Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Any other Atheists besides myself?

I am. :)

aye

All "isms" suck.  I'm not about to believe in not believing.  That seems stupid.

God is, by definition, omniscient - so if God wants to talk to me, it knows my phone number, and it also knows if I'm going to answer or not.  If it cared, it would have at least left a message in my in box.

Yup! ;D

Arise, thread!

I used to be an atheist.  Right now I'm a pantheistic-leaning eclectic Wiccan, which I guess is still atheist - in a broad sense.  I don't entirely believe that Cernunnos and Damara have an existence as independent entities.  To me, they're aspects of the universe distilled into a form than humans can understand and relate to.  The tension between them encompasses all the aspects of human experience.

I can't help thinking of the two foci that define an ellipse as being a good analogy.  It's not a one dimensional line between "male" and "female" at all - those points by themselves define the shape of the enclosing space, but that space is larger than just the two points and the line in between.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on May 21, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
Arise, thread!

I used to be an atheist.  Right now I'm a pantheistic-leaning eclectic Wiccan, which I guess is still atheist - in a broad sense.  I don't entirely believe that Cernunnos and Damara have an existence as independent entities.  To me, they're aspects of the universe distilled into a form than humans can understand and relate to.  The tension between them encompasses all the aspects of human experience.

I can't help thinking of the two foci that define an ellipse as being a good analogy.  It's not a one dimensional line between "male" and "female" at all - those points by themselves define the shape of the enclosing space, but that space is larger than just the two points and the line in between.

That's a really neat way of describing a belief, Kaitlyn.

Do I believe in a god? Nope.

Do I believe in something that encompasses us all and every other thing within the mesh of Indra's Net? Yep. Call it Universe if you wish. I call Her Mother. :)

Affiliation? Nichole-ist. :laugh:

I guess I' an Atheist as well.I couldn't get my arms around the whole diety thing.
I was asked by my son and his GF to marry them last summer. Their reasoning was that I was the most spiritual person they knew. I was flattered ans set out to get a credential. I went through all the online deals and found Spiritual Humanism which seemed to pretty well fit where I was in my Quest. I became ordained and we have a wonderfull ceremony where the word god was said once in a general reference to others beliefs.
This is the deal with Spritual Humanism

Principles and Tenets of Spiritual Humanism
1. Behold Nature with reverence.

By instinct we are inspired by the beauty of nature – a fiery sunset, the starry night sky, springtime flowers, or autumn leaves.

2. Base religion upon Reason.

Religious truth can only be found through science, the basis of all the knowledge that makes our civilization possible.

3. Treat all people as equals.

Everyone deserves the same level of respect, opportunities, and right to be happy. No one is born as a superior to anyone else.

4. Act to reduce suffering and misery, and advance contentment, and happiness.

Everyone must obey the same standards of good and bad behavior. Doing good deeds makes the world a better place.

5. Protect things that belong to everyone.

Fresh air, clean rivers, and healthy oceans are all things that every one has a right to enjoy, and no one has a right to spoil. It's our duty to protect these public treasures.

6. Celebrate seasons and cycles with ritual.

We are part of nature. Recognizing it brings us closer to our natural roots.

7. Cultivate spiritual abilities by application.

By practicing we can get better at being inspired and knowing our own abilities.

8. Exalt the correlation of past, present, and future.

What we do today affects the world of the future. Things done in the past like preserving the environment, finding cures for diseases, or writing an inspiring song, still help us today.

9. Champion these principles.

When you believe in something you must be ready to stand up for yourself and defend it. Otherwise some one else will step in and make things worse.

10. Improve these codes as we learn more.

Only through learning and changing our actions based on the new information can we grow and make the world better. Even our dearest beliefs must always be open to improvement.

That is a good way to express that we should do the right things simply because they are the right things, NOT because of some reward/punishment, heaven-if-you're-good/hell-if-you're-bad system which humans as a species should have far outgrown by now. I really find it amazing in this day and age to still see billboard signs proclaiming hell is real...  ::)  ::)  ::)

However:

Quote from: Bombi on May 22, 2009, 09:15:44 AM2. Base religion upon Reason.

Religious truth can only be found through science, the basis of all the knowledge that makes our civilization possible.

Science as it's been practiced for the last 500 years is just as full of half-truths, misconceptions, prejudices, and outright errors as any religious text ever was. All we know for sure is that we are conscious and therefore consciousness exists. Everything else is subjective.

Bombi, Have you read Epicurus?

QuoteScience as it's been practiced for the last 500 years is just as full of half-truths, misconceptions, prejudices, and outright errors as any religious text ever was. All we know for sure is that we are conscious and therefore consciousness exists. Everything else is subjective

Not exactly, One big difference is science admits it has errors and is updated as they are found. It works on probability not faith.

We know many things about consciousness. Two camps argue about it. The one that thinks it is only in our head and the other that tells consciousness is a part of our environment.  There is evidence of both. Not just subjective feelings. Sometimes we do not know the whole truth but we have pieces of it. This makes a theory not a law.

You might like to read, " Out of Our Heads" by Alva Noe.

No I haven't but I'll put it on my list.

Science has evolved.It is not sorcery any more. It is theories based on discovered facts. The theories get torn apart and put back togerther, for the most part, better.
Science can solve a lot of the world's problems but it not the ultimate solution.

Consiousness, I believe is both in our world and in our head. So many people just aren't aware of it. For me it means being totally aware of yourself and surroundings and your effect on it and others. Consiousness has always intrigued me . I use meditation (transendental ) to help to nuture and strengthen both my world and being consiousness.
I'm sure that I have a long way to go before I fully understand exactly what I'm seeking, I have had a few glimses of bright light and am hooked as a seeker.
My beliefs are an amalgamation of what I've learned and observed. I am consious, I know it exists and I think there is more to it and a lot more to learn.
One thing I have come to realize is that my life would be so much easier if I didn't give a >-bleeped-< about all this, but I do.

Quote from: lisagurl on May 22, 2009, 02:10:35 PM
You might like to read, " Out of Our Heads" by Alva Noe.

Thanks, I'll look that one up.  :) For the most part science will (eventually) admit mistakes, but then so did the catholic church concerning Copernicus, several centuries after the fact.

I am now reading a book called "Biocentrism" which is a scientific examination of consciousness as first cause, that is, the book contends that consciousness creates reality and not the other way around. And it's not some off the wall new-age mumbo-jumbo (which books usually peg my BS meter significantly), but a genuine scientific hypothesis that so far as I have read seems to me to be every bit as plausible as the theoretical physicists' ideas that to unify all the physical constituents of our reality will require multiple spatial dimensions rolled up like so many invisible soda straws and an infinite number other universes to make the math come out right. It's a dog chasing his own tail. Those unsubstantiated and literally unprovable claims require every bit as much "faith" as any religion, and have veered far afield from the ideal of "theories based on discovered facts".  As George Berkeley (for whom both the university campus and the town were named) said, "The only things we perceive are our perceptions."

Quote from: mealthough many people believe that atheists believe in nothing (as evidenced by some answers on this board), most of us know that's not true. atheists simply don't believe in god(s). period. but we believe in something and god is certainly not everything. what do you believe in?

i believe more in atom-ism than anything. it is the idea that we're all made of atoms, which are indestructible, but modifiable. these eternal building blocks get changed and reused (like soda cans, bad analogy, but oh well) over time. so, i'm a collection of particles from the universe and once i die, i will slowly decay and become a part of it again. here on earth it means that i am made of the same stuff as the planet, the plants, animals, air, sky, the molten core. i am made of the same stuff as the dinosaurs, and as the first man. it's the idea that i am one with the universe, not removed from it in any way.

i still respect the regular customs though, as in even though i believe this, and the most efficient way to deal with death would be a sky burial, i'm not planning to go that route. i still say i'd rather go with cryogenics after i die, in the slim hope that i may be brought back, because in the end i like being me.

i also believe in genetics and evolution. the idea that everything that was before (sort of) is in me, and the idea that i am one in a long string of those that came before, and those that will come after.

as for other stuff, supernatural stuff, i'm not so pompous as to think i know everything. there's plenty out there that is yet to be understood, even on planet earth, and to think otherwise is just to be a pompous jerk. i do believe that there's a lot of people who want to deceive though, and that's a right shame.

so those are my views.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,13789.0.html

-natasha (formerly katia) ;)

Quotethe theoretical physicists' ideas that to unify all the physical constituents of our reality

But they discount the biological perspective as well as the philosophic view.

Quote from: lisagurl on May 22, 2009, 04:58:24 PM
But they discount the biological perspective as well as the philosophic view.

You are absolutely correct and unfortunately they do ignore the biological perspective altogether, which is one of the points of the author of the book I mentioned (a noted neurobiologist). I agree with him that a "Theory of Everything" would by definition need to at least acknowledge the part that consciousness plays in constructing the reality we experience, which so far has been lacking from any of those theories. I don't see how there could be a viable theory of that sort without it.  ???

nice quote Natasha  :)

Another atheist here.

As for consciousness, that's a knotty one as there isn't agreement on what it is.  Given the inherently subjective properties of consciousness it may not even be possible for science to fully explain it, as science requires the verification of hypothesis via objective observation - hence there is plenty of chewy philosophy to be discussed here.

Laying my cards on the table, I am a materialist (or, in modern parlance, a physicalist).

Quote from: FairyGirl on May 22, 2009, 10:01:12 AM
All we know for sure is that we are conscious and therefore consciousness exists. Everything else is subjective.

Now sure I can agree with that one... Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) suggests that maybe we are nothing more than a bunch of holograms... and in fact the notion of gods will is nothing more than our holograms playing out a scene already scripted by the universe and the interaction between our holograms...

(BTW, I recommend his book God's Debris for the religous and atheist alike...)

Just how far fetched then is the matrix? Perhaps hologram is a nice euphemism for human battery. The Matrix is a film filled with religious and philosophical symbolism. The plot supposes that humans live in vats many years in the future, being fed false sensory information by a giant virtual reality computer (the Matrix). The perpetrators of this horror are machines of the future who use humans as a source of power. Humans are literally farmed.

When Morpheus and Neo meet, Morpheus offers Neo two pills. The red pill will answer the question "what is the Matrix?" (by removing him from it) and the blue pill simply for life to carry on as before. As Neo reaches for the red pill Morpheus warns Neo "Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."

So is the red pill the true definition of consciousness? Or could the red pill be deemed the true hell? Fire and brimstone may be one way of viewing a lifetime of zipping around avoiding squiddies...

Oh, and if you think we are holograms, that still doesnt preclude consciousness... just ask the Doctor on Voyager to define being sentient...

QuoteScott Adams (of Dilbert fame) suggests that maybe we are nothing more than a bunch of holograms...

The "Grand illusion" hypothesis is bad philosophy; the cognitive science that supposedly provides evidence in its favor is bad science. Excellent work in perceptual psychology- for example, work on change blindness- properly construed, in fact provides excellent reasons to think of ourselves not of a grand illusion but, rather as open to an environment that matters to us.

I like to think that consciousness is what I'm conscious of and what I'm able to absorb as some justification for being here, now. I truly like the atomic analogy. It tickled my brain.
I am aware of two levels of consciousness. the first is the here and now where i use my human skills to survive and solve problems and interact socially. But the second level, based on my experience deals almost totally with the subjective. For example, when I meditate, sure everyday problems, issues and thoughts stream through my mind,but with my mantra and bystander focus these thoughts pass into the subconscious where they seem to be sorted and prioritized for future use.
I exist because I am creative. I can't prove that and no longer feel the need. I'm a part of the whole, a small part, I think.
In the past I have spent a lot of time and energy trying to find the way. It's probably some form of delusional bliss but I feel good where I am, for the moment. Then again it might just be an acid flash back. ???

Quote from: Bombi on May 23, 2009, 12:27:32 PMIn the past I have spent a lot of time and energy trying to find the way. It's probably some form of delusional bliss but I feel good where I am, for the moment. Then again it might just be an acid flash back. ???

lol ain't it the truth :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ultimately whatever we believe, I don't think it is possible to ever truly know "God" because any real, self-respecting God would defy all attempts to attach labels to, and therefore define, what it is. By the time you've figured out God, God will already long be something else.

I can, however, know a lingering sunset, the beauty of a butterfly's wings, the joyful laughter of children, my lover's warm embrace. While these subjective things are also beyond my ability to completely pin down with language and labels, luckily the enjoyment of experiencing them does not ever require it. Further, they are somehow inexplicably diminished by the very attempt to do so. It's like the old Zen saying, "name the colors, blind the eye".

New gods always arise to supplant the old ones, but the human species (so far) endures. To quote a bit of old Robert Heinlein, "Thou art God". What else could we be?

The idea that atheists claim to have special knowledge that God doesn't exist was invented by arrogant theists whom I would sooner punch in the eye than accept their definitions. I am not very inclined to punch them in the eye, either, so taking them seriously comes in dead-last on the long-list of "things that I am likely to do." They do this, so they can make the argument that, "if you can neither prove nor disprove God, then why not hold the belief that would be more favorable to your interests?" The argument is based on a false dichotomy that they have posited with mendacious, dishonorable intentions. It is hinged on an intentional distortion of what people mean when they refer to themselves as atheists.

The only justification I need for calling myself an atheist is that I think it's really stupid to go around believing that you are an immortal ghost that is forced to live inside of the head of a hairless chimp. I have better morals than to personally ridicule a person for having far-fetched beliefs, but the belief is still dumb. This is what practically every atheist on the planet means when he or she self-identifies as an "atheist." If you can think of a better term for it, do feel free to supply one, and I will call myself by that.