• 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!

Why anti-theism is a joke.

MataM

New Member
(emphasis mine)

But it doesn't.


In regards to the utilization of linguistics which inherently personifies internal attributes onto external stimuli a prime example can be found in the wording "sun rise" when it is not the rises but humans do and the correlation to the action of such is the main point of comparison for a human. Anther prime example can be found in that of the ultimate psychological question in terms of what does God do? As with more information one will conclude on a different conclusion and thus there is no wind god. Upon acquiring information over time, through boredom, one will be able to correlate almost every single environmental event with that of the universe and the universe is not finite only a humans comprehension of such is, the mind cannot comprehend what it has no point of reference for and thus in terms of being methodical, I'm sorry to state it is in fact the age of reason.

Thus in short the only point of comparison for morality is that of Mother Earth as revenge/wrath are mere products of the brains ability to imagine and thus satisfy the inner feeling of hurt, Thus in terms of a god in terms of morality it is mother earth, but reality is not experienced without an individual to do such and thus in terms of a god for reality it is in fact YOU, Depending on the contextual domain for which is utilized to donate a God from the pre-mentioned it is clear it is but all a matter of what aspect of reality one is focusing on.

And to conclude to
Respect one's self personifies onto others,
Thus through self respect, respect for others shall always follow.

I can clarify more if you wish..

Have a nice day.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
I can clarify more if you wish..
Explain why you have a conception of God that theists do not have and are attempting to impose that upon us. That and why you think using a thesaurus for everything somehow makes your argument much more valid. I do not believe you actually talk like that, and the word you are looking for is "anthromorphism": giving things human properties.

Theists do not believe in an invisible man in the sky. Nor do theists who believe in certain deities such as the "wind god" you mention believe this deity controls the wind. It is something beyond that.

Conceptions of God boil down to anthromorphisms, yes - that is, however, only to make God and gods more accessible to people. There is probably a reason religions usually say God and/or gods cannot be completely understood by humans.
 

blackout

Violet.
There are a significant number of us Theists
who are quite cognizant that our Gods are our Own--
designed by and for Our Own Selves.

My life is a MYthology unto itSelf.


The Panthiest in me would say that
We are the Self Realization--or the Self Awareness of God,
and that All things, both existing and potential are God.

Intelligent Life, The Self Awareness of the Universe,
the Cognizant Creative Realization "God".
Self Named.
That is You, and I.

I AM, My Own Pantheon.
My Story is My Own.
"Hollywood", is My Own.
Olympus, My Own.
 

blackout

Violet.
Says the Pagan in me-
I Am the Goddess of my Own Domain,
the Maker of my Own Pantheon!
The Maker of My Own Magic!

Says the LHP Source'heiress (Sorceress) in me-
The Universe of my Subjective/Objective overlay, is My Domain/Dominion-
The Dominion of "I",
and I Am the Only "ONE" with Dominion over that Domain .
I Am Initiator of Word and World.
They are mine to form--
Spell and Cast, Shape and Define.
Godhood is In'herant/Inherited In Me.


Says the Panthiest in me-
There is no'thing that is not God,
including Me-- and You.

Says the Christian in me-
Christhood is My Own to Attain.
The Kingdom of God is Here, Now.
REALize it!

Says the God/Goddess in me-
My Life is my Own to Initiate.
Create! and Be All That!

Says the Diviner in me--
What is not Divine?
Listen!
Your World has much to tell, and show you...
Much to reveal.

Says the Tarot I'magery in me-
I Am Star, I Am Strength and Lustre,
I Am Emperor and Empress,
Magician, High Preistess and Fool.

Says Nyx in me-
The Night is mine to Explore.
The Darkness holds within it
the most exquisite Mystery.

Says Violet in me-
Twilight is the Essence of my being.
Embrace Your Essence!
Be You Violette! In all Your Shining Purple Glory!

Says Chaos in me-
Create! Reach into the Deepness of Abyss! Bring your Visions into Being!
What is not possible? Bring it into Being!

Says SET in me-
Set your Diadem with the Jewels of the Night Sky!
Set Your heart and mind on Your most glorious Visions of Self.
Set YourSelf apart/a part.
Set The Stage!
Set down what is unnecessary and harmful to Self.
Perfect kick *** Set Lists!
In all things SET YOURSELF to Xeper and ReManifest.

Says Ultra in me-
"I Am Your I'doll!"
"BECOME" Your Highest-- Most wonderful Self-- as I'Magined and Embodied in Me!
"Become One in BEing with me, Ultra--Violette, My Dearest".
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
To me the joke is: When a person while acting as a thinker and doer, preaches falsity of other views while using the powers that he has not created or possesed. When such an individual declares that there is no reality in Self, that there is no consciousness, and that there is no life force.

They declare the objects of mind-sense as real while declaring the very subject as false. They want to become like Buddha, without realising the falsity of objects that Buddha realised and taught.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
To me the joke is: When a person while acting as a thinker and doer, preaches falsity of other views while using the powers that he has not created or possesed. When such an individual declares that there is no reality in Self, that there is no consciousness, and that there is no life force.

They declare the objects of mind-sense as real while declaring the very subject as false. They want to become like Buddha, without realising the falsity of objects that Buddha realised and taught.

Could that statement be any more vague?
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
No, the entire premise is that it's healthy to believe true logic.

The entire premise of what?

Maybe we are answering in too short for the answers but I got kinda lost.

Someone said that it is unhealthy to believe in something that can´t be proven logically, referring to beleiving in deities.

My answer was that it is imposible to prove the exterior world logically, so according to this person´s reasoning, believing in the exterior world should be unhealthy.

Which is your posture on it?
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
The entire premise of what?

Maybe we are answering in too short for the answers but I got kinda lost.

Someone said that it is unhealthy to believe in something that can´t be proven logically, referring to beleiving in deities.

My answer was that it is imposible to prove the exterior world logically, so according to this person´s reasoning, believing in the exterior world should be unhealthy.

Which is your posture on it?

It is quite possible to prove the exterior world with non-vacuous statements.

I'm going to take your example to the extreme;

This logic would also dictate that theism is the only rational and logical solution. You would have a very hard time backing that statement up.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
It is quite possible to prove the exterior world with non-vacuous statements.

I'm going to take your example to the extreme;

This logic would also dictate that theism is the only rational and logical solution. You would have a very hard time backing that statement up.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. To me, it seems like he's speaking in purely pragmatic terms:
(and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your meaning here, Me Myself, but I wanted to give it a shot):


There's absolutely no way for a being that's reliant on sensory perception to experience reality directly. All we have access to are the interpretations of reality our senses provide us with. We already know that what our brains tell us we're seeing isn't what we're actually looking at:

---our brains via our eyes tell us that we see an apple, and that that apple is in a state of status (that is: to our direct perception, discounting any external influence, that apple is stable and unchanging). What we're actually looking at is a collection of molecules in a constant state of flux.

We don't need to know any of that. For our purposes all we need to "know" is that it's an apple.

From a pragmatic perspective we can prove that the apple is in fact an apple by taking a bite out of it. Our eyes interpret the light refracting off the surface of this collection of molecules and tell us that it is in fact and apple and that it's red. Our sense of touch tells us that it has the weight and feel of an apple. Our sense of taste tells us that it tastes like an apple.

For our purposes, this is close enough to absolute proof. Our subjective, sensory experience confirms all this for us. This isn't absolute proof by any means but for our purposes it's close enough.

But, eliminating subjective experience, subjective perceptions, subjective "proof", and approaching the subject logically, how would you go about proving, logically, that:

---this is an apple and that it is red?

---that it has weight and mass?

---that it does in fact taste like an apple?


You can't, because none of the above is true objectively, only subjectively.

So when Me Myself said this:
Me Myself said:
My answer was that it is impossible to prove the exterior world logically, so according to this person´s reasoning, believing in the exterior world should be unhealthy.

He has a good point.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
:p Hey Atanu and Me Myself, when I said this:


I think I'm beginning to understand why most mystics and contemplatives almost always spoke in poetic metaphor: it wasn't just that what they'd discovered couldn't be effectively expressed in mundane language, I'm becoming convinced it was also so that the open-minded would get the message and everybody else would just sit there and go "OH! Pretty!" and leave it at that.

here are a few excellent examples of what I was talking about :D:

Could that statement be any more vague?

what are you guys talking about?

I bet it is one of those things you have to have a belief in something without any compelling evidence for in order to understand.
Or you gotta be possessed.

It is quite possible to prove the exterior world with non-vacuous statements.

I'm going to take your example to the extreme;

This logic would also dictate that theism is the only rational and logical solution. You would have a very hard time backing that statement up.


Although I have to say that this:
what are you guys talking about?

Was the most honest response.
icon14.gif



Everyone else is falling back on the old "I don't get it so it must be nonsense" maneuver.
 
Last edited:
Top