Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Is Atheism A Conclusion Or A Belief?


Antlerman

Recommended Posts

Antlerman I am an atheist for all practical purposes. It seems to me that gods are entirely superfluous. I see the terrible beauty of the natural world. I marvel at the mystery of my own "I am." I see my fellow humans, and all the living beings around me, and know that when loneliness comes all I need do is empathize with them and I will become many. Experience itself is an overwhelmingly awesome thing. But why is necessary to call it God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Antlerman

    16

  • Legion

    8

  • Vigile

    6

  • Rev R

    6

Guest Babylonian Dream

Atheism is a conclusion in the sense that the theists said, "there is a god", and we said "I've got no reason to believe that"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now I try this. Challenge me. Put myself out in front as someone who actually now has beliefs that definitely don't fit the Dawkins/Harris sort of popular views. I'm not some gullible fool, and I have a vast swath of reasons into many areas behind what I believe. Challenge me, come after me and leave them the hell alone.

 

Apologies in advance if this sounds disrespectful, but is this series of statements triggering red flags from anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now I try this. Challenge me. Put myself out in front as someone who actually now has beliefs that definitely don't fit the Dawkins/Harris sort of popular views. I'm not some gullible fool, and I have a vast swath of reasons into many areas behind what I believe. Challenge me, come after me and leave them the hell alone.

 

Apologies in advance if this sounds disrespectful, but is this series of statements triggering red flags from anyone else?

I think A-man is just tired of certain people pissing in the spirituality forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Is Atheism A Conclusion Or A Belief?"

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think A-man is just tired of certain people pissing in the spirituality forum.

 

When tigers fight, one is injured. The other one is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think A-man is just tired of certain people pissing in the spirituality forum.

 

When tigers fight, one is injured. The other one is dead.

I thought you were all about ego death Rodney. :shrug::grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think A-man is just tired of certain people pissing in the spirituality forum.

 

When tigers fight, one is injured. The other one is dead.

I thought you were all about ego death Rodney. :shrug::grin:

 

pushing on another person's "ego" is like slapping a bowl filled with a corn starch and water mixture. the more force you apply, the more resistance the mixture offers. apply little to no force and your hand passes right through.

 

 

On topic: I find the question of "god" to be irrelevant, therefore I have no need for belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pushing on another person's "ego" is like slapping a bowl filled with a corn starch and water mixture. the more force you apply, the more resistance the mixture offers. apply little to no force and your hand passes right through.

I learned this the hard way with my dad. It's dead on accurate.

 

On topic: I find the question of "god" to be irrelevant, therefore I have no need for belief.

Pretty much my sentiments. Please see above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pushing on another person's "ego" is like slapping a bowl filled with a corn starch and water mixture. the more force you apply, the more resistance the mixture offers. apply little to no force and your hand passes right through.

The Non-Newtonian Oobleck Ego.

 

That would be a cool name for a book. :grin: (try to say it 10 times fast)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pushing on another person's "ego" is like slapping a bowl filled with a corn starch and water mixture. the more force you apply, the more resistance the mixture offers. apply little to no force and your hand passes right through.

The Non-Newtonian Oobleck Ego.

 

That would be a cool name for a book. :grin: (try to say it 10 times fast)

:HaHa: I'm going to start a band called "Benevolent Ego". And yes, we will rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pushing on another person's "ego" is like slapping a bowl filled with a corn starch and water mixture. the more force you apply, the more resistance the mixture offers. apply little to no force and your hand passes right through.

The Non-Newtonian Oobleck Ego.

 

That would be a cool name for a book. :grin: (try to say it 10 times fast)

 

Should I send you the bill for having my tongue untied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should I send you the bill for having my tongue untied?

I think you look good with tied tongue. Btw, you can send the bill to Legion, his band will make money and he'll be rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a belief, then a conclusion, or a conclusion and then a belief, or any other mix.

 

Currently I am experiencing unexplainable lights in my room (I saw it again last night, it looked like it could have been beaming through my window, but I live on the 4th floor and I have blinds.)

 

Someone theistic or that believes in the supernatural would conclude that I am seeing spirits or something else like that and they would conclude the supernatural exists and then believe it. Though I will admit that what type of supernatural belief they eventually have is based on other conclusions they have had, or their upbringing. A Christian would interpret it as a demon or an angel maybe. A New Ager would say a ghost or a spirit guide or an angel. They have a belief and came to a conclusion based on it, but some sort of conclusion lead to their belief in the first place.

 

Someone non-theistic would conclude that the light came from a natural source, or that I am seeing things. Seeing things is possible because I have psych problems. Some non-theists would also say that we do not know the explanation of the light, but that does not mean it's supernatural. Same as the last sentence above is true here.

 

Or maybe, just maybe someone changes their belief because of a conclusion they made. Almost everyone here has done that, because of something they saw or experienced, either in the physical plane or their mind, they decided to leave Christianity. In my case, I am starting to see stuff that seems to support at least the existence of forces beyond our normal perceptions.

 

My conclusion is not solid BTW. It's part emotional for me, and part weighing the evidence.

 

Sorry if this is confusing, I am not good at getting my thoughts out or defending my views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think A-man is just tired of certain people pissing in the spirituality forum.

 

When tigers fight, one is injured. The other one is dead.

I thought you were all about ego death Rodney. :shrug::grin:

 

pushing on another person's "ego" is like slapping a bowl filled with a corn starch and water mixture. the more force you apply, the more resistance the mixture offers. apply little to no force and your hand passes right through.

That's assuming I was on the attack. I was not. I have no intention to ram my opinions down others through force or intimidation. It is what I said it was, what Legion pointed out. Make myself a target rather than having others chased down and away from discussions in this forum. It had gone on too long. All I would offer would be rational answers in the hope let some wind out of the sails on some mission to convert. No attack. Just a public stand to deal with a problem that other private means have failed to resolve.

 

It appears to have worked without bloodshed. I don't care about egos. I care about people enjoying the liberty to have open and free discussions without being insulted and intimidated.

 

As for the OP, it appears everyone else is agreeing with pretty much all I've said about that. I see no conflicts really, and with that understanding than hopefully it becomes easier to show respect to others views as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be said that both theism and atheism are both a conclusion and a belief. You believe if your a weak atheist, that based off of what you know and think, there is no god. The belief part comes from the fact you don't have absolute knowledge, a final conclusion in this area, would come only with absolute knowledge. The belief comes from the fact you don't have absolute certainty. Without that certainty you have a conclusion that could change you believe your right on. you believe your right based of what your know. If you can't know everything there is, to prove if there is or isn't a god, then your stuck with belief.

These are exactly my thoughts. It is inappropriate to state atheism is a conclusion as opposed to theism. There is no point in actually stating it then, except for an attempted effect of holding a superior position, i.e. "Atheism is not a belief, it's a conclusion!"

 

To illustrate my point, is this a true statement. "Atheism is a conclusion. Theism is a conclusion." True or false?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if "God" was not an object, a thing like a Yeti or a Penguin that can be measure, examined, dissected, or scrutinized with the tools of science? What if "God" is all things? Then would saying "credible evidence" be sort of the wrong criteria? And then following suit, would saying that scientific evidence is the only valid critera, in itself be defining reality and the measure of it, in a sense presuming sufficient knowledge to 'conclude' that, sort of like a type of human-omniscience?

 

God being all things seems like a nonsensical statement.

It is the statement of pantheism, just one of any number of ways people understand "God" to be. The mythological god of the Judeo-Christian traditions is only one way, let alone when you break it apart within those traditions themselves. Therefore making 'scientific evidence' the singular criteria for validating God or No-God is to say the least a pretty self-defining criteria. Set it up, knock it down.

 

My point in this question is that myth as fact, is but a tiny, non-defining of the whole, sliver of what others view as a much greater reality that all of that. Scientific evidence becomes a non-factor to the nature of those questions.

 

What's the point of even creating a definition like this.

I could type a several hundred page response to this, which would touch on everything from animal evolution, symbolic representations, sociological/psychological interdependence, existential questions of being, purpose, meaning, inquiry into the natural world and it's nature beyond the material, systems theory, art, poetry, mind, biology, and so on. But these are things I touch on all them time in pretty much all my posts.

 

It just seems meaningless other than to create a paradigm for which those who are spiritually oriented to feel better about themselves. Not trying to be a smart ass here.

Well, that is pretty smart ass, actually. You presume its about feeling better about themselves. It's actually not that at all. It's not about looking at yourself and saying, "My, what a good boy am I." Quite the opposite.

 

My point was you claim that Atheism is a conclusion. That means that after weighing the evidence, the conclusion is there is no-god. The only way that is not a belief is if you have evidence supporting a positive position of No-God. It is impossible to prove a negative, so there can be no conclusion to the matter. Ever.

 

Only if your conclusion is that there is no god. This is a bastardization of the typical atheist position.

:) This reminds me of our discussions about what "most" Christians believe or don't. It really depends which most vocal segment you're looking at. What you say is true in part, but it's also readily apparent that for a great many of a growing tide of what is called now neo-atheism, it is in fact a positive statement of no-god. I've always much, much preferred identifying with the old atheists, like Sartre for instance. This you know.

 

I don't believe in god. I don't have to provide evidence for the fact I don't believe in god any more than I have to provide evidence for the fact I don't believe in Santa.

No, you most certainly do not provide negative evidence. You simply see no reason to believe so you don't. My point has been this is different than saying 'atheism is a conclusion' in contrast to anything else as a positive statement. In your evaluation of all things considered, you conclude to believe something which happens to not include a god. That's entirely fair to say.

 

But it is also valid for the theist to say exactly the same thing, except including a god. It is a personal evaluation and a personal choice or conclusion for themselves in both cases. That's the only objection I had, which was trying to make it something not the same. It doesn't appear you're saying that.

 

I can provide you with reasons why I don't believe, but the lack of belief here isn't a statement of fact, it's a description of where I'm at.

Entirely reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make myself a target rather than having others chased down and away from discussions in this forum. It had gone on too long. All I would offer would be rational answers in the hope let some wind out of the sails on some mission to convert. No attack. Just a public stand to deal with a problem that other private means have failed to resolve.

 

Making yourself the target is exactly what worries me. You may not see it as an attack, but it was still a rather aggressive move.

 

To be perfectly honest it appears that I am witnessing the birth of a guru.

 

I see you being particularly ruthless toward a select group of people, in effect pushing them out of this area as you say they are doing to other folks.

 

I see a man with authority and respect within the group rising up and offering not only a challenge to the misguided religious atheist, but offering himself as a target, a protector to the downtrodden Ex-C theists.

 

I see a man who has claimed with confidence and authority that his ideas are forging new ground.

 

I see a man implying having the "correct" means to understand God.

 

I see an environment where people are emotionally damaged by events in their life, some of whom may be seeking a refuge, and perhaps a guide.

 

I see a person who is only a couple of steps away from offering himself as that guide.

 

I know that you will say that this is not the case...and maybe I am reading too much into the last few months, but I am concerned and I feel that concern is justified. It is out of that concern that I question the wisdom of this move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest it appears that I am witnessing the birth of a guru.

 

That is very over-exaggerated, Rev. It makes me think you might be feeling threatened.

 

I see you being particularly ruthless toward a select group of people, in effect pushing them out of this area as you say they are doing to other folks.

 

What this whole thread revolves around and many similar ones in the past, is the question "Is this a site for Ex-Christians or a site for Atheists alone?" If you have no place on this site where other religions may be discussed, other ideas, reincarnation, for example, which are not specifically Christian, without being attacked and asked continually to prove it with scientific evidence, then how is this not only a site for atheists?

 

Ex-Christian covers a lot of territory, it does not mean atheist. If this forum were to designate itself as specifically atheist, I would have left long ago.

 

As for the rest of your very critical post, I don't agree with any of your conclusions. This has been a long time coming. We need to air this issue.

 

Why can we not freely discuss different dieties, spritual ideas and philosophies that are not Christian without being attacked even in the Ex-C Theism forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make myself a target rather than having others chased down and away from discussions in this forum. It had gone on too long. All I would offer would be rational answers in the hope let some wind out of the sails on some mission to convert. No attack. Just a public stand to deal with a problem that other private means have failed to resolve.

 

Making yourself the target is exactly what worries me. You may not see it as an attack, but it was still a rather aggressive move.

Assertive move. ;) Very well, but do bear in mind, I am an appointed moderator for this house and when I hear and empathize with those who a complaining, and despite reasoned, yet firm admonishments in private it continues to happen unabated, it is my responsibility to try to in fact deal with it. I took a stronger move that can save the actual nuclear response of the Red Button of Doom, as Kevin calls it. I don't think that would be a good choice.

 

To be perfectly honest it appears that I am witnessing the birth of a guru.

Of course you set this up at the end of this by saying I will say this isn't the case, which seems to create a self-fulling prophecy which might lend itself to make this sound a valid point you made. :)

 

I would never want anyone following me. It would drive me nuts. This is only about my own road for myself. If others benefit then that's wonderful. Don't follow me. I'm not worth it.

 

I see you being particularly ruthless toward a select group of people, in effect pushing them out of this area as you say they are doing to other folks.

"Group of people" is incorrect. Behavior issues, is correct. I respect anyone who has found a way of looking at the world and living it within themselves that produces good fruits. The system is the tool, not the truth. The truth is what is lived. And the garbage and bullying I see is not good. That's what I rebuff. Not any "group of people".

 

Now if however you see me challenge points of view, please understand that normally is just a part of my own personally processes. Call it differentiation. It's pushing against, and challenging things which I myself thought, but am challenging for myself against various foils - such as the reductionist, which I'm sure you're thinking of. It's a tendency in myself to think it, and I challenge it. Typically the other person gains from it himself in reinforcing views and testing them against his own beliefs. That's what these debates are all about, to me.

 

Again, all you're seeing me ramp up on lately is these bad behaviors from those who have been here well long enough to know this site is about supporting others, not calling the idiots and morons and the like and kicking sand at those who think differently than you.

 

I see a man with authority and respect within the group rising up and offering not only a challenge to the misguided religious atheist, but offering himself as a target, a protector to the downtrodden Ex-C theists.

Moderator. It's my job. :) This was a very specific choice under this one circumstance to do this. I actually discussed this privately with another mod before trying this approach. For right or for wrong, it was my call to be creative. Under another circumstance I'd try another tact perhaps. It's all based on the individual and situation, for right or for wrong. We can always question whether other tacts may have been taken. I realize this.

 

The point is the purpose of this forum has been repeatedly disregarded and disrespected by certain individuals (not groups). Complaints were justified, as well as a more "aggressive" response at this point. Pleading didn't work.

 

I see a man who has claimed with confidence and authority that his ideas are forging new ground.

For me. I've never said they are for anyone else. I'm hardly some new visionary for the world, even though I'm finding a great deal of unfolding for myself in this point of view.

 

I see a man implying having the "correct" means to understand God.

Which would of course be a contradiction of terms. ;)

 

I see an environment where people are emotionally damaged by events in their life, some of whom may be seeking a refuge, and perhaps a guide.

Well I would encourage them to my last breath to find their own way and not follow anyone! If they were to latch themselves onto me or anyone else they perceive in that way, I would instantly recognize they would be missing the boat entirely.

 

I see a person who is only a couple of steps away from offering himself as that guide.

I'm a teacher by nature, but I'm not an answer man. I like communicating. I like sharing my thoughts. I enjoy the exercise of articulating them so it helps me. That's all.

 

I know that you will say that this is not the case...and maybe I am reading too much into the last few months, but I am concerned and I feel that concern is justified. It is out of that concern that I question the wisdom of this move.

I hope this helps? Again, I would be annoyed if anyone didn't look to themselves. To me that's the whole point of all of this. To break from Dogma so we are free to discover what is in us and let it grow.

 

Sorry if my approach offended anyone. I apologize for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I see the good points of Rodney and A-man both. I think Rodney has a point that being the self-appointed protector of those who have a spiritual bent is somewhat grandiose. And I think A-man has a point that people who want to express their fuzzy bunny feelings should have a safe place to do it. It's oh-so-easy for the more militant atheists among us to drop into the spirituality forum and let loose with a "That's bullshit and my outlook is superior to yours" comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That is very over-exaggerated, Rev. It makes me think you might be feeling threatened.

 

I see you being particularly ruthless toward a select group of people, in effect pushing them out of this area as you say they are doing to other folks.

 

 

 

At the risk of opening pandora's box, I found myself nodding in agreement with his entire post. I like AM a lot and generally don't spend much time in the areas of this site he does so I'm probably way out of bounds here. I don't want to make any charges here as I don't think it's fair and I don't think I could back them up, but if people feel a certain way there might be something there, no?

 

What this whole thread revolves around and many similar ones in the past, is the question "Is this a site for Ex-Christians or a site for Atheists alone?" If you have no place on this site where other religions may be discussed, other ideas, reincarnation, for example, which are not specifically Christian, without being attacked and asked continually to prove it with scientific evidence, then how is this not only a site for atheists?

 

Completely agree. And it's why I usually stay out of this forum altogether. I only read and posted today because AM started a thread and I usually like to read what he has to say. He's taught me a thing or two on more than one occasion even though we don't always see eye to eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this helps?

 

Good enough. :)

 

I apologize if I made it seem that you were intentionally planning such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rodney has a point that being the self-appointed protector of those who have a spiritual bent is somewhat grandiose.

1. I'm an appointed moderator on this site (not self-appointed) and I received complaints. 2. I have understanding of the nature of spiritual views in a way that I am capable to stand up and articulate quite rationally against those who claim dogmatically that rationality proves they have the Truth with a capital T. 1 + 2 = 3. 3. I feel it appropriate to stand up for those who are be constantly belittled and run off because of intimidation tactics. I calling it using my tool set that is at my disposal to do an effect job I was appointed to do to uphold the purpose of the site.

 

And I think A-man has a point that people who want to express their fuzzy bunny feelings should have a safe place to do it.

Fuzzy bunny feelings??? That disappoints me from the likes of you. :(

 

It's oh-so-easy for the more militant atheists among us to drop into the spirituality forum and let loose with a "That's bullshit and my outlook is superior to yours" comment.

Which personally makes me question the benefit of those views for those particular individuals. Having a superior belief to use as a club over others is hardly what I'd consider very advanced. As I've said, if it makes them stronger than it's truth. But I define stronger as less egocentric and more compassionate towards others. You've come into yourself and no longer feel some need to convert everyone to your point of view in search of self-assurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this helps?

 

Good enough. :)

 

I apologize if I made it seem that you were intentionally planning such a thing.

Thank you. And the truth be told, I actually look up to you for greater knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.