What Can Atheism Lead To?

[Alceste]

Just wanted to re-post this. It is like a dog returning to its own vomit.

It's like forcing me to watch a dog lap up its own vomit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It's like forcing me to watch a dog lap up its own vomit.

My apologies.:sorry1:
From now on I will reply only indirectly to our esteemed footie.

 

[footprints]

Just wanted to re-post this. It is like a dog returning to its own vomit.

That is just as sick as your opinion on this matter.

 

[footprints]

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.[1]


An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.


-Wiki


Sorry - they aren't the same.


EDIT: And in regards to the OP.

Even one with half a rationale can realize that Atheism truly leads to at least a few hundred million different results in conjunction to the near limitless amount of circumstance with which the one particular thought 'there is no god' exists.

LOL so now your reference source is trying to imply a person cannot have an opinion without some emotional input and that a belief isn't subjective.

Of dust1n, it just gets better. However, I am glad see you don't believe that a creationist is subjective.

 

[Tristesse]

Not only have I established the fact that an opinion is indeed a belief. What this whole lot has done, including the "Pack Mentality," of some, is shown what Atheism can lead to, and the extremism in it.

I couldn't have done that without your help and the rest of the pack, thank you.

I can see you are all doing a great job of ignoring me. LOL.

Atheism can't "lead" to anything. People don't take actions on what they don't believe, they take actions on what they do believe.

 

[footprints]

Atheism can't "lead" to anything. People don't take actions on what they don't believe, they take actions on what they do believe.

Atheism can lead to many things, the extremist irrationalist position just one of many, theism another one.

Or people they can take action against what they don't believe. And what most non-believers and believers do in this forum.

 

[Tristesse]

Atheism can lead to many things, the extremist irrationalist position just one of many, theism another one.

Or people they can take action against what they don't believe. And what most non-believers and believers do in this forum.

No, you can't get from a disbelief in anything, to taking a particular action. People who take actions, do so on what they do believe.

 

[footprints]

No, you can't get from a disbelief in anything, to taking a particular action. People who take actions, do so on what they do believe.

What do you have a disbelief in Tristesse?

If you tell me a deity, I will ask you to define a deity? Irrational to a have disbelief if you do not know what you have a disbelief in.

As soon as you tell me what you personally define a deity as, even if this is something which must be defined by another person, then I will tell you that is what your belief is. If you offer counter objection to another persons belief, I will also tell you that is part of your belief.

When people take action for what they do believe (as in the atheist belief) and counter argue another positon of belief, they are debating against what they do not believe. They believe their own belief is the better position.

There are three positions in the deity debate.

1: People who believe in the existance of a deity.
2: People who are unsure of whether a deity exists, existed or not.
3: People who believe there is no deity at all.

All these three groups work with the same evidence and apply human intelligence to form their belief pattern.

 

[Xafwak]

Atheism can lead to many things, the extremist irrationalist position just one of many, theism another one.

Or people they can take action against what they don't believe. And what most non-believers and believers do in this forum.

FP, could you please just stop?

Atheism, which is better described as secularism, in general does not take a society-destroying form. It´s common knowledge that atheists are grossly under-represented in US jail population compared to their numbers in society. When did actually anyone kill someone else based on "atheist ideology"? Compared to any other, secular or spiritual ideology, such as hinduism or communism? Atheism simply doesn´t and can´t feed destructive behaviour except in mentally unstable people. Religions and ideologies, on the other hand, no matter how peaceful otherwise, have the potential of working as a basis for indoctrinating into violent behaviour.

 

[Tristesse]

What do you have a disbelief in Tristesse?

If you tell me a deity, I will ask you to define a deity? Irrational to a have disbelief if you do not know what you have a disbelief in.

As soon as you tell me what you personally define a deity as, even if this is something which must be defined by another person, then I will tell you that is what your belief is. If you offer counter objection to another persons belief, I will also tell you that is part of your belief.

When people take action for what they do believe (as in the atheist belief) and counter argue another positon of belief, they are debating against what they do not believe. They believe their own belief is the better position.

A lot of things. Santa clause, fairies, leprechauns etc.... It would be easier to tell you what I do believe.
If you give me a description of a deity, I will tell you whether or not I believe in it. For example, I don't have a belief in the christian god, or any other god derived from that. It's not my job to define deities, people do, and I make a determination as to whether that god is likely to be true or not. And I don't believe in a disbelief of a god. So, atheism isn't a belief. It would be a belief if I believed that no gods exist, than I would have a belief. And than that goes beyond the bounds of atheism.

 

[footprints]

FP, could you please just stop?

Atheism, which is better described as secularism, in general does not take a society-destroying form. It´s common knowledge that atheists are grossly under-represented in US jail population compared to their numbers in society. When did actually anyone kill someone else based on "atheist ideology"? Compared to any other, secular or spiritual ideology, such as hinduism or communism? Atheism simply doesn´t and can´t feed destructive behaviour except in mentally unstable people. Religions and ideologies, on the other hand, no matter how peaceful otherwise, have the potential of working as a basis for indoctrinating into violent behaviour.

That statement is about as reasoned as those who would say Sweden isn't a religious country based on similar statistics.

When did somebody kill somebody based on atheist ideology? Have you ever heard of Pol Pot, just to name one?

 

[footprints]

A lot of things. Santa clause, fairies, leprechauns etc.... It would be easier to tell you what I do believe.
If you give me a description of a deity, I will tell you whether or not I believe in it. For example, I don't have a belief in the christian god, or any other god derived from that. It's not my job to define deities, people do, and I make a determination as to whether that god is likely to be true or not. And I don't believe in a disbelief of a god. So, atheism isn't a belief. It would be a belief if I believed that no gods exist, than I would have a belief. And than that goes beyond the bounds of atheism.

You already know my definition of a deity, it is the same as yours, whatever a persons says it is.

So tell me does a deity exist?

 

[Tristesse]

That statement is about as reasoned as those who would say Sweden isn't a religious country.

When did somebody kill somebody based on atheist ideology? Have you ever heard of Pol Pot, just to name one?

Pol pot didn't kill because of what he didn't believe, he killed because of what he did believe. He believed in a perverse view of communism. He also happen to be an atheist. But it wasn't his disbelief in a god that drove him to take those actions.

 

[Tristesse]

You already know my definition of a deity, it is the same as yours, whatever a persons says it is.

So tell me does a deity exist?

I don't know, and neither does anybody else. But I don't believe one does exist. I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[footprints]

I don't know, and neither does anybody else. But I don't believe one does exist. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Then you do have a belief. Your belief is in the first instance

1) you don't know, then imply nobody else does either, just how do you know that for sure that nobody else knows? Do you just like know it? Did it come to you as some sort of revelation?

then you move to the postion of;

2) But you don't believe one does exists, which is a counter postion to your 1 above. From being unsure you have jumpd to a subjective belief. So I ask you, why don't you believe a deity exists?

 

[footprints]

Pol pot didn't kill because of what he didn't believe, he killed because of what he did believe. He believed in a perverse view of communism. He also happen to be an atheist. But it wasn't his disbelief in a god that drove him to take those actions.

Whoa, and you can shout that out aloud, he killed because of his atheist beliefs, and the ones he killed were all those against his beliefs.

Pol Pot didn't oppose his own belief, he opposed those he had a lack of belief in, and we all know the end resultant of that.

 

[Tristesse]

Then you do have a belief. Your belief is in the first instance

1) you don't know, then imply nobody else does either, just how do you know that for sure that nobody else knows? Do you just like know it? Did it come to you as some sort of revelation?

then you move to the postion of;

2) But you don't believe one does exists, which is a counter postion to your 1 above. From being unsure you have jumpd to a subjective belief. So I ask you, why don't you believe a deity exists?

Footprints, what are you talking about? I don't know whether a god exists, but I also don't believe one exists. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe a deity exists because I don't have sufficient evidence to claim that one does exist.

 

[Tristesse]

Whoa, and you can shout that out aloud, he killed because of his atheist beliefs, and the ones he killed were all those against his beliefs.

Pol Pot didn't oppose his own belief, he opposed those he had a lack of belief in, and we all know the end resultant of that.

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?

 

[godarewe]

Hi footprints,

Pretty much, by those definitions of Spiritual Awakening/Spiritual Enlightenment, everybody who thinks is therefore enlightened. Which of course is not the case, albeit many will falsely believe they are, for their own intelligence will them this is so. Now don't get me wrong, give a thinking person perhaps 10 lifetimes, and put them in every position life has to offer and allow them to keep their memory from one lifetime to another, and they would stand a very good chance of becoming enlightened, when they put the good and the bad of all together, in their own mind, and find the solution of what is best for the all.

In scientific terms, an awakening is a new dendrite to synapse connection made in the brain, or a new association of relationship made if the connection is already made. In general terms the phrase, "When the penny finally drops," or, "Now I get it," and the person finally gets something, they couldn't grasp before, comes into play. The theist after mulling all the evidence of evolution, of fossil records, of the impossible scenarios of virgin births, of perceived lies and deceit of modern day clergy et al, finally makes the connection and says, "hey, this can't be for real." This is generally followed by a feeling of elation (which is really the chemical reaction to the new connection) and the person in question feels good about themselves.

In scientific terms, the enlightenment period, is a series of awakenings. Depending on the brain in question, and how much damage the environment has done to it, this may range from as few as 100 awakenings to get through the enightenment period, or it could go as high as 1000 or more. In the initial stages of the enlightenment period, awakenings will be fairly slow, perhaps one a week, or could even be years in-between. Toward the end, awakenings will come thick and fast, could be as many as 10 a day, or even in the space of an hour. The brain at this time will be alive, dendrites will grow wild in a state of exuberance, new associations of relationships will be made all over the place, as the brain in question learns to relate and associate single life events (experiences) in many different ways. What a person once believed right, can suddenly become wrong, depending on the perception of life, it is looked upon. Keeping in line with the original example of the theist who has an awakening and becomes an atheist, this would mean they could look back at theism and see that it is right as they look at things in different ways with the new associations made.

Enlightenment, isn't achieved, until such time as the enlightenment period is fully complete. If, as in the offered example, the theist who became an atheist, cannot look back at theism and see the good in it, and even turn the bad into good, the person should know, they are not enlightened. The same theist of course, who became an atheist, if they couldn't look back at atheism and see the good in it, and even turn the bad in it into good, the person should know, they are not enlightened. Enlightenment is the simple process of being able to look at life and all its experiences from every perception possible, and being able to say, Yes by that perception, that relationship of association, that is absolutely correct, and of course, looking at something which directly opposes it, and saying by that perception, that is correct also.

In order to reach the state of enlightenment as stated above, a person must push past the barrier of their own comfort zone. A big ask, for any intelligent brain, most of course will not be able to do it, for their own intelligence has already given them the answer they need, and they will falsely believe they are enlightened for it. The theist who has recently received an awakening, will have a big problem and issue, due to the own intelligence, they have just proven to themselves that religion is wrong, there is no way they are now going to say, religion is also right. Their own intelligence will be the thing which stops them from learning, unless of course, they push past the barrier of their own comfort zone.

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

Enlightenment of course, is not Spiritual Enlightenment, albeit to this stage, both are identical in procedure to reach this point and both will enlighten the spirit of the individual with the knowledge gained. Enlightenment to this point, is where we drop off modern day Taoism and some sects of Buddhism (zen Buddhism included). A classic example of an individual who reached this point, would be Master Sun, or Sun Tzu as he is more commonly known in western circles. Master Lao, or Lao Tzu, of course, went on to reach greater heights than the Sun Tzu ever could.

On the path to Spiritual enlightenment, Enlightenment is equivalent to reaching a black belt in a martial arts. You have the basics, now the real learning starts. Where enlightenment is concerned, many will never even reach this far. Enlightenment leaves a person with human intelligence, Spiritual Enlightenment turns human intelligence into Wisdom as the spirit of the human body, connects with the wisdom of the enlightened spirits which came before it and the universe as a whole. Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Krishna, Biami, Muhammad, just to name a few. Like it or lump it, Spiritual enlightenment requires a religious connection, that is just an unfortunate fact, in the many facts of life.

Religion in itself is not a dirty word, albeit can be according to the mind that holds it. Religion is nothing more, nothing less in most cases, than an extension to a base root, ancient culture. Jesus for example, wasn't a Jew, Jesus was a Hebrew. So if you have a problem with the religious connection in your own mind, think of all these great teachers, Buddha, Jesus, Biami et al, as cultural figures belonging to a culture, for in base reality, that is what they really are.

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

LOL that you see me as a crusading religious evangelist, is something which stems from your own mind.

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.

As an agnostic, I can debate from many perspectives, I can just as easily change my position and debate from the atheist perspective if I so desired, then again, I could turn it completely around and debate solely from the theists side, or if I so wished debate from a deist, gnostic or pagan perspective. Generally I stick with the middle ground, which will cut straight across the atheists beief patterns as I try in vain to show them reason in their unreasonable position. If you read other threads, I have just as many theists calling me an idiot and telling me I am wrong as I do atheists. All of course is a matter of perspective, and there are reasons you see me as you do, which pertain to you, not really to me as any path of enlightenment will eventually explain to you.

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?

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.

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.

 

[footprints]

Footprints, what are you talking about? I don't know whether a god exists, but I also don't believe one exists. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe a deity exists because I don't have sufficient evidence to claim that one does exist.

Equally then you wouldn't have enough evidence then to support the other hypotheis, that a deity doesn't exist?

Yet your belief tells you one doesn't. When you say you don't believe, you do understand that is a belief, the belief choices are:

1: A deity exists (which could mean existed as in some deist beliefs)
2: Unsure whether a deity exists or existed. Maybe Yes, Maybe No position.
3: A deity doesn't exist (which could mean has never existed)