on non-belief

I think its ok to get converts as long as you do it as passive, friendly and humanly as possible.

That's the problem, though, isn't it? Some groups say sometimes that the most humane, friendly way possible is at the tip of a sword. Pretty common in many religions' histories, and also in the history of secular governments like Communism that forced the end of religion.

I'm saying the ends don't justify the means. If we wish to offer our ideas in a passive, friendly, humane manner... great. But if we head off on the slippery slope of "as possible" because we're just so sure that our idea is the right one... yikes.

There used to be pagan religions that sacrificed people, Christianitys protelyzing pretty much abolished this and caused alot of postive social reform much afterwards and still on going today.

There were also pagan and shamanic religions that were relatively peaceful and sustainable. Christianity also pretty much abolished them, too.

I believe Christ's teachings, if really followed by any society, would have enormous positive social reform. But I have yet to see this actually happen on any large scale. They've been used to justify all kinds of really awful things as well as all kinds of really good things.

I see a big problem in that Christianity got mixed up with governmental power, whereas Christ's teachings were about liberation from oppression and ushering in of love. I see little following of Christ's teachings in the "White Man's Burden," the exterminating of many Native American groups and cultural imperialism toward the others, the wars against the people sin Europe with shamanic/Pagan religions, the Inquisition, and so forth.

Unlike Tao, I don't throw out what I see as perfectly good teachings from Christ just because people have abused them. But I also don't try to make it all nice and justifiable and act like Christian missionaries brought peace and prosperty to all. Most of the time, they brought (1) death and (2) some sort of colonialism and/or slavery. Conveniently, the converted had lots of resources to give the elite colonial powers of the day.

Our actions are based on what we believe and as you mention our world view. If you happen to have a good one, protelyzing can be seen as a form of charity to me.

Only if one's intentions are pure. My point is, they are rarely pure.
 
That's the problem, though, isn't it? Some groups say sometimes that the most humane, friendly way possible is at the tip of a sword. Pretty common in many religions' histories, and also in the history of secular governments like Communism that forced the end of religion.

Thats why I said as friendly, passive and humanly as possible. :)

If someone couldn't tell the difference then there psychopaths and should be put in a straight jacket.
 
I can see the wonders of atheism but I just don't understand the stuborness to reject anything supernatural which you can't even prove there isn't. This is why I could never step over the Agnostic line and into Atheism.

Simply there is no proof at all yet a lot of proof of fraud. But I have no desire to tell you or anyone else what to believe.

I am like some scotch terrier hard on the ankles, barking to be heard. I wish sometimes I did not appear so combatitive, it does not serve me very well, but I have an irrepressible style that seems to shine through my best intentions:p
 
Simply there is no proof at all yet a lot of proof of fraud. But I have no desire to tell you or anyone else what to believe.

I am like some scotch terrier hard on the ankles, barking to be heard. I wish sometimes I did not appear so combatitive, it does not serve me very well, but I have an irrepressible style that seems to shine through my best intentions:p


Uhhh...ok let's go with that :D
 
Then you represent nothing. So your just a noise.
That is very generous of you. I say I represent myself, you say I represent nothing so I am just a noisy nothing. At last you made a genuine statement about me! I am a noisy nothing and I have every intention of continuing to be one!

So you are a user, who takes responsibility for nothing, but assumes the right to criticise everything. You contribute nothing ...
So now use of knowledge is some dark,dank evil. You know absolutely nothing about me yet you have this pathalogical desire to diminish me. Very noble.


You surely occupy an enviable position ... you add not a jot to the common good of humanity, yet you claim every right and good as if it were your own, every good is yours if you want it, every bad is someone else's fault ...
I do not feel the need to brag about what I have contributed, and i will not be forced to by you. Why do you seek so hard to undermine me as an individual? Because you have no defence, not even the sanction to attempt to mount a defence, for what is the recidivist and incessant sanction of genocide events by the CC. It makes you mad as hell. How dare he tell the TRUTH!!
 
Simply there is no proof at all yet a lot of proof of fraud. But I have no desire to tell you or anyone else what to believe.


Yes there is fraud and hoaxes for sure. But in some cases the kind of proof your looking for is not tangible and when it is you say its a hoax or even if its clear its not a hoax you put it down to a rare probability occurring. Imagine if one day you finally have conclusive proof that such phenonmenons occur, then what? You'll just call it a a part of sceince that is unexplored by man yet, defing the cause of the phenonmenon as you did in the first place. The whole point is to simply believe its that leap of faith, when your thoughts are im complete unity and contentment with what your looking for.
 
Yes there is fraud and hoaxes for sure. But in some cases the kind of proof your looking for is not tangible and when it is you say its a hoax or even if its clear its not a hoax you put it down to a rare probability occurring. Imagine if one day you finally have conclusive proof that such phenonmenons occur, then what? You'll just call it a a part of sceince that is unexplored by man yet, defing the cause of the phenonmenon as you did in the first place. The whole point is to simply believe its that leap of faith, when your thoughts are im complete unity and contentment with what your looking for.

I used to have a space for that stuff. But my own personal experience is it was wishful thinking. On the scale of probability I found it to be vastly outweighed by the rational explanations. Really in the end I was forced to reject it. It was the only rational conclusion to be drawn from my study of it.
Strange stuff does happen but when it is proven to happen its no longer superstition.
 
Well I wonder if you've had any personal experiences? I've seen a ghost of our neighbor afew weeks after he died. I went into the garden for some reason I look up on a flat low roof of an extension and seen him kneeing down smiling at me. Yep it happened just like the movies, blurred whitish image of him, I ran inside looking pale, looking puzzled and scared. I then for the first time understood the expression "you look like you've seen a ghost" comes from. Of course it could have been my imagination but im pretty sure that expereince was paranormal. It's almost like an extrosenory experience, which you decode into material data, thats how I would put it, nothing you can test for tangibly.
 
Atheism until very recently was considered a slur or insult by the many on the very few. And up till little more than a century ago to be a vocal atheist was palpably dangerous. It remains so in some places. Thanks to the religions and their fervour in burning books, and their authors, the record shows very few historical accounts until very recently where anybody openly doubted.

There are a couple of references in Vedic records to a group of monks who preached an atheist reality, but nothing actually from them. And that is the only pre-Greek attempt of the kind of reasoning that eventually led to atheism.

Plato, though some argue it was Democritus, was contestably the first true atheist and atheisms first martyr. None of his actual work survives because it has all been destroyed by over 2000 years of fanatical book burners. The legend of his trial is a remarkable tale of pure courage where the plainest, most incontrovertible logic is defended to the last. Yet even here religionists are want to claim him as a believer at the end and twist his arguments to fit their pathological need. Yet that ultimate truth remains, he dies saying there are no meaningful 'gods'. That they cannot be observed in nature. For the next 2000 years the various religious hegemony's would keep an iron grip on the interpretation and distribution of knowledge. Yet there has been an unbroken line of mavericks and free thinkers that with the odds stacked against them have kept the truth from being entirely extinguished. Up until a little over 150 years ago the brutal iron rod of religious coercion ritually murdered anyone accused of heresy but "the enlightenment" was inevitable. Man has an innate need to know the truth, and some amongst them demand the real truths.

Without shadow of doubt there is a profound link between the blossoming of science in Europe and the birth of modern secular non-belief. And it was heralded in by popular uprisings against the kings and bishops. And the fragmentation of Christianity and retreat of Islam. So a kind of lull was created where scientific endeavour could flourish and the logic of its method be turned full gaze on the big questions.

With Spinoza, Hume, Descartes, Darwin, Einstein and very many more names of the greatest thinkers in our collective written history we are given the possibility to look at a whole new canvas. One that is testable, reasoned and actually works. And so we have seen a golden age driven by the scientific method. That gives us, as a species, a new capacity in technological advancement that redefines what it is to be human. What we have found is something far more complex than the black and white doctrines of the medieval battlefield. Yet medieval style warlords continue to vie with each other just as they always have. And their loyal lieutenants in the international maleducation programs called religions do their thing, thanks to the population growth, to more people than ever before.

If atheism is a battle for reason to be the dominant paradigm then this golden age has still been as yet a simple scouting mission, a head raised above the parapet. With the cancerous spread of deference of ultimate justice to a superstition people will remain disempowered and at the mercy of those who seek power from such ignorance. Around the world Bishops and Priests, Imams and Witch Doctors collect their congregations and sell them to gangsters. It is not abating but increases with the population. The age of reason has most definitely not arrived.

But surely it is inevitable? Surely the cat is out of the bag now. Certainly in Europe the majority of people under 40 are essentially atheist. But they are not evangelising it. Europe is also the safest region on Earth to be born. No accident I think. But even here the religions are desperate and determined to wrest back some control. And it is here that a quiet battle rages. In the US the battle seems almost lost, even though the American Revolution was justified with and enshrined in a secular constitution. Very sad. Now every banknote carries the legend "In God We Trust". Yet the irony seems wholly lost.

I think reason has to win through. It is inevitable if we are to survive. The internet, as it is at the moment, allows it to flourish. Yet hegemony remains all powerful. Any real progress is still centuries off. And that is sad.


*yawns*

Before you (once again) credit all of modern civillization to "secular unbelief" please go back and answer the posts on the previous threads which you left unresolved before.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/an-unlikely-universe-10211-4.html

^^ The last post quotes a researcher saying that the credit for all of modern civillization goes not to "secular unbelief" but religion.
 
I say I represent myself, you say I represent nothing
Actually, you said you represent nothing:
I on the other hand represent no system, no ideology, doctrine or dogma.
Your words, not mine.

So now use of knowledge is some dark,dank evil.
I know no more than what you claim, and I know knowledge should be used wisely and responsibly, and if indeed you have 'no system, no ideology, doctrine or dogma', then you demonstrate not wisdom, but reckless irresponsibility.

I do not feel the need to brag about what I have contributed, and i will not be forced to by you.
But you've already said you contribute nothing.

Why do you seek so hard to undermine me as an individual?
In the hope that you will wake up.

It makes you mad as hell. How dare he tell the TRUTH!!
No, I think you overestimate yourself, possibly it's you who's mad at me. You seem mad at Catholicism, anyway.

It makes me sad, but not mad — if you hold my faith, it's what you come to expect. water off a duck's back, and all that. Only bad Catholics make me mad (when they set the innocent up for people like you) but hey, I'm no saint, so who am I to criticise?

I tend to keep my counsel, and put my shoulder to the wheel where I think it will derive the most benefit. Turn the other cheek, have another go ...

Thomas
 
With Spinoza, Hume, Descartes, Darwin, Einstein and very many more names of the greatest thinkers in our collective written history we are given the possibility to look at a whole new canvas.

Hi Tao, you make some very strong points for atheism. But I do not believe Einstein was an atheist. In fact he spent the better part of his life fighting for what he believed was a "deterministic" view of physics. How could this be unless there was a G-d ?

Ironically, it turned out he was wrong about determinism, but no one is perfect, right :D ??
 
I am like some scotch terrier hard on the ankles, barking to be heard. I wish sometimes I did not appear so combatitive, it does not serve me very well, but I have an irrepressible style that seems to shine through my best intentions:p

and of course tao astrology had nothing to tell on this score eh?!;)
 
Hi Tao, you make some very strong points for atheism. But I do not believe Einstein was an atheist. In fact he spent the better part of his life fighting for what he believed was a "deterministic" view of physics. How could this be unless there was a G-d ?

Ironically, it turned out he was wrong about determinism, but no one is perfect, right :D ??

actually avi l think you will find einstein had to make a statement refuting theism because of misquotes and assumptions made about his 'beliefs'
 
actually avi l think you will find einstein had to make a statement refuting theism because of misquotes and assumptions made about his 'beliefs'

I offer this from the website of the American Museum of Natural History:


Einstein and God

Einstein was not religiously observant, but he was, in his words, "a deeply religious nonbeliever." He often spoke of a "cosmic religion" and a God seen in the harmony of the universe. Einstein rejected the idea of a "personal God" who rewards or punishes. Instead, Einstein said, "it is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity [and] to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive...."
Although Einstein did not observe Jewish rituals, he strongly identified with Jewish tradition: "The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence—these are features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my lucky stars that I belong to it." Einstein's strong support for Jewish welfare emerged when he faced anti-Semitism in Germany. Throughout his life, the man whose work the Nazis and German scientists dismissed as "Jewish physics" worked tirelessly against anti-Semitism.


Einstein | American Museum of Natural History



s.
 
Tao, I would like to dispute your choice of the thread's title. Non-belief?:) I beg your pardon? I think you mean "non-religious belief."

Belief is closely related to thought. To believe is to think, but not all thinking is believing. Believing is thinking with commitment. Some thoughts have a commitment. Beliefs are thoughts that commit to assertions that something is true or false. Every human being, every sentient, sapient being must do that in order to be sentient and/or sapient.

The age of reason has most definitely not arrived.

The age of reason? Define "reasoning."

I don't know what you have seen, but from my experience, people perform "reasoning" all the time. To think is to reason. Reasoning is thinking; thinking is reasoning. The "age of reason" is already here. It has always been here, but that is almost like saying that there was never such an age, because people have been thinking and reasoning since the beginning of the human race. There is no distinction. It's all part of the natural social and political evolution of the human race. That's the big picture. It's not perfect, but the process of change is more important than any notion of perfection.

They were all as atheist as I am. And almost all of them expressed some perplexity or disgust that the establishment that tried so hard to silence or humiliate them would on failing to claim them in life, do so on death. As in Darwins being buried against his express wishes in a church. I have read their books, not just their misquotes in some doctrinal garbage. I claim them as atheists with EVERY justification. And they themselves always rejected your claim.

Do you really mean that or are you just trying to make an example out of Thomas?

These people that you and Thomas listed are individuals just like you. They are not atheist unless they called themselves atheist. They have to wear the label of "atheist" otherwise they are not atheist because that isn't how they saw themselves. They have to have made the claim during their lifetimes. The label can't be acquired posthumously. That's just as bad as burying Darwin in a church. You're now writing "atheist" on their tombstones. That just isn't fair.

Actually, you said you represent nothing:

Your words, not mine.

I know no more than what you claim, and I know knowledge should be used wisely and responsibly, and if indeed you have 'no system, no ideology, doctrine or dogma', then you demonstrate not wisdom, but reckless irresponsibility.

I think you're missing the point here. Tao is an individual, and his views are individualistic, not connected to any social or political structure. It is not necessary for a person to belong to a social or political structure to contribute ideas that are of value. Tao doesn't represent an organisation, just himself.

My question to you would be this. Do you, as a Roman Catholic, represent yourself or the Roman Catholic Church? Are you an individual or the organisation? Are you an embodiment of the RCC, an incarnate of the RCC? Do you speak the will of the RCC, or do you, like Tao, speak for yourself?
 
Sorry to get in the way hear, but anybody have any theory on beards? Like beards as sacred or holy, to where I mean. Then why no pope with One?
 
Back
Top