Anti-Atheism

[Jim Necroslaughter]

I believe in God
I believe in the Devil
I believe in Zeus
I believe in Apollo
I believe in Aphrodite
I believe in Odin
I believe in Freyja
I believe in Loki
I believe in Ra
I believe in Isis
I believe in Quetzalcoatl
I believe in Huitzilopochtli
I believe in Cthulhu!
I believe in the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Norse Gods, the Egyptian Gods and even the Aztec Gods!
I believe in all the goddamn Gods!

Didn't you guys hear??  It's the cool new thing. 

[crow]

Try it again, without the sarcasm, and it may well have something to it.

[indjaseemun]

Like it or not, most of those gods are real.

[fallot]

I must not be very cool then, I only believe in one God.

[username]

The standard person is atheist but belives firmly in evolution, liberty and equality and the holocaust or the slave trade(in a moral way.)

You chose the second most common option : "There's a truth to ALL religions. Everyone makes his own religion!"


But in fact, if anyone living in the technological-industrial world has any sense in the head, he choses a philosophical-metaphysical stance to look at things. So "religion" is thus a way to look ontologically at existence.

[fallot]

Sense in head, hole in heart. If once accepts we are not fundamentally rational creatures then I think that's hubris. I don't exactly disagree, but I present the example of Guenon who went all the way towards embracing a particular tradition.

Edit: "madness comes from God, whereas sober sense is merely human."

[username]

The hubris has already been commited, i'm afraid. Culture and religion is inseperable and is given to the individual through Tradition, and is not something one choses.

Maybe I don't understand the word "sense," but ontology can deal with other things than what can be analyzed with rationality.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

No sarcasm.

Believing in one God is also very cool, so no worries there.

Finally, do not try to decipher.  Go with it instead.

[Eleison]

Sense in head, hole in heart. If once accepts we are not fundamentally rational creatures then I think that's hubris. I don't exactly disagree, but I present the example of Guenon who went all the way towards embracing a particular tradition.

From a traditionalist perspective, one embraces a tradition because it provides the necessary keys to unlock our spiritual potential.  Metaphysics, in the sense that Guenon used that term, necessarily goes beyond the perspective of any particular tradition, without making any of them invalid.

[BillHopkins]

The standard person is atheist but belives firmly in evolution, liberty and equality and the holocaust or the slave trade(in a moral way.)

Everyone 'believes' in everything they think it true. However, some beliefs are rationally justified in the sense of being grounded by evidence or reasons, some are much less so. If you believe 'evolution by natural selection' doesn't happen, you're not justified in holding that belief in view of the overwealming balance of evidence in favour of the negation of that proposition vs the evidence in favour of it.

On the other hand, i don't know what evidence or arguments can be given to justify liberal and egalitarian beliefs. They will, eventually, depend on 'foundaitonal' assumptions that are not objective.

[BillHopkins]

The hubris has already been commited, i'm afraid. Culture and religion is inseperable and is given to the individual through Tradition, and is not something one choses.

Do you mean your conception of what culture should be, or culture in general?

Did you choose traditionalism, and the culture of heavy metal? These behaviours are certainly not predominent in your culture (assuming you live in a major western country).

Communitarianism is an interested parallel in ethics: individual conceptions about 'right' and 'wrong' are drawn from your culture (and so any attempt to go too far towards individualism will damage an individual's moral 'ability'). So communitarianism is more 'right-wing' in so far as it recognises something prior to the individual.

[username]

You seem to misunderstand, my dear gentleman mister Hopkins.

[crow]

Misunderstanding is what we assume when we see ourselves being misunderstood.
Misunderstanding, that what is actually happening, is a conviction on the other side that there is nothing to understand.
Sometimes I feel that language, itself, is the reason so few are able to communicate.
Ughtd hbu td hgrtznk?

[username]

"Opinions" is to Homo sapiens mostly something they use to position themselves socially.

Few of them are actual thinkers, and they find it enormously wierd, if they observe how one spends hours looking out over the ocean or sitting under a tree. The inner world is completely foreign to them. 
But unfortunately there is no way you can explain a foreign  thougth world to them unless they have some ability and will to understand it---though, many people, especially the young, have had the superficial "thougth world" of socially correct opinions ingrained in them in a way, they only need to have their head pulled out of their ass in order set doubt to their preconcieved notions of truth.