Atheism is not a default position

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay. Then probably you are agnostic atheist. Or may be I am wrong again?

I don't hold the belief that god(s) exist.
I don't hold the belief that god(s) don't exist.

Some people call that atheist. Some call it agnostic. Some call it both. Whatever you want to call it is up to you.

 

[atanu]

I don't hold the belief that god(s) exist.
I don't hold the belief that god(s) don't exist.

Some people call that atheist. Some call it agnostic. Some call it both. Whatever you want to call it is up to you.

To me, this position (highlighted with blue above) when linked with your earlier statement "do not know either way whether god exists, so do not believe either way" is unambiguous, label or no label.

 

[Willamena]

Or just doesn't know the answer.

Would you accept Wikipedia as an authority? There is nothing on the 'Agnostic' page that suggests that the agnostic is ignorant (just as there is nothing on the 'Athiest' page that suggests that).

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Okay. Then probably you are agnostic atheist. You have clear linkage between states of knowledge and belief or non belief.

Or may be I am wrong again?

I would offer the idea if I may that perhaps labelling things is the most direct path to killing the experience of truth. The minute you put a linguistic tile on something and label it with an epoxy of context, you have killed the felt presence of immediate experience, which is boundless in dimension. Until you label it. After that it is difficult to escape the mental templates we create, and the more we define them and apply them, the more we diminish the possibilities in everything. So, rather than to say that someone is a Monistic Idealist Pantheist, which is a classification piled on a classification, we could be direct and honest and say that no one knows jack about what they really are. In truth, what are you? What am I? Probably something we can't get our heads around anyway.

Just some observations and opinions that I hold, and not offered as truth.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Thief]

Where "creation" is the measure, as it was in the question you posed to me, then I must judge them by that measure.

While leave out the word...greater...?

 

[Thief]

I would offer the idea if I may that perhaps labelling things is the most direct path to killing the experience of truth. The minute you put a linguistic tile on something and label it with an epoxy of context, you have killed the felt presence of immediate experience, which is boundless in dimension. Until you label it. After that it is difficult to escape the mental templates we create, and the more we define them and apply them, the more we diminish the possibilities in everything. So, rather than to say that someone is a Monistic Idealist Pantheist, which is a classification piled on a classification, we could be direct and honest and say that no one knows jack about what they really are. In truth, what are you? What am I? Probably something we can't get our heads around anyway.

Just some observations and opinions that I hold, and not offered as truth.

All the best,
Gary

Well said....
similar to ....'ahmmmmmmm'.......
and when someone asks what you are doing.....the more you speak....the less it means...

 

[Thief]

e.g. the belief that there is a reason for everything, that everything happens for a reason.

If I may....everything happens for a 'cause'.
The stopping point of this....the primordial singularity

 

[McBell]

If I may....everything happens for a 'cause'.
The stopping point of this....the primordial singularity

If there is a stopping point, then not everything happens for a cause.

 

[Thief]

If there is a stopping point, then not everything happens for a cause.

At the point of singularity......granted.
God is the Cause....
He just didn't have a reason to do it.

 

[McBell]

At the point of singularity......granted.
God is the Cause....
He just didn't have a reason to do it.

So it is your claim there is only one exception?

 

[Thief]

So it is your claim there is only one exception?

Reason brings me to it.

At the point of singularity....the things we know don't exist.
No heat, no cold...no light, no shadow....no movement....

I place Spirit first to make sense of it.
Dead things (substance) cannot beget life.
Dead things don't, 'just move'.

So...God first.
And it's rather difficult to say...I AM!.....without something to show for it.

So then.....'bang'...
so to speak

 

[atanu]

I would offer the idea if I may that perhaps labelling things is the most direct path to killing the experience of truth. The minute you put a linguistic tile on something and label it with an epoxy of context, you have killed the felt presence of immediate experience, which is boundless in dimension. Until you label it. After that it is difficult to escape the mental templates we create, and the more we define them and apply them, the more we diminish the possibilities in everything. So, rather than to say that someone is a Monistic Idealist Pantheist, which is a classification piled on a classification, we could be direct and honest and say that no one knows jack about what they really are. In truth, what are you? What am I? Probably something we can't get our heads around anyway.

Just some observations and opinions that I hold, and not offered as truth.

All the best,
Gary

Thank you Gary. I agree. There is a scriptural saying "Mind and word return from it." While the origin of both mind and word is in fullness of the silence, but mind and word attain infinitude in it.

 

[McBell]

Reason brings me to it.

At the point of singularity....the things we know don't exist.
No heat, no cold...no light, no shadow....no movement....

I place Spirit first to make sense of it.
Dead things (substance) cannot beget life.
Dead things don't, 'just move'.

So...God first.
And it's rather difficult to say...I AM!.....without something to show for it.

So then.....'bang'...
so to speak

One wonders why you would confuse your "reasoning" by using a word that heavily implies a past.

 

[Willamena]

While leave out the word...greater...?

No, not at all.

 

[Willamena]

If I may....everything happens for a 'cause'.
The stopping point of this....the primordial singularity

Everything happens for a reason is not quite the same.

 

[Bunyip]

"Neither" would still be atheist, as they still lack the belief.

Yes,that is exactly what I have been arguing. Artie disagrees.

 

[Bunyip]

Cause and effect. When you see a clock, a car, a house, you see a intelligent effect. Some humans manipulated some matter in a intelligent way and constructed those things I wrote. The objects: car, house, clock, etc, are effect from an intelligent agent: man, the cause who in fact is an co-creator. The primary creator, cause of all other things, including matter manipulated by human, human, animals, etc, it's an intelligent being. An intelligent effect must have an intelligent cause. That's all, very simple.

No, it i even simpler than that - those intellects evolved from bacteria, and thus need no intelligent creator.

 

[Bunyip]

I am arguing that you can believe that god(s) exist, that you can believe that god(s) don't exist, or you can be neutral and not take sides.

Yes, I know. My counter argument is that 'not taking sides' is atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

Same rule applies.

At least try to make some kind of sense Willa. Like a complete sentence.

 

[Bunyip]

So deists and polytheists are atheists?

Deism is not necessarily theistic, but polytheism is. The prefix 'poly' means 'many'.