thoughts on your religion

Originally posted by inimalist
ok Shakya, explain to me what benefit there is to discourse from interpreting "atheism" as a religion.

Your own semantic rhetorical devices would seem to make any definition of atheism seem foolish. In the same way that you said:

My point was that atheism is not anti-religious. If it was anti-religious, then any religion that had atheism as part of it would self destruct. You could argue that Buddhism has atheism as of its beliefs, and it has been around for thousands of years.

Originally posted by inimalist
it would be just as nonsensical for one religion to have an entire other religion as part of it.

Like Christianity has Judaism as a foundation, or Buddhism having Hinduism as a foundation?

Originally posted by inimalist
it really seems like you are just picking apart words here. what is your coherent doctrine of atheism that unites me and King Kandy on a spiritual level? Or even just, how do we better understand "atheism" by calling it a "religion" rather than a "social movement" or an "identity movement"?

Coherent doctrine of atheism? I have no idea what that would be. Maybe all religions are evil, and should be destroyed?

I have revised my point: alone, Atheism is not a religion. That would be like saying that salvation was a religion. However, I believe that a new religion is coming into existence before our eyes. This new religion is commonly known as Atheism, although it may gain a name some day. I don’t know if you and King Kandy are part of this ‘movement’, but I think not. I base this off of a simple observation: radicalized Atheists. Radicalized Atheism is a new phenomenon. In the past, when I would talk to an atheist, they were very open to religious ideas. Many of them are Buddhists, after all. But now, there are Atheists that hate all religions, and want to get rid of them, all. When I talk to these people, they get argumentative, and even aggressive. I think that atheism was something reserved for the intellectual, but now as atheism is becoming more popular, non- intellectuals who are easily radicalized are becoming Atheists. These people believe that all of the evil in the world are caused by religions. These people are not intellectuals, and in some cases not educated. They do what comes naturally to them; they strike out. Let me guess, you have never met these kind of Atheists. Of course, you haven’t, you are an atheist. You are one of them, and they are not going to get into your face.

My God is better than yours....

Originally posted by kgkg
My God is better than yours....

Or my non-god is better then yours. 😉

I will not talk about the kind of atheism that has no concept of a god, because none of them are on this forum.

Is there a reason why you are telling me that I am a liar? Why is it impossible to have a lack of belief in something that I know about?

"The people of your culture [that's us, btw] spend a great deal of time believing in something that may not exist, or disbelieving in something that may exist."

That basically sums up my position. I do not believe in it, but I do not disbelieve in it. Thus, when asked "do I believe in god" my answer is no. I do not believe in a god.

Surely you can understand that I'm NOT making the claim that there is no god. (Burden of proof and all that.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or my non-god is better then yours. 😉

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You seem very determined to tell me what I think.

Is there a reason why you are telling me that I am a liar? Why is it impossible to have a lack of belief in something that I know about?

There is a difference between disbelief and lack of concept.

For example: there is an animal called the blue-eared-caterpillar. Since it is fictional you had no concept of it until I mentioned it. However now that you have been informed of the idea you actively disbelieve my former claim that it is real (if not, you're a very poor atheist).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is a difference between disbelief and lack of concept.

For example: there is an animal called the blue-eared-caterpillar. Since it is fictional you had no concept of it until I mentioned it. However now that you have been informed of the idea you actively disbelieve my former claim that it is real (if not, you're a very poor atheist).

Originally posted by King Kandy
Would you say he now has an "anti-blue-eared-caterpillar" religion?

Of course not. But he does have the seed to form one if he wants to.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or my non-god is better then yours. 😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not. But he does have the seed to form one if he wants to.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You seem very determined to tell me what I think.

No. I’m far too busy telling you what I think.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Is there a reason why you are telling me that I am a liar?

Just because I don’t agree with you does not mean you are a liar. It is inappropriate to take it so personally. I don’t go around insulting people, but people, sometimes take offence to what I say. No offence was meant.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Why is it impossible to have a lack of belief in something that I know about?

It is like looking at a picture, and then trying to not have seen the picture. It is a fact that you cannot un-see a picture.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
"The people of your culture [that's us, btw] spend a great deal of time believing in something that may not exist, or disbelieving in something that may exist."

Rather something exists is not dependant on someone believing in it, and this is true for it’s retrograde.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That basically sums up my position. I do not believe in it, but I do not disbelieve in it. Thus, when asked "do I believe in god" my answer is no. I do not believe in a god.

When asked, I say yes, for the same reason you say no.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Surely you can understand that I'm NOT making the claim that there is no god. (Burden of proof and all that.)

Is that possible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like Christianity has Judaism as a foundation, or Buddhism having Hinduism as a foundation?

sure, as the historical origings, but the teachings of Judaesm are not a core of Christianity, they have their own take on many parts. It would be like saying Islam is just Christianity leveled up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Coherent doctrine of atheism? I have no idea what that would be. Maybe all religions are evil, and should be destroyed?

i certainly don't believe that

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have revised my point: alone, Atheism is not a religion. That would be like saying that salvation was a religion.

I like that

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I believe that a new religion is coming into existence before our eyes. This new religion is commonly known as Atheism, although it may gain a name some day. I don’t know if you and King Kandy are part of this ‘movement’, but I think not. I base this off of a simple observation: radicalized Atheists. Radicalized Atheism is a new phenomenon. In the past, when I would talk to an atheist, they were very open to religious ideas. Many of them are Buddhists, after all. But now, there are Atheists that hate all religions, and want to get rid of them, all. When I talk to these people, they get argumentative, and even aggressive. I think that atheism was something reserved for the intellectual, but now as atheism is becoming more popular, non- intellectuals who are easily radicalized are becoming Atheists. These people believe that all of the evil in the world are caused by religions. These people are not intellectuals, and in some cases not educated. They do what comes naturally to them; they strike out. Let me guess, you have never met these kind of Atheists. Of course, you haven’t, you are an atheist. You are one of them, and they are not going to get into your face.

I've met them in classes and such. Do you think "uninformed and ignorant loud mouth Christian" is a distinct "religion" though?

Originally posted by inimalist
i certainly don't believe that

Then you're not a Real True Atheist 😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you're not a Real True Atheist 😉

say that again and I will end you

Originally posted by inimalist
...
I've met them in classes and such. Do you think "uninformed and ignorant loud mouth Christian" is a distinct "religion" though?

Yes, they are called Baptists. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, they are called Baptists. 😂

ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiing

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I’m far too busy telling you what I think.

Just because I don’t agree with you does not mean you are a liar. It is inappropriate to take it so personally. I don’t go around insulting people, but people, sometimes take offence to what I say. No offence was meant.

It is like looking at a picture, and then trying to not have seen the picture. It is a fact that you cannot un-see a picture.

When asked, I say yes, for the same reason you say no.

Saying yes cannot fit the motivation as I understand it.

Would you please explain why it is that you say yes? Is it because it lessens the conflict that comes up when you meet a Christian, as happens quite often in the United States?

Is that possible?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

I didn't take offense I just got frustrated. When I read words saying that I do have a position on the deity, and that it is impossible not to do so I get frustrated. (Especially when those words are in direct opposition to words that I said myself indicating the opposite.)

I'm not sure that this analogy is valid. There is a difference between adopting a position and receiving information. Just as politicians "withhold judgment," it is possible to refuse to take a stance. For instance, I absolutely do not know enough about quantum mechanics to take a position about the Copenhagen interpretation or its alternatives (which I think includes the Many Worlds model?). This does not mean that I am entirely ignorant about the issue, as a tribesman would be about the God question. [/B]

Withholding judgment is different then the fundamental choice that most people make. I would not consider withholding judgment to be atheistic. I would consider that to be agnostic.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well that's silly. The reason that I say no is that it is no possible to rationally support the position that there is a God. I say no because it prevents me from making a claim I can't support.

Saying yes cannot fit the motivation as I understand it.

Would you please explain why it is that you say yes? Is it because it lessens the conflict that comes up when you meet a Christian, as happens quite often in the United States?

I spend many years as an agnostic. I would not make a judgment on rather there was or was not a god. I had spent my early years as a Christian, just to come to the realization that this was a false religion (at least the church I was raised in was false). Therefore, I went from a believer to an agnostic. Years later, I came to understand a fundamental truth: I needed to make a choice. In order for me to progress as an individual, I needed a religion. I needed this in the same way a painter needs to paint. I understand that this is not true for everyone, but I am also not alone. I’m guessing that you came to a point where you needed to choose, and saying no made the most sense to you. However, I made the other choice, because in my studies I discovered a different definition to the word God. If you ask me do I believe in the Christian god, I would tell you no. But I am not an atheist, because I know that God exists. What is this alternate definition? It’s found in a lot of older religions, like Hinduism, and Buddhism. In the Buddhism I practice, we would call this The Mystic Law of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. However, you may call it what you wish, and you do not have to believe in it or worship it. You are God, but so am I, and the rock, and the tree, and galaxy, and the multverse. Therefore, to sum up the answer: I, just like you, made the most logical choice based upon what I know.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Yes. I do it all the time.

Are you sure?

I think there's no such thing as agnostic. If you don't believe there is a God, you're an atheist.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think there's no such thing as agnostic. If you don't believe there is a God, you're an atheist.

But agnostics believe there maybe a god, but are not sure. Or they believe there may not be a god, but are not sure. This is a difficult needle to thread.