Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I absolutely cringe and hate it when people talk about Christian children, Muslim children etc. When children are born they do not have a religion (and just leave them alone I say). Anyway I have heard new born babies being labelled atheists. I am not quite comfortable with this. You need be aware of the concept not to believe in it. This leads on to what I really want to ask. Is there an expression, a word for anyone who is totally unaware of the very concept of gods and religion? I just kind of resent the very notion of atheist in the first place. Some folk just come up, without an iota of evidence, that a creator produced the multiverse and if you don't believe them a word is made up to describe you. I just find that ridiculous. Just take this further. For everything that someone just dreams up there has to be a word for not believing it. For example, someone asserts that Mars has two moons because a rabbit drank too much water on a Scottish island 157 years ago. If you don't believe that to be true then a word is made up to categorize you?! (I'm sure a pun lurks somewhere...)

Do animals sense the presence of G-d? Do babies sense the presence of G-d? What do we really sense? Can G-d existence or non-existence be proved? What would constitute a prove that G-d exists?

Extremist of the atheistic persuasion like all self-righteous extremist are dangerous, and must be contained by any means

Having said that I affirm that it is a unalienable human right to believe in that ever you want to believe as long as you do not try to forcefully impose your conviction to other folks...lets agree to disagree

^"Extremist of the atheistic persuasion like all self-righteous extremist are dangerous, and must be contained by any means"

That was rather extreme. Contain yourself. (Just kidding ;))

Why does it really matter?  I mean did we choose the label trangender or was it applied to us?  I don't know the origin of it, but it wasn't invented by me even though it's a word that can be used to define me.  Same thing with gender.  Somebody defined what men and women are and the label was automatically applied to everyone as a result.  Labels are simply ways to convey beliefs, orientations or views so people will understand where you are coming from or find a way to categorize you.  It's unfortunate that labels have lots of baggage that comes along with it, but what can you do besides try to distinguish yourself from others within your in group.  Christians and Muslims face the same thing.  How many of them are lumped in with extremists who share nothing in common with them?  Still, it makes sense for them to identify with their religion of choice.  Labels suck but they have their uses.  How would you desire to convey your lack of religious beliefs if you were to avoid using the term atheist?  Like it or not we live in a very religious world, so having a term like atheist is important to help identify where you stand on the existence of God because it is such a prevalent topic.  In the example you gave on the rabbit, that theory wouldn't have enough of a following to create the need for a new label to enter the lexicon. 

Having said all that, I hate labels myself and I struggle to find appropriate ones that don't misconstrue my actual beliefs and positions.  One word can't describe your overall positions and feelings.  Still, I recognize that labels have their uses and are important tools to help convey our beliefs or identities. 

On a similar note a local radio talk show host was interviewing a woman following a statement made by a Washington state congressman that the FBI's 25 most wanted terrorist list comprised only of bearded, Mid-Easterners with head cloths was racist. The talk show host cited FBI statistics that 75% of all terrorist acts in the world are perpetrated by radical Islamists. The woman refused to acknowledge the FBI's facts and figures as evidence and agreed with the liberal congressman that the most wanted terrorist list was indeed racist and that there should be some white male faces on it.

People can disagree about everything under the sun, but what I find annoying are those that disagree when the information is blatantly supported by overwhelming historical, factual and empirical evidence. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind living in a vegetative state to not believe what is clearly evident to everyone else. Though I am not given to argument with someone over their disbelief in anything as it would clearly be a waste of my time and life's energy. Better to enjoy a conversation with a pet rock!

Quote from: Beth Andrea on June 22, 2013, 12:11:49 PM
This reminded me of "The Emporer's New Clothes"...sometimes it's not the empirical evidence that matters, sometimes it's political or social considerations that override a person's normal reasoning powers.

Or something concerning logic missing from their DNA!   :icon_peace:

Quote from: Shantel on June 22, 2013, 12:07:05 PM

People can disagree about everything under the sun, but what I find annoying are those that disagree when the information is blatantly supported by overwhelming historical, factual and empirical evidence. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind living in a vegetative state to not believe what is clearly evident to everyone else. Though I am not given to argument with someone over their disbelief in anything as it would clearly be a waste of my time and life's energy. Better to enjoy a conversation with a pet rock!

Perhaps I'm misreading you, which I hope is the case, but the second paragraph seems that you are insinuating that atheists are deaf, dumb and blind for not acknowledging the existence of a God.  I don't think the evidence is nearly as overwhelming as one might believe.  This is a very subjective view and there is no hard facts that can be used in an academic sense to prove the existence of a deity.  It remains to be something that one takes on faith with evidence which is fairly subjective.  I don't care when people choose to believe in something, but I don't think it's fair to say another is blind for not believing in the same things.  Denying established facts or proof is foolish, but having different interpretations on things which don't have a definitive answer or remain scientifically inconclusive is a matter of having a different opinion.  Either way, I respect where people fall as long as they don't use their views for hatred and bigotry.  Unfortunately, both atheists and theists have people in their camps that can't play nicely with others. 

Quote from: Beth Andrea on June 22, 2013, 12:18:24 PM
In some cases, sure. But I have some experience trying to persuade people of ideas that are supported by numerous sources (and all counter-sources are shown as emotion-based "reasoning"), but to no avail. Yet, these people are often successful and rational in other areas of thought. But certain topics--religion, race, gender, to name but a few--and some people's frontal lobes go dormant, mostly in fear of "but what will the neighbors think?"

It's just interesting seeing how people will believe how fabulous the Emperor is dressed...

As an aside to what you have just said, the idea of "what will others think of me" is at the very heart of what motivates everyone here who shrinks back from being all of who they want to be and even why some remain closeted and living in misery. This is yet another form of disbelief in one's own self fitting in as a part of the world around them. Forgive me, I don't want to stray too far off the OP's subject.

Learningtolive, I'm glad you said that. I read it a few (dozen) times and didn't quite know what to make of it.

Anyway, let me try again. I feel I failed to get my point over. Imagine there is an island where a few thousand people live and have done so for generations and there is absolutely no concept of god or religion (or fairies, astrology.......). Anyway, one day a guy arrives on the island, on a boat; he didn't walk, and after a few days he starts to talk about his particular god, and of course, with no evidence, and a few of the requirements demanded of this religion (Woman have to balance fruit on their head and men have to say "boing boing boing" when it rains). So this guy arrives with his story, nobody believes it and suddenly they are all to be labelled atheist......or some other new word? That can't be right.

Quote from: sentience on June 22, 2013, 12:45:06 PM
Learningtolive, I'm glad you said that. I read it a few (dozen) times and didn't quite know what to make of it.

Anyway, let me try again. I feel I failed to get my point over. Imagine there is an island where a few thousand people live and have done so for generations and there is absolutely no concept of god or religion (or fairies, astrology.......). Anyway, one day a guy arrives on the island, on a boat; he didn't walk, and after a few days he starts to talk about his particular god, and of course, with no evidence, and a few of the requirements demanded of this religion (Woman have to balance fruit on their head and men have to say "boing boing boing" when it rains). So this guy arrives with his story, nobody believes it and suddenly they are all to be labelled atheist......or some other new word? That can't be right.

It depends.  If the story is widely believed, then it would make sense to create a word between believers and non believers.  That way people could understand your position on something that is seen as socially relevant.  If the guy is considered crazy, no one would see the need to create a new word.  We are a very religious society, so I don't think that you can compare religion to the guy with a crazy story which no one believes.  The fact is many believe in a god, so it makes sense to create a label to describe your position on something that is seen as a major philosophical topic.  So I think it is entirely reasonable for the existence of the label for atheism. 

Quote from: learningtolive on June 22, 2013, 12:24:10 PM
Perhaps I'm misreading you, which I hope is the case, but the second paragraph seems that you are insinuating that atheists are deaf, dumb and blind for not acknowledging the existence of a God.  I don't think the evidence is nearly as overwhelming as one might believe.  This is a very subjective view and there is no hard facts that can be used in an academic sense to prove the existence of a deity.  It remains to be something that one takes on faith with evidence which is fairly subjective.  I don't care when people choose to believe in something, but I don't think it's fair to say another is blind for not believing in the same things.  Denying established facts or proof is foolish, but having different interpretations on things which don't have a definitive answer or remain scientifically inconclusive is a matter of having a different opinion.  Either way, I respect where people fall as long as they don't use their views for hatred and bigotry.  Unfortunately, both atheists and theists have people in their camps that can't play nicely with others.

This is why I try and avoid religious and political stuff. For me there is plenty of evidence, because I even exist and awaken each day and there is still an adequate supply of oxygen and I am a breathing miracle. All of nature as I observe it clearly speaks of intelligent design. My plants and trees speak of a cycle of life, blooming gloriously, aging, withering and then dying away, and then new life springing up from what has previously died and gone into the ground. I don't need a scientific explanation to prove to me what I know innately any more than did those people who lived in Mesopotamia twenty five thousand years ago. I don't have to try and convince others who are devoid of the gift of faith, because the evidence is there before them and if they refuse to process it then that's their business.

"Devoid of the GIFT of faith". God has favourites? That's not fair. Heaven forbid I ever favoured one of my children over another.

Quote from: Shantel on June 22, 2013, 12:50:32 PM
This is why I try and avoid religious and political stuff. For me there is plenty of evidence, because I even exist and awaken each day and there is still an adequate supply of oxygen and I am a breathing miracle. All of nature as I observe it clearly speaks of intelligent design. My plants and trees speak of a cycle of life, blooming gloriously, aging, withering and then dying away, and then new life springing up from what has previously died and gone into the ground. I don't need a scientific explanation to prove to me what I know innately any more than did those people who lived in Mesopotamia twenty five thousand years ago. I don't have to try and convince others who are devoid of the gift of faith, because the evidence is there before them and if they refuse to process it then that's their business.

Absolutely.  It's your right to believe what you want and you shouldn't have to defend it to anyone.  My point is that it's unfair to call other dumb and blind for experiencing the same things you do and have a different interpretation on it.  One can say those who refuse the evidence for evolution and abiogensis simply are blind, take it all on faith and that's their business. The point is that it's easy to cast off the belief of other's as wrong or dumb, but that does a disservice to your position as well as your opponents.  Even if evolution or abiogenesis were true, that doesn't disprove a creator.  Nor would the fallacy of evolution prove the existence of a creator.  Belief in God is something that is subjective and I believe it's best to respect people's beliefs.  To say other's are blind for their position isn't really fair.  I can hold my own beliefs and positions without needing to invalidate the views of others.  I point this out because I respect you Shantel, and I don't think that particular view is reflective of the compassionate and understanding person you are.  It wasn't to target your beliefs, but rather to open up a discussion on how people of opposing sides often misunderstand one another without realizing that they aren't being fair.  I have done this (and continue to do this) myself, and I often try to watch out whenever I make that error because it does a great disservice to everyone on both sides. 

Quote from: sentience on June 22, 2013, 01:01:23 PM
"Devoid of the GIFT of faith". God has favourites? That's not fair. Heaven forbid I ever favoured one of my children over another.

Each child is favored in a different way...each according to his/her personality

^Even the ones that twitch then die moments after birth as scarcely differentiated blobs of cells? My midwife spouse saw many "miracles" in here time that ended up in the fridge and had her distraught beyond the sanctuary of sleep. But I know, "mysterious ways".

Kia Ora,

For us born in the West (and I might add a good potion of non Westerners too) are born into a "God-Centric" environment, where the term "God" "G-d" "Allah" appears in everyday speech , even atheists are known to used words such as "Oh My God !" "Good God!"  "For God's Sake !" "Jesus Christ ! WTF are you doing?"  etc etc...

A day doesn't go by when we are not in ear shot of a religious verbal outburst from a member of the general public be they a theist or atheist (Mind you some atheists are 'mindful' not to use a religious iconic term when expressing themselves) ...

A-theist just means without [a] god...In other words Atheist don't need a god or gods in their life for it to be meaningful in some way...

"I'm an atheist in that I don't recognise an absolute personal deity...But I'm not philosophically atheistic because I don't deny Ultimate Reality !"

Do I find the concept of atheist annoying ? No I find it a convenient way to let others know that in my life there's no need for there to be a god or gods for me to do the 'right' thing...

And the bottom line is...It's just a descriptive word/term (that some put a spin on for their own benefit-be it a wholesome or unwholesome spin)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

@ sentience

"This leads on to what I really want to ask. Is there an expression, a word for anyone who is totally unaware of the very concept of gods and religion?"


::) Simple answer..."IGNORANT"  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

   

Rational Scientist. You only believe what the evidence presents can be stated and proven. you don't take anything on "faith" and you set yourself outside of "spirits"

as an aside I don't mind atheist - my description is gnostic ateist but really i am outside and I am anti-theist.  8)

Ignorant ........Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy"

So as you see the area of ignorance has to be defined; specified. So it's a rather circular assertion at best.

I believe in G-d because I have seen, talked to, and touched and be touched by her...what more prove can I demand?

Kia Ora Sentience,

If one is 'totally' unaware of some thing, then they are ignorant of the 'fact' nothing comes to mind when the terms "God or Religion" are used...

But in saying this, you could if you so chose always make up a word/term..This is happening all the time. So make up a term and go down in history  ;) ;D

No doubt there are still some isolated tribes somewhere in the sticks who have had no contact with other humans (Or shy away from contact, and hence (with any luck) no concept of a god or religion,  and if by chance the poor sods are brought into the Western world "To be civilised" ::) and we find out what they call themselves, then we could use this name as a general description for what you ask....

BTW  I think there was a tribe found in the islands of Papua New Guinea-or somewhere in that region who had no concept of a god or religion...If I could remember that tribe's name you would have your word/term...

Metta Zenda :) 

Quote from: peky on June 22, 2013, 05:49:50 PM
I believe in G-d because I have seen, talked to, and touched and be touched by her...what more prove can I demand?

Kia Ora Peky,

Nobody is denying you the right to 'believe' in a god...(even here in the atheist section of the of the forum)  ::) ...

"Different Strokes For Different Folks !"

BTW Every time I hear the term "Touched by god" a scene comes to mind from an old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby "Road To Morocco" movie...In one scene the locals believed Bob's "touched by Allah/God" it's quite a funny scene...Have you seen it Peky ?

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 22, 2013, 06:41:06 PM
Kia Ora Peky,

Nobody is denying you the right to 'believe' in a god...(even here in the atheist section of the of the forum)  ::) ...

"Different Strokes For Different Folks !"

BTW Every time I hear the term "Touched by god" a scene comes to mind from an old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby "Road To Morocco" movie...In one scene the locals believed Bob's "touched by Allah/God" it's quite a funny scene...Have you seen it Peky ?

Metta Zenda :)

Life is funny until you die

Quote from: peky on June 22, 2013, 07:52:47 PM
Life is funny until you die

I have no problem with people believing what they want.  I don't even know where I stand on the "God" question myself.  It's much easier for me to label myself as agnostic than anything as I don't have evidence for it either way but am open to being proved that a God does exist.  But I need proof for myself before I could be swayed and will remain highly skeptical until that happens.  Having said that, I don't really like when people use Pascal's Wager to intimidate people into believing something they don't.  Fear shouldn't be why one clings to a religion or a God.  They should do so because they have faith and believe it to be true.  If a god did exist, I'm sure he or she would see through those fake believers in a second if they are in fact omniscient.   So the wager doesn't really work regardless. 

Quote from: sentience on June 22, 2013, 01:01:23 PM
"Devoid of the GIFT of faith". God has favourites? That's not fair. Heaven forbid I ever favoured one of my children over another.

Some people are not capable of believing in what they cannot see or touch, other's can and do.

Quote from: peky on June 22, 2013, 07:52:47 PM
Life is funny until you die

Kia Ora my dear friend Peky,

Then why waste it, why not enjoy every minute of it, like I do  ;) ;D

On a more serious note (And yes I do do serious-  ::) well on the odd occasion  ;) ) on whose authority do you assert this Peky ? Do you have a direct line to the afterlife ? ( Question = Part joking - part very very serious... well almost  ;) )

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Shantel on June 22, 2013, 08:16:15 PM
Some people are not capable of believing in what they cannot see or touch, other's can and do.

I wouldn't say that they were devoid of the gift of faith for that reason.  To take a Christian interpretation, they say that all are capable of knowing the existence of god. I'm sure most faiths share the same belief.  What is at play is how people perceive the world and interpret it.  Most religions would claim the lack of knowledge stems from the individual not God making some incapable in believing.  Maybe, I'm wrong in that.  Are there religions or denominations that teach that people are born without the ability to have faith?  I've never encountered that before, but I could be wrong as there are so many different religious beliefs. 

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 22, 2013, 08:21:56 PM
Kia Ora my dear friend Peky,

Then why waste it, why not enjoy every minute of it, like I do  ;) ;D

On a more serious note (And yes I do do serious-  ::) well on the odd occasion  ;) ) on whose authority do you assert this Peky ? Do you have a direct line to the afterlife ? ( Question = Part joking - part very very serious... well almost  ;) )

Metta Zenda :)

Well can't you still enjoy every minute of life and believe in a God?  I don't see how that would nullify anything. 

Quote from: learningtolive on June 22, 2013, 08:26:48 PM
Well can't you still enjoy every minute of life and believe in a God?  I don't see how that would nullify anything.

Kia Ora L,

I was more or less generalising about 'life' and why waste it, meaning why spend time worrying about what's going to happen to you in a 'afterlife' (If there is such a place)...And no I'm not advocating people take pleasure in doing unwholesome things to other people as a means of enjoying themselves...

Sure there's nothing to stop theists from enjoying life to the full...However the spanner in the works for many so to speak, is their fear of god and the consequences should they accidentally stray off the path "F-up" one too many times and have hell to pay for it...(bearing in mind some do believe in a form of afterlife where things are not that pleasant and often a permanent abode )

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: peky on June 22, 2013, 07:52:47 PM
Life is funny until you die

Peky, I don't understand your reply.  Is that a reference to the eternal torture and damnation that is to be carried out on the non-believing "childeren of god"?

Quote from: Shantel on June 22, 2013, 08:16:15 PM
Some people are not capable of believing in what they cannot see or touch, other's can and do.

Kia Ora Shantel,

Belief...Non Belief... It's all in the mind and has a lot to do with ones conditioning...What seeds were planted and nurtured...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: JessicaH on June 22, 2013, 08:47:55 PM
Peky, I don't understand your reply.  Is that a reference to the eternal torture and damnation that is to be carried out on the non-believing "childeren of god"?

Kia Ora JessicaH,

It's possible that's what Peky was on about...However she could have meant "funny" as in funny=peculiar 'Strange, odd, unusual. ie, life is 'funny'...Still no doubt "She'll Be Back" to explain herself...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 22, 2013, 08:45:25 PM
Kia Ora L,

I was more or less generalising about 'life' and why waste it, meaning why spend time worrying about what's going to happen to you in a 'afterlife' (If there is such a place)...And no I'm not advocating people take pleasure in doing unwholesome things to other people as a means of enjoying themselves...

Sure there's nothing to stop theists from enjoying life to the full...However the spanner in the works for many so to speak, is their fear of god and the consequences should they accidentally stray off the path "F-up" one too many times and have hell to pay for it...(bearing in mind some do believe in a form of afterlife where things are not that pleasant and often a permanent abode )

Metta Zenda :)

I see what you mean.  However, atheists are just as prone to having anxieties and regret.  Maybe they won't fear god's retribution, but atheists can also overwhelm themselves with regrets and mistakes.  I think it is human to look back on our past actions and mistakes and feel upset with ourselves.  But you are right that religion can add another dimension to that feeling. 

Quote from: learningtolive on June 22, 2013, 09:09:34 PM
I see what you mean.  However, atheists are just as prone to having anxieties and regret.  Maybe they won't fear god's retribution, but atheists can also overwhelm themselves with regrets and mistakes.  I think it is human to look back on our past actions and mistakes and feel upset with ourselves.  But you are right that religion can add another dimension to that feeling.

Kia Ora L,

Anxiety and regrets know no boundaries...The minds of Atheists as well as Theists and Agnostics are often full of  worries...Anxieties about what the future might hold and regrets of past mistakes, both of which have no firm foot hold in 'reality', but we tend to form a pseudo reality around them (creating an illusion)...It's human 'conditioning' that makes one look back on ones mistakes and feel upset with themselves, it's also conditioning which makes one worry about what 'might' happen...

However from what I gather there are the 'confident' atheists who go to they grave harden 'non believers', brain stops functioning no longer conscious... end of story, and there are the confident theists who go to their grave true 'believers', brain stops functioning no longer conscious but their 'soul'(this so called permanent entity that abides within) goes on walkabout in the afterlife, hell, heaven or wherever...Then there are the agnostics who sit on the fence with a bet each way...

In the long run (in a sense) we are all agnostic when it comes to death, nobody knows for sure and that I can say for sure ! 

At death the truth will be known...But to whom will this truth be known?   :eusa_think: The big question...

::) "I'm an atheist till the day I die...then I'm open to offers!"  ;) ;D  :eusa_whistle:

Metta Zenda :)

What is most annoying is the thought "I am master of my own destiny." As if anyone on the face of the earth has any real control over their life or of their future? It is indeed arrogant!  :)

^ "I am master of my own destiny". Perhaps not arrogant but deluded. Having read Free Will by Sam Harris I am far from convinced I even have even tenuous control over my own thoughts. On another site I was involved in a discussion with a woman who claimed she chose her own religion when I suggested that overwhelmingly everyone's religion (or lack of) is just an accident of birth. I challenged her to find someone who didn't claim to have chosen their own religion.

Quote from: Shantel on June 23, 2013, 10:32:22 AM
What is most annoying is the thought "I am master of my own destiny." As if anyone on the face of the earth has any real control over their life or of their future? It is indeed arrogant!  :)

Shantel, have you read "The Apology" by Plato?  In it there is a great scene where Socrates confesses "all that I know, is that I know nothing".  On the face of it, it sounds like a foolish quote; however, when examining it further it is one of the most brilliant statements ever written.  The point of the piece is to show that Socrates was more wise than all the other Athenians, not because he knew more, but because he admitted and accepted his ignorance.  While all the others claimed to have all the answers, Socrates searched for the truth.  If he had to wade in ignorance until he reached that point, so be it.  I think there is a good lesson in that.  People of all different religions, ideologies and schools of though, etc, all claim they know the truth and have all the answers.  Personally, I find that suspect.  I don't think  anyone can claim definitely that they have the answers to all of life's secrets and now the answer to all of life's dilemma's. That is true arrogance in my opinion.  And the dogmatic individuals that cling to a school of thought without being open to other possibilities (be they atheist or religious) are doomed to  subject themselves to flawed thinking.   

Personally, that is why I find organized religion so questionable.  It's not a matter of arrogance, but rather admitted ignorance and being humble to the fact that we don't know everything.  I'd rather search for the truth and find it, then to submit to a falsity for the sake of appeasing others.  If there is a god and he has planned my fate, okay.  I will accept it if it can be proven to me.  If there is no god, but I still lack true free will, okay.  If there isn't a god and I do have free will, that's fine too.  I can live my life either way and find piece of mind no matter the answer.  What I will say is that I find it doubtful that the master of the universe created a path for each human.  The universe is so vast that I can't imagine the creator cares about defining the life of a car mechanic with a spouse or kids (not me, but just an example of everyday people).  Perhaps that is the truth, but I would need something to prove that claim.  Having said that, I am always open to learning and being shown the errors in my thinking. I do know that there are many theories circulating around that free will is an illusion.  If that's true, then it would be interesting to learn the source of that illusion.  I'm not to proud to believe I don't make mistakes and I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think that I'm infallible and can't make mistakes.  For now, I will live my life and try defeat my ignorance day by day.  However, it is inevitable that I will always fail because it is impossible to be all knowing. 

Quote from: sentience on June 23, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
^ "I am master of my own destiny". Perhaps not arrogant but deluded. Having read Free Will by Sam Harris I am far from convinced I even have even tenuous control over my own thoughts. On another site I was involved in a discussion with a woman who claimed she chose her own religion when I suggested that overwhelmingly everyone's religion (or lack of) is just an accident of birth. I challenged her to find someone who didn't claim to have chosen their own religion.

I haven't read that book, but I have heard this argument.  I don't care for Sam Harris, as I think he is an extremist (the whole genocidal suggestion in the "End of Faith").  I bought a book on this topic by a neuroscientist and haven't gotten around to it.  Maybe, I'll read that today. What is the view as to why we don't have free will from Harris' perspective?  I'd be interested to hear. 

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 22, 2013, 08:21:56 PM
Kia Ora my dear friend Peky,

Then why waste it, why not enjoy every minute of it, like I do  ;) ;D

On a more serious note (And yes I do do serious-  ::) well on the odd occasion  ;) ) on whose authority do you assert this Peky ? Do you have a direct line to the afterlife ? ( Question = Part joking - part very very serious... well almost  ;) )

Metta Zenda :)

My post come from some rather somber combat times when I so soldiers -atheists or not- pleading with G-d not to let them die....

...I do not remember where I heard, I think it was in a song, the saying that goes like this: "Nobody know until the day they die" that is where I derive the: "life is funny until you die"

Of course they does not apply to the faithful, to folks who believe in G-d... :angel:

BTW I do not understand why you found my post IS

Quote
Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 06:49:50 pm »

Quote
Modify
Remove


I believe in G-d because I have seen, talked to, and touched and be touched by her...what more prove can I demand?

so offensive...it was just a "testimony"

BTW I have the feeling that your campaign to denied the existence of G-d and to indoctrinate you disfelif in others is possible because your soul has been move by G-d and deep down you cannot help but feel the existence of G-d even if it in the form of a hate for G-d....just my musings :angel:

I am not involved in any kind of organized religion for many of the reasons we have been discussing here. However the fact that I'm not religious does not preclude the fact that I espouse the idea that this life is just a hyphen in an eternal journey and is part of an intelligent design. I am a spiritual being but I don't have a need to stuff my beliefs down anyone's throat in fact I am completely free of concerning myself about what others think or feel about such things. This freedom from the controls of others allows me freedom from the worry of "Do I pass?" and all of that other silly mundane stuff, because once this is settled in one's own inner being we can be comfortable in our own skin regardless of circumstances.

Quote from: peky on June 23, 2013, 11:16:39 AM
My post come from some rather somber combat times when I so soldiers -atheists or not- pleading with G-d not to let them die....

...I do not remember where I heard, I think it was in a song, the saying that goes like this: "Nobody know until the day they die" that is where I derive the: "life is funny until you die"

Of course they does not apply to the faithful, to folks who believe in G-d... :angel:

BTW I do not understand why you found my post IS so offensive...it was just a "testimony"

BTW I have the feeling that your campaign to denied the existence of G-d and to indoctrinate you disfelif in others is possible because your soul has been move by G-d and deep down you cannot help but feel the existence of G-d even if it in the form of a hate for G-d....just my musings :angel:

Fearing death is natural.  It is no way "proof" of God.  No one has a campaign to deny god's existence.  If proven, I will perfectly accept it.  I don't have a dog in this fight either way as an agnostic.  But I won't claim to know something if I really don't.

Free Will by Sam Harris, is a very short book (about 50 pages. Honestly!) with a coherent flow of argument. To be honest, it's quite a while since I read it.  My paraphrasing would be a combination of Chinese whispers, false memory syndrome and old age. Please don't let your understandable reservations regarding Sam Harris put you off this book however. It is very much a stand alone product. In summary though he challenges every aspect of what you may consider having control over any and every aspect of who you are and how it should change our attitude to psychopaths for existence: there should be no condemnation just control so that they don't harm others.......dodgy paraphrasing setting in already. I'll stop.

Quote from: peky on June 23, 2013, 11:16:39 AM
My post come from some rather somber combat times when I so soldiers -atheists or not- pleading with G-d not to let them die....

...I do not remember where I heard, I think it was in a song, the saying that goes like this: "Nobody know until the day they die" that is where I derive the: "life is funny until you die"

Of course they does not apply to the faithful, to folks who believe in G-d... :angel:

BTW I do not understand why you found my post IS so offensive...it was just a "testimony"

BTW I have the feeling that your campaign to denied the existence of G-d and to indoctrinate you disfelif in others is possible because your soul has been move by G-d and deep down you cannot help but feel the existence of G-d even if it in the form of a hate for G-d....just my musings :angel:

For The Other Readers (Atheist-Agnostic-Theist)...This Is Not A Thread Overthrowing/Take Over...It's Just My Personal Take On Things And Just Something For My Friend Peky To Ponder(We Often Have These 'Friendly' Discussions-That Tend To Go Nowhere) I Take Full Responsibility For Any Derailing And Will Pay For Any Inconvenience Caused...Do You Accept Virtual  Cyber Cheques ?  ;)



Kia Ora Peky,

I don't find a belief in a god or many gods offensive, a little outdated perhaps, but not offensive...
However the only time I get a little concerned is when a person uses their belief in a god to justify discrimination against others and in many cases the 'others' being the poor trans-theists who have been indoctrinated with the concept of 'sin'( what the ancient Greeks called "Missing the Mark" )...

You seem to take some comfort in the ancient Hebrew mystical Kabbalic concept of a god and you may not 'believe' this but I'm truly happy for you. especially considering the struggle many of us have to go through, in order to become 'who we are' you had that 'safety net'...

However you still seem to struggle somewhat when you feel that your belief is challenged, hence your need to post in the atheist and or Buddhist forum,(who knows....perhaps 'subconsciously' it's to do with your military background where a pre-emptive strike could possibly win the day)

And finally Peky, no I don't 'hate' your god or anybody's gods...The belief in a god is just how ones mind has been "conditioned"... At first the seed was planted(in fertile ground) nurtured, then it took root and finally it becomes 'self' generating...(the self consisting of the psycho-physical phenomena of 'form=the body' 'consciousness' 'sensation' 'perception' 'mental formation' ( habitual mental activities)...All of which are in a 'constant state of flux...

No consistent abiding self exists, or what is commonly known in the "non theistic" Buddhist circles as  "Non Self" or No Soul...Anatta=soul lessness...But then you know all this Peky because we have been through this before...

I wish you well Peky(even if you do find this hard to 'believe')

The End Of The Derailing   

Metta Zenda :)   

PS For other readers.... I might just add...Sam Harris would agree regarding the non theist Buddhist concept of/on "Non Self" and how do I know this ? Because he had spent many years studying Buddhist and other types of Eastern meditation, and has a very good understanding of the type of "mind science" that's involved... He disregards most of the 'spiritual' aspects/trapping of Buddhism, but the meditation aspects he took to like a duck to water...

As an after thought....I don't expect other readers to 'believe' any of what I write especially when it comes to what the 'self' is...I take it those who have given it some 'thought' (studied it,  or meditated upon it) in the past have reached their own conclusions ( or perhaps it's inconclusive ) however I write from my personal 'experience' which for 'me' is a not 'belief' that can nor will 'change' in this life 'experience'...

However the only time I get a little concerned is when a person uses their belief in a god to justify discrimination against others and in many cases the 'others' being the poor trans-theists who have been indoctrinated with the concept of 'sin'( what the ancient Greeks called "Missing the Mark" )...  Metta Zenda

There are thousands of religious denominations and perhaps, billions of ideas about the supernatural, spiritual and concepts of god.  In consideration of the above quote;  I am happy to share ideas with those who can respect different perspectives about life.  Ethical considerations are an important part of living together on a small planet and religious or spiritual concepts provide a spring board, such as this thread, for discussion.  The rub comes when some take their beliefs to be "the truth" and brandish it with a righteous sword used to discriminate, promote intolerance, violence and war.  Our shared existence and history is replete with conflict based on religious intolerance.  Is someones ability to imagine something more valuable than the creative outlets of another?   The dust bin of history includes all kinds of deities and what was once codified dogma is now dog dodo;-)

I have known rational atheists in foxholes and consider myself a secular humanist.  While some draw lines to exclude others we can also draw a bigger circle that includes all of humanity.

Tessa James

Quote from: sentience on June 22, 2013, 11:22:30 AM.  Is there an expression, a word for anyone who is totally unaware of the very concept of gods and religion? I just kind of resent the very notion of atheist in the first place.

Your an AGNOSTIC ??? ?

QuoteAn agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings.

Agnostics on religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhists, etc): Religious zealots are often viewed as ignorant by agnostics' because of their blind following of a supreme being which may or may not exist.

Ever read "The Shack" ?

QuoteThe Shack "is a metaphor for the places you get stuck, you get hurt, you get damaged...the thing where shame or hurt is centered

Quote from: Kiera on June 23, 2013, 05:33:06 PM
Your an AGNOSTIC ??? ?
Ever read "The Shack" ?

Kia Ora Kiera,

::) All the eggs in the same basket again  :eusa_naughty:

"Agnostics on religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhists, etc): Religious zealots are often viewed as ignorant by agnostics' because of their blind following of a supreme being which may or may not exist."

Perhaps this agnostic friend of yours, should read up a little on Buddhism...

Also Kiera, what the OP was on about was the a term or expression one could use which would describe a person who has ' no concept' (never had) of god or religion...I think you will find most members here are quite familiar with the term agnostic but I do see your point if one goes to the root of this Greek word

Word History: " An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. "

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 23, 2013, 05:48:23 PM
Perhaps this agnostic friend of yours, should read up a little on Buddhism...
Metta Zenda :)

LOL No friend of mine, just an example use of the term!!

Here here try something a bit more 'weighty', in general . . .
it's not like this topic hasn't been covered before.

Can you make 'heads or tails' of this?

Quote from: Idols of the Tribe, Prejudice and other fallacies natural to humanity in general
"For man's sense is falsely asserted" (by Progagoras' "Man is the measure of all things") "to be the standard of things: on the contrary, all the perceptions, both of the senses and the mind, bear reference to man and not to the universe; and the human mind resembles those uneven mirrors which impart their own properties to different objects . . . and distort and disfigure them" Novum Organum,i,41. . . . "the human understanding, from its peculiar nature, easily supposes a greater degree of order and regularity in things than it really finds . . . Hence the fiction" Ibid,i,45

Quote. . . the human understanding, when any proposition has been once laid down (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords), forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation: and although most congent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe, or despises them, or it gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusion.

It was well answered by him who was shown in a temple the votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he would then recognize the power of the gods . . .[our 'innocent', godless person ->] 'But where are the portraits of those that have perished in spite of their vows?' All superstition is much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams, omens, retributive judgement, or the like, in all the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common" Ibid,i,46

"Having first determined the question according to his will, man then resorts to experience; and bending her into conformity with his placets, leads her about like a captive in a procession." Ibid,i.63

Valerius Terminus

Touche'!! In truth we all lay "exposed"!!

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 23, 2013, 05:48:23 PM
"man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,"

Perhaps our godless friend would be called "a noble savage" ??

QuotePresumably, among these books is the Bible for, in similarly clear terms, Rousseau asserts that his task is to form a theory of what would have happened had man been left to his own devices, without divine intervention.

Kia Ora Kiera,

That's quite interesting...

I haven't studied Greek philosophy in detail, ( in other words I'm a real dumbass when it come to philosophy in general) but it would seem Progagoras was active around the same time as the historical Buddha "Gotama Sidaharta" give or take a few hundred years (what's a few hundred years between friends)  ;)

"For man's sense is falsely asserted" (by Progagoras' "Man is the measure of all things") "to be the standard of things: on the contrary, all the perceptions, both of the senses and the mind, bear reference to man and not to the universe; and the human mind resembles those uneven mirrors which impart their own properties to different objects . . . and distort and disfigure them" Novum Organum,i,41. . . . "the human understanding, from its peculiar nature, easily supposes a greater degree of order and regularity in things than it really finds .

"the human understanding, when any proposition has been once laid down (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords), forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation: and although most congent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe, or despises them, or it gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusion.

It was well answered by him who was shown in a temple the votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he would then recognize the power of the gods . . . 'But where are the portraits of those that have perished in spite of their vows?' All superstition is much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams, omens, retributive judgement, or the like, in all the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common"

I agree with much of what is described ( However Buddhism teaches Non-duality there is no separation  of mind and universe plus the mind 'is' the sixth sense according to my understanding of Buddhist teachings)....

However in the long run...We are but bundles of fluctuating energy...( Or is that flatuating energy)  ;) ;D

I have to get ready for work...must fly....

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Kuan Yin on June 23, 2013, 06:33:01 PMHowever in the long run...We are but bundles of fluctuating energy...( Or is that flatuating energy)  ;) ;D

Kuan Yin, actually I agree with you that Budda was closer to the TRUTH !! The above quote is from Sir Francis Bacon, born "York House, London. January 22, 1561", came much much LATER and, to my mind, who's thinking precursors Einstein's theories on relativity insofar as "the observed cannot be divorced from the observer".

Western 'dualism' served it's own scientific purposes but have you ever read "Tao of Physics" by modern physicist Fritjof Capra??

QuoteThe purpose of this book (the Tao of Physics) is to explore the relationship between the concepts of modern physics and the basic ideas in the philosophical and religious traditions of the Far East. We shall see how the two foundations of twentieth-century physics - quantum theory and relativity - both force us to see the world very much in the way a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist sees it .. (Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics, 1975)

One of my FAV books  8)

Quote from: peky on June 23, 2013, 06:47:04 PM
My passion for as long as I remember was the sciences, and still is...

Modern science, on an increasingly complex empirical level, is revealing to us what the ancients have INTUITIVELY known all along !!! "Truth" has come full circle!  ???

LOL Now, I can give ya my theories on "Hydrogen is God" but that's 'anuther story . . .

Quote from: sentience on June 23, 2013, 11:30:30 AM
Free Will by Sam Harris, is a very short book (about 50 pages. Honestly!) with a coherent flow of argument. To be honest, it's quite a while since I read it.  My paraphrasing would be a combination of Chinese whispers, false memory syndrome and old age. Please don't let your understandable reservations regarding Sam Harris put you off this book however. It is very much a stand alone product. In summary though he challenges every aspect of what you may consider having control over any and every aspect of who you are and how it should change our attitude to psychopaths for existence: there should be no condemnation just control so that they don't harm others.......dodgy paraphrasing setting in already. I'll stop.

I might give it a read.  Though I really am skepitcal about the validity of anything coming from Harris.  He doesn't seem to be an authority in this area and I find a lot of what he has said in the past very questionable.  He's the kind that often passes opinion as fact which concerns me.  However, I'll take your word that this is a good book.  I'll try to check it out.  I've recently purchased "Who's in Charge?" by Michael Gazzaniga which is a book on this same topic written by a Neuroscientist.  I think I'll start with this one before I move on to Harris.

Kia Ora L, and others,

Spoiler alert re  "Who's in Charge?" by Michael Gazzaniga

The following link is a review of the book (in my case read one neuroscience book read them all, but I still find them interesting)


http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/pImDIDFCkGPpZtUnSDdA/full#.UcfEYfmky5U (http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/pImDIDFCkGPpZtUnSDdA/full#.UcfEYfmky5U)

Quote from a Zen practitioner ( I think he too was a neuroscientist-I can't remember the book nor the name of its author just this quote)

"One is simply one's experience -Ones ego is the abstraction from these experiences-Ones ego should be viewed as a convenient analytic device !"

I think Michael Gazzaniga mentions something similar to this (according to the review)...

Neuroscientists show a lot of interest in Eastern meditation techniques  and some of the top scientist belong/contribute to the Mind & Life institute set up by the Dalai lama and some US scientists...

http://www.mindandlife.org/ (http://www.mindandlife.org/)

The Mind & Life Institute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6_KB7tDbc#)

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Mollie on June 22, 2013, 11:22:30 AM
Is there an expression, a word for anyone who is totally unaware of the very concept of gods and religion?

Godless?

Quote from: learningtolive on June 22, 2013, 08:25:35 PM
Most religions would claim the lack of knowledge stems from the individual not God making some incapable in believing.  Maybe, I'm wrong in that.  Are there religions or denominations that teach that people are born without the ability to have faith?  I've never encountered that before, but I could be wrong as there are so many different religious beliefs.

"Predestination", as the word is used in Calvinism, means something like that; John Calvin believed that God decides whether or not a person is going to be "saved" before they are even born, which means he intentionally creates people that he is certain are going to be condemned.

Quote from: learningtolive on June 23, 2013, 09:58:11 PM
I might give it a read.  Though I really am skepitcal about the validity of anything coming from Harris.  He doesn't seem to be an authority in this area...

If a BA in philosophy, a PhD in neuroscience and research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief and uncertainty doesn't make one qualified to speak on free-will and determinism, I'm not sure what would.

V. S. Ramachandran is another neuroscientist whose views seem to align with Harris' ideas on free-will. Read these two authors along with Daniel Dennett and I think you're left with some very sound reasoning regarding consciousness and determinism.

One answer to the OPs query is "Free thinker."

I was originally indoctrinated into catholicism but have met many people who were "raised" or socialized without any proscriptive belief in a god.  Having thrown off the shackles of religion decades ago I find it is easy to be free of those tedious questions about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.  It feels liberating not to worry about theistic designs and other superstitious nonsense.  There are tangible problems and solutions that need our attention without recourse to the unseen, unprovable and unlikely. 

Being free to explore new ideas and ask questions without domination by ancient concepts is free thinking.

I'm agnostic.

I find being either atheist or religious simply too sure of an unsure thing.

I believe there could be a creator, but have no idea who she is or why she did it.

Quote from: Nikko on January 24, 2014, 08:31:02 PM
I'm agnostic.

I find being either atheist or religious simply too sure of an unsure thing.

I believe there could be a creator, but have no idea who she is or why she did it.

Kia Ora Nikko,

::) So this would make you a theist leaning agnostic....as opposed to an atheist leaning agnostic ?

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Nikko on January 24, 2014, 08:31:02 PM
I'm agnostic.

I find being either atheist or religious simply too sure of an unsure thing.

Does belief require certainty?

For example, I believe transgender originates before birth. Am I certain? No. Further evidence might change my mind, but based on what I know, for now I think that's most likely.

So can I still be an atheist if I'm not 100% sure the universe is totally natural, but I think that's the most likely explanation based on what evidence I've seen?

Quote from: Tessa James on June 23, 2013, 04:10:10 PM
The rub comes when some take their beliefs to be "the truth" and brandish it with a righteous sword used to discriminate, promote intolerance, violence and war.  Our shared existence and history is replete with conflict based on religious intolerance.  Is someone's ability to imagine something more valuable than the creative outlets of another?   

QuoteActuallty most wars were as always about resources, religion was some times used an excuse

The dust bin of history includes all kinds of deities and what was once codified dogma is now dog dodo;-)

Quote^^^ a rather offensive and arrogant statement considering there are still people who believe in those deities (e,g, Zeus)

Tessa James

Quote from: Anatta on January 24, 2014, 10:03:38 PM

Kia Ora Nikko,

::) So this would make you a theist leaning agnostic....as opposed to an atheist leaning agnostic ?

Metta Zenda :)

I tend to believe something designed and created all this 'stuff'...  ;)

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 25, 2014, 09:49:01 AM
Does belief require certainty?

For example, I believe transgender originates before birth. Am I certain? No. Further evidence might change my mind, but based on what I know, for now I think that's most likely.

So can I still be an atheist if I'm not 100% sure the universe is totally natural, but I think that's the most likely explanation based on what evidence I've seen?

No, I don't think so. But I tend not to belief in it with absolute certainty if it's not proven, I leave open the possibility that my beliefs could ultimately be proven false. Therefore, I'm not much of a "just have faith" type of person.

I can't believe in something because I want it to be true, I think a lot of people do. I think this can lead to bad things. For one, you can get stubbornly stuck on failed harmful ideas.

Of course it would not be arrogant and offensive to think an imaginary being wants some people to subject the other people of earth and her creatures to it's will as understood by the adherents.  If we understand religion within a social and political context it becomes clearly another power struggle.  I rather like being free of it all.

Quote from: Tessa James on January 26, 2014, 03:51:30 AM
Of course it would not be arrogant and offensive to think an imaginary being wants some people to subject the other people of earth and her creatures to it's will as understood by the adherents.  If we understand religion within a social and political context it becomes clearly another power struggle.  I rather like being free of it all.

Of course you have the right to denounce and condemn those religious extremist who literally accept and/or interpret their religious texts/dogmas to impose their twisted morality and ethics on others. You can find such a despicable behavior by individuals from all religions -even the peace and loving Buddhists have been known to murder their opponents in a fit of "rightful indignation"-

What I object is the insulting of any deity or religious  beliefs...lets put the onus where the onus is due with man not with G-d

Quote from: peky on January 26, 2014, 08:27:30 AM
Of course you have the right to denounce and condemn those religious extremist who literally accept and/or interpret their religious texts/dogmas to impose their twisted morality and ethics on others. You can find such a despicable behavior by individuals from all religions -even the peace and loving Buddhists have been known to murder their opponents in a fit of "rightful indignation"-

What I object is the insulting of any deity or religious  beliefs...lets put the onus where the onus is due with man not with G-d

I share those feelings. Most of the people I know are religious and most are wonderful people. I've had plenty of discussions with Christians regarding my agnostic views and they've always been respectful. I also tend to feel Christianity does far more good for our society than bad. So I have a lot of respect for it and keep and open mind.

There is no need to make this personal by denouncing or condemning anyone.  I am far more interested in science fiction, fantasy or physics as people seem better able to discuss the merits of such ideas without taking the rightous supernatural route.

Debate about deities is often polarizing and validates nothing.   We are fortunately living in a place and time when freedom of conscious and accountability keep me from being burned at the stake as a heretic.  I respect what people do in harmony with the earth and each other but have little regard for small groups of self anointed zealots who demand others abide by their utterances or burn in their version of hell.

It takes a very cursory look at history and current events to detail monstrous abuse perpetuated by those working on behalf of their deities.  Religion is no sacred cow to me.  Art and humor may be expressions of social commentary and are fortunately protected rights.

Just this week we had several letters to the editor in our daily newspaper dredging up the tired biblical reasons for condemning people and behavior considered homosexual.  National debates have regressed to reconsider insurance plans that include birth control.  Women in particular seem to be the target of the religious need to control others bodies and lives.  Millions of women still face ritual genital mutilation and second class citizenship.  Freedom is so precious and well worth our efforts to expand civil rights and protections. 

Kia Ora,

I take it that the OP posted this in the "Atheist" section of the forum for a reason (Remember: atheism =without-god)...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Anatta on January 26, 2014, 01:37:16 PM
Kia Ora,

I take it that the OP posted this in the "Atheist" section of the forum for a reason (Remember: atheism =without-god)...

Metta Zenda :)

I'm not sure this flies very well. Post a thread on 'Obamacare' in the Political section and just watch the hornets fly till threads be locked...

Quote from: Anatta on June 22, 2013, 08:45:25 PM
Sure there's nothing to stop theists from enjoying life to the full.

I don't think that's always true. Lots of people have beliefs that certain behaviors are "bad" based on the particular beliefs about their god that are not necessarily "bad" in reality. Also, if you believe that your god wants you to abstain from a lot of behaviors that are otherwise really enjoyable in order to be eligible for an eternal afterlife of bliss, then you're likely to not enjoy life as much. If the particular belief is true, then it would be ridiculous not to do whatever it takes or abstain from whatever is required because this life would be incredibly trivial, just a blink of time in an eternity. It wouldn't be worth risking. If the belief is false and this life is all you have, it's incredibly sad that you're spending any time at all worrying about an afterlife that isn't.

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 25, 2014, 09:49:01 AM
So can I still be an atheist if I'm not 100% sure the universe is totally natural, but I think that's the most likely explanation based on what evidence I've seen?

I think this best describes my POV. I'm basically atheist but I often wonder about the nature of consciousness and whether there is some kind of basic vital element of consciousness that unites all thinking things on some level. *shrug* I've had my moments when intelligent design seemed likely but that's dwindled away as I've come to understand, not just evolution, but the broader concept of emergent order.

Humans don't like having unanswered questions. We tend to speculate about whatever we don't know. We have to have a hypothesis and then test it before we can arrive at answers. God just seems like one of those speculations that has been used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. As we find more answers through the scientific method, the gaps keep dwindling and our notion of God keeps changing as well. Maybe a day will come when hardly anyone feels the need for that speculation but there will always be gaps in our knowledge. We'll never know all the answers about everything. In that sense, maybe the belief in "God" is sort of built into us--sort of our desire to seek answers.

Quote from: Nikko on January 26, 2014, 01:43:38 PM
I'm not sure this flies very well. Post a thread on 'Obamacare' in the Political section and just watch the hornets fly till threads be locked...

Kia Ora Nikko,

The point I was making is a simple one(but I do understand what you mean-I've had a fair share of my threads locked when they have gone off track)...Anyway the OP just wanted an alternative for the word "atheist" (hence why she put it in the 'atheist' section )so one would think like minded people (those of atheist persuasion) would respond...But instead some non atheists have responded then got somewhat "annoyed" by some of the "non-theistic in nature" comments...


A belief in just the one god could be seen as somewhat narrow minded and arrogant because one tends to dismiss all the other gods and this dismissal is disrespecting others and their beliefs...

When it comes to respect, who is disrespecting who ...where does one draw the line ?

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: dalebert on January 26, 2014, 02:15:53 PM
I don't think that's always true. Lots of people have beliefs that certain behaviors are "bad" based on the particular beliefs about their god that are not necessarily "bad" in reality. Also, if you believe that your god wants you to abstain from a lot of behaviors that are otherwise really enjoyable in order to be eligible for an eternal afterlife of bliss, then you're likely to not enjoy life as much. If the particular belief is true, then it would be ridiculous not to do whatever it takes or abstain from whatever is required because this life would be incredibly trivial, just a blink of time in an eternity. It wouldn't be worth risking. If the belief is false and this life is all you have, it's incredibly sad that you're spending any time at all worrying about an afterlife that isn't.

Kia Ora Dalebert,

Yes, I can see your point but for the most part we are on the same page....

"Sure there's nothing to stop theists from enjoying life to the full...However the spanner in the works for many so to speak, is their fear of god and the consequences should they accidentally stray off the path "F-up" one too many times and have hell to pay for it...(bearing in mind some do believe in a form of afterlife where things are not that pleasant and often a permanent abode )"

Metta Zenda :)

So, is the OP concerned about, for lack of a better term "theonormativity" being applied to atheism as a theology itself? I mean, I guess I could see where that is a bit strange, but I mean people like labels, and theistic people do certainly seem to give much more credence to atheism when they view it as just another theology, not making a distinction between it or Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc

I mean, when I have children I suppose calling them "atheist children" is kinda superfluous but, at the same point if it would allow them to have their lack of religion taken with the same level of seriousness that having a different faith does, then that seems hardly to be a bad thing, I wouldn't want children of mine seen as "ripe for theological teachning" just because they didn't have a religion. When I was a child, I encountered lots of pushy Christians (I am sure it would be the same with any majority religion if I lived elsewhere) who upon finding I was an atheist would try and "save" me, but wouldn't bother trying to "save" the Jewish or Muslim children, I wouldn't really wish that experience on others.

Quote from: Anatta on January 26, 2014, 02:18:25 PM
Kia Ora Nikko,

The point I was making is a simple one(but I do understand what you mean-I've had a fair share of my threads locked when they have gone off track)...Anyway the OP just wanted an alternative for the word "atheist" (hence why she put it in the 'atheist' section )so one would think like minded people (those of atheist persuasion) would respond...But instead some non atheists have responded then got somewhat "annoyed" by some of the "non-theistic in nature" comments...


A belief in just the one god could be seen as somewhat narrow minded and arrogant because one tends to dismiss all the other gods and this dismissal is disrespecting others and their beliefs...

When it comes to respect, who is disrespecting who ...where does one draw the line ?

Metta Zenda :)

I did get your point, it's a good one actually.

I was just pointing out that the real violations of your point is elsewhere. I wasn't criticizing the thread topic, I don't believe anyone did, I was just responding to Peky's comment which I think was a good one.

If I criticized the OP for posting an atheist topic in the atheist section, then I would plead "guilty".  ;)

This video just happened to come up while I was reading this thread and it seemed to have some poignant thoughts so what the heck...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg

Quote from: dalebert on January 26, 2014, 02:16:10 PM
I think this best describes my POV. I'm basically atheist but I often wonder about the nature of consciousness and whether there is some kind of basic vital element of consciousness that unites all thinking things on some level. *shrug* I've had my moments when intelligent design seemed likely but that's dwindled away as I've come to understand, not just evolution, but the broader concept of emergent order.

Humans don't like having unanswered questions. We tend to speculate about whatever we don't know. We have to have a hypothesis and then test it before we can arrive at answers. God just seems like one of those speculations that has been used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. As we find more answers through the scientific method, the gaps keep dwindling and our notion of God keeps changing as well. Maybe a day will come when hardly anyone feels the need for that speculation but there will always be gaps in our knowledge. We'll never know all the answers about everything. In that sense, maybe the belief in "God" is sort of built into us--sort of our desire to seek answers.

Kia Ora Dalebert,

Science has yet to agree on what consciousness is, where it comes from and has it always been present....


"There was a young man who said though it seems I know that I know what I would like to see is the "I" that knows me when I know that I know that I know !"

The mysteries of the universe ....Don't you just love it  ;) ;D

Quote from: dalebert on January 26, 2014, 02:56:45 PM
This video just happened to come up while I was reading this thread and it seemed to have some poignant thoughts so what the heck...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg

Ignorance just means without knowledge of and to be without knowledge in this day and age(contrary to the belief of some that "ignorance is bliss") is not a good thing, especially when it relates to certain issues that effect others... However if one is forced to think about things(what the guy in the video is getting at) -see things from a different perspective then they more often than not end up better informed(more knowledgeable, as curiosity takes hold and they delve a little *or a lot* deeper into the matter at hand) ...

But sadly there are always exceptions to the rule "A bigot's mind is like the pupil of the eye the more light one shines upon it-the more it will contract!"

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Nikko on January 26, 2014, 02:45:30 PM
I did get your point, it's a good one actually.

I was just pointing out that the real violations of your point is elsewhere. I wasn't criticizing the thread topic, I don't believe anyone did, I was just responding to Peky's comment which I think was a good one.

If I criticized the OP for posting an atheist topic in the atheist section, then I would plead "guilty".  ;)

Kia Ora Nikko,

No worries...Much of my comment was a general response and not specifically targeting your comment...

However some "are" critical of the contents of this thread, this is why the controversy has arisen...
___________________________________________________________________________________

Which leads me to ask this question(again not specifically targeting anyone in particular-but you're most welcome to put forward an answer) ...So if an atheist comments on an atheist thread in an atheist section of a forum (which caters for its atheist members) highlighting their atheistic view point and... a non-believer in atheism takes offence whilst reading the comment on an atheist thread in the atheist section of a forum(that caters for it's atheist members) Are they respecting or disrespecting the rights of the atheists to hold views that differ from their own?

Long winded I know but hey that me...at times full of wind  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)