Atheism the ultimate stupidity ?

[Paladin]

that's a very egotistical assumption to make Brian

I don't think so GTG, it may be a very accurate description. What Brian is saying is that he has had a peak experience, the nature of which we cannot comprehend because we aren't inside his head. Are you aware that there are clinics and therapists out there now that specialize in helping people through what can be agonizing and traumatic emergence experiences?
Read Stanislav Grof, or one of his books to get an understanding of these kinds of experiences.

Amazon.com: Spiritual Emergency (New Consciousness Reader): Stanislav Grof: Books

 

[c0de]

@ Brian + G2G

Actually, I'm not being flippant - I've experienced direct communion with God in a way most people on this board could never comprehend, so if someone is going to tell me they know God because they read something in a book once, I'm going to have to try hard to not be patronising.

This is is the actual aim of religion (of my religion at least). Direct communion with God does not make someone a prophet (that's revelation). Those who truly believe in Him, and do good, God Himself develops a connection with such servants of His. It does not mean one hears voices, the communion is abstract. Almost in code, something that is only between God and the person being addressed. This is how that person becomes sure that the communication is from God, because the manner is such that speaks directly to one's most hidden and secret thoughts. Like a letter, that can only be deciphered by the recipient it was intended for.

I usually do not like to quote from the Hadith, as their authenticity is not 100% like the Quran, but there is one which I especially love:

"...My servant keeps coming closer to Me with more volunteer deeds, until I love him. When I love him, I become His ear by which he hears, his eyes by which he sees, his hand by which he holds and his foot by which he walks. If he asks Me any thing I shall give him. If he seeks My protection I shall grant him My protection… " (Al-Bukhari 6021)

 

[Tao_Equus]

I usually do not like to quote from the Hadith, as their authenticity is not 100% like the Quran, but there is one which I especially love:

"...My servant keeps coming closer to Me with more volunteer deeds, until I love him. When I love him, I become His ear by which he hears, his eyes by which he sees, his hand by which he holds and his foot by which he walks. If he asks Me any thing I shall give him. If he seeks My protection I shall grant him My protection… " (Al-Bukhari 6021)

Definitely no Ego in that



To the OP,
Every monotheism evolved from primitive animist polytheisms. So 'god' was only 'created' recently by people. And by power hungry despots as a rule. It seems to me that you, GTG, confuse god for the wondrous, rich, diverse, expansive reality of nature. An atheist can also appreciate that. But without the need to apply masculine ego to it.

tao

 

[iBrian]

LOL

Ok in true I Brian stylee what is "truth" ?

Good question. What is it?

"...My servant keeps coming closer to Me with more volunteer deeds, until I love him. When I love him, I become His ear by which he hears, his eyes by which he sees, his hand by which he holds and his foot by which he walks. If he asks Me any thing I shall give him. If he seeks My protection I shall grant him My protection… " (Al-Bukhari 6021)

Good quote.

 

[c0de]

@ Tao + Brian


Tao

Every monotheism evolved from primitive animist polytheisms. So 'god' was only 'created' recently by people. And by power hungry despots as a rule.

Definitely no theoretical assumptions in there




@ Brian

I know eh, I love that one.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Definitely no theoretical assumptions in there

Correct!! A decent study of extant writings from the historical record validate all three points

tao

 

[c0de]

Correct!! A decent study of extant writings from the historical record validate all three points

tao

Yea... a decent study full of theoretical assumptions.... that is. Why don't you post your research here Tao. I would love to pick it apart. (I already know what "studies" your referring to btw, the first two lectures of my RLG course already covered this issue).

by the way.. whats up with all the winking? In your last couple of posts to me on different threads you've winked... Looks like that Sarah Palin kinda rubbed off on you a little eh??? Not literally though, (as I am sure you wished lol.)

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yea... a decent study full of theoretical assumptions.... that is. Why don't you post your research here Tao. I would love to pick it apart. (I already know what "studies" your referring to btw, the first two lectures of my RLG course already covered this issue).

by the way.. whats up with all the winking? In your last couple of posts to me on different threads you've winked... Looks like that Sarah Palin kinda rubbed off on you a little eh??? Not literally though, (as I am sure you wished lol.)

So im a winker! So what? There is only a vowel between us

tao

 

[AJA1984]

how can anyone not believe in God ?

is atheism the ultimate stupidity ?

First of all i've been browsing these forums for years, at my best i'm an aethiest, although at times i can partially concede to deism. Anyhow, do you belive in zeus, thor, hermes, athena or my personal favorite eris? Remember aethiests just believe in one less god then you do...

Beyond that most religions are circumspect and i mean not to offend anyone by posting this... but here is what i believe the basis of Jesus (i assume your christian). If not disregard this link:

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... chances are it is one.

I'm open to more dialogue concerning this or any other questions you may have regarding aethiesm including the mindset. Basically just keep applying occam's razor and you'll come to my side. Formerly i was raised a christian of several denomination including Jehova's witnesses so i know a bit of christianity per se.

Lastly one could equally suggest being theistic is the ultimate stupidity and i'll argue the case if you wish provided nobody gets offended. Or i can argue that aethiesm is stupid if your so inclined lol.

 

[juantoo3]

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... chances are it is one.

I'm open to more dialogue concerning this or any other questions you may have regarding aethiesm including the mindset.

Welcome to InterFaith, AJA1984.

I don't mind dailoguing with you on this. I've actually begun a thread that touches on some of this on the Greco-Roman history board:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html

Basically just keep applying occam's razor and you'll come to my side.

Yeah, but...there is always the possibility of wielding Occam's razor inappropriately and / or indiscriminately, in which case one can arrive at the wrong conclusion. At least, that is my experience.

Besides, it shouldn't really be about "sides," should it? After all, we are all on the same side in the end.

 

[AJA1984]

Not my side persay rather my viewpoint. Your correct, anything applied indiscriminately will yield spurious results, however if you correctly apply it one can wade through much of the contrivities that are attributed as fact in many predominant religions.

However the right and wrong conclusions depends just where your comming from. Is it right? Is it wrong? The answer is yes. Beyond that i'm not out to say what is right or what is wrong just what works for me.

 

[juantoo3]

Not my side persay rather my viewpoint. Your correct, anything applied indiscriminately will yield spurious results, however if you correctly apply it one can wade through much of the contrivities that are attributed as fact in many predominant religions.

However the right and wrong conclusions depends just where your comming from. Is it right? Is it wrong? The answer is yes. Beyond that i'm not out to say what is right or what is wrong just what works for me.

At first blush I would think you are pointed in the correct direction for a seeker. Of course, in the strictest sense that would make you an agnostic rather than atheist, but that's a semantic difference.

I am inclined to agree that right and wrong are subjective and personal attributes, but there are encompassing cultural applications as well that approach a more objective sense of the term. Murder, for example, is pretty universally frowned upon. But murder also requires an "us" attitude, because killing a "them" isn't murder...ironic and paradox, but that seems to be how we work.

 

[juantoo3]

anything applied indiscriminately will yield spurious results, however if you correctly apply it one can wade through much of the contrivities that are attributed as fact in many predominant religions.

OK, but the trouble I have is with discerning just what constitutes a result that is not spurious? Is a result no longer spurious if it coincides with a preconception?

Even the concept of "contrivities that are attributed as fact" is subjective and culturally based. For instance, it is likely that understanding the migration patterns of buffalo is a meaningless contrivity to you, as it is to me. But to some it is a crucial and vital element of their knowledge and forms an integral part of their religious base.

 

[saddha]

athiesm arises as a result of our own doubt and not practicing what we preach -- which increases doubts even more.

 

[iBrian]

Beyond that most religions are circumspect and i mean not to offend anyone by posting this... but here is what i believe the basis of Jesus (i assume your christian). If not disregard this link:

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... chances are it is one.

I'm open to more dialogue concerning this or any other questions you may have regarding aethiesm including the mindset.

I think we'll see in general a lot of religious principles surrounding an emergent Christianity influence it - after all, Christianity began in the first century as an essentially JEwish sect, but then widened to become an independent group in itself.

In that regard, it's hard not to see how major religious beliefs of the era and region would not influence Christianity somehow (without invoking Sola Scruptura).

I think you'll find the Horus example too simple - look at other major figures - Greek forms such as Helios, Apollo, and Dionysios, plus Roman ones such as Mithras and Sol Invictus - certainly plenty of potential influence around.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi AJA

Lastly one could equally suggest being theistic is the ultimate stupidity and i'll argue the case if you wish provided nobody gets offended. Or i can argue that aethiesm is stupid if your so inclined lol.

Don't forget those like me who believe in the psychological reality of the fall of man and consequently the human condition having become as if living in Plato'save. If this is true then atheists and theists are equally missing the point and what they have in common is calling the other stupid.

Then the question becomes how to leave the cave and the collective stupidity that sustains cave life.

 

[AJA1984]

At first blush I would think you are pointed in the correct direction for a seeker. Of course, in the strictest sense that would make you an agnostic rather than atheist, but that's a semantic difference.

I am inclined to agree that right and wrong are subjective and personal attributes, but there are encompassing cultural applications as well that approach a more objective sense of the term. Murder, for example, is pretty universally frowned upon. But murder also requires an "us" attitude, because killing a "them" isn't murder...ironic and paradox, but that seems to be how we work.

Its only objective from certain cultural instances of murder. Their are tribes who ritually go out and murder opposing tribes men, take their women and mate with them (culturally sanctioned murder, i forgot the name but can be bothered to look it up if your interested). Its very hard to cite being objective or to take an objective outlook because we're all so colored by our experiences.

As for the agnostic stance... i find that to be rather deluded, intellectual cowardice if you will, a non-statement (a simple i don't know if you will). Being agnostic may be thought of as being the most objective true, for all we know the cult of Cthulhu is spot on and Cthulhu is real ... and an agnostic will entertain every idea set forth to be objective losing a real sense of objectivity in the process... deluded by all things contrived entertaining all ideas and having none of their own. A theist uses god to explain things, an aethiest tries to explain things in the absence of god, and an agnostic is just sitting on the fence waiting to take a side. I stated earlier that i could concede to deism in some instances, that means basically that i'll tell you theirs a god but won't attribute much to him beyond evolutionary powers and the forces (physical laws of the universe probability) that brought us into existance are in fact god ... which enables man to be god as well with a sufficient understanding, so saying you believe in god may just mean one day that you believe in humanity... provided we don't kill ourselves off before then; which i think will be the likely scenario. (i know i'm a heretic among the lot of you)

 

[AJA1984]

Hi AJA



Don't forget those like me who believe in the psychological reality of the fall of man and consequently the human condition having become as if living in Plato'save. If this is true then atheists and theists are equally missing the point and what they have in common is calling the other stupid.

Then the question becomes how to leave the cave and the collective stupidity that sustains cave life.

I'll argue anything if you want me too, and argue to any color you choose (stupid, great, etc...).

They are merely different points of view on the same thing, if you dictate that one is more righteous over another then you've fallen into the fallacy of self righteousness and arrogance. I agree with you that they both are missing the point and to that point i'd attribute to a greater cooperation among men (mankind), a greater facilitation of knowledge, peace, etc... But without citing differences i don't see how it is possible with the theist/aethiest zeal for knowing the true path and claiming superiority over one or another... perhaps we just need to be less adamant on both sides.

 

[Netti-Netti]

If this is true then atheists and theists are equally missing the point and what they have in common is calling the other stupid.

A popular pastime even when ideology is not at issue.

 

[juantoo3]

As for the agnostic stance... i find that to be rather deluded, intellectual cowardice if you will, a non-statement (a simple i don't know if you will).

You are certainly welcome to view things however you prefer. From my perspective I find the agnostic POV more intellectually honest than that of atheism.