Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[ArtieE]

Well I never pretended to be your greater half you brought up discusting crap. So obviously you have a bad tase about something. That discusting crap happens in this world. I am sure you can bring up more appropriate subjects then the innocent of a child to talk crap.

Such as disgusting crap about atheists?

 

[Marsh]

I just know this from observational experience.
lets just say I have 100 people in my family and the Athiests are in the spoiled Cushy side and the stats are everyone of one them that are raised in misguided compassion is Athiest 100% of the time.

My observational experience is that hard-line theists have a very poor handle on what makes atheists tick.

 

[Marsh]

I just know this from observational experience.
lets just say I have 100 people in my family and the Athiests are in the spoiled Cushy side and the stats are everyone of one them that are raised in misguided compassion is Athiest 100% of the time.

Just curious, can you surmise why I am an atheist?

 

[Peter Stone]

Just curious, can you surmise why I am an atheist?

Yeah just how you explain the bible with incorrigible behavior it feels weird huh.. I have felt this same way.. You see we have something in common. .

 

[Marsh]

Yeah just how you explain the bible with incorrigible behavior...

I don't understand your statement. I don't think I have given my opinion on the Bible during my time on this forum. Also, whose incorrigible behaviour are you referring to, mine or that of some biblical characters?

... it feels weird huh.. I have felt this same way..

Tell me first how it is you think I feel.

You see we have something in common. .

I am sure we some things in common: the same number of digits on each hand, for starters.

 

[Peter Stone]

I don't understand your statement.

Well I am sure your used to these words.. There is a lot you don't understand. And I mean a lot. Its OK though.. I don't care what these religious people say about you. I think its excellent that we are coming out measuring our digits its fine..

 

[Peter Stone]

I am just messing with all you Athiests. I think you all are actually very intelligent and actually
hold solid arguments.

 

[Marsh]

Well I am sure your used to these words.. There is a lot you don't understand. And I mean a lot. Its OK though.. I don't care what these religious people say about you. I think its excellent that we are coming out measuring our digits its fine..

You are avoiding having to explain yourself, so be it, we will just have to skip having a discussion until you are more in the mood to speak your thoughts honestly.

May I ask what part of the world you are from?

 

[Marsh]

I am just messing with all you Athiests.

You are just messing with us atheists. I thought so. Whenever you are ready to have an actual discussion we will be happy to chat with you.

 

[Peter Stone]

You are avoiding having to explain yourself, so be it, we will just have to skip having a discussion until you are more in the mood to speak your thoughts honestly.

May I ask what part of the world you are from?

I am actually in Colorado its been raining a lot down here. What about you brother?

 

[Marsh]

I am actually in Colorado its been raining a lot down here. What about you brother?

Colorado? How 'bout that. I have cousins in Denver.

A couple of weeks ago, for about a week, it rained almost constantly; happily things have dried up a bit and everything is now a vibrant green. Most trees are breaking out in leaf and the robins seems to be everywhere, though the weatherman has threatened frost the last few nights -- I bring my Venus fly-traps in every night, just in case. I am looking forward to the promise of some warmer weather later in the week. Maybe the flies will come out and give my plants a well deserved feast.

So, are you a regular church goer? I haven't been inside a house of God in maybe ten years; not since one of my cousins died a bit prematurely from cancer. It was a sad day.

 

[Nefelie]

.

First of, I have to say that I’m sorry about you being separated from your mother in such a tender age. I hope your adopted family treated you well and you had happy childhood.

The experience you had was very interesting. I’ve heard of similar experiences and I know there have been scientific experiments on that subject. I’ve read about it a few years ago. I’m trying to remember the source… I’ll let you know if I do.

Personally, I would call it instinct, plain and simple.

Instinct is something that science accepts, but cannot prove, is it not?

I never made a claim that "humanity has already proven everything that can be proved". I simply will not fill in the "I don't know" with some dubious answer that lacks good evidence to back up why "answer" is correct to "question".

Nobody asks you to do that.
But, sometimes, a logical explanation can not necessarily be proven by science. Maybe because science hasn’t got the technology yet to prove it, as it has happened before, many times during history.

For example, and concerning your experience:

1) Instinct is very much a fact, even though it can’t be proven (at least not till now).

2) Instinct seems to be stronger in animals than in humans. Why?

3) Logic is stronger in humans than in animals. But, instinct seems to be stronger while we are babies and as logic gradually “takes over”, instinct gets weaker. So, it’s logical to assume that the stronger logic is the weaker instinct gets. Hence why instinct remains strong in animals, all their lives.

4) Therefore logic is what “blocks” instinct.

5) But, some people seem to have stronger instincts then others. Why? Is it because they do not have logic? Of course not. That’s not possible. As a human being, even the dumbest of us has a level of logic higher than the smartest of animals (excluding clinical cases, of course).

6) Maybe some people are more “open” to things “beyond logic” and therefore leave more “room” for their instinct.

Possible conclusion: maybe there are techniques that can help us humans to “train” our logic not to block our instinct?

The above is a rasional procedure, is it not? So, even though there is no scientific proof for it, you can not discart it as “hocus-pocus rabbish”, right?

I am comfortable with "I don't know". In fact, I'm rather happy with "I don't know". Maybe mankind needs a little mystery in their lives.

.

 

[`mud]

hey Marsh,
Nice turn of thinking there......now hold your breath !
~
'mud

 

[Acim]

My Momma and I were separated when I was 6 years old. I didn't see her again until I was 17. During our years of separation, my adoptive family and I were on vacation. During our trip, I had an overwhelming feeling that science, at the time, said I shouldn't have had. I went to my adoptive mother and said, "Momma's close by. I know it. I can feel it." Meanwhile, about 50 miles away, my Momma stepped out of her home and met her husband on the driveway. She said, "My son is nearby. I can feel it."

After we were reunited, one time, the phone rang. I jumped up from the dinner table and said, "I've got it. That's Momma." And it was. There was no rational reason, as far as we can discern, at how I knew that to be. On yet another incident, I impulsively reached over, grabbed the phone that wasn't ringing, put it to my ear and said "Hi, Momma." And she was on the other line.

Once is an anomaly. Twice is a coincidence. Three times? Now, that's a pattern.

I've had similar experience with phone (way before caller ID existed). I knew who was calling me and said hi (name of person) before they said anything. Only happened to me once that I can recall. Your story, with multiple instances, is more interesting.

Now; how could our senses, as we know our senses to be, provide such a cunningly accurate perception? The answer? "We don't know." Is it possible that there are senses that human beings possess that is beyond what science can define? Not only "possible"; but "probable". But that does not mean that I will jump to a supernaturalistic explanation like ESP, the "One Mind" theory or any other "explanation" that truly explains "nothing".

To me, it is explained under what I think you are saying is 'One Mind' theory. I do understand it as minds are joined (in reality) but given illusion of physical existence (held by high degree of faith), it very much appears like that is not possible/wishful thinking. I see that view as a gross distortion.

Maybe science will unravel the mysteries of human perception. Maybe science won't. Maybe science can't; as such phenomenon that we call "extrasensory perception" fail controlled conditions. Maybe that's because we don't fully understand the conditions required for ESP? Who knows. And maybe, life is more fun and adventurous and mysterious if we never know.

If your experiences were like mine (and from what I can read they were similar), there is not much benefit I can see from studying / controlling it. I wasn't wowed by mine at the time, and on hindsight when I play game of ignorance, it does come across like dumb luck to guess correctly. Thing is, I wasn't guessing. I knew, and I was accurate.

That's just one personal story; doesn't fit all the other personal stories nor does it address the thousands of other questions that 'science doesn't know the answer to" yet;; let alone the questions that sicience hasn't asked yet.

So, this statement, "So, you are actually -with all due respect- so arrogant to claim that humanity has already proven everything that could be proved and therefore everything else is just “hocus-pocus”?" is totally, utterly, entirely false and does not describe me, my attitude, or my position..

I am comfortable with "I don't know". In fact, I'm rather happy with "I don't know". Maybe mankind needs a little mystery in their lives.

I'm comfortable with "I know." I am interested in exploring the "I don't know" position, but from what you conveyed, clearly you did know. As with me, you later experienced a lack of understanding in how you did know.

I can accept it as a mysterious occurrence for you, as that's all you care to go with. I identify that assertion as supernatural, as you are already conceding such knowledge (perception) would plausibly be beyond current scientific understanding. For me, leaving it at that, makes it seem more complex than what the experience entailed. I think One Mind / minds are actually joined is the simplistic, and arguably more accurate way of understanding it directly. That minds don't always, or more like usually don't, seem to be connected in a discernible way is more the mystery to me. Though I think that has plenty of avenues for anyone that cares to earnestly explore it. Personally, I think it is rather impossible to not explore it, and part of the reason it is not well understood or consistently experienced is the alternative (shielding private thoughts) is deemed more desirable.

I do have spiritual understanding on lots of this stuff and while it is a bit speculative, I don't understand it to be entirely speculative. It all strikes me as reasonable and rather obvious when honestly looking at certain data for just a few moments. But I do realize anyone at anytime (includes myself) could be overwhelmed/wowed by what is plausibly always at work in our shared existence. I honestly do see 'minds are joined' as the natural order of things, and beliefs that support a framework that denies this, to be disorder. For me, once anyone understands divinity, disorder is never (ever) disallowed. More of a question of whether or not it is desired. And why? The 'why' cannot have a 'wrong answer.'

Throughout our lives, we all face those times when we ask questions and seek answers that threaten our sense of reality. While an adventure and an exhilarating time of discovery, doing so can be quite ... disconcerting.

One of those times was taking a cursory look at the Theory of Relativity and internalizing that time has mass; it is a "thing" that "exists" (as we understand existence); that it's not static; slowing down and speeding up. Before I took this journey, I adamantly stated that "time" wasn't a "thing"; it didn't "exist"; it was mere perception. Well, I was wrong and correcting that ignorance was not entirely a comfortable process; because redefining our own reality never is. Likewise, physics; understanding that I never really touch "anything" but instead come in contact with magnetic fields; that because of those magnetic fields, I can never truly "touch" others.

I have heard some talk here and again about the "existence of existence" but have yet taken a close look at it. Might be kind of fun to explore those ideas.

There are days or periods where it seems like all I'm doing is exploring the existence of existence. But even I recognize it is possible to be 'too spiritual' or 'too religious' or 'too philosophical.' So, I choose joyful activities that lead to greater appreciation of whatever it is I deem as existing now for me.

My car exists (as I understand existence). Not the disclaimer: "as I understand existence". It can be verified to exist within those parameters by a gizilliion different ways; from confirmation with others (Hey, is there a black car there? A Toyota Corolla?) to physically mainpulating it to conducting various experiments (two objects can not exist in the same space; so if I run it into a telephone pole and neither pass through either, then we can be reasonably assured that both my car and the telephone pole exists as some kind of object; each has mass); to conducting research that verify via VIN number when, where, and by whom it was made; and on and on the list goes of a gizzillion ways to validate that "my car exists".

All of these though are traced back to a faith proposition. Again, once that faith is accepted, reason/reasoning will surely follow. Reasoning itself rests on faith.

We can't do that with God, Spirit

Stopping you right here because it can, rather easily, be done with God/Spirit. It may not be perfectly understood that it is being done when one is attempting to do it, doubting it while they are doing it, and going about the thing of seeking God/Spirit. Once faith is understood at mere level of perception, it is I think easy to seek and find. As long as there is intellectual plausible deniability, it can appear challenging, but still not impossible. Yet, at that level all things (without exception) that are 'known' to exist deserve equal scrutiny to however one is defining God/Spirit or determining (for themselves) how that must appear before they are (thoroughly) convinced.

I would suggest just understanding own Self as God/Spirit. Considering this for a minute or two and coming up empty would be what I'd call entirely normal. Perhaps after an hour or even 10 days, still empty. I'd invite anyone to do it for a full year. Not every minute of that year, but as best as possible every day, once an hour, for a full year. No need to report findings back to (little ol') me. Just a thing I would strongly suggest as way to seek and find. Chances are very good a whole lot will come from this perspective, not the least of which is a greater understanding of the existence of existence. But perhaps more pertinent is replacing past connotations about God/Spirit with updated ones. Perhaps constantly updating, though I think plateaus are reached and stayed at for a long while (arguably an entire lifetime). Helps if one does understand others to be God/Spirit, but helps more to see own Self first/foremost in that Light. But if truly able to see in this way, then others will be seen as Spirit. I say this from my experience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

~~~
Just a friendly question to all Atheists:

Is your belief of God’s non-existence based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),

or,

it also covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

Thanks for your responces

~~~

I am skeptical of all. I think k it is absurdly o vious that the major monotheistic religions are fabrications of the human mind. Many others just as badly and some less so. I think Hinduism is just as silly as Mormonism as is Catholicism and Islam. Buddhism isn't quite as bad depending on the sect.

 

[Demonslayer]

I think it is absurdly obvious that the major monotheistic religions are fabrications of the human mind.

I've always felt this way. I can't imagine how anyone gets up in the morning and truly thinks an ever-present overlord is watching over them. You state it the way I feel...it seems absurdly obvious to me that this isn't true.

Something, somewhere out there that we don't understand? OK fine, I guess, maybe. But this angry guy watching everyone, getting pissed off at people who don't worship him, etc.? How the hell does even one person still believe such a thing?

 

[Nefelie]

I can't imagine how anyone gets up in the morning and truly thinks an ever-present overlord is watching over them.

What if they are taught to think that way ever since they are born?

What if our perspectives about religion, god, divinity, etc, is purely based on nurture?

My parents were both atheists, but tried not to influence me with their beliefs. I was free to believe anything I wished without judgement and my father was always willing to discuss philosophies and religions with me, in the most objective way possible. I’m pretty sure that is why I finally “settled” to the beliefs I have. It was the natural/logical course for me.

On the other hand, I see people that were brought up in strongly religious families, turn out either fundamentalists themselves or hard-headed atheists. Is it coincidence? I don’t think so.

So, do we really have a choice in our beliefs?...

.

 

[`mud]

Life is Stuff
Some Stuff is daisies and some stuff is thorns.
Be careful picking the roses, they also have thorns.
Hell is found in the picking, good luck on those daisies tho.
~
'mud

 

[Revoltingest]

Life is Stuff
Some Stuff is daisies and some stuff is thorns.
Be careful picking the roses, they also have thorns.
Hell is found in the picking, good luck on those daisies tho.
~
'mud

Gardening as a metaphor for life?
I like it!

 

[Demonslayer]

What if they are taught to think that way ever since they are born?

Well sure, of course this is the reason. I guess I'm still just surprised at how permanently early indoctrination can imprint stories that otherwise would seem preposterous. In my case I was raised super-Catholic with all the kooky stories being presented as true. My whole world...parents, teachers, priests at my parish...feeding me these stories. And yet as soon as I reached a certain age...I guess maybe 7 or 8 or so?...I immediately recognized none of it was factually true. How did that happen so fluidly for me with no outside influence, while others go on believing there was really a Zoo-Boat their entire lives?

What if our perspectives about religion, god, divinity, etc, is purely based on nurture?

Earlier in life for sure, nurture all the way. But what of my story of early internal rejection of my taught religious perspectives, vs the permanent embracing of the same religious perspectives that others who had the same early religious education display? Nurture two infants through age 7 with the same religious belief system and they'll initially have the same perspective...but then there must be a nature element as well because some don't stop believin', while others do very quickly.

My parents were both atheists, but tried not to influence me with their beliefs. I was free to believe anything I wished without judgement and my father was always willing to discuss philosophies and religions with me, in the most objective way possible. I’m pretty sure that is why I finally “settled” to the beliefs I have. It was the natural/logical course for me.

But other folks raised in atheist households remain atheists, others "settle" on other belief systems, etc. What nudged you towards pantheism where others raised in similar situations chose another path? Perhaps other outside influence, but also could be something hard wired, yes?

On the other hand, I see people that were brought up in strongly religious families, turn out either fundamentalists themselves or hard-headed atheists. Is it coincidence? I don’t think so.

Two drastically different results from the same initial foundation of "nurture."

So, do we really have a choice in our beliefs?...

Mostly no. I couldn't choose to believe in God today even if someone offered me a billion dollars and a job as Katy Perry's bra fitter. Although I'd damn sure try to lie about it, inside I could never truly just decide to believe.

This is true for everyone I think, though many religious folks try hard not to admit it.