posted Wed, 06/28/2017 - 12:58
12963
Atheism
ad
I want to draw out a couple of atheists on here. If you are an atheist, what is your definition of atheism? I know the Webster definition but I want other perspectives.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7XVbHYAt4
Thoughts on this?
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
I'm your huckleberry. I cannot say I do not believe in creation, I just do not believe in christianity or any organized religion. Humans have been on earth at least 150k years. And if you cannot follow the golden rule or have morals without worrying about flying spaghetti monster is watching, that is on you. It speaks to your own flaws not mine.
Dkoon211Close minded morons. There's the definition.
For anyone who is not Christian, the fact that this thread has been resurrected should be evidence enough to change your mind (joke).
Philosophically, I'm and Existential Nihilist. In terms of religion, they are all man-made constructs used by humans to give meaning to life/existence. They answer the age old questions of: Why are we here? How were we created? Is this existence the only one? and so forth.
Easy answer is that a fatherly figure created us and watches over us and we will join him and our loved ones after this life.
Sure makes a lot of people feel better than if you tell them that we are here because of random biological events and then a process of evolution over millions of years, and that existence has no more meaning for humans than it does for an insect or blade of grass - with the exception that we are evolved enough to be able to create and believe abstract notions.
For me, if I were to be asked what is my religion, science is my religion.
If u master the arabic language, and can read the Quran there wont be any doubt of god's existence, guaranteed. A perfect book a way of man's life, explaining everything a man needs to know
words from someone who discovered his religion in the 20's even tho living in the middle of catholics and atheists
does being able to master Arabic numbers count?
Well, I'm glad you found the only path to enlightenment -for you. The rest of us however feel the very same way about the path "god" has chosen for us... You might want to tone down your orthodoxy.
AnonI'm not religious. I find something in the outdoors and some physical activities that I can not typographically articulate. Hiking, camping, being in nature..... I get something from that and I wont use the word "spiritual" to describe it because it's too ambiguous of a word for me. It's primal. It's a primal connection to the Earth and my ancestors.
I think you said it well enough ;-)
FortySIXand2I am a terrible Christian ..but thats what I am spiritualy .
I refuse to go to church ever again..horiffying experiences. Constantly harrassed for money..then to find out what goes on behind the scenes...disturbing.
Agnostic. Maybe even spiritual agnostic. I simply do not claim to know. But have serious doubts about religion
I love the discussion here, keep it going people. I wish we can discuss this in person. Love you guys
Agreed, this is a great dialogue. Probably the best I've had or read about this topic. Figure that, a bunch of roided out guys being sophisticated haha
Physics proves a universal order. The more we understand the physics and mathematics around us as it relates to this order , the closer we become to understanding "God".
Research PEAR, also the price and swan experiments. Guys found underground nuclear testing sites in Europe and were employed by the CIA. I've been researching heavily on the zero point field and how it is essentially what the Vedas used to describe as the akashic records
I was raised Catholic and when I discovered the massive amount of priests sexually assaulting children it made me take a major step back and reassess.
As I've progressed through my life and mainly education (a fuck ton of it, several advanced degrees) I truly saw that science completely disproves any religion we have presently. I believe proven science over books of fairy tales.
That being said, I don't not believe in God or a higher power, I just have zero doubt that organized religion is a tool to control the masses and give people a crutch who simply can't function knowing that things they've believed for their entire lives are a sham.
That being said, be cool to me and I'll absolutely be cool to you. Don't force your shit on others or I'll speak up and make you look like a retard.
FortySIXand2The word Catholic is not any Bible
jayiskThe word catholic literally means “universal.” Which originally stood to indicate Christendom as a whole. Which is its meaning in the Apostle Creed.
Roman Catholic/Catholicism is a religion and took on a different meaning.
FortySIXand2It did take on a different meaning...clearly...but there is a reason it is not in the Bible
Catholicism didn't exist then, ipads aren't mentioned either.
Have you ever heard of Jesus and all of Catholicism allegorically referencing psilocybin? Pretty fascinating
I have not but I am going to now. I'm a huge advocate of psychedelics and especially the profound impact psilocybin has on people, especially with certain mental health issues.
Yes. Lsd and psilocybin bring you to a whole other level of consciousness. Makes you understand people and life better. If only people knew. Look at the kind of people that did lsd and mushrooms. Albert Hoffman, Tim Leary, Stan owsley, Terrence McKenna. Very intelligent people. I could go on and on with names. But what do I know? Shit this is two years old sorry.
"Proven science" is ever changing and evolving. Scientific concepts that were proven "true" hundreds of years ago have been rewritten many times over. To profess that you believe in science books is a flawed concept to begin with. Take your proven science books, in a thousand years , do you believe that all the "proven science" will still be relevant to that days current science or do you believe that it may change and completely? Which is not just possibly but extremely probably.
If you are against organized religion then good for you. No one doubts how some have distain for organized religion. But when you spout off about "proven science" which is nothing more than the currently accepted science, then you sir, may come off sounding like the retard
You're right, things like particle physics and string theory absolutely change over time because scientists are putting their best foot forward and learning new things at an increasing rate. I'm not saying that all science is understood and fundamentally sound and that nothing will ever change, that is a very foolish picture to paint. Up until a couple hundred years ago, the church ran everything and if you dared question it or present evidence what they claim is wrong, you weren't going to be around long. Of course science has changed since then, I would hope so haha.
It is a fact that evolution occurred. It is a fact that the world is older than 6000 years. The speed of light is also a fact. Will we find out more about evolution that changes what is fact today? Very likely, but it doesn't do anything for the sake of what religion claims.
I don't have a problem with organized religion, I just see the glaringly obvious hypocritical things it's based on. Now I absolutely have a problem with people who push their beliefs (or try to pass laws in favor of their beliefs) on others (not saying anyone here is at all) or choose to ignore information that is factual, simply because it isn't in line with what religion has told people to believe based on blind faith.
I very well may come off sounding like a retard haha, not the first time, but I'm certainly not going to blindly follow anyone who tells me to believe what they say or else I'll suffer. If religion has some new evidence to support claims other than a fallacious appeal to authority, I'm absolutely open to learning whatever that may be and forming different conclusions should that be warranted. I'm always willing to admit I am wrong, happens plenty in life.
Actually quite the opposite. And, you have to separate the religious text from the religions built around them.
Ancient man, hundreds of years before christ, could be describing the big bang as best they could without the advantage of modern scientific language and devices. This insight also is demonstrated by ancient greeks who deduced that all things were built on the atom. amongst other things. It took science thousands of years to prove those.
The six phases (days) of creation/big bang
creation of the heavens and the earth = matter and space
creation of the sky = atmosphere over water planet
creation of dry land and plant life. = more atmosphere; water receded.
creation of all the stars and heavenly bodies = coalescing matter into stars, cooling matter into planets.
creation of all life that lives in the water = aquatic life comes into being
creation of all the creatures that live on dry land. = animals evolve to populate the land
You must admit, that's pretty insightful for the whomever(s) wrote the book of genesis.
Then, if you look at the greek root words for modern day psychology and pair them up against ancient text you'll find an eerie parallel with the workings of angels, demons, thought. ideas, etc.
You might say that the writers of the ancient texts were inspired. Now google the root definition of inspiration
unimpressive if you're a fuck ton advanced liberal arts major. Do you have any advanced theological, psychological, anthropological, or physics degrees?
** Disclaimer: I'm a highschool graduate
I'm not talking about interpretation, but I think your view is definitely one of the more thought out approaches and I value anyone who can have a well articulated and intelligent conversation.
My degrees are undergraduate in systems engineering and management (finance major), juris doctorate and masters of science in computer science. Took plenty of physics classes and am considering a PhD at some point, but not definitive. I don't state my degrees in a chest thumping way ever. I happen to be fortunate enough to test very well and have a huge interest in always learning more about anything. Doesn't mean shit, plus I have a lot of student loan debt haha.
The points that I find to be undebatable are merely the denial of evolution (it is a scientific fact), the age of the earth (or everything for that matter) is not several thousand years old (billions proven through carbon dating as well as the fact we can can see billions of light years out into the cosmos), and the conceited idea that in an observable universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, all with hundreds of billions of stars, that we are anything remotely important other than a wrinkle in the vastness of space that happened to grow into complex life is, just funny to me.
There's a ton more stuff that religion tries to explain (Noah's ark, lmao) and it's just not feasible. I don't expect religion to be 100% spot on for everything and I don't even deny that maybe religion was based on pure truth to begin with, but man has used it and twisted it to gain an advantage over others (like any human with tons of power) and when you combine that with the scientific proof against it, just doesn't pass any kind of sniff test to me in any way.
I believe much of the Bible is allegorical, people tend to take things literally but sometimes these things hide in plain sight. If you research Sanskrit or Taoism or even Judaism; there are terms that are unmistakably describing quantum physics and even Astro physics. I believe the Bible was an encrypted document of some sort. At least that's what Newton and Descartes believed. Also check this out https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1082904598522968&id=94710280...
Prior to Creation, there was only the infinite Or Ein Sof filling all existence. When it arose in G-d's Will to create worlds and emanate the emanated...He contracted (in Hebrew "tzimtzum") Himself in the point at the center, in the very center of His light. He restricted that light, distancing it to the sides surrounding the central point, so that there remained a void, a hollow empty space, away from the central point... After this tzimtzum... He drew down from the Or Ein Sof a single straight line [of light] from His light surrounding [the void] from above to below [into the void], and it chained down descending into that void.... In the space of that void He emanated, created, formed and made all the worlds. (Etz Chaim, Arizal, Heichal A"K, anaf 2)
This is possibly describing the Big Bang. Subsitute God with quarks or dark matter or whatever the fuck primordial universe is made of, waves of potentiality and you have yourselves Astro physics
That guy has a very intelligent and professional way of looking at the situation, I respect it and can't say it isn't plausible.
I'm reacting to this comment:
And I made a caveat to put religion aside, as we are in agreement there. But you are sorely out of touch with most theologians and scholars that study ancient text.
You are too literal in your off hand dismissal of the text. If you look closer at what I posted above there is no conflict with the creation story and science. "Day" is a period of time. Not a 24 hour rotation of the earth. "Back in my day." is not a statement that I had a day, it is an expression of an era.
I find it extremely fascinating that someone(s) as far back as 6000 years ago would be able to look upto the night sky and be inspired to realize that everything suddenly came into being, matter condensed into stars and planets, that our plant started out as water, developed an atmosphere, land, plant life, water life, and then land life. It supports the theory of evolution, not the other way around.
As I alluded to above, ancient religious text attempts to communicate spiritual knowledge, and the best way to communicate that kind of knowledge is in spiritual language, which is the language of metaphor, allegory, and symbolism. In ancient times, phycology did not exist as a separate discipline of thought.
The story of the flood is a common one found in many cultures. The Noah story was penned to be relatable to it's hebrew audience. It is not literal, (although some religious sects would have you think so).
The name noah is from 2 hebrew words fish + life
The ark, ancient text uses a word that means container, as in the ark of the covenant was a container, not a boat.
The “earth” represents our body.
Our minds are corrupted with pride, greed, anger, envy, lust, etc. (from biting the apple from the tree of knowledge -not to be taken literally)
Noah represents the true nature of our soul or spirit (pure unlike our mind)
There is a shit ton of more symbolism with respect to the animals, building of the ark, wood used, etc.
Short version, our true nature which is deemed worthy of saving, encases itself in the ark while our minds are going through a purification or rebirth.
How is this relatable? It describes the process of surrender. For example; an alcoholic surrenders to the fact he is not in control. He gives himself up to a higher self. He is placed into the ark and becomes emotionally detached, protected, and safe from the cleansing he is going through. When the water recedes, he emerges reborn and clean.
The difference between these sacred texts (free from religious taint) is that they recognise our "god self". Modern psychology dances around the topic of god self and tries to "fix" and understand your mind without recognising your entire self. Psychology will recognise your physical body and the role it plays, but it ignores that part of you which is ethereal. Sacred text recognises a trinity; mind, body, and spirit.
Unfortunately in my case, I'm like a bed sheet. every week I require cleansing.
Greg, you're a mystic.
amazingly well said Greg.. so what if you are dirty laundry .. everything always comes out in the wash ;-)
I absolutely get and respect what you're saying and the way you deeply understand many aspects of the difference or relationship between science and religion, the problem is that you are not the rule here, you're absolutely the exception. The overwhelming majority of religion and what it stands for is not interested in bridging those gaps or explaining the similarities. They're "this is the way it is and if you say otherwise you will be punished for eternity.
Like I mentioned in my first post, I'm not against a God or the potential that religion started off pure. There's just no way that at this point, it is a facet of what it would have been or even could be. Priests raping little children, the pope being incredibly rich while so many people are starving in the world, telling people masturbation is wrong, it's all just glaringly a tool those in power have either developed or manipulated to use to control the masses.
It's a unique topic because there are clearly intelligent and rational people like yourself who focus on a great deal more than the majority who simply use it to tell people how they should conduct themselves.
I also find it abhorrent that a serial killer can ask for forgiveness on their death bed and recognize Jesus as their lord and savior and they go to heaven, but someone who was born somewhere religion just didn't exist, lived a life of helping and caring for others doesn't make the cut. That's my opinion though and not meant for the validity of my position that science disproves religion as we know it, not necessarily a higher power or God.
I'm in total agreement with everything you've said here. Originally you tossed the "fairy tale books" into the mix. In effect tossing the baby out with the bath water.
I don't think that was your intent, as your subsequent posts are about the way religion corrupts and uses the text for self serving reasons.
Definitely wasn't my intent, spoke off the cuff which I sometimes do. All my law school professors said the same thing "strive for brevity." Hahahaha
Not to mention the technology of the ancients that we still are unable to replicate.
Well that's because it wasn't the technology of the ancients but that of the Nephilim.
I truly saw that science completely disproves any religion we have presently. I believe proven science over books of fairy tales
Well that just isn't true! Significant parts of religion from peoples of the book, you know Christians, Jews, Islamists etc. involve real people. These people have been proven to exist via comparisons of scriptures and certain gospels. ;Different people from different backgrounds and in different locations.wrote about the man called Jesus by some, for example. It is pretty much accepted this individual lived and was killed, but what isnt proven is whether he lived again afterwards!
There is not a physicist or scientist in the world, alive now or dead (if death is in fact real) who has or can prove God does or does not exist. Even theoretical physicists like Hawkings have provided no evidence of their views, none whatsoever.
It is true. I'm not denying Jesus or any religious person did or did not exist, they probably did. I'm saying that the basis for our existence is fundamentally incorrect. I posted above but to summarize, evolution absolutely happened and the world/universe is billions of years old, not several thousand years old as religion states.
The infrastructures on religions are shit I totally agree with you're are saying on that part.
I honestly think that's my biggest problem with the whole topic, I don't think there absolutely is no God or higher power, I just think man has fucked everything up related to religion so much that it isn't valid in what it has become.
Good point!Even the after death stories cant bring back proof,just stories of what they claim to have seen.I personally am a christian because when I was a young man i went on a journey.I studied theosophy with a teacher and did all the meditation,cleansing diet shit and dream journals.I kept having the same dreams.A battered and bloody Jesus on the cross.I had the same experience on DMT.I then took it as a sign.Now I am not preachy or the type to testify,but there is either something to it or,my fundamentalist father did one hell of a job of imprinting.They funny thing is in none of my so called visions was there anything about Hell,just sacrificial suffering.
note:I do not go to church or attend any organized religions.I do however do charitable work and try to live by the golden rule.
I always try to pay it forward, help others when possible and treat others how I wish to be treated. Those are characteristics of a good person in my opinion, and I couldn't care less about if they are religious or not. A person is who they are through their actions, not who or what they believe in.
Sounds like you're a pretty good one, and psychedelics are always very insightful and powerful experiences.
I agree, along with fasting and meditation one can see what they want,so to speak.
the golden rule is nice......... until they say they are planning 3cc's!!!
Have you heard of the prisoner theory? its a part of game theory...
you mean 3cc's isn't the cure?I know after 3cc's of tren eod for around ten weeks you start to feel god like.lol
I believe this question on religion is summed up the best by my pastor....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
where's Goth when you need him..
Interesting post brother Simon! I'm going against the grain on this one, just my personal beliefs!
I was born and raised Roman Catholic! Attended Catholic school, was an alter boy, Eucharistic minister and considered entering formation into the Diaconate!
I pray the liturgy of the hours daily for the recitation of hymns, psalms and canticles brings me peace and hope!
I'm also human and a man with a multitude of iniquities who, at times, defied and cursed God!
I just find that connecting with the source of love brings me to a place that fills a void of emptiness and combats despair! It also keeps me humbled and grounded!
Theo, nothing wrong with that brother. You are your own man and have your own right to diety. Although raised Catholic I'm a hermetic gnostic(not for be confused with agnostic). I accept everyone for any belief.
Everyone has some type of code they follow and it's all good.
You're a very good and respectable man brother Simon, and I always sensed that! I am also in total agreemet with you aforementioned statement! Love and acceptance brother, that's what it's all about!
Be well my good friend!