Any atheists here?

Post Reply New Topic

Works for me, as well. If it's peace-inducing, why question it further?

peace...

At least you admit you live in ignorance, I'll give you that, and if you feel it's the best way for you to live your life I of course wish you the best brother.

I am ignorant to who and what z0rp is talking too and about.

....ignorance perplexes me. I have heard that ignorance is bliss!! ! I'm not sure that any one here can tell us about that though,
... I know this one; social anxiety is spawned from the opposite of ignorance, (Seeing too much and feeling it all),

I am filled with unreasonable regrets. Therefore I believe ignorance deserves a level of respect.

What else other than a closed not open mind is actually ignorant by definition.

Isn't it Ignorant then, to claim some one other than your self is ignorant.

Easy brother (maby i was ignorant to your point)

There are too many disturbing events that occur daily for people to retreat into peace. Marx had it right about opium and religion.

Not in this context: Marx thought that religion is the reaction of the individual human to the hardship society imposes on him, so his conclusion was, that if all people would live in a secured material environment, consequently religion would disappear (K. Mars, Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, Einleitung, 1844, MEW Vol. 1, Berlin 1977, p 387-391).

The idea that religion has a basis in the psychological set up of the human mind as a basis function was out of the scope of Marx. Such ideas were developed later with Freud and others.

Life is complicated and im still missing most of it because i complicate it further

personal peace is a road I only have become aware of recently.

Hindu's open their third eyes to see in a non specific way. Peace at last.

" Dying opened my third eye" or that's what it sounds like when Tool yells it. Alive I cant find it to open. And in death it is inevitably the last eye I will look through.

Must study Hindu to have a shot at finding my third eye.

Yep peace is like the care bears. Not happening.

You're 15. What do you know about anything?

Seems to be or at least on this site.

I don't feel militant enough to put people down for their own beliefs but I don't believe in god so I guess I'm agnostic.

Why unavoidable? Do you think literal-mindedness guarantees that one is an atheist?

ruveyn

If that works for you, that's fine. Just don't say you seek "truth" and then tell non-religious people they have a "weakness" because they care if their beliefs are true. I believe there is an objective reality because are perceptions predict and confirm it. (Unless you think you're a brain in a vat and no one else is real). I seek to construct the deepest and most accurate picture of this beautiful reality I can through testable knowledge, untainted by wishful thinking and emotion-driven beliefs.

As said before, Atheism is NOT polarized against religion. It is neutral. There are NO rallies, tenants, beliefs, claims, or anything else, other than the non-state of belief. Atheism does not define anything about a person except excluding them from the "theist" category.

Here, here. Though I don't know if you can say atheism is neutral with regard to religion, given that the atheist by definition thinks religion is categorically wrong.

& I'm surprised to hear slowmutant say he's interested in the benefits of a belief but not in whether its true.

Not true. Buddhism is often considered a religion, and worships no deities. Therefore, like Christianity is Monotheistic, Buddhism is Atheistic. The term "Atheism" just means belief (or disbelief as most put it) in no gods, deities or higher powers.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not closed-minded. I would argue it is more open-minded than theism. I have spent a life-time postulating and pondering all the possibilities and perceptions of reality, including the idea of God. However, I cannot "choose" what I believe. It is not closed-minded to wait for evidence before believing something; it is simple common sense. To believe something because of its utility (it's "use") is pure insanity. How cynical are you to propose we use beliefs, what we accept as true, to keep people in line? If that's not conformity, what is?



I would also add that an Atheist does not by definition think religion is wrong. (S)he simply doesn't think it's right. He may be completely "agnostic" about the subject. I however, think it is wrong.

Any criticism of belief without evidence is going to be seen as "belittling" or rude to a believer. But they are always ready to speak of non-believers as sad, closed-minded, selfish, unable to see the "truth". Perhaps you're unable to see your own condescension (which I will not complain about, since it's your right to do so).

Intelligence and religious belief are much more closely tied than intelligence and race and that's a simple fact. Beliefs actually have to do with the mind. Through compartmentalization of the mind, however, many very intelligent people still have their rational faculties cut off when it comes to religion.

Actually I am, My 'self' is the only thing that I can be absolutely certain to be real, anything else is not entirely real, or may be nothing like my perception of it, I mean, you appear to be just a bunch of characters on the screen from where I'm sitting from, but I assume you to be real, but, how can I be sure?


Curiosly, I'm noticing the terms 'emotional-driven' in the same sentence as 'beautiful reality'. I mean, "beautiful" does not appear to denote rationality, rather it denotes a subjective perception that triggers an emotional response.


Well, in technicality it could be said that a-theism, to be just lack of theism, but really, it's more than that, the initial concept of any belief, movement, philosophy or ideology, seem to take different directions, to expand their views or ideas, and to change their approach with time, as well expand their definitions, and most of the times I believe, the initial definition stays the same, even if there are some things added. Honestly, I don't buy simplistic arguments such as someone stating a technical definition from their origin, of a belief system or a movement, for the reason of supporting their own views and agendas, it's not enough to prove a point.

By the way, to say atheism to be neutral, it would be incorrect, stating that a form of atheism is neutral, that would make more sense, I mean, from things like the FSM and IPU, those things don't seem to be neutral, and they contradict the relation of atheism in general with neutrality.

Last edited by greenblue on 24 Jan 2009, 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.