As much as I found the replies to my Considerations thread to be interesting, specifically I find a general theme involved by those who disagree with me very interesting. The theme has a few 'sub-themes' such as the True Scotsman Fallacy, Mind Reading, and a general disdain for atheism and atheists. Understand, that I am not asking anyone to defend their faith, but I am asking that if you attempt to debate me, that you do so on means that are equivalent, such that they are not based on irrationalism. As an atheist, I find this to be taxing for some, only because such individuals have not shown any interest in truly debating the subject of whether religion is valid or not to its fullest.

I don't expect everyone to know Aquinas by heart, or have read Berkeley's own theory of religion, but I do expect you leave behind all preconceptions as to what I am attempting to achieve, and that I am not attacking you as a person. I may attack a religion, or a worldview, and with good reason too. If it's contradictory, I do attack it. I've attacked even my fellow Objectivists on grave errors on their part. I've attacked fellow atheists for their attempt to make themselves 'superior' (aka Brights Movement). And I have attacked so-called scientists on issues where they were completely and utterly wrong. None the less, in each attack I lay down my facts, I lay down my views, and I parse the two, and only show as a conclusion the basic synthesis of the two. None of that means it's above and beyond criticism, but again if the criticism uses the sub-themes I've listed, then I will not respond, and I will not listen to whatever you have to say any longer. I don't make many exceptions to this rule, because this rule has saved me many precious moments of time in dealing with people, and I learned it the hard way else where online (Paltalk, Youtube, and etc) and offline (at home and work). It doesn't mean I hate you, or dislike you. It only means I will not conduct any further communication with you, and it is probably for the best for myself and yourself (if my protocol applies to you, if not then hello. :3).

In the end, I am just a human being like you, but I am also openly an atheist. And expect my views to be as such. And I don't expect you to ever agree with me, even on what cheese should be on a cheese burger. :3

-- Brede

hi, my name's katia, and i'm an atheist.  well, i don't believe in god for the same reason why i don't believe in zeus, isis, or the keebler elves: because i find it to be a waste of time. i already tried the god thing (numerous flavors of theism, in fact), and it doesn't work for me. the world makes much more sense to me when i don't bring notions of powerful invisible men into the picture.

and what about the bible? well, the bible is a manufactured lie as well, and so therefore everything in it is also a farce. religion was created by primitive peoples because of their fear of dying. religion has been promoted throughout the millenia as a means to control the populace and to make money. do you really believe that pastors that steal money from poor people believe they will go to hell? even they don't believe in god or they would be scared to death! what about the pedophilic priests? do you think they believe in god? it's all about control. tsk tsk tsk

furthermore, if i'm wrong and god exists, then he certainly shouldn't have a problem with somebody who makes the best with what he was created with, rather than bugging the creator with requests or (even worse) claiming to always speak on his behalf. and if he is really so insecure that he'd demand worship from little creatures, then it still begs the question of which religion is the "right" one. there is absolutely no reason why i should take a christian's word over a muslim's word, for that matter a baptist's word over a catholic's word. even then, i wouldn't want to worship an egomaniac.

I am a druish princess. I watch the stars. They are pretty. My husband is a bochalist. He believes in bochalism. I've considered joining him.  His belief (singular) is much easier to define than mine.  After all, how do you define "pretty"?

Cindi

Quote from: Attis on May 16, 2007, 12:18:58 AM...
that you do so on means that are equivalent, such that they are not based on irrationalism.

Based in irrationalism? I disagree with that notion although I understand your point of view I believe. But, from what I have seen faith and such is really quite rational, it is just that the logic used is just not founded in cold hard scientific 'facts'. (Never mind that those facts may change tomorrow with new understandings and discoveries).

In my personal experience I can not help BUT believe... It is just when you've been hit over the head with this stuff it is kind of hard to ignore.. an I started out agnostic/atheist/big middle finger to ANYTHING which wants to dictate to me how I should live my life/etc. It was not uncommon for me to say that, "I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven." Personally, I find that rather amusing now. Still, there either IS stuff out there, OR I am quite out of my mind. ^{*devious grin*} I will let you judge that one.

This said, I think it is fair to point out that trying to understand the spiritual point of view does not fit in the atheist/agnostic point of view, and that the inverse is true. Irrationalism, because I see things in a different light


If one wants a scientific bent on how this garbage could be one could always consider that not everything is known currently, as evidenced by new discoveries being made and stuffs. This logic makes the agnostic point of view quite valid and sane I think, and yet that same logic would seem to shed a unpleasant/unfair light on atheism would it not?  As by definition an atheist does not believe on gods, deities and all that spiritual mumbo-jumbo right? Does the atheist profess to know all that is? If so, how does one explain new discoveries? Even so, doesn't such wide assumption seem unwise? To hell with damnation and other such silly ideas; Just the professing to know that there ISN'T something else... This seems rather the same as professing to know that there IS something else, no?  In essence the pot calling the kettle black.  But ^*shrug*, this just tends to be how I view the subject is all; What actually is, is something else entirely (because my perceptions are not by definition truly objective)


Best wishes,

Quote from: Attis on May 16, 2007, 12:18:58 AM
As much as I found the replies to my Considerations thread to be interesting, specifically I find a general theme involved by those who disagree with me very interesting. The theme has a few 'sub-themes' such as the True Scotsman Fallacy, Mind Reading, and a general disdain for atheism and atheists. Understand, that I am not asking anyone to defend their faith, but I am asking that if you attempt to debate me, that you do so on means that are equivalent, such that they are not based on irrationalism. As an atheist, I find this to be taxing for some, only because such individuals have not shown any interest in truly debating the subject of whether religion is valid or not to its fullest.

I don't expect everyone to know Aquinas by heart, or have read Berkeley's own theory of religion, but I do expect you leave behind all preconceptions as to what I am attempting to achieve, and that I am not attacking you as a person. I may attack a religion, or a worldview, and with good reason too. If it's contradictory, I do attack it. I've attacked even my fellow Objectivists on grave errors on their part. I've attacked fellow atheists for their attempt to make themselves 'superior' (aka Brights Movement). And I have attacked so-called scientists on issues where they were completely and utterly wrong. None the less, in each attack I lay down my facts, I lay down my views, and I parse the two, and only show as a conclusion the basic synthesis of the two. None of that means it's above and beyond criticism, but again if the criticism uses the sub-themes I've listed, then I will not respond, and I will not listen to whatever you have to say any longer. I don't make many exceptions to this rule, because this rule has saved me many precious moments of time in dealing with people, and I learned it the hard way else where online (Paltalk, Youtube, and etc) and offline (at home and work). It doesn't mean I hate you, or dislike you. It only means I will not conduct any further communication with you, and it is probably for the best for myself and yourself (if my protocol applies to you, if not then hello. :3).

In the end, I am just a human being like you, but I am also openly an atheist. And expect my views to be as such. And I don't expect you to ever agree with me, even on what cheese should be on a cheese burger. :3

-- Brede

I have a real issue with this need to "attack" anything. The reality is that faith is rarely logical, and certainly contradictory on many levels... and that's faith. It's an intensely emotional and even HUMAN thing to have a faith that just doesn't make sense.

Okay, so you think faith should always be flawless and perfect. I disagree. I'm sorry that you feel that because you see things in a different light, you must assault the beleifs that others might have. I question whether this is even appropriate for this forum.

This "Spirituality" forum has, at its core, a place for people to discuss their spirituality, no matter what it might be. There are plenty of atheists in Susans.org, and this is a place for everyone... but we should be able to share our beliefs without overtly attacking others.

Quote from: katiaand what about the bible? well, the bible is a manufactured lie as well, and so therefore everything in it is also a farce. religion was created by primitive peoples because of their fear of dying. religion has been promoted throughout the millenia as a means to control the populace and to make money. do you really believe that pastors that steal money from poor people believe they will go to hell? even they don't believe in god or they would be scared to death! what about the pedophilic priests? do you think they believe in god? it's all about control. tsk tsk tsk

Any time you have more than two people involved in anything, it will have problems. It's perfectly fine to think that the Bible is a manufactured lie. However, I do suggest that we engage in basic human interaction skills by adding "I think" to it. Stating an opinion as fact is just the kind of attack which is inappropriate for this forum.

It's clear that you have great disdain for those in ministry. I'm sorry for that. But this forum is not the place to attack people of faith. Your statement about the pedophilic priests is below the belt, and represents a tiny fraction of those in ministry. These are people who have devoted their lives to what they believe is the call of God. I don't expect everyone to agree with them, but one of the rules of this forum is to treat everyone with respect.

In the "Welcome to the Spirituality Forum" post, I said:

QuoteSo if your desire is to post things that tear down a person's faith or religion... ask yourself if what you're about to post will add to the community. Some of us have been very hostile to religion... and that's okay. I do have to ask, though... if you are completely convinced that faith is the same as delusion, what is your motive to post in this section?

I strongly urge all members to read the full post. Remember, the right to swing your arms ends at the other person's nose.

Atheism, by definition, is a lack of belief in God. A true Atheist will not tell you "I do not believe in God",for that is a belief in and of itself.  I think that many atheists actually have their own little religion going.

I am not an atheist.  I am very spiritual and a lover of life itself. I do believe that people have faith which may have a very positive influence. I also believe in the positivie influence of prayer. I honor and respect the faith of my friends for it is very real.  I can not however attribute things I do not understand to a divine being.  I simply do not know or understand them. We may learn these. We may not.  But I definitely believe we have the capacity to do so and should continue all pursuits in that regard. 

Yes, science changes and so do religious doctrines.  Religion has allowed science in over the centuries.  We have few problems in accepting a heart transplant now. A couple hundred years ago, it would have been considered heresy to accept an organ from a fellow human.  I see no reason why faith and science can not get along.  Why do we presuppose the manner in which god might have created the universe?  Why would we give him a timeline?  So if you are a believer, our current knowledge can certainly jive with your beliefs.

There is one thing that I definitely believe and that is this:  No one should trample on someone elses rights as a human being for what they do or do not believe.  And that belief that I have, on its own, probably is enough to disqualify me from being an atheist.

Cindi

Yet, we're fast approaching a time where the majority of religious doctrines will have to be rejected outright on the grounds of simple human survival, if not for human flourishing.

That time includes extended lifespans, nearspace colonization, nanotechnology, Non-Turing ("symbol makers") AI's, and possibly fusion power. All of these will make Earth a hard place to live with if old ideas are left to be the standard of our actions. Consider extended lifespans for a moment. Grandpa could live hundreds of years (possibly thousands), that really throws a ringer for the whole idea of "Man's alloted" time on earth, such an idea of immutable mortality won't work in the face of such a reality. Especially if one were to consider what governmental (or non-governmental) policies that could be taken.

Then, nearspace colonization. The control of larger environments, some very alien and some not so alien, will bring up a new possibility for isolation. Such an isolation may give rise to better societies, but it could also give rise to more xenophobia, which is more often attributed to traditional values and world views like those held by the Early U.S. citizens against Native Americans, which gave rise to "Manifest Destiny."

And of course, nanotechnology, will make both prior events easier as well, and it could also mean an end to a safe world. Grey Goo, and other nanotech disasters could be possible, and in many formulations would be human directed. The carnage of nanotech lead warfare makes nuclear war look more appetizing by comparison.

Now, Non-Turing AI's, machines that can think and feel like us, will challenge the traditional view of the soul for probably everyone, even some fellow 'atheistic' individuals. The soul is still one of the last refuges of the divine in the modern age, and if the Non-Turing AI theories come to fruition, that ends the age of the "sacred soul." That will give rise to any sort of backlash to technology, possibly leading to a world-wide Neo-Luddite movement itself (who knows, really).

The king of it all, in many cases, fusion power will mean better means to fuel our economies and homes, but it also means a better means to fuel the war machines, new and old. The views on fusion itself are not provocative, but it's what fusion power itself could bring to the table as to enable older, more dangerous ideas is what is at stake.

In the end, all of these points of mine are not just aimed at traditional religious institutions, but also modern ideologies and modern 'cults.' We had the Age of Reason, I think it's time we had the Age of Individual Mind for the same reason the former age resulted in that only the individual mind can ensure success or failure in all tasks set before us, and it's only the individual mind that can take responsibility for any given action. Collectivism, which is the heart of all traditional institutions (governments, religions, and other organizations) is fast approaching its deprecation date. I think we all, as individuals should dwell on that fact carefully. For our own respective fates, and the fate of our species.

-- Brede

I am an atheist, but I find that atheism is just a rejection of the question 'is there a god' as a nonsensical one. After finding that whole area nonsensial, there's not a lot more to say. I don't believe in God, but I do believe i religion, I think that it can (and is) used as a force of good much more than evil.

I am interested in how stuff works. Theory, sometimes you gotta have it; say, in music, sound, maybe you need to work symbolically, in order to get a better angle on it, in geometric terms. But those symbols, those schema, have no meaning really until we hear if it works or not.

This topic has a title that loudly signals to the audience, A Manifesto. It also clearly denotes a Randian one. (and it's not the only one on here in this forum) Now that 'heroic' essayist and novelist of ideas showed in what she wrote, repeatedly, that she was decidedly anti-spirit. A pretty strict kind of materialist. The gist of that sound is, there is primarily the Individual's Ego, and that's the crucial thing. That some of us with a more muscular Ego Structure are more qualified than others to be in charge of stuff. It also can be argued that this writer is an apologist for the worst excesses of capitalism, espousing a Social Darwinism argument. This type of thing is essentially from a political thrust. It demonstrably does not address questions of Spirit, according to your common definition.

[Now, again my question is, how does this stuff work? Is this stuff here helpful, or is it more or less designed to do something else?]

In terms of a forum that, it would appear, is here to explore our sprituality and how it works, or doesn't work, in our lives, this Randian Manifesto idea seems a pretty negative attitude to take. In My View.

TMW

Negative how? And it's not necessarily Randian. In fact, I'm more or less referencing Asimov by the title (e.g. I, Robot), and Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot and Demon Haunted Universe) in the concepts. Rand only comes out on the point of not arguing with individuals unable to argue properly. Beyond that, it's not one author as the source rather they all are sources for my ideas as well as my own views, which some consider non-Randian at times, but I haven't found it to be.

-- Brede

P.S. I consider this point about negativity within the context of this Youtube video.



If this is negative, then perhaps up is down... Or not.

Quote from: David W. Shelton on May 16, 2007, 06:15:04 AM

Quote from: katiaand what about the bible? well, the bible is a manufactured lie as well, and so therefore everything in it is also a farce. religion was created by primitive peoples because of their fear of dying. religion has been promoted throughout the millenia as a means to control the populace and to make money. do you really believe that pastors that steal money from poor people believe they will go to hell? even they don't believe in god or they would be scared to death! what about the pedophilic priests? do you think they believe in god? it's all about control. tsk tsk tsk

Any time you have more than two people involved in anything, it will have problems. It's perfectly fine to think that the Bible is a manufactured lie. However, I do suggest that we engage in basic human interaction skills by adding "I think" to it. Stating an opinion as fact is just the kind of attack which is inappropriate for this forum.

well david, i talk with the same affirmation  that christians do, and my point is as valid as yours or anyone's.  i still have to hear a christian say "i think that the bible is the word of god" or " i think that god exists", or "i think that jesus died for our sins".  as far as i'm concerned, neither the existence of god nor the authenticity of the bible are facts, yes?

Quotewell david, i talk with the same affirmation  that christians do, and my point is as valid as yours or anyone's.  i still have to hear a christian say "i think that the bible is the word of god" or " i think that god exists", or "i think that jesus died for our sins".  as far as i'm concerned, neither the existence of god nor the authenticity of the bible are facts, yes?

That is exactly right. A person's beliefs are their own. Any time we state a particular belief (or disbelief) as a matter of fact, it becomes confrontational. If this thread is to continue, we need to remember to stick to why you believe as you do, not attack other religions or people who believe differently. These Atheism threads have had a nasty habit of turning into "why I think X-brand religion sucks" threads and eventually degrade into outright attacks on people of faith.

We're better than this, folks.

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 16, 2007, 07:12:18 PMIt also can be argued that this writer is an apologist for the worst excesses of capitalism, espousing a Social Darwinism argument.

And completely wrong argument. Rand and every major libertarian I know does not espouse Social Darwinism. Specifically, because libertarians and Randians do not believe in the absence of individual free will. Darwinism as you suppose would only apply to businesses in the respect of a descriptive theory, but the actual theory that would best in the explanation of the behavior of all businesses is the individual ethics, and the epistemology (and metaphysics) that derived it, is the source of all said behaviors. And Egoism is never about how strong you are versus another, so that argument is totally wrong too for the reason as above, also because egoism or the concept of self-interested individuals implies two axioms. The first being, that no one owns your life or can control it in as much as you are metaphysically individual. The second is no one owes you anything to sustain your life, conversely as part of the first axiom. Now, tell me how is this also negative? To me knowledge, this is not because it free each person to act on their own respective behalves and for their own values. If that's negative, like I said before, then up is down, meaning that things are not what they are in their composition.

By your reasoning every individualist, every person that does not go with the collective must be bad or negative by your reasoning. By your reasoning Warren Buffet is a negative. By your reasoning Edison was negative. And so on, every major inventor, businessperson, and industrialist was negative. Every doctor, every artist that did what they did for their own selfish will is negative. Every scientist that wanted to know why things worked is negative, especially when they rejected the ideas of others (Galileo Galilei, Feynman, Tesla, and so forth).

What point I'm driving at is the supposition that you present in many cases is a strawman, and pretty much does not validate as a decent rebuttal. And ultimately, it leads to one single conclusion: the collective or nothing. I choose nothing if that is your other option, at least in nothing I never contribute to an evil such as the collective ever again, nor feel its punishments for non-compliance.

-- Brede

I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on May 17, 2007, 12:28:19 PM
I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

~ Blair

LOL, seriously, what's your issue with my post?

-- Brede

You want a world (or live in a world, according to you) in which everyone is born alone.

What conclusions could a compassionate human being that hails from a loving, supportive family that stresses communication and understanding above all things draw from that statement?

You are the expert, obviously, because you use larger words in greater numbers than I.  As a contemporary American, I am idealogically obligated to place your word immediately and irrationally above mine.

So please, tell me what my problem is.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on May 17, 2007, 01:14:28 PM
You want a world (or live in a world, according to you) in which everyone is born alone.

You are born alone. You're tabula rasa, Blair. No one gives you your mind. You have to "fill in the blank here" for a mind. It's a good thing too, because no one, and I mean it, has the right to force any thing upon you as what you should put in it as your values or thoughts.

QuoteWhat conclusions could a compassionate human being that hails from a loving, supportive family that stresses communication and understanding above all things draw from that statement?

Can you rephrase this question? It's a tad bit confusing. Are you asking what conclusions you can derive from it as a rhetorical question or do you mean it toward me and others here?

QuoteYou are the expert, obviously, because you use larger words in greater numbers than I.  As a contemporary American, I am idealogically obligated to place your word immediately and irrationally above mine.

No, I'm asking you. My mind is not your mind, so I cannot guess what you are thinking or the premises you're working upon.


-- Brede

Never mind.  I think that was the conversational equivalent of slamming my head against a wall.

~ Blair

I knew a randfan once, he claimed to invented a way of travelling 6 seconds back in time...involving the moon and lasers and tesla coils...he loved tesla.
BTW Blair,

When your picture says 'self portrait' is that as in painted by your own self? Cos it is good.

Quote from: Blair on May 17, 2007, 01:23:00 PM
Never mind.  I think that was the conversational equivalent of slamming my head against a wall.

~ Blair

That's your choice. *shrugs* Remember, I am open to listening, but expect me to be critical of everything said. That's how I work. I don't ever take anything on faith.

-- Brede