Secrets of Atheism

[ClayBarham]

Someone recently asked me if I believed in UFO’s, and I had to respond that I do not know. I cannot say they do not exist with any certainty, nor can I say they do exist. As long as it has no impact on my life either way, I can simply set aside the need to know one way or the other. When the time comes to face the issue, I will do so.

If I were an atheist, when asked if I believe in God, I could say the same thing, but then, I would not be able to call myself an atheist. I would be indecisive. It may not matter if God is real if I am not affected. To call myself an atheist, however, means I expose a dirty little secret about anyone who says they are an atheist. Atheists who are vocal and almost violently demonstrate their position must actually believe there is a God. That is their secret. They believe and they oppose His existence.

Why would someone take almost violent positions against God? According to the Bible, God deals solely with individuals and their behaviors, not with governments or groups, as well as churches. God gave us guidelines on how best to live and conduct ourselves with others, what we call morality. He has given us simple commandments. He has given us stories illustrating how our personal conduct and thoughts destroy and straighten out our lives. For those who accept and believe, there is a price to pay for violation of God’s rules. It is guilt. This is a heavy burden for believers to carry, which is one reason for therapeutic confession, penance and absolution. Guilt is painful, and to rid atheists of pain means getting rid of God.

Atheists cannot live with guilt for their behaviors, and the judgment about them from those who accept God. He or she is anxiety-ridden over a tarnished self-image, less than moral and upstanding in their community. How do they prevent this from happening? Instead of changing behavior, take on God. Get the God believers out of sight, behind the closed doors of their homes and churches, and prevent expressions of God in public with Christmas, Easter and Hanukkah celebrations. Make believers in God outcasts and outlaws in their own communities, and by doing so, prevent guilt from ever being a burden for atheists again. Atheists can live as Caligula or Nero, with no guilt or shame.

God believers teach there are sins of pride, envy, anger, laziness, avarice, gluttony and lust. These sins, are welcomed by atheists to pleasure themselves, as an entitlement without any penalty of guilt and judgment by others. Yep, they are dedicated believers in God after all, and that is their hidden big secret. Take God out of America and they will not have to suffer pangs of guilt and shame for any evil they create.
www.claysamerica.com

[piratemonkey]

Someone recently asked me if I believed in UFO’s, and I had to respond that I do not know. I cannot say they do not exist with any certainty, nor can I say they do exist. As long as it has no impact on my life either way, I can simply set aside the need to know one way or the other. When the time comes to face the issue, I will do so.

You just described a portion of a philosophical concept called Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor).


If I were an atheist, when asked if I believe in God, I could say the same thing... They believe and they oppose His existence.

Huh? To say that you don't believe in a "god" means you secretly believe in a "god?!?"

Wow. I didn't know black=white.


Why would someone take almost violent positions against God?
Explain to the rational here how someone can hold a "violent position" against something that doesn't exist.

Guilt is painful, and to rid atheists of pain means getting rid of God.

:madlaugh: So athiests feel guilty because they secretly believe in a "god" and reject it? :madlaugh:

Utter madness, you post.


Atheists cannot live with guilt for their behaviors, and the judgment about them from those who accept God. He or she is anxiety-ridden over a tarnished self-image, less than moral and upstanding in their community.
:madlaugh::madlaugh:
Thank-you for the Theology 101/Psychology 101 evaluation of my psyche.

Two comments:
1) How can I feel guilty for offending something that is make-believe?
2) Why would I feel anxiety-ridden that someone like you thinks less of me because of my atheism? That implies that your opinion is worth something to me. It isn't.


God believers teach there are sins of pride, envy, anger, laziness, avarice, gluttony and lust.

And yet "God believers" still commit these sins at the exact same rate as atheists.

Go figure. :rolleyes:


These sins, are welcomed by atheists to pleasure themselves, as an entitlement without any penalty of guilt and judgment by others. Yep, they are dedicated believers in God after all, and that is their hidden big secret. Take God out of America and they will not have to suffer pangs of guilt and shame for any evil they create.


Clay,
Show me any fact, any evidence that athiests are less moral than your "God believers."

Any evidence at all.

Show us.

[Red Dragon]

Technically speaking all individuals are agnostic because no one truly knows whether or not any gods exist. Also there are ranges of atheism. Strong Atheism can be summed up in one quote, "I believe or know there are no gods". Weak Atheism on the other hand is "I do not believe in gods, or I have no belief in gods." Also some theists say the same thing thus they are indecisive, which using your argument I can prove that god does not exist. You are like a delightful random fallacious argument generator, Clay, poisoning all logical thought you touch with your presence. Just when I believe my Brain has recorded the last potential aspect of your fallacious arguments to my memory, you commit a new atrocity that leaves me analyzing its impact for days. Also what would be wrong with opposing the existence of gods? Also a god would not be a he or a she, unless of course this god reproduces in a physical manner, and that's just silly.

Also Morality is the study of the nature of individual values and their fulfillment ("value expression"), using the facts of natural law. More simply: actions have consequences which can be anticipated and measured, and that's how we know what to do or not to do. Are based on what you think is best to express your values. You might be wrong of course, but what can you do about that? Your sense of morality has nothing to do with religion, politics, group consensus, tradition, what your friends say, or what your teacher said in public school. They are about finding out for yourself how you can act in accordance with reality and live a happy, fulfilled life.
Not to mention even if a god does exist it did not give individuals morals it only presented new ideas that already fell into place with their value system. Also is this guilt a consequence or a punishment for they are two very different things. Why someone would acquire guilt for not following another’s moral system is beyond me, and if it's a punishment then that’s coercive force, thus making this god immoral. Also what do I have to be guilty of shameful, I do not support a coercive organization built on ruling individuals in a given geographical area unlike yourself. I say statism is a far more guilt-ridden system of thought then atheism.

Also as you might be able to tell, the name “Easter” was likely derived from Eostre, the name of the Anglo-Saxon lunar goddess, as was as the name for the female hormone estrogen. Eostre’s feast day was held on the first full moon following the vernal equinox — a similar calculation as is used for Easter among Western Christians. On this date the goddess Eostre is believed by her followers to mate with the solar god, conceiving a child who would be born 9 months later on Yule, the winter solstice which falls on December 21st.
Two of Eostre’s most important symbols were the hare (both because of its fertility and because ancient people saw a hare in the full moon) and the egg, which symbolized the growing possibility of new life. Each of these symbols continues to play an important role in modern celebrations of Easter. Curiously, they are also symbols, which Christianity has not fully incorporated into its own mythology. Other symbols from other holidays have been given new Christian meanings, but attempts to do the same here have failed.

American Christians continue to generally celebrate Easter as a religious holiday, but public references to Easter almost never include any religious elements. Christians and non-Christians alike celebrate Easter in decidedly non-Christian ways: with chocolate and other forms of Easter candy, Easter eggs, Easter egg hunts, the Easter bunny, and so forth. Most cultural references to Easter include these elements, most of which are pagan in origin and all of which have become commercialized. So why would someone want to stop Easter from being celebrated, for the reasons you prescribed?

Christmas, name withstanding, actually has its historical roots in Yule, a Northern European winter festival that was meant to bring joy to the dark seasons. The gift-giving element of Christmas so many people claim has taken away from Christ actually has as much to do with feasting on slaughtered cattle – you had to kill most of your cattle during the winter or chance it all going to waste – as it does the three wise men.

Of course, this means that many people who complain of Christmas’ “meaning” speak of “yuletide” celebrations without knowing the meaning of that either.

Also, there’s the Roman God Sol Invictus whose feast day was December 25th. He was also drawn with an orb around his head the same way Christ is portrayed. And on his feast day gifts were exchanged.

You might say, “So what? Christmas should be a celebration of Christ’s birth!”

Okay, sure. But then why was it banned by many Protestant sects in the 17 and 1800s? Many early English and American Protestants – and their local governments – banned Christmas as too raucous. Apparently, folks were using the celebration as a reason to have sex and get drunk. Protestants believed that celebrating Christmas was just too socially damaging. Churches were kept closed on December 25th. So Christmas has no meaning because it is culled from so many sources. It means the birth of someone’s savior, sure. But it’s also a time for people to drink and be merry. And have sex. And worship the sun god. And feast on the harvest during a dark time. So why would someone want it banned? Why would someone ban an excuse to get drunk, or to have sex, or to eat large amounts of tasty food?

Also Hanukkah traditionally speaking is only a minor Jewish holiday, it has taken a place equal to Passover as a symbol of Jewish identity. So if someone were trying to get rid of Jewish traditions why would they go after one of the lesser holidays? Also again why would someone ban an excuse to eat tasty food, drink, and have sex? Although I'm not to sure if Hanukkah has as much sex in it as the other holidays I've spoken about.

For some reason you mention Caligula and Nero who were both authoritarian nut jobs. And Caligula wanted to be seen as a living god, don't see how you relate that to atheism. And as for Nero he was just a chariot-racing fan who was always under the influence of something or another.

Now I have to ask what is wrong with taking pride in your accomplishments, taking pride in another individual’s accomplishments I can understand but otherwise I see nothing wrong with pride. Envy is one of the most universal and deep-seated of human passions, and something needed for competition. Psychologists recognize three types of anger: One connected to the impulse for self-preservation, occurring when the person or animal is tormented or trapped. The second type of anger is a reaction to perceived deliberate harm doing or unfair treatment by others. Irritability, sullenness and churlishness are examples of the third type of anger, which is related more to character traits than to instincts or cognitions. Although modern psychologists view anger as a primary, natural and even mature emotion experienced by all humans at times, something that has functional value for survival. So I'm surprised at your views on it, I mean you do claim to be a psychologist. Laziness, I could really care less about. Avarice, well how can you claim that theft is bad when you support taxes? Or have you moved away from that kind of statist thought? Gluttony, so I take it you do not like those holidays, as they're excuses for gluttony. Lust, what is wrong with desiring sex as long as it is voluntary between each individual involved? Why should I feel guilt or shame for not believing in an unproven concept?

[Kamehameha34]

Someone recently asked me if I believed in UFO’s, and I had to respond that I do not know. I cannot say they do not exist with any certainty, nor can I say they do exist. As long as it has no impact on my life either way, I can simply set aside the need to know one way or the other. When the time comes to face the issue, I will do so.

This concept is called agnosticism. Even when it "comes time to face the issue" - any decision you make then won't be any more accurate than one you could conjecture now unless more evidence is brought to light.

Questions are answered in light of evidence, not of necessity for an answer.

If I were an atheist, when asked if I believe in God, I could say the same thing, but then, I would not be able to call myself an atheist. I would be indecisive.

Most atheists you meet, including myself, will fit the bill for a weak atheist, or an agnostic. These people maintain that there is no evidence for any sentient 'god' figure. Without evidence, it's an academically irrelevant concept.

It would be equally illogical to assert the nonexistence of a sentient god, aswell. Without confirming evidence on either end, agnosticism is the only truly faithless choice.

It may not matter if God is real if I am not affected. To call myself an atheist, however, means I expose a dirty little secret about anyone who says they are an atheist. Atheists who are vocal and almost violently demonstrate their position must actually believe there is a God. That is their secret. They believe and they oppose His existence.

You think the fact that these people are outspoken against evangelism and established religion means that they believe in a god?

If we take the god notion out of the equation for a second, the church certainly does have an effect on society, and ultimately the lives of these atheists. They pick up the slack for tax breaks given to institutions that, to them, spread tall tales; they turn on the news and there is the institution again picketing soldier's funerals; they change the channel and watch just how well this "religion" concept is working for the middle east.


Why would someone take almost violent positions against God? According to the Bible, God deals solely with individuals and their behaviors, not with governments or groups, as well as churches. God gave us guidelines on how best to live and conduct ourselves with others, what we call morality. He has given us simple commandments. He has given us stories illustrating how our personal conduct and thoughts destroy and straighten out our lives. For those who accept and believe, there is a price to pay for violation of God’s rules.
I'm sure if this was truly the reigning philosophy of all religious people, not to mention other religions, there wouldn't be any conflict.



Atheists cannot live with guilt for their behaviors, and the judgment about them from those who accept God. He or she is anxiety-ridden over a tarnished self-image, less than moral and upstanding in their community.
No, there are numerous methods of coping with every problem life presents. You may find church cathardic, but this theory that it's the only way to feel good about yourself is a bit ridiculous. One could even argue that some use it as an excuse to engage in "sinful" activity.

In fact, it actually drives atheists to sin less than Christians! Imagine that!

Prison Statistics (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

Atheists represent roughly 10% of the population, and they constitute only a fifth of a percent of those in the custody of the federal prison system.

How do they prevent this from happening? Instead of changing behavior, take on God. Get the God believers out of sight, behind the closed doors of their homes and churches, and prevent expressions of God in public with Christmas, Easter and Hanukkah celebrations. Make believers in God outcasts and outlaws in their own communities, and by doing so, prevent guilt from ever being a burden for atheists again. Atheists can live as Caligula or Nero, with no guilt or shame.

Guilt and sympathy or evolutionary traits that every healthy person feels. You just think you're entitled to claim ownership of them because you subscribe to a religion that encoded them into practice.

You actually get all of your morals from the same place that atheists do. If you followed your morals just for the fact that they're enumerated in the bible, you'd be stoning children for being disobedient.

God believers teach there are sins of pride, envy, anger, laziness, avarice, gluttony and lust. These sins, are welcomed by atheists to pleasure themselves, as an entitlement without any penalty of guilt and judgment by others.
Unless these 'sins' infringe upon the rights of others, there's really no reason at all not to enjoy them. If they do, then even the atheists can be prosecuted by the justice system for doing so - a lesson they seemed to have learned judging from prison statistics.

Here's a question; if atheists don't believe in a higher being with the power to eternally damn them, and still account for a disproportionally lower amount of prisoners than Christians, what am I left to think of your theory?

[underdawg]

I am an agnostic. I have never seen any evidence for there ever being a God or Gods. There is a big difference in believing in a faith compared to ghosts, extra terrestial aliens, or big foot in that that religions have rules and regulations that it expects people to live by. A belief in aliens or ghost do not have a set of rules that they expect people to live by. I would think that most atheists or agnostics probably do not care whether other people believe in a god or not, but they do object to those of faith trying to push their religious rules upon the rest of society.

[December]

Atheists who are vocal and almost violently demonstrate their position must actually believe there is a God. That is their secret. They believe and they oppose His existence.
www.claysamerica.com


Well, I don't quite understand you, ClayBarham.
What makes you think that the Atheists actually believe there is a God? How did you come up with this thought?

And one more question - are you speaking about Christian God?

:)


Nazareth

The town of Nazareth did not appear on Earth until after the gospel tale was known. As Holley says, "There is no such place as Nazareth in the Old Testament or in Josephus' works, or on early maps of the Holy Land. The name was apparently a later Christian invention." In fact, the town now designated as Nazareth is near Mt. Carmel, indicating it was Carmelites who created it.

Jesus, therefore, was not from Nazareth, which did not exist at the time of his purported advent. The real purpose for putting him there was to make of him a Nazarene or Nazarite, as he was the same as the most famouse Nazarite, Samson, [b]a solar myth.

The title comes from the Egyptian word "natzr", which refers to "the plant, the shoot, the natzar... the true vine," and Nazarite is an epithet for the sun, which gives life to the grape vine. Nazarite is also translated as "prince", as in "prince of peace." The Nazarites/Nazarines were the ascetics who were not to shave their heads or bears unless for ritualistic purpose, because their hair was a symbol of holiness and strength, representing in fact the sun's "hair" or rays, which is why the solar hero becomes weak when the woman cuts his hair. When the hair was long, the Nazarite would have nothing to do with the grape, vine or wine, but when the Nazarete was shorn in a ritual, he would then drink wine.This story reflects the time of the year when the grapes ripen and wine is made, as the sun's rays weaken.

Thus, we see that Nazareth is not the birthplace of Jesus but represents yet another aspect of the mythos.
As Massey states, "The actual birthplace of the carnalized Christ was NEITHER BETHLEHEM NOR NAZARETH, BUT ROME!"

page 191.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0932813747/102-2328531-9351348?v=glance&n=283155

[moses2792796]

Technically speaking all individuals are agnostic because no one truly knows whether or not any gods exist.


False statement, metaphysical knowledge reveals that the presence of God is inherent in reality. The only way your statement holds water is if you say, no individual can know without any doubt whatsoever that reality exists beyond themselves.

Clay, Your post explains alot of your political positions. If individuals were faithful then individual self-interests would not conflict with community interests. This is part of a successful society, but not what defines it. In an ascendent empire individuals would align themselves with the whole in this manner, but they must also remain focused. The function of a higher caste is not to rule over the masses, but to relay spiritual knowledge and influence that is not accessable to them.

Apart from a few minor flaws in logic (I was under the impression that atheists oppose the assertion that God exists, not that they believe in God and want to get deicidal on his ass) your post makes more sense than alot of your recent ones. I still think you are overlooking a higher perspective though.

[Kamehameha34]

False statement, metaphysical knowledge reveals that the presence of God is inherent in reality."Metaphysical knowledge" is a misnomer - a contradiction in terms. It's like saying "Astrological knowledge."

In the modern pursuit of knowledge, you have to employ accepted, and testable scientific theory to achieve your ends.

[Red Dragon]

Technically speaking all individuals are agnostic because no one truly knows whether or not any gods exist.

False statement, metaphysical knowledge reveals that the presence of God is inherent in reality. Subjective wishful thinking has no hold on reality or the universe. Metaphysical arguments are of non-empirical character, and have been so since the end of the 18th century. And because of this it is not objective and is worth about as much as the argument that a unicorn, that is paradoxically both invisible and pink, has been nibbling on the ear of every human being since last Tuesday. Also a question in English the word "god" with a capital leter is used to denote the abrahamic god, are you conveying this meaning or is the letter capitalized for another reason?

The only way your statement holds water is if you say, no individual can know without any doubt whatsoever that reality exists beyond themselves. Of course things can only be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not proven without a doubt. Any argument for absolute proof is illogical as the idea that all phenomena are directly or indirectly related to the numbers five, seventy-two, and negative twenty-four.


Clay, Your post explains alot of your political positions. If individuals were faithful then individual self-interests would not conflict with community interests. Communities do not act, individuals act. There is no communal mind, only the minds of individuals. There are not community interests only individual interests, Individuals may share interest but that does not mean that a new interest was formed. I am not part of a country, race, or class, simply because these things do not exist, I am just an individual.

This is part of a successful society, but not what defines it. In an ascendent empire individuals would align themselves with the whole in this manner, but they must also remain focused. The function of a higher caste is not to rule over the masses, but to relay spiritual knowledge and influence that is not accessable to them. And if the higher class tells the individuals that follow them that a Devine force has commanded that the higher class rule, who is to show that this is so? Who watches the watchers? Also how does one become part of the higher class, do they have some sort objective way of determining connection to a non-falsifiable idea?

[ClayBarham]

When you say only individuals can have and express interests, you are right. Community has no interests other than that given it by an individual who leads it. This is what I say in my site, www.claysamerica.com in many different ways. But, the power of belief is even greater than the power of rational thought. We do not do anything which we do not believe is possible and right to do. Napoleon Hill said it this way, "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, he can achieve." Now, backtrack that and see if anything can be accomplished without a vision and a supporting belief.

[Mark L Hamburger]

When you say only individuals can have and express interests, you are right. Community has no interests other than that given it by an individual who leads it. This is what I say in my site, www.claysamerica.com in many different ways. But, the power of belief is even greater than the power of rational thought. We do not do anything which we do not believe is possible and right to do. Napoleon Hill said it this way, "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, he can achieve." Now, backtrack that and see if anything can be accomplished without a vision and a supporting belief.


So.... What does this have to do with atheism or belief in god?

[piratemonkey]

False statement, metaphysical knowledge reveals that the presence of God is inherent in reality."Metaphysical knowledge" is a misnomer - a contradiction in terms. It's like saying "Astrological knowledge."

In the modern pursuit of knowledge, you have to employ accepted, and testable scientific theory to achieve your ends.


Excellent post!

A concept that is metaphysical, by definition, means that it is unprovable.

If it's unprovable, then it's not knowledge, it's faith or opinion.

[ClayBarham]

And, since we don't live long enough to prove much of anything, we rely more on faith and belief until that is proven erroneous. Belief stimulates and gives shape to imagination, and as you can see by many of the ugly posts by the rude, there's a lot of imagining goin' on out there.

[Kamehameha34]

Faith isn't a caulking gun, you can't just use it to fill gaps in your knowledge. Why would we ever make up answers instead of trying to learn more?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Red Dragon said:
Technically speaking all individuals are agnostic because no one truly knows whether or not any gods exist.

Thank you, and well said.

Reasonable people recognize this.

[Buck Laser]

Faith isn't a caulking gun, you can't just use it to fill gaps in your knowledge. Why would we ever make up answers instead of trying to learn more?

I like your metaphor here, Kamehameha! Roof leak? Get out the old caulking gun!

[ClayBarham]

How do you know for sure the caulk will stick?

[Keith Hamburger]

How do you know for sure the caulk will stick?


You're the one that wishes to fill in the holes in your knowledge with the caulk of mysticism.

You tell us how you know your caulk will stick.

Keith

[Mark L Hamburger]

Is there a taste to the caulk (http://www.ifilm.com/video/2796188/show/17674)?

[ClayBarham]

I have to accept and believe it will stick....until I find out otherwise, then I change my mind on that brand of caulk. This is getting silly. If you really believe you only make decisions on the bases of solid facts, then you are kidding yourself. The subjective mind is like a horse, and your objective mind is stuck sitting on the saddle. The horse goes where it wants, for the most part, and until your objective, rational, fact-based mind can convince it otherwise, the horse rules. Ever try to break a habit?

[Keith Hamburger]

I have to accept and believe it will stick....until I find out otherwise, then I change my mind on that brand of caulk. This is getting silly. If you really believe you only make decisions on the bases of solid facts, then you are kidding yourself. The subjective mind is like a horse, and your objective mind is stuck sitting on the saddle. The horse goes where it wants, for the most part, and until your objective, rational, fact-based mind can convince it otherwise, the horse rules. Ever try to break a habit?


I think your analogies are bordering on completely useless.

To get back to the OP, I'm not "violenty opposed" to religion. I'm opposed to those with religion forcing their values on me when my actions don't have a direct impact on them. So long as I'm living my life to the best of my ability without interfering with those that are religious, I expect them to not interfere as well. Whether through political or direct action.

You are correct that there are some bases of belief that might be considered "subjective". In any system of philosophy or belief these are called axioms. Items that are held as true but aren't necessarily subject to proof.

Some axioms that I hold that support my system of belief;

Reality exists. Without this basis all philosophy will degenerate into existintialism and nihilism. There are those that question this position but I refuse to do so as such questioning leads to unusuable philosophies.

And object is what it is. A duck can't be a cat. A rock can't be a cloud. What is, is, and cannot change the nature of that being. Sure, we can change water to steam, but that doesn't negate that water is water and steam is steam and that each has a certain nature that defines what that substance or object is and is defined by that substance. A man is a man an has a certain nature that is basic to his existence as a man.

Words have meaning. Sure, defining words is somewhat subjective but, once defined, a word means something that corresponds to reality. Once we've agreed on the definition of the word water, when we talk of water we no longer are talking of anything else. There may be disagreement on the definition of a word but that does not negate that we both are referring to something that has a correspondence to reality when we use the word.

Sure, these axioms may be subjective. But, without objective proof, so is a Christians axiom on the existence of God and Jesus. Just because the basis for one's beliefs may be subjective, however, doesn't negate the beliefs or their applicability to guide one's life.

Keith

[Kamehameha34]

I have to accept and believe it will stick....until I find out otherwise...

You don't "have to" except anything. I think you mean that you want to.

If you had to accept claims that had no proof, you'd be driving yourself crazy with the infinite amount of possible claims you could dream up.

This is getting silly. If you really believe you only make decisions on the bases of solid facts, then you are kidding yourself.

Of course I do. Every action I make is a result of a desire in my brain - I eat because my brain makes me feel hungry, I sleep because my brain makes me feel tired.

These desires are objective. While it's true that not everyone feels hungry at the same time as me, it is a fact that "Kamehameha34 feels hungry."

In conclusion:

1. All decisions I make are based on desires in my brain.
2. All desires in my brain are objective facts.
3. Therefore, all decisions I make are based on objective facts.

The subjective mind is like a horse, and your objective mind is stuck sitting on the saddle. The horse goes where it wants, for the most part, and until your objective, rational, fact-based mind can convince it otherwise, the horse rules.

We've all had wild imaginations at some point - daydreaming in class, etc. I am capable of seperating my imagination from my decision making process.

Ever try to break a habit?

That has nothing to do with subjectivity.

If I have a habit, it means that my brain wants to keep doing something. Even at a subconscious level, that's still a desire. Desires are objective.

[ClayBarham]

Sorry to hear you died, as the only way your "desires" in your brain can be "objective facts" means you have no desires in your brain. Facts never attract. Are you human? My problem is I am an experienced therapist, a psychologist, and I made a living at helping people relate their objective-subjective, and when the two work together, I call it intelligence. However, it helps no one for me to try to convince you, because you have made up your subjective mind and no contrary facts would ever get in the way.....as Augustine said, "Belief precedes understanding."

[Kamehameha34]

Sorry to hear you died, as the only way your "desires" in your brain can be "objective facts" means you have no desires in your brain. Facts never attract. Are you human?

You're making.. No sense.

Let me conceptualize my point with an example:

I want an apple.

That is an objective statement. "I" clearly defines an object of which the statement is about. "Want" is an objective verb. That makes it objective.


My problem is I am an experienced therapist, a psychologist, and I made a living at helping people relate their objective-subjective, and when the two work together, I call it intelligence.

I'm not a therapist of a psychologist, and this isn't a discussion about either of those fields of study. This is a logical discussion - which means rules of logic apply.

However, it helps no one for me to try to convince you, because you have made up your subjective mind and no contrary facts would ever get in the way.....as Augustine said, "Belief precedes understanding."

You're not presenting facts, you're telling me the equivalent of "3=2". The problem with the "3=2" argument is the fact that 3 does not equal 2. I'm sure you've closed your mind to all arguments trying to convince you that 3 does inface equal 2, because they are demonstrably faulty.

What you're doing now is known as a copout. I've presented an argument, and you're responding to it by telling me that I'm wrong, I'm just too 'closed minded' to know it. The problem with this tactic is that it invariably leads to personal criticisms and diatribes when not nipped in the bud, and I don't want any of my posts moved to FP.

Do you want to rethink your defense?

[Pookie]

I want to know what the "Belief precedes understanding" part means. If you believe you can fly, and you jump off a 10-story building, when you go SPLAT, isn't that a little late for understanding? Doesn't belief precede irrationality and chaos as well?
So in what context are you including that?
Pookie

[Pookie]

Hello? I asked a question. Seems you were on top of things, now silent. HELLO! I asked a question!
Pookie

[Keith Hamburger]

Hello? I asked a question. Seems you were on top of things, now silent. HELLO! I asked a question!
Pookie


Well, I'll respond since everyone else seems to be ignoring you. I don't want you to feel as if you're shouting into the wilderness.

Unfortunately, I can't help any more than that as it wasn't me that posted such an idiotic statement. I agree with you completely. Belief is meaningless in regards to accomplishment. It may be necessary but it definitely isn't sufficient. People believe in a lot of crazy and stupid things. Just look at many of the posts here.

(I'm sure someone will consider that can apply to my posts.)

Keith

[BillyPilgrim]

Keith has pimped slapped the correct! ;)

[Kamehameha34]

There are exceptions to the rule, though. If there are two doors, of which one leads to safety while the other leads to a bear pit, and you have 20 seconds to choose one before the floor falls out beneath you, "putting faith" in one door over another will do you much better than taking an agnostic position and staying where you are.

However, this is inapplicable to any theistic proposition - primarily because there are an infinite amount of possible "doors" to choose from, and there's overwhelming proof that all doors lead to the same place.

[firefox]

Let's all try another definition: I propose working from the position that we can't at this point in history at least (if ever) know if a higher power(s) exist. That said, why not consider these "working definitions," if you will:

atheist: If God(s) exist, and he/she/it/they came down from wherever, and presented themselves in an objective way, and they asked me to worship them, I would not.

agnostic: In same situation, I would

Personally, I increasingly find myself in the 'atheist' category, by the above definition...

[Mark L Hamburger]

The term atheist is more along the lines of "I don't believe god exists, and no matter what proof is provided I will not believe." While agnostic means "I will accept the possibility of a God if I am provided sufficient evidence, however I may or may not choose to worship this God"

[Keith Hamburger]

Let's all try another definition: I propose working from the position that we can't at this point in history at least (if ever) know if a higher power(s) exist. That said, why not consider these "working definitions," if you will:

atheist: If God(s) exist, and he/she/it/they came down from wherever, and presented themselves in an objective way, and they asked me to worship them, I would not.

agnostic: In same situation, I would

Personally, I increasingly find myself in the 'atheist' category, by the above definition...


Boy. That's a tough example, too. If you were to ask me to worship the God I know best, the Christian God, having been raised in that faith, well you might be right that I would fall into the refuse to worship category. Any being that is so self-centered and needy of my adoration, combined with all of the negative charactarisitics listed in the Old and New Testaments, I'm fairly sure isn't worthy of my respect, adoration and worship.

However, if you're referring to a generic god of which I know nothing about, which may show characteristics worthy of respect but not demanding such, I'm not sure. I would have to know more about this deity before I made a decision.

I've often used the term "devout agnostic" to describe my beliefs, but one that works probably as well, and might be more justifiable is "soft atheist". I doubt the existence of a deity and absolutely refuse to live my life around any sort of mysticism that has been presented to me thus far.

But, I am not so close-minded as to say that I could never be convinced and that a deity couldn't prove itself to me and change my mind.

I'm not sure what type of prove would be required, and I really doubt it will happen. But, I won't deny that it could happen.

Keith

[Kamehameha34]

Pure agnosticism is almost like nihilism - it's the proposition that no divine knowledge (negative proof or positive) is possible.

Pure atheism is an active disbelief in any divine, sentient being. It represents a positive claim because you can preface it with "There is" - as in "There is no god."


Relative agnosticism, which is what modern usage of the term 'agnosticism' usually implies, is not a proposition of truth value for the god claim. It attempts no answer, it simply acknowledges that there is no sufficient evidence for a judgement call.

Then you have 'toothfairy' agnosticism, which follows the same logical reasoning as relative agnosticism but also acknowledges that the same, albeit logically valid reasoning leads one to the conclusion that the toothfairy is 'unknown.'

Soft atheism is agnosticism, but most who refer to themselves as soft atheists (or more often just atheists*) tend to fall in the 'toothfairy agnostic' category.

*Hard atheists (aka Pure Atheists) also just call themselves atheists more often than not, so I'm always sure to ascertain who I'm talking to before I engage in debate.



To understand the primary difference between agnostics of the plain and toothfairy variety, one has to have a basic understanding of epistemilogical standards. Toothfairy agnostics are known to 'write off' claims because they are absurdly unlikely or ridiculous, while plain agnostics tend to take a strictly logical approach and refuse to write off a claim until irrefutable evidence of its negative is shown.

A good example of the toothfairy agnostic mindset is your state of mind while you're looking for your keys in the morning. I'm sure 'In the drywall' is the last place on your checklist that you plan to look, because you know that when you lose your keys you tend not to find them in the drywall.

[ClayBarham]

The atheists who protest too much seem more like your agnostics who spend a lot of time and energy fighting their own shadow belief.

[Kamehameha34]

That's just.. a falsity. First of all, agnostics have no "shadow belief" - they have no belief whatsoever.

Second of all, it serves no purpose to hide belief in a god in this world where evangelists have so much power of the media to demonize those those who aren't of their faith. In fact, there are leagues and leagues of closet atheists who are extorted into presenting themselves as christians.

Thirdly, I've been over the fact that religion and its followers cause enough problems in this world to validate passionate opposition. You have no evidence to connect the conviction of these atheists to any belief in a deity, which is what you're going to have to provide in order to be taken seriously.

[ClayBarham]

Proof of the lady's beliefs when she protests too much? Hmmmm, that will be difficult, to say the least. However, those few athiests who work so hard to keep about 90% of the people from observing their own beliefs outside their closets must really hate God, Christ, or the possibility they will be "infected" by it. In short, they must believ God exists if they have to work so hard. If they didn't believe it, they would just let it pass like a UFO.

[Keith Hamburger]

Proof of the lady's beliefs when she protests too much? Hmmmm, that will be difficult, to say the least. However, those few athiests who work so hard to keep about 90% of the people from observing their own beliefs outside their closets must really hate God, Christ, or the possibility they will be "infected" by it. In short, they must believ God exists if they have to work so hard. If they didn't believe it, they would just let it pass like a UFO.


You know, I don't care one way or another as far as things are concerned being placed in front of adults or the general public. I am quite concerned about what's done with impressionable children in government run schools, however.

But, the problem I have goes in the same direction as the problems religious people have with government schools. Government schools shouldn't be presenting religious ideas, just like they shouldn't be presenting ideas that are opposed by those that are religious.

The only real solution there is to eliminate government schools and make parents responsible for providing the education they feel is best for their children without government interference.

But, most Americans seem to think that only the government is qualified to educate our children. To me, that's the entire problem we are discussing here.

Keith

[moses2792796]

Radical atheists are no less misguided than fundamentalist christians, they both fall under the category of forcing reality into a narrow and distorted perception and claiming that it is absolute.

[ClayBarham]

Keith, why would you be afraid that children would be harmed if exposed to God, the Ten Commandments, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, all that stuff which, in the course of history, has improved life on this earth? You act as if they will be corrupted and will go out like Muslims and blow people to bits. Haven't seen that in Christian or Jewish communities, although we have all seen it in Muslim communities. But, again, the point of the post is that the Atheists who fight so hard against any public expression of God must be fighting their own inner gremlins, kinda like the guy who is afraid of being Gay, so he fights even harder than others against the gays.

[Keith Hamburger]

Keith, why would you be afraid that children would be harmed if exposed to God, the Ten Commandments, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, all that stuff which, in the course of history, has improved life on this earth? You act as if they will be corrupted and will go out like Muslims and blow people to bits. Haven't seen that in Christian or Jewish communities, although we have all seen it in Muslim communities. But, again, the point of the post is that the Atheists who fight so hard against any public expression of God must be fighting their own inner gremlins, kinda like the guy who is afraid of being Gay, so he fights even harder than others against the gays.


Like offering up one's own virgin daughters to a mob in exchange for two male strangers? (Genesis 19)

Or daughters having sex with their father? (same)

(hell, it's too much work finding these references. there's plenty of terrible stuff in your bible that would be banned if it were in a modern work of fiction)

And, are you sure it's your god they should be exposed to? What about the god of Mohamed? There are more people in the world that are Muslim than Christian.

Or, how about the God(s) of Hinduism? Why should your god have precedence over them?

I'll stand behind your rights to screw up your own kids in any way you see fit. Leave everyone else's alone.

Keith

[ClayBarham]

Again, as a psychologist, I like what Kierkegaard said, that if Jesus was never born, we would have to create him because, from a therapeutic standpoint, what He taught was forgiveness, of being able to free one's self of guilts from being an unlearned dufus who makes mistakes and wants to redeem himself and begin all over again (born again). There is value in that, and as much as you may want to fight it as some kind of non-intellectual mystic belief, I would simply have to ask you why you would fight it? Why not walk by it and live and let live? No, instead, you need to combat it even to the point of making such a belief illegal. So, you take a fixed stand and, in doing so, defend a belief....it is a belief, not a real intellectual argument. And, da bruddah from Aloha land implies we do not all work off of beliefs, to which I respond, we all work from belief. A belief may be reflective of very strong arguments to support it, but all our actions and thoughts rise out of our beliefs.

[moses2792796]

Clay, I'm sorry to come at you again but that argument fails, not because I don't believe in God as such, but what you are saying is that Jesus is a justification for our mistakes. This virtually summarises everything that is wrong with Christianity, that anyone, however parasitic and destructive just has to submit to an unrealistic doctrine and is instantly granted eternal life and happiness. This is the perfect tool of a democracy, it so obviously caters to the lowest human desires, the kind of people who follow that type of Christianity only want what feels good at the time. Capitalism and democracy are the same, they are justified with freedom and wealth but in the end they don't work but why worry about that, you'll probably be in heaven by then.

[Keith Hamburger]

No, instead, you need to combat it even to the point of making such a belief illegal.

See, there's where you're complete wrong. I don't want to make any belief illegal. You can be as wrong as you want to be.

What I want to do is not have it forced on those that don't agree. Our schools are funded through tax dollars. Attendance is compulsory. Therefore, you don't have the right to insert your belief into it.

Get the government completely out of schools and you can do whatever you want with them.

Keith