Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheistic dismissiveness?

Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 11, 2010, 05:01:49 PM
The acknowledgement of the plethora of religious fallacies and errors seems to be the major catalyst in today's religious dissidence. While Atheists recognize the flaws in the major religions, they don't seem to consider the possibility of character assassination or slander and propaganda. Instead, they take notice of said flaws and dismiss the entire subject based primarily off of the fodder. Consequently, the notion of God is abandoned and an assertion of its absence is replaced, as opposed to a reconsideration of its principles. Essentially, God can still exist whether it has believers or not. To assert that the reality of God must be acquired through faith is absurd, because one can switch on and off their faith like a light switch. This is not an ultimate reality, because ultimate realities don't require belief or faith. They exist whether YOU do or not.

I propose a new paradigm: Maybe God is still real, but its traits and characteristics/laws have been demonized and perverted throughout time as to distort its truth. This is an elaborate, collective effort by those in power to strategically manipulate the presentation of information about racy subjects like this and purposely misrepresent it into something that fits more along the lines of their personal agendas, and to perpetuate the current left-right paradigm so they remain in power and the commonfolk are misguided via disinformation efforts.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 11, 2010, 05:40:39 PM
The most intelligent people I know gravitate towards some kind of Theism.  The next tier down are generally Atheists, with some Theists who are simply so because of their culture/parentage.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 11, 2010, 07:10:12 PM
Why does dissident have one post when I have seen him post other times? Cargest that is an interesting thing you say there. What do you mean by "the most intelligent?" Anyway, the leaders, elites, rulers of society are like all atheists and model religion as such to control the populace. I am sure every pope has no belief in the Catholic faith as marketed for instance.

No offense to the thread starter, but I am going to set aside the pseudo babble and boil it down to this. The only theism I'd ever accept is one that is firmly provable by science. Humans evolved from apes. Who evolved from lower primates. Who evolved from other mammals. Who evolved from reptiles. Who evolved from amphibians. Who evolved from fish. Etc. If there is a larger type of life that has had a hand in our development, we are simply unable to firmly identify it yet. It would be governed by the same laws of physics that we are. Even if it some kind of dark matter or energy, it still exists in the identifiable, observable universe. We should eventually find firm evidence of its existence and possibly even be able to destroy it.

Ignore your brain when it tries to get you all bubbly with spiritualism, leading you down this path. Just how you're wired. I've learned how to completely shut it off. No reason to continue to throw bones in a bowl anymore. How hypocritical I find my obsession with ritualistic black and death metal though. But I use it as an outlet for my inborn need for spirituality so I don't end up in church or on a message board weirding people out.

My opinion is the most boring. Sorry guys. The only spells or magic one can conjure are with a guitar, violin or flute.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 11, 2010, 07:15:00 PM
The issue is that you can not prove or even verify the existence of any god.  Then how can you know of such things?  Where does knowledge of gods come from?  What if atheists like me simply think one step ahead of the  following notion: "there may be a god out there, but not an abrahamic/nordic/etc. god"?  Atheist means "without the belief in a deity or deities", and its anthropology coincides with this strain of thought.  Why worry about what's outside of the universe?  That is to assume that "outside of the universe" exists.  I don't understand how any verifiable, understood, or even acceptable knowledge concerning this data can be conceived and/or known.  Your error of judgment is to assume that atheists act like they know for sure nothing is "out there".  

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:30:21 AM
Wolfgang,  the "identifiable, observable universe" is a mere fraction of the entirety of matter, let alone of everything that isn't matter.  You appear to have fallen into one of the pitfalls of modern Atheist thought, which is to assume that we've reached a level of understanding of our physical environment which is somewhere close to complete.

You should read a book by Douglas Hofstadter called "Godel Escher Bach", in which he explains everything from the general fallacy of logic, through embedded systems, to what he calls "strange loops".  There are many sections in this book which gradually show to the reader that our physical existence "system", much like any other real, imaginary, or virtual system, is confined by laws which are not defined within the system, but which are, as with all other systems, defined elsewhere ("outside the system").  I've brought up the example of a computer program before on ANUS - the program follows a set of instructions, and can do whatever it can within those sets of instructions, and with whatever inputs it's given; however, it cannot, unless it is instructed to do so, change its instructions (and, at that point, it's still operating within its original definitions).  In this way, it can't "break out" of its system.  In a similar way, we can't "break out" of our system.  I have a very strong feeling that, while humans have the ability to glimpse something of the "outside", we're programmed not to be able to recognise it properly.  Hofstadter has a story in his book about two characters finding a genie, who, when asked for more wishes, has to ask the meta-genie if that's ok, and he in turn, when asked if it's ok, has to ask the meta-meta-genie, who has to ask the meta-meta-meta-genie, and so on, infinitely, until they reach the "end", which is called "God".

As far as "the most intelligent people" go, I mean the people whose general understanding, cognitive ability, insight, intuition, capacity for introversion, and wisdom far outweigh those of other people.  In essence, I mean exactly what I say - the most intelligent people I know.

Spectrum, Atheism is the absolute denial of existence of God as being a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being, creator of all, etc.  If there's any doubt in the mind of a so-called Atheist (i.e. "we can't know"), that's not Atheism, but, rather, Agnosticism.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:50:00 AM
As I see it, it doesn't matter whether God exists, or what the "truth" of any matter is. What matters is how the belief effects how you interact with the world.

The question then becomes should we believe in God? If so, in what way; if not, then what is the best alternative? Does believing in God provide you with an inspiration which allows you to live more fully, and attain higher levels of greatness? Does the picture of God allow you to create something transcendent (e.g. medieval Christian art)? Or does it result in you shunning life, and withdrawing into worlds of delusion which do not aid in the development of life?

Don't worry about what is real - worry about what really is.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:59:35 AM
lolokay has the best attitude.  God is only useful as far as it allows us to live a better life.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 01:35:30 AM
they take notice of said flaws and dismiss the entire subject based primarily off of the fodder. Consequently, the notion of God is abandoned and an assertion of its absence is replaced, as opposed to a reconsideration of its principles.

I've seen a lot of this lately, noticeably in the arguments and general outlooks of people who I consider otherwise moderately to very intelligent. It is as though a switch is flipped when "God" is mentioned and they just turn off their brains. Christianity and its adherents in particular seem to cause a mental block to be engaged when discussed. The metaphors in religious works and the brilliance of religious thinkers are lost. I usually encourage the reading of Emerson to alleviate such an unfortunate situation.

The subject matter of religion and its deep-seated nature (due to much of it being instilled from a very young age) make it something generally not taken lightly nor easily discarded by those who are initiated into it. This being the case, many intelligent, wise, capable people (I find) are religious. This will be unavoidable until religion ceases to be.

You appear to have fallen into one of the pitfalls of modern Atheist thought, which is to assume that we've reached a level of understanding of our physical environment which is somewhere close to complete.

Indeed. We have not even left (physically anyway) our position inside the grain of sand that is our solar system (which we've only recently become aware of). We are still young, and must at some point realize that there is much (incalculably) that we have yet to learn. Also thank you for the book recommendation, although it was not directed at me.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 02:30:10 AM
Wolfgang,  the "identifiable, observable universe" is a mere fraction of the entirety of matter, let alone of everything that isn't matter.  You appear to have fallen into one of the pitfalls of modern Atheist thought, which is to assume that we've reached a level of understanding of our physical environment which is somewhere close to complete.

You should read a book by Douglas Hofstadter called "Godel Escher Bach", in which he explains everything from the general fallacy of logic, through embedded systems, to what he calls "strange loops".  There are many sections in this book which gradually show to the reader that our physical existence "system", much like any other real, imaginary, or virtual system, is confined by laws which are not defined within the system, but which are, as with all other systems, defined elsewhere ("outside the system").  I've brought up the example of a computer program before on ANUS - the program follows a set of instructions, and can do whatever it can within those sets of instructions, and with whatever inputs it's given; however, it cannot, unless it is instructed to do so, change its instructions (and, at that point, it's still operating within its original definitions).  In this way, it can't "break out" of its system.  In a similar way, we can't "break out" of our system.  I have a very strong feeling that, while humans have the ability to glimpse something of the "outside", we're programmed not to be able to recognise it properly.  Hofstadter has a story in his book about two characters finding a genie, who, when asked for more wishes, has to ask the meta-genie if that's ok, and he in turn, when asked if it's ok, has to ask the meta-meta-genie, who has to ask the meta-meta-meta-genie, and so on, infinitely, until they reach the "end", which is called "God".




Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

That sounds like a book I'd like to read. But really, what you're suggesting isn't disqualified in what I said. I don't dismiss the idea that a higher life form exists completely beyond our current ability to detect or understand. I also can't dismiss the possibility that we might never be able to detect it. But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as. Shouldn't what we're talking about is better viewed as extraterrestrial life in another dimension then? I am not going to let the possibility of this fool me into allowing religion to creep back in my consciousness. This is certainly more interesting than Creationist science though.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 05:23:33 AM
The only theism I'd ever accept is one that is firmly provable by science. Humans evolved from apes. Who evolved from lower primates. Who evolved from other mammals. Who evolved from reptiles. Who evolved from amphibians. Who evolved from fish. Etc.

Sorry to disrupt your fantasy, but that is what you (and many others--granted!) believe. It is not science in the proper sense of the word.

A piece of advice to all atheists/agnostics: before you blurt out that God were unprovable or religion stupid, at least make the effort to read up on the matter for a start. Try to understand what the authorities of knowledge understood, i.e. read Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, the Summa Theologica, Ibn Arabi, etc. etc intensively. Maybe you'll notice why they would never agree with evolutionism. But even if you will not, you at least made an effort. To swallow what metal lyrics, Nietzsche or ANUS satanists offer to you without giving the opposing party a chance to win you over with arguments is just silly. If you are angry with the world, why must Christianity be your scapegoat?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 05:31:31 AM
The acknowledgement of the plethora of religious fallacies and errors seems to be the major catalyst in today's religious dissidence.

No. Ignorance is.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 05:36:30 AM

Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

Consciousness is God.

Quote
But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as.

Two things about this: firstly, consider the programmer behind the program; secondly, consider that the term "God", while generally used in the Christian sense, nowadays, is actually a very loose term.  As far as I understand it, "God" need not even be "sentient", so long as it is "living".

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 06:08:18 AM
The only theism I'd ever accept is one that is firmly provable by science. Humans evolved from apes. Who evolved from lower primates. Who evolved from other mammals. Who evolved from reptiles. Who evolved from amphibians. Who evolved from fish. Etc.

Sorry to disrupt your fantasy, but that is what you (and many others--granted!) believe. It is not science in the proper sense of the word.
You've brought up this semantic issue on a number of occasions.  If you have a problem with the current classification of science, then simply replace any post that contains that use with the phrase Naturalist Method of Empirical Falsifiability, or something similar.  Otherwise, pointing out that what he describes is science as he is defining it and not how you define it is simply a none statement.

To respond to the original poster.  It's hard to take your post seriously when you add on a conspiratorial notion of absurd probability.  If you have some notion of God you'd like to put up for debate, then you should simply explain your notion.  People will either accept it or criticize it.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 06:27:11 AM
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 06:36:42 AM
AEghwa.