Dear Everyone...atheists,agnostics, religious, spiritual, etc. people

qijino1236 · December 5, 2011

Dear Everyone...atheists,agnostics, religious, spiritual, etc. people, ...I believe you can fly.

Think of a logical thought sometimes or don't and then think of a happy thought sometimes or don't; you exist and are free to think of both or one or none.

"To entertain a thought without accepting it is the mark of an educated mind" - Aristotle

I believe that beliefs should never be altered even slightly through our Mind AND mouth. Beliefs should only be changed

through Mind and ears OR Mind and eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch. That doesn't mean we can't speak of our

beliefs...it means that when we speak of our beliefs that our voice should never be intended to alter another persons beliefs. Others can hear

what we are saying when we speak and celebrate our beliefs, but that doesn't mean your voice should impose on anyone else's mind.

When you speak of your beliefs to ears and eyes and nose and touch rather than imposing your beliefs through your mouth you may or may not alter the listener's (or observer's or feeler's or smeller's) mind and vise versa. When someone hears a pastor speaking in church we are hearing his beliefs through Mind and ears and eyes. And what is wrong with that? If the pastor uses his mouth to guilt or condemn his congregation through his mouth I think there is something wrong with that. Using your mouth to alter beliefs I believe is an infringement on human rights. Using your mouth to share your beliefs is not(unless it happens to infringe on human rights...see Note 1)

Note 1: "Notice I did not say that it wasn't sometimes wrong to for beliefs to be changed through Mind and ears OR Mind or eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch. Sometimes when someone changes their beliefs through Mind and ears OR Mind or eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch it can be wrong and infringe on human rights. Example: A Pastor says: "I believe all gays and lesbians and pansexuals and panromantics are going to go to hell". But I believe even in that situation you should not alter that pastor's beliefs through your Mind and mouth. You should alter the pastor's beliefs through the pastor's Mind and ears OR Mind and eyes OR Mind and nose OR Mind and touch. Do not get angry at the pastor...simply share your beliefs that "gays and lesbians and pansexuals and pansexuals are not going to go to hell" and maybe the pastor will listen instead of getting angry.

Let all people you meet believe what they believe and share your beliefs with them. But don't do it in a way that makes that person feel bad about what they believe. Using science is a way to find out the truth about the universe. When something is a scientific fact it is a truth found out by observing the physical universe. Science is by definition observable truth. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs , but beliefs and religions and theories and hypotheses are not observable truths so no one should impose them on other people unless the other person decides what they believe is what they want to believe. Atheism is a belief just as agnosticism is a belief just as Christianity is a belief. To Chistians and muslims and scientologists and agnostics and whoever is not an atheist ..do not call atheists non-believers because they do believe in something. They believe that what they think is god doesn't exist. The fact that god doesn't exist is not a scientific observable fact so it is a belief. To Chistians and muslims and scientologists and atheists and whoever is not an agnostic.. do not call agnostics non-believers because they do believe in something. They believe that they don't know whether (what they think god is) exists or not. And to atheists that try to impose their ideas on others in a negative way through their mouths at christians or muslims or scientologists or zoraoastrianist or whoever, please do not do it, because atheism is a belief also. God has not been scientifically falsified. The overall message though is this...If you haven't scientifically proven god or you haven't scientifically proven god doesn't exist then it being an atheist or a non-atheist is a belief not observable truth. So do not impose non observable truths on anyone but please believe in those non-observable truths with all your heart and listen to everyone elses non observable truths with aristotles quote in mind and maybe you will surprise yourself and come to accept another's non-observable truth as your own. Or perhaps accept all non-observable truths that don't infringe in human rights(happy thoughts).

michel123456 · December 5, 2011

That is called tolerance. The first thing children should learn at school.

doG · December 5, 2011

....because atheism is a belief also.

No! It is a lack of belief. I am an atheist, not because of a belief that there is/are no god(s), just a lack of belief that there are any. Truths? There are no truths until there are facts to support them as truths.

iNow · December 5, 2011

Is not believing in Santa Clause a "belief system?"

Is not believing in unicorns a "belief system?"

Is not believing in astrology a "belief system?"

Is not believing in the tooth fairy, or Zeus, or flying pigs, or any of the other countless ideas laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology a "belief system?"

If not, then why is the non-belief in the Abrahamic god a "belief system?"

Hint: It's not.

michel123456 · December 5, 2011

No! It is a lack of belief. I am an atheist, not because of a belief that there is/are no god(s), just a lack of belief that there are any.

Which means Qijino pushed his argument too far. He shouldn't decide for you what you think you are.

But don't be fooled, he will not change his mind. For him you are a believer in no-god.

Edited December 5, 2011 by michel123456

qijino1236 · December 5, 2011

I did not mean it that way I simply meant to respect others beliefs. I must respect your beliefs also and I do. I respect that you are an atheist even though I am an agnostic. But when I said the words "non-observable truths" I did not mean it as an actual truth I meant it to be an exact synonym to the word belief. AKA ....dog = dog is to "non-observable truth" = "belief". And since no one has scientifically falsified god, atheism is a belief, or a theory or whatever you would like to call it also. And since no one has scientifically falsified this claim "I don't know if there is a god" agnosticism is a belief also. Therefore I would never impose my agnosticism on you. And by the way, not everybody defines god the same way.

iNow · December 5, 2011

So, basically you've just yammered on a bit and repeated the assertion which was previously shown to be false. Sorry, but no. Non-belief is not itself a belief, and repeating an invalid claim without offering any additional support or detail doesn't suddenly made it valid.

qijino1236 · December 5, 2011

So, basically you've just yammered on a bit and repeated the assertion which was previously shown to be false. Sorry, but no. Non-belief is not itself a belief, and repeating an invalid claim without offering any additional support or detail doesn't suddenly made it valid.

That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground...and if you insist on calling atheism a non-belief then I will respect that and say this. People should respect others beliefs and non-beliefs. I think you are thinking that I am trying making a negative connotation of atheism. I am not trying to do that. I am trying to put a positive connotation for all people's beliefs or non-beliefs.

When I say non-observable "truth" I mean this - It is not possible in this point in observable science to say that "there is no god in any forms" is a scientific fact since god has not been observed through a scientific lens. Do you disagree?

That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground...and if you insist on calling atheism a non-belief then I will respect that and say this. People should respect others beliefs and non-beliefs. I think you are thinking that I am trying making a negative connotation of atheism. I am not trying to do that. I am trying to put a positive connotation for all people's beliefs or non-beliefs.

When I say non-observable "truth" I mean this - It is not possible in this point in observable science to say that "there is no god in any forms" is a scientific fact since god has not been observed through a scientific lens. Do you disagree?

I used to call myself and atheist for 2 years but I realized that what I thought was atheism was actually not.

Edited December 5, 2011 by qijino1236

md65536 · December 5, 2011

Atheism in general isn't specific enough to exclude either a belief in the non-existence of deities, or a lack of belief. I think both sides in this thread have used the word atheism in an over-specific way to exclude one or the other.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit, and more-so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Positive_vs._negative

If you want to exclude one side or the other, use more specific terminology.

qijino1236 · December 5, 2011

That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground...and if you insist on calling atheism a non-belief then I will respect that and say this. People should respect others beliefs and non-beliefs. I think you are thinking that I am trying making a negative connotation of atheism. I am not trying to do that. I am trying to put a positive connotation for all people's beliefs or non-beliefs.

When I say non-observable "truth" I mean this - It is not possible in this point in observable science to say that "there is no god in any forms" is a scientific fact since god has not been observed through a scientific lens. Do you disagree?

I used to call myself and atheist for 2 years but I realized that what I thought was atheism was actually not in my mind. That may not be true of you though(you may define your atheism in a completely different way than I did). The only thing is though to do is respect your beliefs and not try to convert you...but just simply talk to you. That is what meant about other's(you and others) Mind and eye OR the Mind and the ears OR the Mind and the nose OR the Mind and the touch...etc earlier.

Actually my agnosticism conflicts with some definitions of what agnosticism is so sometimes I see myself as a (cultural) Christian Agnostic Atheist

But I believe it is closest to agnosticism so I usually just call myself an agnostic.

iNow · December 6, 2011

Okay. I'll be gentle.

That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground...

That's fine, but you have yet to demonstrate there is any truth whatsoever in what you're saying, whether it's observable or not.

People should respect others beliefs and non-beliefs.

Why? You see, I disagree. I don't have to respect your beliefs. If you believed that murdering infants would end global warming, must I respect that? If you believed that raping 12 year old boys would end poverty, must I respect that? If you believed that burning puppies alive would result in world peace, must I respect that?

No. We shouldn't respect other peoples beliefs, especially when they're ridiculous (like belief in god, or those just mentioned above).

What I do respect is your RIGHT to believe whatever you want. That is fine. That is your freedom. That is your choice. Your beliefs belong to you, and I respect that, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves. Do you agree with this, or do you think I am mistaken? Should I respect the beliefs of a person who thinks that pouring acid on a young girls face is the correct path to purity and piety? I suspect you understand what I'm getting at here, and I hope you realize that the same approach applies to people's beliefs in deities.

I think you are thinking that I am trying making a negative connotation of atheism.

Not at all. You can connote anything you want. I'm simply correcting something you've been saying which is mistaken. Atheism is NOT a belief or system of beliefs. It is the lack of acceptance of someone else's beliefs, specifically as pertains to god(s).

Atheism is a non-belief... a non-belief in god or gods. It literally means a-theist, or not-theist. It's the exact opposite of a belief. It's the rejection of a belief.

As I shared in my first reply here... Non-belief in unicorns is not a belief. Non-belief in leprechauns is not a belief. Non-belief in santa claus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and the flying spaghetti monster are not themselves beliefs, and it's not any different with the non-belief in the abrahamic god called Yahweh.

My lack of belief is not equivalent to belief, regardless of how many times you continue to assert otherwise.

It is not possible in this point in observable science to say that "there is no god in any forms" is a scientific fact since god has not been observed through a scientific lens. Do you disagree?

I tend to agree, yes. However, nobody here has said "there is no god in any forms." For many reasons, that is not provable. What I do see, however, is the basic stance that there is ALMOST CERTAINLY no god... It cannot be proven, but it is highly likely the most valid position.

The basic stance is that there is no good reason to accept the existence of god as a valid claim, in much the same way there is no good reason to accept the existence of Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Ba'al, Vishnu, Krishna, or any of the countless other "gods" as a valid claim.

Further, god is so ill-defined as to be essentially meaningless. God is little more than an undefined ambiguous three-letter word, the definition of which is nearly impossible to get two or more people to agree upon. It's so fuzzy and unfocused that it's used to convey just about anything the speaker intends. It's gobbledygook, really. It is functionally useless, a term completely without merit, and a baseless catch-all amalgam of ridiculous unfounded nonsense and wish thinking.

I used to call myself and atheist for 2 years but I realized that what I thought was atheism was actually not.

I would be willing to bet a fairly large sum of money that you are unaware of the many different forms of atheism, and an even larger sum of money that you can most certainly described accurately by one of those forms.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

Btw - I suspect that your OP might find more traction if you acquainted yourself with a fantastic little invention called the paragraph.

A Tripolation · December 6, 2011

Atheism is a non-belief... a non-belief in god or gods. It literally means a-theist, or not-theist. It's the exact opposite of a belief. It's the rejection of a belief.

I agree with your entire post, iNow. But I do feel that some atheists behave quite religiously. It is also stated in your link:

An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.

That seems an awful lot to me like an atheist that is proselytizing and, ergo, follows a belief system of non-belief.

iNow · December 6, 2011

It's an interesting point you've raised. I'm not sure it's the rejection of someone else's belief driving that behavior, though. I am reluctant to accept that this desire to eliminate the world of unreasonable beliefs is itself a "belief of atheism." I could just be parsing words, however, and I realize that. I'll need to chew on it a bit, as it's certainly an interesting point.

It reminds me of a t-shirt I own, though. It says, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining to you why I'm correct."

----------------------------------

As I think a bit more about this, I'm inclined to believe (if you'll excuse the pun) that the mindset which tends to lead one to non-belief is highly overlapping/similar with the mindset that leads one to try to persuade others to accept more reasonable positions in life.

AFAICT, it's about a distaste for nonsense and a preference for reason, evidence, and consistency. It's not about proselytizing, but about educating, progressing, and improving as a species.

I realize, though, that I've just ventured dangerously close to giving a sermon and preaching, so I'll stop. My point is that I think this mindset comes well before the atheism, and hence it is difficult to suggest that this mindset is the result of atheism (which is, as noted, not a system of beliefs).

The only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in god(s). After that, the label really tells you nothing about the person.

It tells you nothing about what they believe.

ralfy · December 6, 2011

Prob. best to adhere to the UN declaration of human rights, which supports both freedom of speech and of worship.

qijino1236 · December 6, 2011

me - That's some of the reason why I used the words "non-observable truth" ...I am simply trying to display a common ground......

you - That's fine, but you have yet to demonstrate there is any truth whatsoever in what you're saying, whether it's observable or not.

me - The "truth" that I am referring to is not actually truth it is what an individual or group of individuals perceives could be potential truth through reason or logic (in science and philosophy) or they want it to be true in order to feel hope (in philosophy or religion) through thoughts, ideas, theories, beliefs, etc. In science it is called either pseudo-science or a hypothesis or a theory, in philosophy it is called reason, in religion and spirituality it is called belief.

Example...the big bang theory is still a theory...it is not an observable scientific fact ...it is what I was referring to as a non-observable "truth".

I always intentionally separate observable science or logic from faith or hope or belief or reason or pseudo-science, but I like to still keep that faith or hope or belief or reason or pseudo-science or fantasy in my mind.

observable truth... 2+2 = 4 true doesn't equal false. A dog is furry(if it has fur).

non-observable "truth"...the big bang theory, god(or something), nothing(can you truly observe nothing? you can perceive what nothing is but can you know exactly what true nothing is...is it possible to have true nothingness?),

Theories are the best "truth" because they have been tested over and over again with science in many different ways, but that doesn't mean that can't be not true. Science and religion and spirituality can all be used for hope and if you don't or do need some or all of that to survive psychologically then there is nothing wrong with either points of view(hopefully at LEAST you need some science in addition to religion and spirituality other-wise I think you are a little too much right-brained). To clarify deeper my previous sentence: I said at LEAST science because if you ONLY guide your life through religion and spirituality you are definitely missing a lot of something(observable truth) and become excessively dogmatic….but if you only guide your life only through science there is no problem since science is based on fact. I like to guide it through all three through my own philosophy and thoughts but don’t disrespect anyone else who doesn’t.

And I see nothing wrong with thinking of both as long I keep non-observable "truth" and observable truth separate from each other in my mind.

One of my thoughts… 2+2 = 4 right? Yes it does it is an observable truth. The “2” and “+” and the “=” and the “4” are all symbolic creations that evolved throughout history. A cavewoman was probably doing this at one point in human history. A cavewoman probably was picking berries and looked at them. She probably took a single berry in the left hand and then looked at her right hand with closed fingers and stuck one finger up. Then she probably took another berry in her left hand and stuck up a 2^nd finger. Then she probably took another berry in her left hand and stuck up a 3^rd finger and so on. Then she probably realized that if took two berries and stuck two fingers up and then again another two fingers and two berries then she would have four berries. She didn’t have a separate word for “2” or “4” but she knew that 2 berries and 2 berries equaled something different …4 fingers. That cavewoman was doing observable science. The thing is though berries are made up of something…atoms and that cavewoman did not know what hell atoms were and never would in her lifetime. This is what I am referring to when I say unobservable “truth”. When the word atom was first created there was no way observe an atom and know its various properties. “The Greek word átomos (ἄτομος) was first used by the philosopher Democritus who lived around 450 BCE. The modern use of the word goes back to the beginnings of the science of chemistry in the mid 17th cent. It's first usage (as meaning a very small particle) outside of scientific journals and into the mainstream goes back at least as early as 1796 when the word is found in newspapers of the time.” I am sure someone before 450 BCE thought of the idea of something like the atom but it was never put into words until someone “sane” like Democritus put it on paper and shared it with the world. And I am sure at some point in history before 450 B.C. someone may have tried to aurally explain his thoughts of what atom was and was deemed crazy because: “WTH are you crazy bitch, why are you talking about things inside things…there is no such thing as a thing inside of a thing …see look this is a berry bitch…there nothing inside of it… you crazy. Here, eat a berry, maybe you’ll stop thinking crazy.” The person that called “the bitch” crazy was being scientific but they just didn’t have enough information(a microscope, the other person’s EXACT perspective and thoughts, knowledge of the fundamental make up all physical properties, etc) to not think that the person was crazy. “The bitch” I see as the metaphorical person that thinks of the unobservable “truth”(aka the unknown) . The person calling them a crazy bitch is the metaphorical person that doesn’t respect that other person’s unobservable “truth”. At the same time period if that same “bitch” spoke of things inside of things inside of things inside of things that person would have probably put “the bitch” out of her supposed misery. The thing is that there is such a supposed non-observable “truth”(or belief) today in science and it is not just a belief or a hypotheses , it is a scientific theory … and it is called String theory(strings inside of quarks inside of protons inside of atoms inside of berries). So all I am saying is just respect the ideas and thoughts of all “the crazy bitches” in the world even if it isn’t based in science. So I’ll be a crazy bitch and hypothesize this…maybe there is something inside of the strings(or energy waves) or something that makes up all those strings and maybe that thing is something(or god) or maybe it is just nothing. As I say this I know that this is not an observable scientific truth but it is my non-observable “truth” or thought. You cannot argue that a non-observable “truth” is wrong or right. How can you prove that there is or isn’t something inside or what makes up a string if a string has not been observed but only theorized as a non-observable “truth” using science? Now I will back up to the observational scientific cavewoman’s four berries and think of this: If something is matter

If we are not scientific sure that true nothing ever did exist or will exist how do we know that 2 berries +2 berries does actually equal 4 berries and math exists… I say because that is something and an observable scientific truth. I mean this is in this way…true nothing has never been scientifically proven or observed because we don’t know if true nothing(negation of consciousness and matter, and anything else that exists) could ever be possible. If we don’t know what true nothing is then I think it would be reasonable(not logical though) to believe that something(or some interpretations of what god is) always existed until we prove that true nothing ever did or did not exist. Plus I don’t think true nothing could ever be scientifically proven. But that is just my belief and I respect any counter-beliefs or thoughts on the matter.

You - Why? You see, I disagree. I don't have to respect your beliefs. If you believed that murdering infants would end global warming, must I respect that? If you believed that raping 12 year old boys would end poverty, must I respect that? If you believed that burning puppies alive would result in world peace, must I respect that?

No. We shouldn't respect other peoples beliefs, especially when they're ridiculous (like belief in god, or those just mentioned above).

What I do respect is your RIGHT to believe whatever you want. That is fine. That is your freedom. That is your choice. Your beliefs belong to you, and I respect that, but I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves. Do you agree with this, or do you think I am mistaken? Should I respect the beliefs of a person who thinks that pouring acid on a young girls face is the correct path to purity and piety? I suspect you understand what I'm getting at here, and I hope you realize that the same approach applies to people's beliefs in deities.

Me - I am glad you brought this up...

Note my last sentence in my first post...

Or perhaps accept all non-observable "truths" that DON'T infringe in human rights(happy thoughts).

That was supposed to a vital extension to my second to last sentence in my first post:

"So do not impose your non observable truths on anyone but please believe in your non-observable truths with all your heart and listen to everyone elses non observable truths with aristotles quote in mind and maybe you will surprise yourself and come to accept another's non-observable truth as your own."

Here is quote that I made up that uses culture as unifying idea behind all -isms, beliefs, non-observerable truths, sciences, etc with human rights(and others:)) in mind ....

My quote - We (and others) exist, we are conscious. All civilizations were created by us in the past and present through our different varied WONDERFUL thoughts(our consciousness). We humans(and others) are civilizations. Civilizations ARE various cultures throughout the past and the present. Culture is a religion , and a philosophy, and a science, and a belief, and a spirituality, and more. We must all keep our culture in a way that human(and others) rights are utterly revered(WONDERFUL). We must dispose of our culture in a way that infringement upon human(and others) rights is done away with through love and thoughts through our consciousness.(NOT WONDERFUL) There is no right religion just as there is some times not a right theory or hypothesis, but those theories and hypotheses and religions are beautiful if handled in a conscientious and loving and open way. They may even become a generally relative, quantum, spiritual fact. Now go out, have fun, laugh, love, pray, study, think, and play some dice with our universe (No offense to Einstein) And don’t call your dog or your visiting alien species “others”, that’s specism.

YES ... You are right, respect should not given those beliefs that infringe on rights(bad cults)...but respect should be given to those who don't infringe on rights(good cults)

The thing is with bad cults not all the people in them are bad themselves since they don't do every single BS dogma there is in that cult.

Example: I'm don't think every Jew that wrote an excerpt in the bible was good. But I am sure that some of the Jewish people who wrote excerpts in the bible were good or lived the most moral lives they knew how to.

Actually, I highly doubt that even half of the stuff written in the bible was intended to be taken literally even at the time that is what written. I am sure many writers of the bible had a sense of humor too.

iNow · December 6, 2011

So all I am saying is just respect the ideas and thoughts of all “the crazy bitches” in the world even if it isn’t based in science.

And as I already said, no. I don't respect the beliefs. I respect the right to believe, but I think many of the beliefs themselves are garbage, and quite stupid, frankly.

YES ... You are right, respect should not given those beliefs that infringe on rights(bad cults)...but respect should be given to those who don't infringe on rights(good cults)

What if I see the spreading of ignorance and indoctrination as an infringement on rights? You don't seem to realize that I don't see belief as the positive thing you do. There is no clear boundary. There is no simple border like you think there is.

You DON'T have to respect the beliefs, whether they infringe on rights or not. As I previously stated, you can continue repeating yourself, but you're still mistaken.

qijino1236 · December 6, 2011

And as I already said, no. I don't respect the beliefs. I respect the right to believe, but I think many of the beliefs themselves are garbage, and quite stupid, frankly.

What if I see the spreading of ignorance and indoctrination as an infringement on rights? You don't seem to realize that I don't see belief as the positive thing you do. There is no clear boundary. There is no simple border like you think there is.

You DON'T have to respect the beliefs, whether they infringe on rights or not. As I previously stated, you can continue repeating yourself, but you're still mistaken.

Yea I guess you are right... I think that it is more of respect the right for someone to believe something too... and if the belief is hurting that person you should explain to them why it is hurting them.

But if I do see something good in a religious or a spiritual practice i like to internalize it rather remove it from my mind.

Ignorance and indoctrination as an infringement on rights....Do you see the belief of an afterlife as ignorance or an infringement on rights? Do you see singing a song about a god(you may or may not believe in) in a church or at a mosque or whatever to make you feel better an infringement on rights? Do you see reflecting on your life in a prayer or a through meditation in a Buddhist temple as an infringement on rights? Do you see replacing the word "god" with the word "good" or "life" or "all existence" during a sermon or a song in your mind an infringement on human rights? This is what I was meaning when I say the good parts of cults. I am not trying to judge you as a negative counterpoint, I am just asking you straightout.

Yea I guess you are right... I think that it is more of respect the right for someone to believe something too... and if the belief is hurting that person you should explain to them why it is hurting them.

But if I do see something good in a religious or a spiritual practice i like to internalize it rather remove it from my mind.

Ignorance and indoctrination as an infringement on rights....Do you see the belief of an afterlife as ignorance or an infringement on rights? Do you see singing a song about a god(you may or may not believe in) in a church or at a mosque or whatever to make you feel better an infringement on rights? Do you see reflecting on your life in a prayer or a through meditation in a Buddhist temple as an infringement on rights? Do you see replacing the word "god" with the word "good" or "life" or "all existence" during a sermon or a song(yeah I can make my own culture using my mind) in your mind an infringement on human rights? This is what I was meaning when I say the good parts of cults. I am not trying to judge you as a negative counterpoint, I am just asking you straightout.

I have history with good and bad religious and spiritual practices and I have become a master at removing the dogmatic bullshit from my mind on the fly.

Edited December 6, 2011 by qijino1236

iNow · December 7, 2011

Ignorance and indoctrination as an infringement on rights....Do you see the belief of an afterlife as ignorance or an infringement on rights?

I definitely see it as ignorant. I understand why people believe those things, but I see those beliefs as ignorant, yes. As for an infringement on rights, not really. I was really just making a point with you above. However, I could argue that it infringes on the right to live a life connected to reality and free from asinine hogwash.

Do you see singing a song about a god(you may or may not believe in) in a church or at a mosque or whatever to make you feel better an infringement on rights?

Nope. It's roughly the same as singing a song about Harry Potter or Puff the Magic dragon from my perspective, and you're free to do it.

Do you see reflecting on your life in a prayer or a through meditation in a Buddhist temple as an infringement on rights?

Nope, I see internal reflection, self-study, and introspection as good things. I do, however, take issue with praying to some ethereal cloud fairy who is presented as some sort of cosmic dictator in human form. I think that's like having imaginary friends. However, it's certainly your right to believe in the bearded pixie. I don't care, and it's your right.

Do you see replacing the word "god" with the word "good" or "life" or "all existence" during a sermon or a song in your mind an infringement on human rights?

I am unsure I follow. Words have meanings. What good does it do to conflate the meanings of several words? Should I start calling my phone a dog, or my car a tree?

qijino1236 · December 7, 2011

[

You - I am unsure I follow. Words have meanings. What good does it do to conflate the meanings of several words? Should I start calling my phone a dog, or my car a tree?

Me - god or God is a word that has many meanings for many different people... some people believe in a definitive dogmatic God or gods: here is an excerpt from that link you gave to me earlier:

A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.

Those gods(Zeus, Yahweh, Shiva, Thor, etc) have specific dogmatic properties and were created throughout history by man.

I'm not saying a god such as Yahweh(cosmic dictator in human form) could not exist but it is very unlikely. Actually "the human form" part I completely do not believe in.

When say the word god I mean the infinite possibilities of universe that are now just pseudo-science.

My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing or something.

In my most minimalist belief I see that there is something (me, my consciousness, others with consciousness, the observable universe, etc.) and I consider all that god. There is a word that is close to this minimalist belief too... pantheism...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism...I don't know if pantheism is the exact minimal belief of what I believe god could be and what I have thought god could be but it is close enough.

My reasoning(not logic) though is this: we exist and we are conscious and there is a universe(aka there is something(everything)) and that something and everything is god. My reasoning is there could not ever be true nothing.

Note this - "I don't know if pantheism is the exact minimal belief of what I believe god could be and what I have thought god could be but it is close enough." ... I did not say that I didn't believe god couldn't possibly be a pantheistic god I just said that I could not determine if that is my minimalistic belief of what god is.

...So as an agnostic I say ...I don't know if it is possible that there is a pantheistic god or something less than that or something more than that(such as a panentheistic god...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism), but I don't discount it unless it has been scientifically falsified.

So when I myself think of god...it encompasses a range of beliefs of what god could potentially be(less than pantheism, exactly pantheism, more than pantheism(aka panentheism), or even more than panentheism). But the one thing could not imagine ever could be is absolutely nothing.

These multiple beliefs(I'll call it panpantheism) behind the meaning of what god is is why I like to replace the word god with "good" or "life" or "all existence" on occasion.

Example of thoughts of something more than panentheism...the collective consciousness of all beings is god(aka how could there possibly be no consciousness anywhere in the universe? Where does consciousness or subconsciousness or perhaps something even less than subconsciousness go when you die?) That is why I think neuroscientists and most other scientists are doing good work to figure out these kinds of questions(even if they could never possibly be answered)

The possibility of a more maximum belief than my most minimalistic belief of what god could be is what gives me hope and wonder.

My questions to you:

Could you imagine absolutely nothing? When I try to picture it in my mind I see all black in a universe before existence...but black is something coincidentally.

What do you think other "theists" or "agnostics" think god is?

Please note this...I am not trying to convert anybody or make anybody feel bad about an atheistic view of the universe and existence. I am just displaying my thoughts and asking questions.

iNow · December 7, 2011

My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing or something.

Really, what does this even mean? You've pretty much covered all of the bases there. How can something be the opposite of both something AND nothing? That's logically incoherent.

In my most minimalist belief I see that there is something (me, my consciousness, others with consciousness, the observable universe, etc.) and I consider all that god.

That's fine, by why involve such an ambiguous word like "god" at all? Why not just call it the universe, or the cosmos, or everything conceivable? Words like that are at least clear, and don't come with all of the silly baggage and different perceptions that the word "god" comes with.

I say, let's be more efficient. It adds no value. Why keep it as a middle man? It really just means you're too insecure with your beliefs to let go of the concept, and that's cool, but it doesn't help anyone.

I stand full of wonder, awe, and amazement at the greatness of the universe before us. We really are part of something impressive, and the chances of our being here to appreciate it are mind bogglingly small. Bringing this concept of god into the discussion IMO does little more than diminish the wonder and vastness of this great existence. It closes the mind, and eliminates the ability to truly appreciate where we are and what we see.

Whether your deist, pantheist, spiritual, it doesn't really matter. All of these god concepts are pretty much equally lacking and robustly flawed. IMO, it's better to move away from flawed thinking than to hold on to it. I suppose YMMV, though.

These multiple beliefs(I'll call it panpantheism) behind the meaning of what god is is why I like to replace the word god with "good" or "life" or "all existence" on occasion.

Okay, but I'm just going to keep calling those things "good," or "life," or "all existence" if you don't mind. It is more clear and more efficient and more accurate, and doesn't unnecessarily involve distracting baggage and uncertainty.

My questions to you:

Could you imagine absolutely nothing?

This is basically a word game which exploits the weakness of our language, but even nothing itself becomes something the moment you describe it, so no. However, I'm sure you're asking more about whether or not there is "god" or "nothing," and I repeat... False dichotomy.

What do you think other "theists" or "agnostics" think god is?

Pretty much whatever they want it to be, combined with what they've been taught and heard from others through indoctrination. It's always little more than amorphous catch-all bag of wishes and dreams and logical inconsistencies.

I am not trying to convert anybody or make anybody feel bad about an atheistic view of the universe and existence. I am just displaying my thoughts and asking questions.

Well, thanks for that, but even if you WERE trying to make me feel bad about my non-belief, you wouldn't be successful. As Bugs Bunny might say, you don't know me very well, do you? I'm incredibly secure in my position of non-belief, and have spent nearly two decades introspecting and evaluating it in different ways.

qijino1236 · December 7, 2011

My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing or something.

Really, what does this even mean? You've pretty much covered all of the bases there. How can something be the opposite of both something AND nothing? That's logically incoherent.

sorry I should have worded it like this

My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing AKA something.

That sentence..."My most minimalist belief of what god would be is the opposite of nothing AKA something." was pretty much the basis for my whole last post and the most minimalist belief of god would be so I will repost it once more with the "AKA" in there.

just to try to get my perspective in a little more accurately.

Do you understand what I mean though when I say minimalist belief vs. maximum possibility(AKA a range of ideas of what god could be?)