RE: Democracy... (fwd)
Atheism means that one believes that there is no God.
You trying to claim atheism is a religion itself is like the christians always claiming non-christians are satin worshippers. Forget about the origination of the word, in today's reality most atheists simply forgo religion completely. There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even need to think about or believe in the negative.
Ah, so there are personal beliefs that aren't religion and then there are personal beliefs that are?
Yes, beliefs based on valid reason, empiricism and science are not religious, the generally follow the path from conjecture to theory to fact. You may hold lots of personal conjecture that do qualify as beliefs but are not religious in nature, they are not exempt from empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics. Beliefs based on faith and mysticism are religious. Religion is irrational.
What a self-rightous, pretentious, egotistical viewpoint.
Thank you.
Actualy not, the vast majority of people believe in God, just not your particular brand - which after all is what the 1st is all about.
Perhaps in Bible-belt Texas, not around here (not in the city anyway). Matt
Michael Hohensee wrote:
Actually, you may be interested to know that *everyone* is religious, in some manner. Everyone has at least one untestable assumption about the world. That is, everyone has a kind of faith. Let's give some examples:
Christians believe that there exists a Being, called God, which somehow Moslems believe in the existance of a different God, and have different Atheists believe that God *doesn't* exist, which is essentially the same Even people who are nonreligious, or agnostic, have a religion. For The Transcendentalists of the 19th century, for example, do not really Scientists tend to think differently. Their beliefs can be described by
Lots of scientists look pretty religious about their 'science' to me. Their untestable assumption being that they are capable of comprehending what may be beyond them. Try reading His Master's Voice' by Stanislaw Lem: very nice piece of fiction. I'm now an avowed Apatheist - I don't give a damn what the answers to unanswerable questions are. Especially when those answers come from someone with an obvious agenda. Is that religious? Put a worm on the hook, pop the top off my beer. Argh! It's Coors. I only wish it were imaginary. If not Guiness, at least let it be a Corona. Happy Friday, Mike
Actually, you may be interested to know that *everyone* is religious, in some manner. Everyone has at least one untestable assumption about the world. That is, everyone has a kind of faith. Let's give some examples: Christians believe that there exists a Being, called God, which somehow created the universe and guides (or not, depending on whether or not you're a Deist) its development. Furthermore, they believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. This is an untestable assumption. Nobody can *prove* that God exists. They simply choose to act on the assumption that He does. Moslems believe in the existance of a different God, and have different rules and details in their religion, but their fundamental assumption is the same. God exists. God created the universe. They can't prove any of it, but they nevertheless choose to act as if it is true. Atheists believe that God *doesn't* exist, which is essentially the same kind of belief that is described above. If you can't prove that God *does* exist, you can't prove that He doesn't exist either. This is their untestable assumption about the universe. Even people who are nonreligious, or agnostic, have a religion. For them the question is not whether or not God exists,--they don't know one way or the other-- but whether or not the *universe*, (the external world) exists apart from themselves. After all, if I choose to believe that the universe doesn't exist, and is instead some dream that I'm entertaining myself with, there is no test you can perform which can convince me otherwise. Similarly, if I choose to believe that the universe *does* exist apart from myself, there is no test that can be carried out what will convince me otherwise (because, if it *doesn't* exist, I must be very good at decieving myself). The Transcendentalists of the 19th century, for example, do not really believe that the universe exists apart from themselves. They believe that the human mind (or, more specifically and honestly, their minds) are what governs the way the universe works. To them, when men "discover" new effects in nature, those effects are a direct result of the discovery. That is, that the belief in the effects are what cause the effects. To them, the map is the territory. Scientists tend to think differently. Their beliefs can be described by those laid out in General Semantics. "The map is not the territory; the word is not the thing." That is, the universe exists *apart* from our conceptions of it. This is my personal religion. I begin from the fundamental assumption that the universe does in fact exist apart from myself, and base all further beliefs on that. I personally feel that this philosophy is one of the most mature and socially responsible ones in existance, because, knowing that the universe is not in fact something I've dreamed up, I know that other people are emphatically *not* mine, and that I have no natural right to impose my will upon them in any coercive way. This is quite different from the stance that many God followers and Transcendentalists take. But then, that's just my biased point of view, since I'm religious and everything. :) Matthew James Gering wrote:
Atheism means that one believes that there is no God.
You trying to claim atheism is a religion itself is like the christians always claiming non-christians are satin worshippers. Forget about the origination of the word, in today's reality most atheists simply forgo religion completely.
There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even need to think about or believe in the negative.
Ah, so there are personal beliefs that aren't religion and then there are personal beliefs that are?
Yes, beliefs based on valid reason, empiricism and science are not religious, the generally follow the path from conjecture to theory to fact. You may hold lots of personal conjecture that do qualify as beliefs but are not religious in nature, they are not exempt from empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics. Beliefs based on faith and mysticism are religious. Religion is irrational.
What a self-rightous, pretentious, egotistical viewpoint.
Thank you.
Actualy not, the vast majority of people believe in God, just not your particular brand - which after all is what the 1st is all about.
Perhaps in Bible-belt Texas, not around here (not in the city anyway).
Matt
Michael Motyka wrote:
Michael Hohensee wrote:
Actually, you may be interested to know that *everyone* is religious, in some manner. Everyone has at least one untestable assumption about the world. That is, everyone has a kind of faith. Let's give some examples:
Christians believe that there exists a Being, called God, which somehow Moslems believe in the existance of a different God, and have different Atheists believe that God *doesn't* exist, which is essentially the same Even people who are nonreligious, or agnostic, have a religion. For The Transcendentalists of the 19th century, for example, do not really Scientists tend to think differently. Their beliefs can be described by
Lots of scientists look pretty religious about their 'science' to me.
I believe that I said that. We religiously believe that the universe exists, but, since we're honest with ourselves, we admit that we can't prove it, and simply choose to act under the assumption that it is real. (after all, that model seems to work pretty well)
Their untestable assumption being that they are capable of comprehending what may be beyond them.
No. All we assume is that the universe exists. Whether or not we can fully comprehend everything about how it works is another question entirely. We currently understand all kinds of interesting things about how the universe works, but no one says that that's everything. If something is physically beyond our understanding, then of course we won't be able to understand it, but we haven't hit such a wall yet. Who knows, if we ever do hit that wall, we may be able to build machines which can help us understand (or at least take advantage of) things beyond that wall. I'd say to worry about it when we come to it. :)
I'm now an avowed Apatheist - I don't give a damn what the answers to unanswerable questions are. Especially when those answers come from someone with an obvious agenda. Is that religious?
Put a worm on the hook, pop the top off my beer. Argh! It's Coors. I only wish it were imaginary. If not Guiness, at least let it be a Corona.
So you do believe (or at least act under the assumption) that the universe is real, then? ;)
Michael Hohensee wrote:
So you do believe (or at least act under the assumption) that the universe is real, then? ;)
Don't know, don't trust anyone else's answer therefore don't really care about the question. I'll contemplate it while sitting by the pool ( still at 88 degrees without a heater! ) after lots of margaritas. NYU, eh. Whether this is all real or I'm just a brain in a tank somewhere playing every part and doing props too, I love the restaurant hunting in The City. I can't take the population density for too many days in a row but it's *great* for a visit. Crack dealers still operating openly in WSP? Mike
participants (4)
-
Matthew James Gering -
Michael Hohensee -
Michael Hohensee -
Michael Motyka