Non-belief

Post Reply New Topic

Putting it that way may be a bit cavalier though, considering the amount of people who've been butchered through history when ideologies broke ground and flew off to Kansas; even when you have very sobered ways of reconciling your faith or lack thereof, many issues like abortion or gay marriage will be a battle that you can't stay out of without being hypocritical to your beliefs - mainly because they're big issues with no happy medium where your either in or your out. Then again, by the very incorrigible nature of conflict in reality - it tends to feed more into that concept that we're here to be tested, not to have a utopia. The theist and atheist worlds interlace beautifully, at least in the sense that nothing is physically different, nothing has to be denied, hence the elegance of the problem - neither can disprove the other.

Don't underestimate the possible fury of a passionate collector of anything!


I don't find that, but then I don't belong to any particular church.


I don't buy that one. I agree with Buddha's statement, " Life is pain", but I think that's just the way it is, not a "test".


Yes, that is interesting. Like two sides of same coin.

Which "coin" seems to me just now to be "language". So long as believe in language will be able to have this kind of debate, about all the things which language makes us see; as Sand said the other day somewhere and which I thought was a very good short way of putting it, "language makes/enables us see things which aren't there", or something like that. Please correct me, Sand, if I am way off.

.

I agree with ouinon with the issue of justice, beauty and free-will relating to claims made by few atheists about ideas and beliefs lacking solid proof and being meaningless because of that, or to name religious beliefs, fairy tales, when in fact, issues about ethics, idealisms, activisms that few nonbelievers may defend would seem to fall into that as well, given the subjective nature of all them and the lack of empirical and objective basis for the nature of the existence of them, other than pure human constructs and concepts.

If the effect for Christians in their lives is meaningless, due to belief in "fairy tales", I would say that everything else, strictly non-physical should be taken as such.



well, anything dogmatic is questionable, and that is not exclusive for religions.

Justice and beauty are judgments derived from culture and differ radically from one culture to another. There is nothing whatsoever universal about either one. The term "non-physical" seems to be applied to anything not represented by a physical entity but all human perception is ultimately merely an arrangement of nervous responses whether sourced by a physical object or not. The more our sophisticated observational techniques are developed, the closer we come to the physical structures that create and maintain these so called non-physical entities.

The inclusion of "free will" as something indeterminate more or less is characteristic of the incapability of clear thinking in this submission.
It does not require much deep thought to comprehend that not only is free will an idiotic concept, it is totally useless and vitally dangerous in a world where all consequences in a decision must be accounted for in performing an action and these consequences result from the inevitable progress of our interactions with the universe. Whether our preconception of results is correct or not is irrelevant. We do the best we can.