• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there a resource of Athe(ism)?

Still there are demarcation criteria which can be used to distinguish between anthropology, sociology etc, and the natural sciences. Which was what Karl Popper had in mind when identifying the principle of falsifiability.

More generally, it’s fair to say there are no laws of science governing human behaviour, which can make predictions a fraction as accurately as Newton’s laws of motion can predict the behaviour of objects.

So some academic disciplines are harder than others?

Math is by far the simplest.

By the time one gets to complicated stuff like physics, things get messier. WTF is a path integral, anyway? I suppose that there must be a measure on the path space or something.

Should we ignore entire academic disciplines simply because their subject matter is difficult?

If so, let’s throw out physics. It is by no means obvious to the mathematician on the street that physics actually makes sense.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
So some academic disciplines are harder than others?

Math is by far the simplest.

By the time one gets to complicated stuff like physics, things get messier. WTF is a path integral, anyway? I suppose that there must be a measure on the path space or something.

Should we ignore entire academic disciplines simply because their subject matter is difficult?

If so, let’s throw out physics. It is by no means obvious to the mathematician on the street that physics actually makes sense.


Well it could be argued that physics needs a metaphysics, in order to make it make sense, and that’s where the problems start. Classical Newtonian physics is intuitive and accords fairly neatly with our observations; Quantum physics, it appears, does not. So there’s that.

I don’t think the value of academic disciplines should be judged on how hard or easy they appear to be. And I wouldn’t elevate any field of intellectual enquiry above any other. I’m not qualified to do so for a start, but in any case who is to say what the purpose is of any given discipline? And if we don’t know what it’s purpose is, how can we judge it’s effectiveness?

Of course, physics has given us the iPhone and the H-bomb, but what can it tell us about how to make the best use of either?
 
Well it could be argued that physics needs a metaphysics, in order to make it make sense, and that’s where the problems start. Classical Newtonian physics is intuitive and accords fairly neatly with our observations; Quantum physics, it appears, does not. So there’s that.

I don’t think the value of academic disciplines should be judged on how hard or easy they appear to be. And I wouldn’t elevate any field of intellectual enquiry above any other. I’m not qualified to do so for a start, but in any case who is to say what the purpose is of any given discipline? And if we don’t know what it’s purpose is, how can we judge it’s effectiveness?

Of course, physics has given us the iPhone and the H-bomb, but what can it tell us about how to make the best use of either?

The anthropologist that I am mostly talking about is the anthropologist who made her career studying my wife’s culture and religion. There is no bigger expert, so I’m not sure what else I can do. She’s the one in charge.

Same thing with historians. If somebody is the world’s leading expert on my wife’s history, then what else can I do but cite him? Again, when it comes to history, he’s the one in charge.

I don’t know what else I’m expected to do as a mathematician, besides consult the experts.

It’s not clear what non-mathematicians want mathematicians to do in other guelds that we are not experts in, except to consult the experts.

The alternative is to simply engage in a fact-free discussion.
 

Jarsa

New Member
I find the skepticsannotatedbible.com pretty useful when debating Christians. Also see atheistrepublic.com.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
More generally, it’s fair to say there are no laws of science governing human behaviour, which can make predictions a fraction as accurately as Newton’s laws of motion can predict the behaviour of objects.
They are important to us but not to the scheme of things in the universe.
@RestlessSoul, purpose is a purely theist thing. There is no purpose for the universe. :)
 
Last edited:
They are important to us but not to the scheme of things in the universe.
@RestlessSoul, purpose is a purely theist thing. There is no purpose for the universe. :)

How could an atheist survive without purpose?

When atheists welcome the stranger, is that not a purpose?

When an atheist treats other cultures and religions with respect by default, is that not a purpose?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
How could an atheist survive without purpose?
When atheists welcome the stranger, is that not a purpose?

When an atheist treats other cultures and religions with respect by default, is that not a purpose?
I, as a person, have my purposes, not that we have found any purpose for the universe.
Yes, all cultures get respect from me. Among religions, only Buddhism. Don't know much about Dao/Confucianism.
 
Last edited:
I, as a person, have my purposes, not that we have found any purpose for the universe.
Yes, all cultures get respect from me. Among religions, only Buddhism. Don't know much about Dao/Confucianism.

How does your culture separate culture from religion?

Aren’t they pretty much the same thing?

Religion can be a part of one’s identity.

Disrespecting religions means disrespecting the identities of other peoples.

As an atheist, I choose to respect others as a default.

If your religion teaches disrespect, then it is inconsistent with my atheism.

That’s a gap between your religion and my atheism that will be very difficult to fill.

This part of your religion scares me.

I fear for my physical safety when I read words of disrespect like that.

Have you considered talking to some anthropologists, to help you temper your religion with the tools of science?

Your religion can evolve, just like everybody else’s, assuming that you believe in evolution.

Some folks don’t.
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I don't think so, please. Right?

Regard
Atheism defines itself by what it is not, rather than by what it is.

Oxford Dictionary; Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

In that sense, Atheism is like a reflection in a mirror, with almost any religion a resource for Atheism's own defining reflection. The main mirror appears to be Christianity, since Atheists spend the most time, differentiating themselves; fixing their face, near that particular mirror.

If you are looking for the best resource about Atheism, get a Bible and believe in the opposite. I have known many Atheists who are quite knowledgeable about the Bible, using their detailed knowledge, as the mirror to describe what they do not believe. It is quite a bizarre religion.

What is interesting is the radical Left in the USA, does something similar, with President Trump being a good example of their mirror. Trump is a unique person with a loud personality. The Left were trained to hate President Trump, so much, they will do and believe the opposite of what Trump does or says. Even the policies of the radical Left are like a mirror image of Trump's, without any regard to practical utility; illegal immigration, or without any regard to any positive unifying goal for all, like Make America Great Again. Instead this is reflected as America is evil and the Constitution is obsolete but with no good replacement in mind besides Big Brother Socialism.

Hate appears to play a role in creating this mirror effect. Hate can cause a data filter effect. The classic example are two lovers going down with the ship unable to see the love they once had. All they have is the hate. Psychologically, it is similar to forming negative stereotypes; one sizes fits all prejudices, which are big on the Left. The White Christian Male is evil, so do the opposite; DEI, via that mirror, or be hated and persecuted with the perceived injustice of the mirror, without regard to utility.

Atheism may have formed through hate and prejudice stereotypes, hate the Church, that eventually morphed into a full length mirror, to help itself to grow and recruit new members. There are now more gods, not to believe in, than ever.

As an interesting morphing example of the Atheist mirror effect, can be seen in the new fad of gender. Transgender only represents a small fraction of all people, say 2%. The majority; 98%, are based on biological sex. The majority is being described as more homogeneous and linear; hateful parents predators, with only the 2% transgender fluid in the sense of gender; victims. This is recruiting new young members, since there is no nuance in the majority; mirror. The reflection appears to be more open and Progressive.

It appears the original recipe of Atheism is being copied, as a tool to manipulate impressionable minds. The added difference appears to be the manipulators are creating their own trick mirror; fake news, misinformation and propaganda. Like gossip, they plant untrue seeds to form their mirror; misrepresentations. The naive minds reflect within this alt realty mirror, they think is real. The effect is like a double negative reflection, that appears to add to a positive. However, that positive is a delusion, from a reflection in a trick mirror. Atheism, although a reflection of religion, does stick with the facts of religion. This new morph is not about the facts, trick mirrors, which are harmful to all.

One good analogous way to look at this contrast, between defining oneself as a positive, versus defining oneself by what you are not, is to look animal species. A distinct species is self sufficient as to what it is. It has it own self identifying nature and habitat. It is not trying to be what it is not but rather is what it is.

Defining oneself by what it is not, is like being stuck between two species. On one hand, can sees themselves as being different, but only by what they are not. There is still connections to the original. One has not yet become a new species, but are still exiting from the past like a missing link. Evolutionary data is deplete of missing links. This would suggest this missing link state is an unnatural state, according to the data that supports evolution; fossils. Either species clicks or they disappear; quantum jumps. It is ego will and choice, that is able to sustain this missing link state; knowledge of good and evil and the Shadow.
 
Atheism defines itself by what it is not, rather than by what it is.

Some so-called “atheists” have an invented notion that they call “theism”, that basically refers to anybody outside of their tiny sectarian atheist culture.

It is a way to “otherize” non-atheists as well as most of their non-fundamentalist fellow atheists, who tend to get grouped in with the theists due to their non-fundamentalism.

United against a common ememy​

 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
1. How does your culture separate culture from religion?
Aren’t they pretty much the same thing?
2. Disrespecting religions means disrespecting the identities of other peoples.
3.As an atheist, I choose to respect others as a default.
4. If your religion teaches disrespect, then it is inconsistent with my atheism.
5. That’s a gap between your religion and my atheism that will be very difficult to fill.
6. Your religion can evolve, just like everybody else’s, assuming that you believe in evolution.
7. Some folks don’t.
1. Culture and religion are different. 2. Disrespect to religions is not disrespect to people. People may be nice. Religions, not all. 3. I do not take it as default. 4. My belief (I am not talking of my religion, it has many beliefs) does not teach disrespect, but does not accept things which have no evidence. 5. Is there any need to fill the gap? 6. Sure, it does. 7. Religions that do not evolve with time are pitiable.
 
1. Culture and religion are different.

In your culture and religion.

2. Disrespect to religions is not disrespect to people

In your culture and religion.

3. I do not take it as default

In your culture and religion.

4. My belief (I am not talking of my religion, it has many beliefs) does not teach disrespect, but does not accept things which have no evidence.

In your culture and religion.

5. Is there any need to fill the gap?

Only if we seek to coexist without fear.

When somebody respects your culture, they are imposing their culture on you, and when you disrespect their culture back, you are imposing your culture on them.

Both sides do it.

But the effects of the mutual cultural impositions are asymmetrical.

6. Sure, it does.

Cool. So there’s hope. That’s good to know.

7. Religions that do not evolve with time are pitiable

On this we agree. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if we didn’t.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
1. Only if we seek to coexist without fear.
2. When somebody respects your culture, they are imposing their culture on you, and when you disrespect their culture back, you are imposing your culture on them.
1. Fear or conflict, not always possible. 2. Why should this imposition or reaction should go on? Yours is yours, and mine is mine. We can peacefully exist with that.
 
1. Fear or conflict, not always possible. 2. Why should this imposition or reaction should go on? Yours is yours, and mine is mine. We can peacefully exist with that.

Disrespect has historically not been peaceful.

Disrespect led to the Spanish Inquisition.

It led to war.

You disrespect that which you don’t understand, causing others to fear you.

People have very good reason to fear those who are disrespectful of one’s very identity out of ignorance.

Disrespect perpetuates white supremacist stereotypes that can easily get us and our families and friends injured or killed.

Stop acting like you have no power.

You have power.

I can feel your power every time you advocate disrespect. I can feel it in my bones.
 
Last edited:
My disrespect is when I understand it completely.
Your disrespect is the default. You openly announced it in advance.

(That makes it more dangerous.)

(I think you made one exception. I forget what the single exception was. I do remember quite clearly what it wasn’t.)

And what religions do you know completely?

I didn’t even know that such a level of knowledge was even possible.

I don’t know any religions completely.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Your disrespect is the default. You announced it in advance.
(I think you made one exception. I forget what the single exception was.)
And what religions do you know completely?

I don’t know any religions completely.
The default is inquiry. That was Buddhism.
Though I reserve the right to differ even within Hinduism.
I understand monotheism completely.
That is quite normal.
 
Top