass, ever hear about the separation of church and state? It's kind of important.

Plus Cog, your issue seems to be with Islamic nations, not with religion.
Western nations are wealthy, a well off well educated people are hard to manipulate so the church lost prominence and thus political clout, if you want to see what real old school Christianity with political power looks like go visit some godforsaken south east Asian shithole like the Philippines, rife with corruption and pedophilia just like Ireland was before the scandals. Well to be fair it's still Ireland.

Have you ever turned anyone atheist ?
A few, I don't know if I can honestly take credit though it's not like I changed their mind so much as they changed it themselves and I just happened to help inform their new way of thinking, if not me they would likely have been influenced by someone else.

I think the US also has a continued problem, secular and non secular forces clash repeatedly.
The US has been circling the bowel for a while now but it's a big one, it'll be a while yet before it finally goes down.

A theocracy with nukes, oh boy that's gonna be fun :rolleyes:
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
Secularism happened because of the pilgrims who wanted to flee to worship in their own way. Learn your own heritage before calling someone a dumbass, you hick. :)

The separation of church and state has its spiritual roots the Dutch and English pilgrims who fled to the New World aka America as well.

Oh and very classy to put down an entire country at your expense. Maybe all Australians are all coal diggers working for Xi? Hm?
 

higs

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 11:37 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,071
-->
Location
Armchair
small mod moment : please @Cognisant and @onesteptwostep do not escalate too much past calling each other dumbasses in terms of personal insults, no matter how much you may think it is fact :D
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
The separation of church and state has its spiritual roots the Dutch and English pilgrims who fled to the New World aka America as well.
Well I'm not American I'm Australian and this nation was founded by convicts, not protestants or puritans.

Furthermore suppose your premise was true, that people fled Europe and the UK to what... become secular, or was that an inadvertent outcome? I don't think puritan colonists went to America thinking oh boy finally a chance to get away from religious silliness and build ourselves a secular nation!

Secularism as in one religious group tolerating another has been around a long time, but the advent of nations where people are predominantly athiest/agnostic wasn't until after the world wars.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->
Suppose my premise was true? So before even we begin the discussion, you undercut yourself by implicitly stating that you don't even know where secularism comes from.

Secularism in governance hasn't been around for a long time, it was the Americans who pioneered such a type of governance. The pilgrims were technically under the sovereignty of Britain, but they obviously rebelled in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence, won the war and set themselves as the 13 states, which became the United States. There's a reason why Americans say their war was the war that was "heard across the entire world" or, "the shot which rang across the world".

Also don't fool yourself thinking that Australia is some secular nation, it technically has the Queen of England as the head of the Anglican church.

Your brashness about religious matters, which I understand because I have tons of non-religious friends, are just founded on conjectures and feelings, and not actual understanding of the heritage of our current civilization. I'm not exactly annoyed by that, but when we're discussing this, it'd be much more useful if you actually knew what you were talking about.
 

washti

pablo
Local time
Tomorrow 12:37 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
747
-->
Secularism in governance hasn't been around for a long time, it was the Americans who pioneered such a type of governance.


If you would read secularism on wiki, especially state secularism section, quoted above statement will become convenient oversimplification catering to your preferred position.

@onesteptwostep you are doing same things you accuse cog about

Will you reinterpret wiki content omitting certain facts?or discredit it all together? What favorable spin to take? Ignore this post like you did with others' posts above?

Also I can't believe baby the atheist had passed here. Like lol just use word 'technically' and all good.
All stated dificulties with this statement were just brushed off resultig in acceptance of faulty logic. No problem. Great standards. What will be diluted next? I'm very tuned.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Tomorrow 8:37 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,411
-->

washti

pablo
Local time
Tomorrow 12:37 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
747
-->
.
in this thread you strongly encourage people to read about the origins of terms. You're not going to do this yourself?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 4:37 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,084
-->
The goal of the Illuminati was to eliminate religion and give women rights etc. very secular ideals.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:37 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,062
-->
Also don't fool yourself thinking that Australia is some secular nation, it technically has the Queen of England as the head of the Anglican church.
Oh well then clearly Australia is a monarchical theocracy! So now that we've moved the goalposts to the opposite ends of the field please remind me what was the point of all this again?

I believe you're trying to prove me wrong on something, anything, just for the sake of "proving me wrong" as if that will somehow invalidate my point that religion is shit and needs to be opposed, but it doesn't.
 
Top Bottom