Theism vs. Atheism

@William,

I think the problem, William, is not so much that we are unwilling to unite, but that we fear the prospect of what unity will bring. People are used to being mistreated, we're used to having leaders who care more about themselves than their people, and we expect that anyone who comes along to lead us to a better tomorrow is, in fact, only leading us to their better tomorrow. Because for every Wlliam who wants to make the world a better place, there are a thousand Vladamir Putin's and George Bush's who only want to make the world their better place. And men like them often say that we need to unite, we need to come together to embrace our fellow man... and all the while they're plotting how exactly they intend to get rid of their fellow man.

Call it defeatism if you wish, but I see far more potential for evil to come of unity than good, because unscrupulous men fool people with quaint words like unity. And certainly history has shown us how this is true. I know you're not one of those men, you're the sort who would actually like to see good come to all men and you know the only way we can do that is to do it together... if you could sit the world down and talk them into being good to each other you'd do it. But imagine your horror when someone comes along to take your work and twist it to their own advantage, when they make us slaves to unity for their benefit, because now that we have unity we're terrified of the prospect of letting it go. And someone inevitably would. They twisted the Christ's and the Buddha's teachings to their own ends and look where that's gotten the world. They'd undoubtedly do the same to your vision of unity as well.

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;26063 wrote:

So "an atheist believes in a non-god."
How about "an atheist non-believes in a god ?"

Which one is it ?

Logically speaking an atheist believes in the non-existence of God.

To clearly argue the point however, one must first understand what it is that the atheist believes does not exist-for by defining this absence he brings that which he has defined into being. This idea that he has made manifest, ironically, demonstrates only an aspect of that in which he does not believe. He has proven to himself, in thought, that he, and he alone has free will and that he is not controlled by some intangible cognitive aspect greater then himself; and I would argue personally, that he is correct, for he has unified God's mind to his own.

As William argues, this opens his mind to a vast resource... with an equally vast responsibility.

2 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

He has proven to himself, in thought, that he, and he alone has free will and that he is not controlled by some [...]

Hm ? Adam, God, apple, tree of knowledge ? Free will, choice ? If a bear chooses the apples in an apple tree, against the honey in a beehive hung on the same tree, that's free will, choice based on the memories of pain from bee stings.

Doorsopen wrote:

for by defining this absence he brings that which he has defined into being

The existence of absence ... gotcha :a-ok:

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

I think the problem, William, is not so much that we are unwilling to unite, but that we fear the prospect of what unity will bring. People are used to being mistreated, we're used to having leaders who care more about themselves than their people, and we expect that anyone who comes along to lead us to a better tomorrow is, in fact, only leading us to their better tomorrow. Because for every Wlliam who wants to make the world a better place, there are a thousand Vladamir Putin's and George Bush's who only want to make the world their better place. And men like them often say that we need to unite, we need to come together to embrace our fellow man... and all the while they're plotting how exactly they intend to get rid of their fellow man.

Call it defeatism if you wish, but I see far more potential for evil to come of unity than good, because unscrupulous men fool people with quaint words like unity. And certainly history has shown us how this is true. I know you're not one of those men, you're the sort who would actually like to see good come to all men and you know the only way we can do that is to do it together... if you could sit the world down and talk them into being good to each other you'd do it. But imagine your horror when someone comes along to take your work and twist it to their own advantage, when they make us slaves to unity for their benefit, because now that we have unity we're terrified of the prospect of letting it go. And someone inevitably would. They twisted the Christ's and the Buddha's teachings to their own ends and look where that's gotten the world. They'd undoubtedly do the same to your vision of unity as well.

Solace, "sitting the world down" is exactly what I am doing, as we speak. What is so different that has never existed before since the existencd of man, is now the world "is privy" to the truth and "twisting" it will not be so easily accomplished. Power can't "nip it at the bud" as is the common practice. Heretofore the truth was disected, manipulated, edited and issured to serve the best interest of power. Not any more. That is precisely why I chose this medium and these forum's to get my message out. No longer will power be able to hide it's greatest lie's in our greatest truth's. My hardest task is breaking through the programming the mind has been subject to for thousands of years. Have you ever on a social occasion heard something unique as to the thought of another and exclaimed rather excitedly, "Hey, me too. I heard that before.", as if it was a rare, new thought and you felt privileged you knew it too and it make you feel good that you were not alone in your "rare" thoughts.

That is what is happening now. What I espouse is what man has always known and once it gets out, there will be many "me too"s" out there who have never heard this before. They just needed to hear it.

Many times it is dismissed as idealistic because as you say, "people are used to being mistreated" in that they have been convinced their is no hope. What a crock!!! You have been programmed to belief that crap. Your helplessness keeps you at bay.

I do so hope many are saving my words and sharing them with others. That is my sincerest wish. I can only hope. It is not my desire to cause harm. Not in the least for I feel there is time to begin to open honest and truthful communications. Once we stop the insanity of "objective value" as a means to value the worth of a man and begin to realize the real value of the human being, then we will eliminate all those motivations that motivate us to kill each other.

Thank you again for your honest thoughts. They are greatly appreciated.

William

0 Replies

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;26279 wrote:

The existence of absence ... gotcha :a-ok:

Yes it exists!:
Astronomers find gaping hole in the Universe
http://www.physorg.com/news107109720.html

ariciunervos;26279 wrote:

Hm ? Adam, God, apple, tree of knowledge ? Free will, choice ? If a bear chooses the apples in an apple tree, against the honey in a beehive hung on the same tree, that's free will, choice based on the memories of pain from bee stings.

No, that's intelligence.
Free will, under the conditions of your analogy, would mean that the bear goes to McDonald's instead of being stung by a bee. Laughing

The original sin reference you make, however, IS free will!

2 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

Yes it exists!:
Astronomers find gaping hole in the Universe
Astronomers find gaping hole in the Universe

Glad they didn't find the absence of a hole.

Doorsopen wrote:

No, that's intelligence.
Free will, under the conditions of your analogy, would mean that the bear goes to McDonald's instead of being stung by a bee.

Wouldn't you ?

0 Replies

@Doorsopen,

Quote:

The original sin reference you make, however, IS free will!

Actually the story of the original sin isn't even remotely about free will. How could Adam have chosen to do the good thing and obey God when he hadn't even yet eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If he was ignorant of good, how could he do good?

0 Replies

@William,

You understand that by judging the nature of an Atheist (or even a theist) from only your own perspective your blinding yourself in the same way that [many] of them have to eachother.
The saying "imagine yourself in the other persons shoes" applies well here. I have found the best method of understanding those which are different than you, in both beliefs, decisions, mentality, ect, is to imagine yourself as being the same [without judging the state on the basis of your oun beliefs - it would very much be defeating the purpose of trying to understand that which differs from yourself in the first place]
I, personally, have found little difference between the mind set of a Theist, and an Athiest. They both seek to form a complete, rationalized point of veiw, the belief that what they have come to as fact is real, and, predictably, an internal satisfaction.
An Atheist could no more be considered an egotist for believing what they do based on scientific, or material facts, than a theist could be for believing what they do based on faith despite a large lack of those things.
Both believe that they are right, and the other is wrong based on unchangable, alterable factors-each wants to believe that they are right, for relatively the same internal purpose. So, what really is the difference?

1 Reply

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

To clearly argue the point however, one must first understand what it is that the atheist believes does not exist-for by defining this absence he brings that which he has defined into being.

I don't think so...

By not believing in the existence of <something>, non-believers don't bring it into being, they... just don't believe it. This line of thought seems to rely on some seeming intonation of drama (read: "Sounds Cool") for its support. It has no basis or substance as an argument.

"Defining an absence" is another cute phrase. Positing a negative assertion asserts the positive? Although this could be very helpful, were it true. There are a host of things I would love to 'bring into being' by denying their existence.

Doorsopen: I sense you're a person of considered thought and intelligence. I'm curious, would you mind explaining how denying X, confirms X?

Thanks

------

1 Reply

@AtheistDeity,

AtheistDeity;26872 wrote:

You understand that by judging the nature of an Atheist (or even a theist) from only your own perspective your blinding yourself in the same way that [many] of them have to eachother.

I absolutely agree. This is logical.

AtheistDeity;26872 wrote:

The saying "imagine yourself in the other persons shoes" applies well here. I have found the best method of understanding those which are different than you, in both beliefs, decisions, mentality, ect, is to imagine yourself as being the same [without judging the state on the basis of your oun beliefs - it would very much be defeating the purpose of trying to understand that which differs from yourself in the first place]

Again, I agree. There is no division between the observed and the observer, if one is to understand that which is being witnessed.

AtheistDeity;26872 wrote:

I, personally, have found little difference between the mind set of a Theist, and an Athiest. They both seek to form a complete, rationalized point of veiw, the belief that what they have come to as fact is real, and, predictably, an internal satisfaction.
An Atheist could no more be considered an egotist for believing what they do based on scientific, or material facts, than a theist could be for believing what they do based on faith despite a large lack of those things.
Both believe that they are right, and the other is wrong based on unchangable, alterable factors-each wants to believe that they are right, for relatively the same internal purpose.

Yes, I agree. This becomes clouded however, when the qualities upon which we base our conclusion are abstract concepts.

AtheistDeity;26872 wrote:

So, what really is the difference?

The motivation, as you have demonstrated is identical. The methods are arguable similar. There is also a similar foundation for gathering the information used to draw such conclusions: Both are based on the relability of one's own perceptions, which is as close as we can come to Truth; or, they are based on pre-existing perceptions of an outside authority. There is a cavaet here: A true faith, in either position, should be based solely on one's personal commitment to that which is being studied, or seeking to understand. The conclusions of either position will be flawed if not. An Athesist is likely to be rigourous in this endeavor, but due to his 'objectivity' fails to see himself as a direct participant in that which he is studying. For this reason he has blinded himself to an understanding of a potential relationship between himself and God just as surely as a Theist would be blinded by a faith that is based on another parties experience. Basically, we inevitably see that which we seek to find. Our perceptions adjust themselves according to our capacity to understand that which we are observing.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;26921 wrote:

I don't think so...

By not believing in the existence of <something>, non-believers don't bring it into being, they... just don't believe it. This line of thought seems to rely on some seeming intonation of drama (read: "Sounds Cool") for its support. It has no basis or substance as an argument.

"Defining an absence" is another cute phrase. Positing a negative assertion asserts the positive? Although this could be very helpful, were it true. There are a host of things I would love to 'bring into being' by denying their existence.

Doorsopen: I sense you're a person of considered thought and intelligence. I'm curious, would you mind explaining how denying X, confirms X?

Thanks

------

In order to deny the existence of X, you must define X. In so doing you have created an abstract manifestation of X and it thereby comes to exist as a definable state of being.

We exist in a field of pure potential ... a vast nothingness ... which is acted upon by the expression of consciousness in the form of physics, geometry, mathematics etc. It is the nature of this structure to create, to brings into being, to manifest itself in reality; from this field of pure potential in a cycle of existence and non-existence. I would add that this last statement is made from a material point of view, because that is the most easily witnessed perspective. But thoughts, although they are created through the same structure as material reality, do not have a material presence. We believe they exist because we experience them.

Expressed in other terms: It is our thought which structures our perceptions, and our perceptions which define our reality. You might also stand in front of a mirror and recite this backwards, it would still be true.

Theists see this in one sense and Atheists in the other ...

And as a direct response to your question: No, I am not entirely suggesting with dramatic intonation that non-believers bring into existence the thing they do not believe; rather they bring into existence the thing that DO believe. In this case, that God does not exist, or, to return to my original terms, that God is a presence which is abscent from their perception of reality.

On the other hand, and to hold the mirror again to the question ... that which I deny exists could arguably be said to exist in a state of non-being, this is the inverse argument with the same conclusion. God exists in a state of non-being.

And finally we may arrive at an esoteric truth: That which is said to be all things, must both exist and not exist as two aspects of itself.

1 Reply

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

In order to deny the existence of X, you must define X. In so doing you have created an abstract manifestation of X and it thereby comes to exist as a definable state of being.

That "definable" state of being as existing within our minds? If so, I think I gotcha.

Thanks for your reply Smile

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;26945 wrote:

That "definable" state of being as existing within our minds? If so, I think I gotcha.

Thanks for your reply

Yes, I am suggesting, somewhat timidly, that: that which is brought into conscience awareness is simultaneously brought into being.

But, does our perception create the event, or the existence of the event create our perception?

I do hope your 'gotcha' is true, I've been hopeful of sheding my ego, to no avail, for far too long! I don't particularly savour assuming the responsibility for all my thoughts and actions ...

1 Reply

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen wrote:

Yes, I am suggesting, somewhat timidly, that: that which is brought into conscience awareness is simultaneously brought into being.

Sure, agreed: The conceptualization of something in our mind then exists in that mind.

Doorsopen wrote:

I do hope your 'gotcha' is true, I've been hopeful of sheding my ego, to no avail, for far too long! I don't particularly savour assuming the responsibility for all my thoughts and actions ...

I think so. I can take blame for a great many faults, but being dishonest isn't one of them; I've been through far too many fires to play that game anymore. It's tough sharing such things in an open forum where one can be - in an instant - attacked and relegated back into their corner (so to speak). So I appreciate the exchange.

And yes, this "A concept that exists in the mind still exists, if even only as a concept" is a viewpoint I don't think I've much heard. Thank you for imbuing some of that this way.

------

2 Replies

@Khethil,

If we reduce the ontological argument to say that in order for an atheist to deny the existence of God that atheist must have first conceived of the possibility of God, then I suppose it would apply... but then, it's also not saying very much either. Naturally one must conceive of something in order to deny it. To say something like

Quote:

that which is brought into conscience awareness is simultaneously brought into being.

is completely unfounded and unfoundable, whether suggested timidly or boldly. "I think therefore I am" is presumptive enough, but "I think therefore something else is"? That's just getting a little carried away.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;26961 wrote:

"A concept that exists in the mind still exists, if even only as a concept"
------

"The emergence of bioorganic molecules under primitive Earth conditions is one of the major unsolved origin of life questions.
Hydrogenated diamond advances to the best of all possible origin of life platforms."

Andrei P. Sommer,*? Dan Zhu,? and Hans-Joerg Fecht??

Institute of Micro and Nanomaterials, University of Ulm, 89081 Ulm, Germany, and Institute for Nanotechnology, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany

I quote the conclusions of this research as a means to demonstrate my understanding of 'consciousness'. One of the properties of hydrogenated diamonds is such that the surface of the diamond repels water molecules in a rotational pattern. This quality corresponds to, and creates a platform for the formation of DNA.

Although hydrogenated diamonds are not aware of this fact, the resulting relationship between diamond and environment leads to the formation of a state of being which had previously not existed, just as the proteins of which DNA is composed, when brought into contact with one another, respond in ways inherent to their nature. I argue that this interaction between potential and environment is the most elemental form of consciousness.

The potential relationship existed before the first molecules of DNA began to spiral on to become mankind. The interaction between the two elements
fulfills an aspect of that elemental consciousness; and determines the structure by which an abstract concept evolves into a state of being.

These same elements have evolved to become our conscious awareness, and as such possess the same characteristics. To take a Theist principle Man is created in God's image ...

I am try to push my understanding to accomodate the inevitable conclusion of my reasoning: Consciousness creates reality.

At this stage we are not completely in agreement. A concept that exists in the mind exists. Full Stop. For that concept to emerge from the field of potential is merely a question of time.

0 Replies

@ariciunervos,

Hi,
I think your post was very interesting, but I think you make an incredible assumption that the 'brightest' are all atheists. If you look at all the great thinkers who are also atheists they in general tend to be shall we say the 'b-level' greats, whereas the A-level greats, - the dostoyevskys, the wittgensteins etc, are often religious. Even in the natural sciences, the greatest scientist of the 20th century, einstein, athough in no way a traditional theist, vigourously denied being a flat-out atheist, along with newton, who had a great fascination for mysticism. Also you make a presumption that most religious people believe because they are merely 'follwers', and are just dependant minded - which while undoubtedly true of some, I think most religious people are religious, because deep-down they DO understand alot of the things you have said in the post, even if they often are unable to express it.

0 Replies

@William,

Theism and Atheism both involve metaphysical assumption and philosophical speculation. The construction of any comprehensive world view is based on more than sense impression and rational construction. Humility in the face of ignorance is the value most forgotten by both sides. Science does not confirm materialism or determinism and theism does not confrim supernatural intevention.

0 Replies

@William,

William;26052 wrote:

My brick wall has been reaching that understanding that drives the Atheist.

Fairly simple answer, skepticism. Why should I hold any proposition as true without reasonable justification? Is this not analogous to justified true belief in general?

The fact is, religion makes claims about the world. Those of us who are skeptical of religious claims, question whether they are in fact justified.

That is all the motivation one needs.

0 Replies

@William,

I wish this thread would not of died, I really enjoyed the Conversation. Here is something to chew on.

Some people believe it would be the reasoning behind ones choice to be either a theist or atheist that direct there lives as to how to live. If a theist revelation is a deity then to which is a atheist?

1 Reply

Theism vs. Atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know