BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 02:34 PM

Akenaton, from another thread:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 01:28 PM

I thought that rather amusing....but I don't recall seeing monkeys or chimp, (Chongo may be exempt), carrying wallets..and the article said it was don't sometimes for 'boom-boom'....my original statement said, ".....AND the only species on the planet who uses money to eat and stay alive!"

Now, if there were 'pimp-chimps' who controlled the money, or bananas for a fee, maybe they would have a series of high tech clubs to beat down the competition, to enforce the law of banana distribution...then, the competition would need their own set to not be bullied unnecessarily ...then the 'pimp-chimps' would want to take them all away from the peasant chimps....hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it???

GfS

*********************************************************************

AND FROM EARLIER ON THIS THREAD:

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 06:07 PM

Well, Jack, our founding fathers, wanted to be free of Europe's tyranny of both religion and their banking system and taxation...so, in drafting the Constitution, they rejected the Divine Right of Kings as being sovereign....and put forth that the PEOPLE are sovereign!!!!
..and they based their premise on the Christian/Judea idea that one's will, should NOT intrude over another person's rights...in other words, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'..... so your statement, "It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer." is somewhat interesting, because lawyers have used slick language and fraud, to remove us away from the premise of our founding fathers....but they sure get paid well for it!
How about the rest of us?

GFS

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 02:22 PM

guestlex, they have also done studies (if you want the link, I can get it, but it's long), where scientists and doctors ran people through an MRI cat-scan...people who were 'meditating' and/or 'spiritually mined', lit up portions of activity in larger portion the brain's frontal lobe. Music, by the way, also lights up more neuron activity, as well,...the other group they ran through were proclaimed 'atheists'. Those who were in a meditative state lit up similar to people who had taken psychedelics(Psilocybin mushrooms to be precise, and LSD). There seemed to be a 'difference' in the two types of people, because there was an element that the body had that triggered it. Because of the studies, they came up with name 'God Gene'. The atheists, therefore are said to 'just not get it', while the other group doesn't seem to figure out 'Why not?" The question has since arisen, as a result from the studies, are the people actually 'plugging into' a greater, 'power', collective consciousness, or is it all internal.
...as for me, I'm more interested in listening to those who are utilizing MORE of their brains, than less.
Feedback??

I'm sure the above paragraph has plenty of 'keywords' in which to right click, and check the web...if interested, there is a video link, I believe, from either the 'History Channel' or the Documentary Channel'.....I found it fascinating.....and it explains why the two just argue. Not sure if the 'lit' group, can 'unplug', or if the 'atheists' group could 'light up', if they exerted their wills.
Feedback??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 02:05 PM

A lot of atheists on this form believe the myth that "liberalism" shall make the world a better place.

They hold strictly to that belief in the face of all facts and reason.

I would suggest that belief in this religion is dafter and more dangerous than a belief in the goodness of Jesus Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,guestlex
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:33 PM

That wall of text is me unfortunately lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:31 PM

Actually Futwick expresses more or less some of where i going to come from.Been busy all day so going to just get this up as it is now late here,so might be sloppy.
               
         Most are arguing about peoples interpretations of a phenomena that mankind has been experiencing forever.Unfortunately not all human beings get to exp this.Millions have and do though..fact.It's obvious that it happens at death for us all...same process, go research it.What is it ?,it's real we all feel it but don't understand this need/pull.Those of us that haven't had it should not fear/ridicule those that have.
          To understand this better you have to think about the energy system of our bodies and how it interacts with the universe.The Eastern traditions have tried to label it as have most traditions.I like to use the kundalini system as a frame as it makes most sense.Something to use to show a structure and a pattern that is impossible to miss when seen without personal baggage,usually religion or fear/disgust of a judging God/Hell,insanity etc gets in the way.Could of used masonic or other traditions frame/tree ..same thing.
          When people use the term Enlightened in the spiritual sense it means the energy system of your body has fired up,strung itself together.The building blocks we all have had hints of, fire in unison.Symptoms are, electrical sensation at base of spine which uncurls runs up your spine to a ring of prickles/pins and needles but pleasurable round your head in a thin band,continuous electric-ish charge.This is why you hear a lot talking about angels in their hair,electrical/magnetic phenomena.All the time it is happening your skin and flesh burns then relieved by flushing rippling cool pleasurable goose/needles.Sort of agony and Ecstasy to it (run with that one)Then the third eye kicks in if it already hasn't, you exp universal lesson/teaching nobody else usually hears views unless in same state of being/consciousness.Lessons/teaching always culturally or personally based,as its you that the truth is for.Your experiences and what you need to understand this universal energetic truth.Some "YMMV" but thats it dumbed down.
             Then after a certain realisation the energy in the heart opens up and floods your bubble (energetic presence).Most instinctively are dropped to the knees in reverence,respect as you instinctively know what it is, and a pleasurable thick column of syncopated/snake like energy runs up the trunk of your body from the ground out of the top of your head cleaning and flushing is the only way to describe it.Then your consciousness jumps up into a higher state,the stark difference between the two states is as startling as two ball pein hammers being smashed together in front of your face.Then Bliss,oneness with everything all human desire gone.All fear gone.Clarity of a beautiful dawn morning,fresh,clean heaven on Earth,your also bathed in an unnatural white radiance that looks almost digital as it almost fizzes/radiates with energy/life..Some say this Enlightened/Natural state is man "pre fall" I find this hard to argue with.
          The state can last from moments to weeks depending on how each person deals with it.Give it or live it, most that try give it lose it due to resistance from their environment.Some apparently manage this but I have doubts.Again those that know YMMV
Enlightenment doesn't mean you know everything,Buddha couldn't strip an engine down,but would if studied sail to the top of the mechanics class,doubt cars would interest him like. (bad analogy) Discernment to dismiss chaff and zero in on relevant due to universal perspective.Doesn't always go right either Manson is Enlightened-ish look at the mess he got himself involved in and the tragedy his energy/influence caused,through self/ego and no discipline.Most of the great military conquerers in history were firing off chakras/energy center's without the crown chakra/capstone/gatekeeper/heavens gate/stairway etc open/negotiated.
             OBE's,third eye spiritual exp,flow etc are not Enlightenment but part of the journey.Study the kundalini dont even practice any of it,just study it then look at all other religions/traditions then you see it intellectually.Had to cover this again as most of the angst comes from fear based on misunderstanding others interpretations of this process, and part process misunderstandings.Passion to "right" things forgetting the cause and effect universal law.Do good cause bad,do bad cause good in response,best do nothing just pass through, witness, leave no holes, replace what you take sort of deal,and we need very little for happiness/survival in reality... a huge part of universal message they ALL get/give.
                What were the greats of the past saying.Here is a few strung together who were all talking about the same thing.Non personal energetic God that has wisdom.Accessing it through selfless love, not human desire, deep love for lover, or family protective deep love, but something higher and universally selfless and eternal.St Francis,Aquinas ,Christ,Buddha,Krishna,Tesla,Reich and too many Artists and Scientists,Thinkers,Philosophers to list.All of our Greats, Giants were tuned to this for periods.Most of these have had the kundalini exp (or part kundalini) to gain this perspective of the non human personal, energy God and how to tune to it.They can only express this gnosis in the confines of their tradition,society,peers and their own worldly human way.This universal energetic truth that reverberates through everything has no human concern in the petty way we view it.We cannot be given this message any better than the multitude of ways it's been delivered.
               Another obstacle the sexual human being has to get past:As a hetro, spiritually affected ppl always made me queasy,once I understood that in a true spiritual state all human desire is gone. Many say its redirected life/force desire channeled differently that is a huge part of the kundalini deal,this too is hard to argue against and explains a lot..When these People exp this unselfish desire-less state of that kind it is not weakness, they are prob the most energetically,constitutionally powerful wisest beings that walk.Hence the religions/traditions who practice celibacy.No discipline sends some mad and depraved, through not zone-ing/praying/meditating right or often enough, just stopping having sex on will power alone without understanding why, and how to let their body use the energy.
                  If what I suggest others have understood is true and becomes a given how do we give this to our kids in the future.Look at the mess Religion has made,my thinking is we don't give them any baggage or interpretations at all.We let Science and "this" come together and study it, don't tinker, just see what stops this energetic process from happening to all of us.Children will grow and like a second puberty it should just happen,you don't need to tell a flower how to flower nature does it.Lets figure out why millions do and millions don't and I think social conditioning represses us energetically.Bad food and water might, wrong frequencies might,if everything reverberates/vibrates thoughts and deeds of negative intent might be a block.I don't know, but to understand God more the Electric uni theory has to be researched more starting with our bodies imo and millions of others opinion, past and present.
             We have to understand that what we have been told about never understanding it whilst in this form, is frankly obvious considering how little we see and know.Even the most Enlightened with gnosis only know to a point.There is still the loving energy just ahead to tune to.So if God is a non personal Energetic God that all negative vibrations (sin) gets burned away the nearer you get.As all say no matter how much of a good life you have lead when this light wash comes in, you run from it's purity, all traditions say shame floods/burns your body and it is a give and take of letting go and letting it in to flush/flesh you out.Truly humbling as you see yourself and every human and our "fall" and how things should be.Again dumbed down but thats the gist, you see and feel your soul and the energetic jail you have imprisoned it in.
             So Atheists and all religions, traditions are going to get this either at death (or in life),as even the bible says you wont get to heaven preaching and from your good works,it's the purity/energy awareness thats in us all that survives physical death and it witnesses all this earthly madness,until connected to, and everything then makes sense they say.
             One final thought on the kundalini, a person with no religious baggage has a choice depending on their slant.During the third eye exp part they can go Christian.Buddhist,Mormon,Space aliens,Fairies etc once past this bit,and it has been negotiated the universal truth is given and it is always the same.Eternal,love,karmic type deal.I buy it, too much evidence.
    Sorry its long but could've been longer, if I second guessed the lazy thinkers and religiously conditioned and qualified everything.

This off the top off my head in a "yeh but have you ever thought about it this way deal".I know, I know nothing but also know neither does anyone else,really.So gave up giving this real thought space a while ago as not many believe anything without personal exp. Just like I was but I witnessed it and have heard too many unconnected witness testimonies with no axes or bibles or dogma's to grind.Thousands and thousands describe the kundalini symptoms all from different traditions from all corners, so it's real and it's where our real wisdom comes from,and always has.If you haven't had this then getting angsty doesn't help us, lets try understand.God kundalini are just words name them something else if it helps.
            What is of no use is banding this process some have as deluded,or mentally ill, although it does send some mad,so kids trying to open their third eyes on youtube is a worry.Secret societies hiding this and using the gnosis to control is a worry.Leaders going off energetically half cocked is a worry.We get to grips with this, as we are going to do to some degree over the coming decades,most of our troubles will start falling away.So I'm in and a belieber just not of a old nasty jealous lunatic father that needs his offspring to die in agony.Although do believe that Christ beat death and the message he gave us is physically real,just impossible to imagine understand fully from our state of being.

We could know more when science sees the wall it is going to hit and has to look at what we have instinctively known from year dot.We are mind body and spirit then we birth into something else.Cool or what.Not trying to change anyones mind just pointing out the madness of arguing over other peoples personal interpretations of something that cannot be fully understood without experiencing it.If it is a two way give and take process is this why faith is important,if no faith and your energetically closed are you the full vessel the bible talks about,how do we become energetically empty vessel's.By clearing the mind first then the rest kicks in,just very hard to do.Buddha nearly died trying to figure it out,and others it just invites itself in so to try understand is madness so I gave up.Plus too many tunes to learn.So if we split mankind into deluded and non deluded depending on thinking something is prob there,I'm with the deluded of all faiths.
             Last thought I used to despair at Billy Graham listen to him now,universal God ...dogma gone, Russel Brand from celeb world is latest. Unlike the much maligned David icke Mr Brand has had full deal and joking about being the new Jesus,shook him up for a while but now processed it,not my taste but same process..scary isn't it, or not, liberating I think. Peace n that

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 09:18 PM

But you didn't bother to give attribution and he got it from you. He was truthful and acting in good faith.

There was no lack of clarity and he was indeed acting in good faith, as indeed was I, and we have cleared it up.

And he did not address you at 1:22. How do you know he was talking to you? How would anyone else?

You really do need to look back carefully and absorb contexts. The post at 1.22 did not specifically mention me, but it didn't really need to, as all the three points within asterisks in that post are direct quotes from me. My issue was with the last two lines of that post, which the post implies came from me, which they did not.

You really are being a bit of an arse, aren't you, Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 09:08 PM

Thank you, Futwick. It's the sort of thing I have managed to do meself on a number of occasions. Things did get a bit complicated when a lump of one of my posts got chopped off. I did correct that as soon as I could. It isn't a big deal. At least, it wasn't. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:54 PM

Steve,

If you refuted that definition of atheism rather than ascribed to it then I have misunderstood you and I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:53 PM

"That was something I had quoted from someone else's post in order to comment on it - yours, I believe?"

But you didn't bother to give attribution and he got it from you. He was truthful and acting in good faith.

And he did not address you at 1:22. How do you know he was talking to you? How would anyone else?



Take some responsibility for you own BS please.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:42 PM

At 1.22 pm on my timeline, futwick quoted a couple of things I said, then, addressing me, he said: It's what you posted earlier--that matter is the fundamental constituent of the universe and that everything else, including consciousness, arises from it epiphenomenally. You posted that as a (false) corollary to atheism, i.e. to be an atheist, I must believe that because it follows from having no belief in a god. THAT is a belief for which there is not a shred of evidence which a subscriber must buy on faith alone.

I did not post that stuff. In fact, I haven't a bloody clue what he's on about. It wasn't me. Simple as that.

At 1.30pm on my timeline, futwick posted this:

***Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.***

Going back to this definition of atheism as given to us by Steve Shaw...

That definition was not given by me. Not only did I not give it, I strongly refuted it. That was something I had quoted from someone else's post in order to comment on it - yours, I believe?

Jack, futwick and I can sort this out. Your snide and inaccurate intervention is as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit and serves to make you look an even bigger twat than we all know you already are. Why not contemplate a period of silence. You could profitably spend some of that time trying to extricate your foot from your mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:49 PM

>>>Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:23 PM

Futwick, there are two recent posts of yours down this thread that ascribe things to me that someone else must have said. It definitely wasn't me. On my timeline the posts in question are at 1.22pm and 1.30pm. Please would you check more carefully who said what before you post. <<<

I could not find mention of your name at 1:22.

I am developing a couple of scientific hypotheses.

1. Mr Steve Shaw, does not pay adequate attention to what he himself posts let alone anyone else.

2. Mr. Shaw, does not read posts with due care before he criticizes people.

I predict that he will continue to exhibit these behaviours. The lab is this forum. The hypotheses will be tested by observation. Anyone is free to collect data through observation. You can post it here. please include links to his posts and the header. "Shaw hypotheses observation." Thank you for participating in the scientific process.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:44 PM

It is one thing to be an atheist, and another thing altogether to be a complete materialist. In between there is, for example, the position that spiritual existence is the source of individual views and thought itself and that one is wholly and personally responsible for his/her own condition. No theism involved, but not a hard materialist position, either. And this is one example out of scores of possible positions that are neither theist nor purely mechanistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:38 PM

I think there is a high probability that futwick, got that definition here.

Whose fault is it that he said her got it from you?

>>>Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 26 Mar 13 - 07:11 PM

Dearie me, I have got things slighlty arse about face here. That first sentence I referred to missed out on my copy 'n' paste. Yertis, as we say in Cornwall, along with the missing follow-up bits.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.


So the piece of poppycock I referred to was this bit: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:28 PM

Oh, and I suppose it is the bloody Godbotherers who ensured B&Q was shut when I drove 8 miles to get some light fittings today.

Yeah well I've got no sympathy cos you coulda gone yesterday instead of arseing around at Hillsborough, innit. Tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:23 PM

Futwick, there are two recent posts of yours down this thread that ascribe things to me that someone else must have said. It definitely wasn't me. On my timeline the posts in question are at 1.22pm and 1.30pm. Please would you check more carefully who said what before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 06:34 PM

Yes GfS, lawyers write briefs to SCOTUS. For that purpose they are generally preferable to scientists.

"Energy may be a form of matter." has someone changed the definition of matter and not told me?

nope.

>>>
mat·ter
[mat-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2.
physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3.
something that occupies space.
4.
a particular kind of substance: coloring matter.
5.
a situation, state, affair, or business: a trivial matter. <<<

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 06:22 PM

Marxism is a political belief based on economic theory. Not all atheists subscribe to it.
It doesn't define atheism any more than Bugs Bunny defines rabbits. (Happy Easter):)

Remember also that Ayn Rand followers, it they are devout, purport to be atheists as well.

Jack, some scientists are claiming that "nothing" or empty space is matter that is of a quantum nature and that we can't see it. Energy may be a form of matter.

One could argue that dogmatism is of a generalized "religious" nature and therefore
Bolshevik Communism might be loosely defined as "religious" since its adherents
have a dogmatic devotion to it.

The logical fallacy prevails. You can't prove a negative. You can argue in favor of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny but if you can't prove it, it becomes an irrational belief.

Does it serve a social purpose? Maybe sometimes it does. Some more enlightened religious groups like the Quakers or Unitarians (many who are atheists) do important social work as do other offshoots of established religions. I, for one, am sympathetic to Liberation Theology, anathema to the Pope and Catholic hierarchy.

Atheists are atheists because there are so many different kinds. They are generally opposed to dogmatism with proof wherever it rears its ugly head. BTW, there are
different "gods" that Christians and other faiths believe in as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 06:07 PM

Well, Jack, our founding fathers, wanted to be free of Europe's tyranny of both religion and their banking system and taxation...so, in drafting the Constitution, they rejected the Divine Right of Kings as being sovereign....and put forth that the PEOPLE are sovereign!!!!
..and they based their premise on the Christian/Judea idea that one's will, should NOT intrude over another person's rights...in other words, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'..... so your statement, "It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer." is somewhat interesting, because lawyers have used slick language and fraud, to remove us away from the premise of our founding fathers....but they sure get paid well for it!
How about the rest of us?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 05:57 PM

Matter is a very poor choice of words. Energy is not matter and it is visible in in daily life. Space exists but it is not matter. It is basically the absence of matter. Scientists believe several particles which are not technically "matter" in neutrinos, tachyons, gravitons. Is Dark Matter, matter? Certainly "Dark energy" is not.

That is the American Atheist definition used to argue the position of that organization to the Supreme Court of the United States. IMHO the word "matter" is confusing and should be deleted.

It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer.


http://atheists.org/atheism

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 03:04 PM

Futwick, I'm not sure, from your post what you are saying, nor to whom you are addressing. could you make that a bit more clear.
Thank you.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 02:53 PM

"certainly not by Marxists."
Nor by anti-Marxists evidently
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 02:32 PM

Let me put this another way:

Atheism has NOTHING to do with whether or not matter is the fundamental constituent of the universe--a Marxist position, look it up. Atheism has NOTHING to do with whether consciousness arises from matter.

When we get passed borrowing cheap, erroneous assumptions from what should be a dead, defunct political philosophy to any thinking person could we then get back to actual atheist refutations of pro-god arguments which is not only the bread and butter of atheism--it is the ENTIRETY of atheism. Everything else is Marxist bullshit that can't be proven one way or another--certainly not by Marxists.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 02:22 PM

Marxism is a prescribed system for society. Atheism is just about everything according to this and other threads.... For me, it is evolving from the need for superstition, but to someone else it is the theory of fish gill wave propagation, or the art of opening a tin of tuna.

Futwick, just before some of the more learned posters explain things, perhaps an idiot like me can help you here. Molecules to atoms to quarks to waves of probability to Heisenberg getting pissed off at Schrodinger.. You seem to be mistaking this for a belief system, whereas it is no more than making sense of theory and test. Religion would defend the fundamental aspects against any future testing, whereas science allows you to dismiss the ether, dismiss Greek four elements, dismiss many things Einstein held to be fact for many years in fact.

Religion has a habit of sustaining myth, hence it is dismissed at any intellectual level and has no place in discussions over how the universe works.

Oh, and I suppose it is the bloody Godbotherers who ensured B&Q was shut when I drove 8 miles to get some light fittings today. Hawking doesn't interfere with church services, clappy happy types shouldn't interfere with the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 01:30 PM

***Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.***

Going back to this definition of atheism as given to us by Steve Shaw, I have this to ask:

How does atheism differ from Marxism?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 01:22 PM

**Well, any atheist worth his or her salt will admit that our conviction is unprovable. Not "beliefs" by the way. Beliefs don't enter into this for atheists. Unfortunately, that completely nullifies your final point about being no different from religious people.**

If an atheist tells me that the fundamental constituent of the universe is matter, he first has to tell me what matter is. He can't because science can't. Objects are just clouds of molecules. Molecules are clouds of certain atoms. Atoms are clouds of what? Physicists say an atom is is made up of particles that are really waves. Waves of what? "Waves of chance." What is that? So ultimately, we don't know what matter is but you would have us believe it is the fundamental constituent of the universe. Isn't that not terribly different than saying the universe was made by a mysterious spook in the sky whose ways and means we don't really know anything about? Same dogma, slightly different rhetoric.

**There is no equal and opposite equivalence between what I think and what a believer believes in.**

But couldn't a believer could say the same about another believer?

**That has been said so many times that it's getting hard to know what to think about people who fail to take it on board.**

Not really. I agree with atheists when they say that non-belief in a god is not in itself a belief. That's a common believer tactic. It's not your non-belief I wish to address simply because I agree with it. It's what you posted earlier--that matter is the fundamental constituent of the universe and that everything else, including consciousness, arises from it epiphenomenally. You posted that as a (false) corollary to atheism, i.e. to be an atheist, I must believe that because it follows from having no belief in a god. THAT is a belief for which there is not a shred of evidence which a subscriber must buy on faith alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 01:06 PM

You may find this rather interesting...


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 12:36 PM

Are Atheists really Atheists or...----Athenians-- spelled really badly?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 12:27 PM

Yep I'd better live up to it..

Here we go.

And for my next impersonation, Jesus on a Rubber Cross.

Whooooaaaa!!!!!!   HHHeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!   Whoooooaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 12:19 PM

They need to realize that they hold unprovable beliefs no differently than religious people

Well, any atheist worth his or her salt will admit that our conviction is unprovable. Not "beliefs" by the way. Beliefs don't enter into this for atheists. Unfortunately, that completely nullifies your final point about being no different from religious people. There is no equal and opposite equivalence between what I think and what a believer believes in. That has been said so many times that it's getting hard to know what to think about people who fail to take it on board.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 12:00 PM

Oh well: jerk on, jerk off...

Ah , hrrrmmmm, that is, er, I meantersay...

blushblushblusahblushblus........〠

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:57 AM

**I get your point, though it seems that you are saying that All Muslim societies are less pleasant places to live than all Christian ones.

That is something that would be nearly impossible for anyone to know.**

You could hold up Joseph Kony as an example of Christianity at its worst but you would also be hard pressed to find many examples that extreme. Unfortunately, the same is not true of Islam. And, for the record, I am not religious nor belong to any religion nor have any use for religion except as an example of how not to get through life.

**I believe that from your point of view the Christian societies you have experienced are better places for you to live than Muslim ones.**

From my experience, yes. Others could disagree. Qatar's supposed to be pretty nice. I've never lived there.

**Do you think it is a matter of bigotry on their part. Lumping all religious people in together? Is it like some people in Britain who think everyone in the USA drives a pickup truck with a gun rack?**

They need to realize that they hold unprovable beliefs no differently than religious people and that their championing of science is often just as selective. Saying consciousness is a product of matter does not seem to be in agreement with Quantum Mechanics which holds that consciousness holds a fundamental sway over matter. In fact, Eastern religions seem correct to conclude that matter is an appearance, an illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,guestlex
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:39 AM

You have three threads going all mixed in together.What's the protocol to dodge the drama, as impossible to debate unless you can address points relevant from all threads.Do you realy want another thread on this.Anyway going to stick spellchecker on this fresh install and try have at some of Steve's debate..not argument.People should breathe the tension if any out before a response, or clarity goes bye bye imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:16 AM

I am only talking about three. I'll leave Hitchens out as he is not around to defend or explain himself. Dawkins, Shaw and Musket are jerks

Gosh, I think I might be feeling honoured. What illustrious company! Hope you can live up to it, Musket. And I bet you're bloody jealous now, Michael!

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:16 AM

"Dawkins is a jerk. Shaw is a jerk. When it comes to this subject at least, Musket too.

Oi, that's not fair! Why isn't Michael a jerk too! Not fair! Boo hoo! "

You work a lot harder to alienate people than he does. Enjoy the fruits of your labour! Revel in them!

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:14 AM

Futwick,

I get your point, though it seems that you are saying that All Muslim societies are less pleasant places to live than all Christian ones.

That is something that would be nearly impossible for anyone to know.

I believe that from your point of view the Christian societies you have experienced are better places for you to live than Muslim ones.

Do you think it is a matter of bigotry on their part. Lumping all religious people in together? Is it like some people in Britain who think everyone in the USA drives a pickup truck with a gun rack?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:13 AM

Dawkins is a jerk. Shaw is a jerk. When it comes to this subject at least, Musket too.

Oi, that's not fair! Why isn't Michael a jerk too! Not fair! Boo hoo!

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 11:01 AM

"Jack according to your calculations, Christians must be jerks too."

Not Christians in general, some Christians. Joe Offer is a leading Christin voice on this forum. He is not a jerk.

Not Atheists. All atheists are not jerks. Most are not jerks.

I am only talking about three. I'll leave Hitchens out as he is not around to defend or explain himself. Dawkins, Shaw and Musket are jerks when it comes to this topic. I am saying that they are no better than the Christians they complain about. I am NOT saying they are as bad as the worst of those who calling themselves Christian. I AM saying that they are stooping to that same smug, dogmatic, superior, and condescending mode of interaction exhibited by the most irritating of "Christians".

I put "Christians" in quotes because I find it difficult to reconcile engaging in such behavior in the name of Christ, according to the Gospels taught the opposite.

I think, Stringsinger, I hope, we understand each other on this topic now.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 10:49 AM

***Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.***

Prove it.

**Atheists don't stop at criticizing Christianity. All religion is suspect because it is based on mythology not science.**

This SHOULD be true but, of course, it isn't. I've had atheists get really pissed at me for saying that I'd rather live in a Christian society than a Muslim one (I've lived in both). THEY'RE BOTH JUST AS BAD!!! they yelled. No. They're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 10:36 AM

Jack according to your calculations, Christians must be jerks too. They think that anyone who doesn't believe as they are deluded. Dawkins uses the term delusion in a scientific way. In a sense we are all deluded in some regard. We all have are pet delusions, one is that we think we know everything and are qualified in some way to make all kinds of judgements.

Christians are plenty mean and are cruel, small minded and divisive as much as anyone else.

Here is an article that shed light on the problem.


Has dogmatism become the new religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 10:12 AM

The title was a provocation. It was deliberately insulting. Dawkins is a jerk. Shaw is a jerk. When it comes to this subject at least, Musket too. Militant Atheists are jerks.

It follows a logic similar to, Christians are mean so lets be mean, Christians are bigoted so lets give them some of their own medicine! Christians are dogmatic, so lets be unwavering in our accusations of that.

It is cruel, small minded and divisive, and the media battles it generates are entertaining and sell books.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 09:31 AM

"Are Atheists really Atheists"
If they don't believe in a god - yes they are.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that all Christians aren't Christians (certainly as far as Christian teaching and ethics are concerned)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 09:29 AM

Well, Jack, in this particular [assuming your statistic to be valid], ⅔ of the world are, extremely strongly arguably, 'deluded'; Pirsig's axiom, and Dawson's perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek citation of it, constituted just a bit of wit and irony and satire, you know, not the postulation of an incontrovertible truth. We [if I may so put it pronominally] do not go in for incontrovertible truths.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:41 AM

He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".[4]

He is calling 2/3rds of the world insane.

Who is deluded?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Skeptic
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:33 AM

Big Science is just as big a fraud as Big Religion ever was--it's just taken over the rackets-all universities that used to be bastions of religion and philosophy are now the bastions of "science"--making the same promises--"The Miracle of Science" promises to cure all disease, solve social problems, eliminate hunger, but look around--there's just as much suffering as ever. The only problems "Big Science" really cares about are budget cuts.

"Science" claims to be logical and rational, but God help the logical, rational scientist, who points out that the research of the other 99% is full of holes, and that the current theories are hogwash.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:18 AM

I can think of no earthly or heavenly reason why that popped up twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:17 AM

A delusion is a strongly-held belief or conviction which ignores all the powerful evidence against it. If you believe in God you have chosen to believe something for which there is no evidence for and a massive amount of evidence against. The word "delusion" for believers in God is, therefore, perfectly valid, though, admittedly, provocative. But you can't really address the matter of believers getting it wrong without being provocative. I think there is nothing wrong with his use of the word. Of course, if you mistakenly hold to the view that "delusion" can have only a medical meaning, you would disagree. But you'd be deluded in sticking to that, as the use of the word in its non-medical sense is widespread and accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:17 AM

A delusion is a strongly-held belief or conviction which ignores all the powerful evidence against it. If you believe in God you have chosen to believe something for which there is no evidence for and a massive amount of evidence against. The word "delusion" for believers in God is, therefore, perfectly valid, though, admittedly, provocative. But you can't really address the matter of believers getting it wrong without being provocative. I think there is nothing wrong with his use of the word. Of course, if you mistakenly hold to the view that "delusion" can have only a medical meaning, you would disagree. But you'd be deluded in sticking to that, as the use of the word in its non-medical sense is widespread and accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Frug
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 08:05 AM

Atheists are just beyond belief!!

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 07:18 AM

Dawkin's deliberately uses an incorrect definition of the word delusion. He uses it in a derogatory way to empower the ignorant, childish, taunting buffoons of his movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 03:33 AM

Hello Sailor!
So far up your own arse that you judge others by your own standard again?

The God Delusion questions whether a belief system is needed and scrutinises the existing fantasies. Either your copy has extra chapters I haven't seen or it doesn't really advocate an alternative belief system does it?

Come on, be honest. You are spouting off what you want rather than what you observe. Don't fret, that alone makes you good at blind faith.