What Can Atheism Lead To?

[footprints]

No, he didn't. And the more you say he did does not make it so. He had a perverse view of communism, his communism was a belief that he acted on. Not his disbelief in a god. I'm sure he also didn't believe in pixies, are you saying that his disbelief in pixies was also the cause of his killing?

Pol Pot was a confirmed atheist. This is well documented and his vengence went out against the church before it went out against anybody else, this is also well documented. His prejudice against the church, his adopting Stalin as his hero and mentor, all served to make him the person he was.

 

[footprints]

This is just a longer explanation of what I said in my previous statement.

That is all it was doing, agreeing with you to that point, and showing the scientific data which substantiates it.

Sounds like you are again pointing to institutionalized set of belief systems as opposed to innate spirituality.

What is innate spirituality? Spirituality basically cannot be innate. As humans in the human state we are already in an innate spiritual state. Spirituality is lifting yourself above this innate state. Even if you say this spirituality combines with the energy force of the universe around us, spirituality isn't innate, it is combining with another energy force. Even if you say, spirituality combines you as one with nature, spirituality isn't innate, it is combining you with nature.

Spiritual enlightenment takes over where enlightenment leaves off. Follow the path of Buddha and do it completely and you will be filled with the spirit of Buddha. Follow the path of Jesus and do it completely and you will be filled with the spirit of Jesus. What of course, I mean by spirit, is that you will become in their image and understand the world as they seen it, and have a better understanding of what they were talking about and what they meant.

Only an enlightened person can understand what another enlightened person is talking about.

I see you as a religious crusader from an objective processing of the evidence laid in the patterns of your replies. You share the same 'certainty', 'self righteousness', and have an incredibly hard time admitting your faults or mistakes - these are the same properties that religious crusaders have.

What you see is a reflection. As humans we see and recognise patterns. A child can tell just by the look on their mothers face, exactly what she is thinking, especially with the look, which says to the child, keep that up and you know what you will be in for. Part of the enlightenment path, is to take these perceptions away, so we do not jump to false conclusions and don't always believe what we see but align it with probablity. A persons belief can make them subjective, and they will always see what they want to see.

If a person can only ever see one view of anything, they should also know they are not enlightened and a far cry from being spiritually awakened.

I am extremely confident in what I say, for the simple reason I have tested everything I talk about, I know what is myth and what is legend. I do not have the excuse of ignorance any more. Sometimes more the pity.

The question that needs to be asked here then is what is your purpose for engaging in a debate? Is it to learn something new? Is it to clarify a theory or belief? Or is it to fill propagate a belief that you are a highly intellectual individual that really stems from a validation that would appease a sense of an insecure self - an egotistical venture?

Extreme confidence and belief in the self...... Insecure, egotistical know it all who will not admit they are wrong. All is a matter of perspective, which will be defined by a persons own personal belief. I have no qualms pertaining to what people personally think of me in this forum, each to their own view, all I can say is, whatever view a person holds, each will deserve their own view.

This may come as a surprise to many, albeit I have said the same before. My object in here is to learn. Albeit, not learn something that I already know, but I seek something greater than the knowledge which I already have, and I certainly will not swap the knowledge I have for lesser knowledge. Many of course will perceive their knowledge greater than mine as they look at the world through their eyes, I will know in most cases, either their knowledge is equal to what I believe, or their knowledge is lesser than that which I already know, that they would be speaking from intelligence, albeit I would be seeing the world through wisdom.

I suppose you could say, I am looking for a key, a source of knowledge that will unlock more knowledge. Of course, whilst I am in here seeking the elusive key, I will put a few things to the test and log the data obtained.

This is merely an objective observation, please do not take it wrongly.
With the evidence at hand, the common perception of you is not one of a person of intellect, but a rather annoying, egotistical, self righteous person who only likes to fight. And because of this people tune you out. This is sad as you do have interesting points to say.

LOL I am well aware of some perceptions of me. This is how people protect their own intellect, I am well aware, and more aware than most, of human nature. I do not take offence, I know it is just their intelligence working.

In many ways I want people to tune me out. I am not in this forum to change a persons beliefs. To me, that is one of the most disrespectful things to do, I also know human nature well enough, to know whilst ever they are defending their own intelligence and telling me I am an idiot, I haven't a hope in hell of changing their beliefs even if that was my intention. So in many ways some calling me an idiot, I see as a good thing, not a bad one.

Knowing all sides of the story is not enough. Finding humility and choosing a noble purpose would only serve to make you a better debater/discussion partner and will make your venture a one that is more fulfilled.

Peace and Love to you.

Humility is for the enlightened, more so for the spiritually enlightened. In the dog eat dog world in which we live, humility has no place, which is unfortunate, it is seen as a weakness and not as a strength, we live in a crazy, mixed up world sometimes closer related to apes than to human. I could show you many posters in this forum, people like zenzero who I have a lot of time and respect for, who post on humility, but mostly their wisdom falls on deaf ears or in this case, blind eyes. Instead of learning the lesson of humility shown by zenzero, people still throw sticks and stones as each other, for they see it as more intelligent.

I have reached enlightenment in every path I have found. I have put them to the test and measured the results in each. Some may say this is bigoted of me, or me trying to be something I am not, I of course cannot help reality and I will not deny it to appease their insecurities. It is not as hard a process as it may first seem, once you have completed one path of enlightenment, the rest just fall into place naturally. What I found is they all lead to the same place, for want of a better term I will use Nirvana. During this process I gained many facts, the greatest fact I did learn, a spiritual enlightened person can not live in a justified world. We all do not have the priviledge of the Dalai Lama to be locked away from it, and as with me, I had responsibilities, so a monastry was out of the question.

To this extent, and a few other reasons, I turned my back on Nirvana and walked away. Although I am not in an enlightened state any more, it doesn't take the knowledge away which I have gained along the way.

 

[Sunstone]

Pol Pot was a confirmed atheist. This is well documented and his vengence went out against the church before it went out against anybody else, this is also well documented. His prejudice against the church, his adopting Stalin as his hero and mentor, all served to make him the person he was.

This is such nonsense! Even if Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin were atheists, there is nothing at all in the doctrine of atheism that encourages one to murder people. To assume that there is some such thing is simply sloppy thinking worthy of a third-class preacher.

 

[footprints]

This is such nonsense! Even if Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin were atheists, there is nothing at all in the doctrine of atheism that encourages one to murder people. To assume that there is some such thing is simply sloppy thinking worthy of a third-class preacher.

Your right to deny logged history if you so desire. Not even if they were atheists, they were atheists.

Atheism doesn't have a doctrine, it is open slather except for the lacking in belief that a deity exists.

Albeit, many atheists will point to the God Delusion et al as their Holy Grail, which does imply and suggest all the way through it, it is intelligent to attack, demean and ridicule religious beliefs and the people who believe in these beliefs.

 

[McBell]

*hops on pontoon boat*

Whats really comical is the fact that I got footprints on ignore yet still know he is talking more bull **** than any one person should be allowed.

 

[Alceste]

*hops on pontoon boat*

Whats really comical is the fact that I got footprints on ignore yet still know he is talking more bull **** than any one person should be allowed.

I know that feeling. Half a dozen of the threads I'm following end in six pages of hidden messages followed by very dull posts with the hidden contents revealed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I know that feeling. Half a dozen of the threads I'm following end in six pages of hidden messages followed by very dull posts with the hidden contents revealed.

Enabling the ignore feature really highlights how much of noise factor certain people are. This also seems to be a good barometer that you've put the right people on ignore.

 

[footprints]

Enabling the ignore feature really highlights how much of noise factor certain people are. This also seems to be a good barometer that you've put the right people on ignore.

LOL leaving the ignore button alone, highlights how many people just offer personal attack without offering any substance to the debate at hand. Albeit they believe their personal attack is something of substance. Each I suppose to their own intelligence.

LOL some even think they are ignoring me, whist still talking about me. Each to their own intelligence.

Abuse, is definately something atheism can lead to, as many posts testify to, and Pol Pot bought to reality.

 

[footprints]

*hops on pontoon boat*

Whats really comical is the fact that I got footprints on ignore yet still know he is talking more bull **** than any one person should be allowed.

LOL what is even more comical, is some people think they are ignoring me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hitler was a Catholic. Does this logically lead to the statement "Catholicism leads to mass murder, a messiah complex and Nazism."?
No, it does not. While his personal beliefs certainly gave rise to his policies, one cannot use such a blanket statement with any rationality.
Conversely, saying "Pol Pot was an Atheist, therefor atheism leads to mass murder, radical Communism and isolationism." or "When did somebody kill somebody based on atheist ideology? Have you ever heard of Pol Pot, just to name one?" are equally irrational statements. Especially in light of the negating factor of atheism.
Having no belief in any sort of deity is not in itself an ideology. An atheist can have ideologies ranging from isolationist socialism to open humanism.
Atheism is not an organized set of beliefs, it is the lack of any beliefs in deities that sets the atheist apart from actual dogmatic religious ideologies.


Another irrational statement would be to equate a book by one outspoken atheist as a "Holy Grail" to atheists. As if atheists the world over were searching for some lost relic of Atheism.
This overt generalization of people who simply lack a belief in deities has no basis in fact.

 

[footprints]

Hitler was a Catholic. Does this logically lead to the statement "Catholicism leads to mass murder, a messiah complex and Nazism."?
No, it does not. While his personal beliefs certainly gave rise to his policies, one cannot use such a blanket statement with any rationality.

I would love a dollar donated to charity for the vast many times some non-believer has pulled Hitler, Witch Hunts or the Crusades out of their hat. Based on this same non-belief policy, I point to Pol Pot in the same manner, I could of course extend the list much further.

Conversely, saying "Pol Pot was an Atheist, therefor atheism leads to mass murder, radical Communism and isolationism." or "When did somebody kill somebody based on atheist ideology? Have you ever heard of Pol Pot, just to name one?" are equally irrational statements. Especially in light of the negating factor of atheism.
Having no belief in any sort of deity is not in itself an ideology. An atheist can have ideologies ranging from isolationist socialism to open humanism.
Atheism is not an organized set of beliefs, it is the lack of any beliefs in deities that sets the atheist apart from actual dogmatic religious ideologies.

You put it like you want, I will keep it rational and put it like I have put it, it is something which Atheism can lead to. Extremism in any form is never rational or ever reasonable.

Another irrational statement would be to equate a book by one outspoken atheist as a "Holy Grail" to atheists. As if atheists the world over were searching for some lost relic of Atheism.
This overt generalization of people who simply lack a belief in deities has no basis in fact.

Do you mean just as illogical as pointing to the Pope et al, as speaking for all Catholics?

Some atheists do look upon The God Delusion as some sort of Holy Grail, that is just a fact of life, just as some Catholics do align with the Pope. We are talking about what atheism can lead to, I am just highlighting what it can, does and has lead to.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Footie,

Define extreme atheism. What would the dogmatic devotion to non-belief be?
(Perhaps you are thinking of anti-theism, I can see how that could easily confuse you.)

BTW, you have yet to define how a book that is readily available at most any book store is comparable to a fictitious lost relic of Christianity.

 

[footprints]

Footie,

Define extreme atheism. What would the dogmatic devotion to non-belief be?
(Perhaps you are thinking of anti-theism, I can see how that could easily confuse you.)

BTW, you have yet to define how a book that is readily available at most any book store is comparable to a fictitious lost relic of Christianity.

I can see how you could be easily confused. Belief patterns have a way of confusing people and only showing their own belief.

Extreme Atheism - Extremist Irrationalist (the equivalent to the theists, creationist). There is extremism in everything, denial of this is only blocking reality out.

What is the dogmatic devotion to non-belief be? Are you kidding me? Non-believer based of course, not all non-believers are irrational in their viewpoint, but try these ones on for size, tooth fairy, spaghetti monster, flying tea pot et al. Not to mention the most basic and most obvious dogmatic belief of some atheists, that God(s) per se just do not exist, or have never existed.

When people see only through their own perception, all they see is their own relection of what it is, they are personally projecting.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Non-belief in God or Gods is dogmatic? The desire for empirical evidence and failure to believe in an unprovable supernatural is dogmatic?

And you point to the sarcastic FSM, flying tea-pot, etc, as atheistic beliefs?

Really Footie, your irrationality is amazing.

 

[Falvlun]

Not to mention the most basic and most obvious dogmatic belief of some atheists, that God(s) per se just do not exist, or have never existed.

Wait a minute. A theist who positively asserts that God exists is simply a theist. He must be a YEC to be considered irrational. But an atheist who positively asserts that God doesn't exist is automatically considered to be an exteme irrationalist. Isn't that a bit unfair and biased towards one side?

Or do you also consider someone who positively asserts that a god exists to also be an extreme irrationalist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can see how you could be easily confused. Belief patterns have a way of confusing people and only showing their own belief.

Extreme Atheism - Extremist Irrationalist (the equivalent to the theists, creationist). There is extremism in everything, denial of this is only blocking reality out.

Could you please define how "extreme" atheism differs from regular atheism?

What is the dogmatic devotion to non-belief be? Are you kidding me? Non-believer based of course, not all non-believers are irrational in their viewpoint, but try these ones on for size, tooth fairy, spaghetti monster, flying tea pot et al.

Atheists don't believe any of those things (well, unless they're about eight years old and still believe in the tooth fairy). They are used as satires of belief.

Not to mention the most basic and most obvious dogmatic belief of some atheists, that God(s) per se just do not exist, or have never existed.

So, forgetting for the moment that the term "atheism" only pertains to a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in the nonexistence of God, how is it any more irrational for an atheist to "dogmatically" believe there is no God than it is for a theist to believe that there is?

When people see only through their own perception, all they see is their own relection of what it is, they are personally projecting.

Very true - especially in your case.

 

[footprints]

Non-belief in God or Gods is dogmatic? The desire for empirical evidence and failure to believe in an unprovable supernatural is dogmatic?

And you point to the sarcastic FSM, flying tea-pot, etc, as atheistic beliefs?

Really Footie, your irrationality is amazing.

Yes Non-belief in God or Gods is dogmatic. Who says there is no empirical evidence to be found? You?

Who says that God, Gods per se, have anything to do with the supernatural? You?

What I can rationally and logically tell you, it will only be by pure accident, not logic and reason, that a non-believer will ever uncover any empirical evidence as it pertains to an alleged deity.

I don't think I am missing the point of FSM, flying tea pots et al. The trouble is most non-believers miss the point, that the same analogy can be applied to their own reasoning, as well as the reasoning, of those who they throw these spears at.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes Non-belief in God or Gods is dogmatic. Who says there is no empirical evidence to be found? You?

So, by that standard non-belief in anything is "dogmatic"?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy, or are you a dogmatic anti-toothfairian?

If there is empirical evidence of God - present it.

Who says that God, Gods per se, have anything to do with the supernatural? You?

The way they're depicted in practically every religion on the face of the earth. Can you give us examples of religions or beliefs which describe a God as possessing no qualities or powers that go beyond the known laws of the natural universe?

What can rationallly and logically tell you, it will only be by pure accident, not logic and reason, that a non-believer will ever uncover any empirical evidence as it pertains to an alleged deity.

Who says so? You?

I don't think I am missing the point of FSM, flying tea pots et al. The trouble is most non-believers miss the point that the same analogy can be applied to their own reasoning.

No, it can't. Because by the very definition, non-believers are non-believers in something.

 

[footprints]

Wait a minute. A theist who positively asserts that God exists is simply a theist. He must be a YEC to be considered irrational. But an atheist who positively asserts that God doesn't exist is automatically considered to be an exteme irrationalist. Isn't that a bit unfair and biased towards one side?

I suppose that is why I associate the Extremist Irrationalist with the Creationist, and not the theist. Both are extremism, though diametrically opposed to the same belief.

The theist I align with the atheist, not the extremist irrationalist and not the creationist. These are people who can still see reason, albeit will always maintain their own belief.

The bias you see pertaining to one side, is perception based, in the majority of cases it is the non-believer who attacks my position, so this will tend to direct your perception in a particular direction. Let me assure you, in the total picture of reality, I get condemned to hell, by both the believer and the non-believer.

Or do you also consider someone who positively asserts that a god exists to also be an extreme irrationalist?

Most theists do not positively assert that a deity exists, most atheists, not even Dawkins, positively asserts that a deity doesn't exist. What these people will tell you, it is their belief and some like Dawkins will give their perception of the probability attached to it.

Those that positively assert that a Deity does, or doesn't exist, align in the same extremes as each other, are each others mirror image, and are diametrically opposed.

 

[footprints]

Could you please define how "extreme" atheism differs from regular atheism?

Do you really need for me to define the difference between Pol Pot and Peter next door, a very sincere and genuine man, who understands his opinion is only an opinion, which may be wrong or right?

Atheists don't believe any of those things (well, unless they're about eight years old and still believe in the tooth fairy). They are used as satires of belief.

Belief is perception based, I do not know any atheist who uses such garbage, who doesn't believe in the analogy they are using. Personally, I believe any person who would come up with an analogy of tooth fairies, et al, would have had to have had the mental capability of a child. Just a strawman argument to try to divert attention away from the subject or topic base at hand.

It makes it even more ironic, when their same strawman can be used against their position, albeit they cannot see it.

So, forgetting for the moment that the term "atheism" only pertains to a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in the nonexistence of God, how is it any more irrational for an atheist to "dogmatically" believe there is no God than it is for a theist to believe that there is?

Simply because the two statements do not go together, neither rationally or logically. A lack of belief in God, doesn't translate in any mans language, to God doesn't exist. A lack of belief, still leaves the probability wide open, irrespective of how small, some may say, the probability is.

The reasoned atheist, never says, God doesn't exist, they know it is their opinion, that it is, their belief. The reasoned theist doesn't deny the probability that God may not exist, they will outrightly tell a person, this is their opinion, this is their belief.

Very true - especially in your case.

LOL not quite true Immortal, I see your perception as well, I could easily align with it, in fact I have once already, then I gained a better view.