Athiests prejudice against theistic beliefs

@failures art,

Quote:

We all know babies are born believing only in breasts.

Which means they are agnostic towards a God. They have an open mind.....it is pointless to claim they know of God and reject God, therefore they are Atheists.

Quote:

Stop being stubborn.

This lovely personality of mine has kept me alive in situations where good men have died.....I am quite attached to it for that reason if nothing else.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

So you have an "open mind?" This is the virtue of the newborn, that they are open to the possibility of anything? Sounds good on paper.

Do you believe in unicorns? I'm sorry, I forgot it is pointless to claim to know either way. You're agnostic about unicorns. This deserves applause--such an open mind. You're stance of not knowing if there are unicorns is obviously far more well thought out than those who don't believe in a creature for which there is no evidence.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I only have one concern about Buddhism and that is it seems very introverted.

I would agree. But, I think that when ones spiritual quest moves from the individual to the group is the same point when it becomes a cult.

I attend meditation retreats and sessions with others but meditating by necessity always is very individual. What else could it be? We each have our own reality and can only learn how to interact with that one.

Oh, and I think locked up is the wrong picture. No one is locked up.

Buddha's teaching is completely an individual activity. Perhaps the only exception is the relationship with a teacher.

0 Replies

To question the validity of one concept should not be confused with questioning all the potential variations upon that concept...

Agnosticism is well advised if one is aware of this difference...

My most abstract stance on this matter resumes to simply accepting or not accepting SET AGGREGATION as base for any possible idea of "God"...

...undress the idea and your left with what is important...

Being is not about change, not about Be-ing...
Being concerns to all that to what anything can be changed for...
Being exhausts all potential possible variations by definition...necessarily time and motion are of no importance...

Being is not the becoming... Being is done !

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

I used to very much identify as a Deist (my previous screen name and daily reminder to spellcheck was "Diest TKO"), and later as a Pandeist when I realized that my belief in one being was only an artifact belief from monotheistic Christian society. No particular event or argument made me into an atheist, I simply one day realized that I had been one for a long time.

I so agree with this. If one is totally examining theirselves, they are in constant flex. I sometimes say to myself - "Damn, I am an atheist!" Then I see the wonders of the world, the powers of the universe, the beauty of science and I know their has to be something to organize this. I question not what, therefore, this is faith. As I've said before, I don't believe in man organization and rules. Therefore when I say I'm a theist - I don't care if it represents one or many, what color, where or whatever! I just believe. Everybody else can fight over the details.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Being is not the becoming... Being is done !

yeah, right

I think
or not

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Fill in the possible with the actual, ad needless huge amounts of time and you will see it...remember those old pocket calculators...well, in the wear off screen all numbers are "eight´s"...get it ? (that was how the idea come to me in the first time)

...our problem is to know the length of the calculator...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Someone has been spending too much time in the bathroom with a ruler and a calculator.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

how did it went ? did you get to the truth, or do you still believe its infinite ? Mr. Green

...discrete or continuum approach, eh ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Sadly constrained by the law of diminishing returns.

But wait...

Oh, I see what you did there. Damn.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

the time is 0

heaven is here now

the moment is all there is

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

So you have an "open mind?" This is the virtue of the newborn, that they are open to the possibility of anything? Sounds good on paper.

Do you believe in unicorns? I'm sorry, I forgot it is pointless to claim to know either way. You're agnostic about unicorns. This deserves applause--such an open mind. You're stance of not knowing if there are unicorns is obviously far more well thought out than those who don't believe in a creature for which there is no evidence.

A
R
T

I don't see the reasoning behind this argument. By this standard , all those supposed stone tools we've found just happened to materialise on their own. After all, I never saw the people that supposedly made them, did you? Where is the proof that anyone made them? Got any photos of that happening? Wheres the proof they weren't made by goats, or unicorns.
Oh, we assume they were made by some being, more advanced than a goat.
So whats so wrong with the idea that some greater being made the rest of it, a being we haven't discovered yet? Why ridicule that? It is in no way ridiculous to think that something created the universe.

1 Reply

@wayne,

You need to try not to lean on the backslash key, will make the drivel you have posted easier to read.

Stone tools are an artifact for which there is no known corollary in nature. The assumption one makes about their provenance is not only therefore reasonable, but people who make and use stone tools still exist today. The assumption that the cosmos has a maker, that the cosmos is an artifact is not based upon any such evidence.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You need to try not to lean on the backslash key, will make the drivel you have posted easier to read.

Stone tools are an artifact for which there is no known corollary in nature. The assumption one makes about their provenance is not only therefore reasonable, but people who make and use stone tools still exist today. The assumption that the cosmos has a maker, that the cosmos is an artifact is not based upon any such evidence.

The preview function did that, for some unknown reason.

If we is don't see the cosmos as an artifact, what do we see it as?
I'm not saying there is any greater argument for assuming a creator as not, just that it isn't as ridiculous as believing in unicorns.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Actually, i consider a belief in unicorns to have a far more plausible provenance that a belief in a creator. The ibex, at a distance, could appear to have a single horn, and once started, the story would take on a life of its own. Which is what happens with the entire god claptrap. It is a human conceit to look upon the cosmos as an artifact, and it is by exercising a sense of proportion that one would conclude that it is not.

(I was only kidding you about the backslash key--it appears to arise from some code flaw when one uses an apostrophe, and some other types of UBB code.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yeah, I see what you're saying about the god claptrap, at least as far as religion goes. I've always thought it was a bit pretentious to even attempt to define god.
What I can't get a handle on, and I've a few old friends of the atheist variety, is what do you tell yourself about the cosmos thing? I mean, we live in a world where everyone has a mother.
What do you mean by exercising a sense of proportion?

0 Replies

Well, as for everyone having a mother, that is what i mean by human conceit--that we put everything in terms of our narrow experience, without attempting to think beyond that experience. By a sense of proportion i mean that we can create artifacts only to within the limits of our ability to manipulate the environment--even just on this planet we find that nature is capable, for example, of a far greater destructive forcce that our puny efforts, with the sole exception of a massive thermonuclear exchange. Even then, so long as said exchange did not destroy the planet, not only is there no reason to assume that nature could not recover, there is very good reason to assume that nature could recover. The cosmos as an artifact is a conceit which implies a manipulation of matter, time and space out of all proportion to what humans can accomplish, which is why they come up with the god fairy tale.

1 Reply

By the way, the problem with the backslash seems to come from the use of apostrophes and quote marks. Try not to use them, at least for now.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

And when people found narwhale horns they thought they belonged to Unicorns.

0 Replies

@failures art,

OK Arty, lets see how smart you are....prove to me that somewhere in an infinite universe there is not a species of intelligent matresses living in a swamp. Then we can move on to unicorns which people believed in after finding narwhale horns.

0 Replies

Athiests prejudice against theistic beliefs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know