Atheists religions; a rose by another name

Did you mean 'phenomena'. Confusion between phenomenon (singular) and phenomena (plural) seems to have appeared from nowhere just a few years ago (ditto with criterion/criteria). I have no idea why the distinction was suddenly lost. However, since I've been standing on a street corner all day, holding up a sign that reads THE ADVERB IS DEAD, who am I to quibble

quibble and bisque, quibble and bisque

 

because there's no evolution without it

it is inherent in life

even paramecia do it

 

That's all well and good but By "laws governing physics" I meant physical laws (i.e. Newton's Laws of Motion) influenced by fundamental forces, not social concepts/laws of human specific endeavors.

 

I enjoyed reading this thread. Interesting discussion.....and the qurestion why does there have to be conflict is in my head.
All I can say is that I don't know...Ask the people that make it so.....

But to repeat themnax....lack of consideration comes to mind...as well as clarity, understanding, empathy, respect and respect for boundaries and so on.....and the hierarchy thing makes sense, too....whoever wrote that post...

 

I say so, because I see no other way of dealing with the ambiguity surrounding human existence. Having faith is a gamble or "joyful bet", as Luther put it. I'd call it more a necessity than a duty. Of course, my bet is on "Something Big Out There". An atheist could reasonably bet on just the opposite. We place our bets and take our chances. But I think the leap (maybe "hop" would be a better word) should never be done if the evidence and reason clearly point in the opposite direction: e.g., evolution, the age of the earth, etc. When faith and reason/evidence point in opposite directions, I go with reason/evidence.

 

The uncertainty principle
h / (2π)

observer effect

I spend so much time pouring over these posts......What does it all mean?!?!? Quibbles and bisque, quibble and bisque.

 

Atheism isn't a religion, it merely adopts their methodologies. For example, there are 17 widely recognized types of atheism today, including the oxymoron "agnostic-atheist", because they all originate with 1920s Soviet propaganda, specifically designed to convert contentious capitalists to communism. Once, just for the hell of it, I got an atheist to argue no less than a dozen two syllable words were all defined wrong in the dictionary. What he and other atheists fail to recognize, like any Bible thumper, is the dictionary is as common as dirt. It merely contains the most popular definitions and both atheists and Bible thumpers are infamous for re-enacting the classic Three Stooges comedy routine of arguing over the definition of stupid and who is the best example.

Richard Dawkins is a classic example, he's a geneticist, an atheist, and even made up his own word "meme" that can be found in any dictionary. The problem is, according to his own academic peers who are linguists, it has no demonstrable meaning whatsoever and he is merely encouraging people to spout gibberish. In other words, although atheists talk as though science and reason are everything, they contradict themselves at every opportunity, just like a lot of religious.

The technology science has given us, is never to be confused with how idiotic and stupid academics can be. One in five Americans insist the sun revolves around the earth, proving academics either teach them just for the money, or like the sound of their own voices. All Babylonians tend to organize along the same lines as a flock of chickens, arguing metaphysics and semantics, because that's what makes money. Wisdom is difficult to find when everyone is screaming and nobody is listening, while money and the gun do all the talking worth listening to.

 

How sad.

 

To be reduced to a joyful bet.

 

It's only a reduction if you believe you are discreet from our universe.

And even then it is only a reduction of misunderstandings.

 

I tend to agree with the OP. I left Christianity about five years ago, and I eventually identified as an atheist. I'm not an atheist now, I'd say I'm spiritual, but don't follow a religion. I believe in God. Having said that, I think that if I had never identified as an atheist, I'd not understand atheism. Atheism is more than a mere lack of believing in a higher power. Just like religious people, no two atheists come to their path in the same way. So, it's good to listen, and really try to understand other people's views, instead of thinking that you already know what they believe. It's pretty eye opening.

 

Atheism is mere lack of belief in God(s)...based on context, I assume you are using the term Higher Power interchangeably with God. Moreover, atheism tends to be in response to belief in a Personal God. "Higher Power" is more of a nebulous phrase, which I can see a distinction from God, but does that phrase even signify anything in particular that we can examine and introspect?

In the most simplistic approach to atheism, I defer to Russell's flying teapot analogy or perhaps the more recently refined and amusing Flying Spaghetti Monster Analogy. You might assert there is a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster out there in the cosmos looking over all that we do and whipping up planets like they are spicy meatballs with it's noodle appendages, I certainly cannot disprove this and even if I wanted to believe, what basis or evidence is there to support such a belief?


Now I know there are subsets of atheism, such as "antitheism" which might take a more radical approach in their arguments, but as with all derivative viewpoints, I think it's a bit disingenuous to group all such views together, it's akin to grouping philosophical views together such as idealism and solipsism in my view, sure there are some base similarities but they branch off to significantly different scopes that I think the essence of the views are deserving of their individual categorizations.

 

I'm using it to mean whatever someone's interpretation of a god/gods might mean. I know polytheists, so their idea of a god, is different than mine. I don't consider myself a theist, but from a spiritual standpoint, I personally don't envision multiple gods. Pantheism is pretty fascinating.

And I can't prove it to you, either.

When I was an atheist, it seemed like I came to it as a conclusion, it wasn't an actual choice. I have more atheist friends than religious ones, and they tell me similar stories. And some have never believed, were never indoctrinated as kids. That's more of where I'm coming from. That how we label ourselves, doesn't mean we all have come to those beliefs or lack thereof, on the same path.

 

Unless the space was unintended on the second part, I am confused by those two statements...

 

I was raised a Roman Catholic. I guess you could say I was pretty devout... To the point I went into the seminary for a couple years to study to be a priest.

Throughout all that time I frequently experienced discomfort. On one hand I loved my faith dearly, on the other hand I struggled with all sorts of questions, many of which are quite common. Eventually I began to allow myself to really start to ask the question 'Do I really believe this? Would I be religious had I not been raised in it?' From there I realized that discomfort I often felt was cognitive dissonance and ultimately I ended up leaving the faith and essentially becoming agnostic (in the sense that I don't think the existence of a deity is knowable) To this day it's still one of the most difficult experiences I've ever been through and ultimately it had been a conscious choice that intellectually, for me, I had to make.

But at what cost? I lost my best friend, my purpose, the belief in an afterlife... I had to accept that all those prayers and conversations I'd had with God and the Saints, my mother after she passed... That I was just talking to no one. Hours spent in adoration of The Eucharist... Oh shit it was just a wafer. All the times I went to mass, liturgy of the hours... It felt like I lost my soul. It still does. It was fucking horrible.

But at least I got rid of the cognitive dissonance.

 

Wow, that's interesting that you thought of the priesthood. That's a huge step.

I agree with much of this, and believe that the RCC is little more than an organization made by men to get others under control. Just my conclusion of it. My parents are still devout Catholics, and it seems mainly out of fear, tbh. In some sects of Christianity, fear is the driver. But, it doesn't need to be that way, if you feel a spiritual connection to something higher. Do you still identify as an agnostic?

 

Paradoxically I do feel a drive and connection toward spirituality and still identify as agnostic. I just dismiss that drive as something I don't fully understand and don't know what to do with. *shrug* I just can't bring myself to mentally assert a belief in a higher power, as much as I truly want to. I really loved the Catholic faith, and I get why you feel the way you do about it... But I found a lot about it to be quite beautiful and fulfilling. Wish I could go back... But I can't.

 

I was seeking clarification a few posts up with the intent to address your whole post but I'll respond to just this part.

If we are to presume there is an objective reality, meaning that reality actually exists and that we are equipped with enough biological features, as well as the cognitive capacity to make sense of or at least infer much of what comprises the basis of reality and discover reality does not necessitate a supernatural being, then I think atheism can only be reached as a conclusion... If we choose to be intellectually honest

So if choice in supernatural and first cause is the domain of the religious, than the distinction between these paradigms seems quite obvious, comparisons seem quite superficial, pattern seeking beings seeking patterns. Perhaps some of this is my yearning to address the discussion in solely the theism vs. atheism context, on the basis of logic, but I suppose with theists tending to have their faith inform their views, and atheists tending to have reason inform their views, there is a bit of a disconnect there.

 

Bruce Lee is famous for his martial arts philosophy of "No Style" martial arts. The problem with atheist rhetoric is that its style is all too rigid, just like a fundamentalist, which is why they often use similar arguments. Both have adopted dualistic logic, as opposed to systems logic, ensuring they will often argue over anything and everything, including dictionary definitions and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Quantum mechanics is the most wildly successful physical theory of all time and implies the dreamer and the dream are one, making atheism self-defeating and religion self-stimulation. They are what Taoists call "Straw Dogs" which should be easy enough to establish with a mountain of empirical evidence, once a Theory of Everything is finally produced.

 

The problem for Quantum Mechanics in my view, which is becoming ever more apparent, is that a Theory of Everything might look good on paper but the requirements for it to be analyzed and established as the legitimate Theory of Everything is that it's inevitably going to require that same dualism in logic, that I assume you are accusing of atheism for evidence and verification, and in that sense, from all that I've heard of proposed Theories of Everything(s), it's going to require discovering subatomic particles that at this point, are only hypothetical and for all intents and purposes way beyond the scope of modern science and technology to actually be observed.

Not that I necessarily have a significant amount of knowledge in what I'm going to say here but in my layman's understanding, I think the biggest hurdle to leap right now for Quantum Mechanics is resolving Quantum decoherence and Wave function collapse or put more simply, figuring out why there is such a dramatic difference between Quantum effects and the effects that are observable in the Macroscopic world.