Atheists religions; a rose by another name

I want to be frank for you guys. No long stories or fluff. I chose this title because I knew it would be provocative, since most people think religion is some sort of belief in a giant man who lives in the clouds. I think it’s more accurately an abstract explaination of what MUST be true, despite a lack of evidence.

There are all sorts of nooks and crannies that will try and distract you from the truth I am trying to communicate to you, because you already have an idea about how people should think, or how written language should read, but Communication is hard. So don’t disagree with people. It’s better and more enlightening to try and discover, even metaphorically what one is talking about. Saying “no, you are wrong” is like saying “I am a better navigator of these roads than you”. Essentially, you are competing with yourself, because what you understand belongs to You and is no one else’s responsibility.

Semantics is a time consuming game, and the only way you can win every time is if you stop disagreeing and just try to understand.

if you are confused or I sound incoherent please let me know. I’m really trying to skip as much BS as possible

 

Another atheist soldier.

 

Another human.

 

But aren't you playing this game in the thread title?
An do you consider science a religion as well then?
Maybe it is not about winning anything in the first place. And last thought but not least:
If I try to understand I can still come to the sincere conclusion that I disagree (winning! Jk)

 

I'm with Asmo there regarding the semantics...

From what I can gather of what you are saying, I agree that communication is often an obstacle but I think (or would like to think) that many people, who are actively interested in the subjects of philosophy and/or/of religion, take the time to develop support for their outlook and arguments.

I disagree to an extent with your view on uhmm... disagreement. Saying "no, you are wrong" without explanation is not helpful but saying "no, you are wrong" with context, counter-argument, support to justify opposite or the other, is extremely useful and often helpful to one with an open mind. It may not change the person's entire outlook overnight on a particular aspect of the topic being discussed, but good counter-arguments should allow for both individuals to (re)consider aspects of their arguments. With such analysis of one's thoughts on a topic, there is the potential to further develop understanding.

To discuss such topics in any sort of sophisticated consistent manner with rhetoric and logic, requires understanding of logical concepts such as fallacy, validity, and soundness. Pointing out "no, you are wrong" with explanation of why so, if one violates these concepts, can be helpful. If we don't utilize such aspects in thoughts and ideas, I don't think there is really any point in discussing topics, because there is no common order in which the topic can be discussed. I cannot imagine any topic regarding atheism, being utilized without these concepts, however you could potentially have a different context in religious discussions, where for instance you go by the word of the Holy book and those aspects of rhetoric and logic may not necessarily apply. On top of the obstacles of communication, this may be one of the reasons why it's such an obstacle to reconcile reason with faith.

 

I think of myself as being religious, but emphatically disagree with the part of your post that says "MUST be true, despite a lack of evidence." Some people, maybe most people, may have beliefs that fit that definition, but many like me require at least a modicum of evidence for their beliefs. What I aim for is "substantial evidence", the standard required for administrative rule making--enough evidence to convince reasonable people, even though other reasonable people (e.g., atheists) might come to a different or opposite conclusion. I take a broad view of evidence, including personal experience, observations, and intuition, as well as scientific data--the same kinds of considerations I use in dating somebody, taking a job, or buying a used car. . It's a matter of judgment. And nothing "MUST be true", if that means certain. Nothing is certain, not even that! For all I know, it's all a figment of my imagination, including you folks on Hip Forums. At some point, I MUST make a leap of what Santayana called "animal faith", and hope that it works out. Scientists and atheists are in the same boat with me.

 

I have a simple definition for religion - organized ignorance. It's true, atheists are not immune to consortiums of ignoramuses. When their science is far more fantasy than reality. The "Holographic Universe" theorists come to mind.

 

IMO, it's rather presumptuous to assume any human, religious,atheist, or whatever, actually knows the who, the what, the when or the why of existence, other then what scientists can tell us about the physical aspects of our surroundings. The where is pretty obvious--

 

Yes if you try and fail then you will always disagree. But im talking about succeeding.

 

I think most people think that if they can see something with their eyes then it is at least satisfactory at the level of every day life to assume what they understand about the world is accurate.

Its called perception. The limits of scientific prescision have been described in the most rigorous conveyance of reality that 1 human can communicate to another.

 

logic is good. not magic, but good. you can't avoid causing harm without it.
and what is not known is not known.

as for has to, the things is, nothing has to. not even us.
no the root of beliefs, is about wanting to not have to worry about bullies,
people came up with this idea, as a way to encourage people to want to not screw everything up.

which has nothing to do with what can or can't, is likely or unlikely, to possibly exist also.

 

I think when i said "must" be true that i was speaking towards an attitude of improving ones understanding through inferrence. Its real hard to communicate that whatever you say to me will be ACCEPTED and assimilated into my understanding of the world, but its true. You have a limited lifespan as do I. I try and make the most of my inferrence. (Is my reasoning)

You said that nothing is certain, but if you had to assign a percentage representing the accuracy of that statement, what would it be?

Heisenberg pretty much summed it all up. Everything is innacurate, noone knows whats what or where one thing ends and another begins. I think its really silly that we compete like this. Sometimes I dont even feel sentient.

 

That is called clickbait. Also: god is a woman, despite the lack of evidence.

Uuuuhhhmmmmm .....

 

The experience of physical phenomenon is abstract, and semantics is just another way to communicate that. If i were to invalidate an experience I would have to be willing to invalidate my own. "Evidence" is not really a good way to transgress these matters.

When you really see through the B'S it's more like "it's a bird, it's a plane....its". It's for you to decide, through inference. It's good enough for the legal system but at the same time, how accurate is the legal system? Heisenbergs principal of uncertainty resonates through everything; and it's the most lucrative "I don't know" that has been published in scientific journals. It's actually "I don't know, and you don't know either".

The only reason we even have a legal system, or words like "lying" and "false" is because no one understands anyone else. And I guess it's less time consuming to call it either black or white. I think misunderstanding is the most prevalent disease affecting the human race bar none.

I also think atheism is a good start, but we should not be so reluctant to suspend our disbeliefe. Because then, you are denying reality. There is math & journals to back this up but they're unnecessary. That's what uncertainty means.

 

I'd say we make the experience of physical phenomenon abstract, but I don't see how you could say that the experience of physical phenomenon is anything but direct. Where it becomes abstract is when we utilize words and verbage, however abstractions via words and verbage don't inherently make the phenomena esoteric, which seems to be what you are suggesting, rather they place a commonality amongst experience, that is often an estimation of experience easily deduced.

Heisenberg's principle resonates for Quantum Mechanics, but I'd contend the parallels in the macroscopic world and the outlook on the supernatural are of an inherently different nature.

 

Dude, your posts are lengthy and confused and inconsequential. Try holding on to a thought and really spin it out. Then validate what you just thought.

 

I could count how many words you and I are using that share the same meaning....just like the word atheist, religion, or god. I spoke to a Jehovah witness the other day who happened to wander her way to my shack in the middle of the desert. She must be crazy. She said "I see God through his creation".

I think that If everything you see and feel is God, then everything you see and feel is everything.

Sounds like oneness to me....

 

if truth is a the, its not one that is known by anything human.
since nothing has to be known to exist, this is not a problem.

all existence is optional. our own is no exception.
but is the option ours? this is not known.

there's just no basis to expect exceptionalism,
of our species, of our planet, nor of what any of us, any self aware beings on any world, choose to believe.

oneness is another of those things, that may be completely neutral

i mean the one thing that is important there, is to be not making existence less pleasant for each other.

does the op mean (by the phrase "athiest religeons") beliefs that exclude the possible existence of god-like beings, or simply not require them?

 

This is what I preach, themnax. But our language is so diseased that No one understand the meaning of equality, or reciprocity.

I want to understand why this experience we call "being human" involves conflict.

 

Maybe there is an algorithm to describe the lifespan of our species if we compete with each other VS if we all existed as one. Sorry for the double post please don't delete me.

I just don' understand in what situation would conflict be advantageous amongst a group of organisms capable of abstract thought.

Well, I mean besides wading through this disease we call disagreement