I'm an Atheist...

[7redorbs]

OH YA......this is going to be amusing. Gonna keep an eye on this thread. Just waiting for the first Holy Roller to come in with a big bag of stones.

I am an agnostic/holy roller, with some limited amount of sense. I have a sense of distrust for theists who throw stones, especially if they are Christian.

If only they'd practice their religion the way it was written, judge not less ye be judged, oh, actually, we did judge perhaps a little. *chuckle*

That is not to say theists do not deserve the same respect, many of the CONSPIRACY.CO atheists are here because they could not get that same respect ;-) I think there's no reason why the CONSPIRACY.CO theist and atheist threads aren't going to be both, intellectual, informative, and good humored.

Lets admit it, you need humor when dealing with this, or surely one may feel like stabbing themselves in the face. If they don't the headache puts up a great simulation ! *chuckle*

I suppose theism/atheism is a temporal argument.

A

[PolarKnight]

I am an agnostic/holy roller, with some limited amount of sense. I have a sense of distrust for theists who throw stones, especially if they are Christian.

I can see how one might view me as an "Athiest". I am not. I suppose if I needed a label, it would also be agnostic. I am a very spiritual person with no ties to any religion other than that I was pressumably baptised as a Catholic. (I don't know for certain, I was very young at the time)
Religion to me is nothing more than a tool used to enslave. It may have had its uses at one time, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, that time has come and gone. At one time I may have called myself an athiest because i have no use for the "God" of the bible. I have since changed my thoughts of who I am because, just because the catholics or christians or whoever decided I am an athiest, does not make me one.
I think religion has also infiltrated the spirit of man far deeper then most realise. Governments, the military, the Law society, these are all religions as far as I'm concerned. They all have their doctrine, they all have their beliefs and they all have their rituals. None of them do any good anymore.(if ever)
Long live the spirit of man

[outlander]

Maybe a new term is needed "Open Spirituality". no cages for the mind allowed..

[7redorbs]

No cages allowed, I like that, Skeptical cages or religious ones.. The acceleration of an expanding universe would certainly agree..

Perhaps a parachute is not a good thing whilst the mind is expanding, or perhaps rather the expanding parachute is what keeps you alive, and the idea.

Love it.

I'm agnostic. Doesn't mean I don't believe in God, and the power to spiritually overcome - it means I'm not convinced I can prove it either way. There is something though, perhaps I've seen it once or twice. Perhaps there are two sides to every coin, which is why i like the 'no cages' idea.

you know relativity; there is an exchange.. no loss ;) I guess you could say, without those evil bastards, there would be nobody to save, and nothing to teach. Perhaps no reason to need to. That wouldn't be life. Perhaps it's a necessitous of it

A

[ge0]

For me gods, god is an excuse to human mental weakness to understand the grand scheme of the universe, that is like a circle everything that is being created or was created followed a basic rule, a basic architecture or even a specific scheme defined by advanced physics together with philosophy.

People tend to have less confidence in them selves as well as literally no understanding of their own personality that concludes to erroneous decisions -> guilt, silly doupts -> losing the true meaning of life -> losing their very own identity -> no more existing as a living therefore identifiable person -> in need of faith, something to rely on.

I believe that questioning your thoughts and everyone, criticizing your moves. is the best way to open your eyes to reality..

At least my reality, please understand that this is my very own opinion, i hope none gets offensed

[7redorbs]

Perhaps 'god' as an archetype or a reality, has more to say about us than it does about anything else, perhaps.

Just an idea I had ;-) Good to finally see you posting Ge0

yours truly,
A

[Cynar]

Where do atheists come from? - opinion - 03 March 2010 - New Scientist

Interesting article. In effect it's saying it looks like believing in 'something' is the default mode for humans. Therefore to hold atheist views the mind must actively work at holding them.
The human brain is keyed to anthropomorphise random events to look for signs of foul play (Were the 6 'accidents' the tribes hunters had, really accidents or the neighbours softening them up for an attack?). This bodes badly for the assumption that if religion were to disappear everyone would become atheists.

To clarify though, the evolved human brain is not particularly good at discerning truth, merely what 'truth' is most helpful for survival. Hence why science developed (by trial and error) in order to better understand the world.

Cynar

P.S A parachute is a good thing only when it is neither closed or too open. Both are detrimental in their own way.

[7redorbs]

It's certainly interesting, and I certainly agree - humans seem to like to maintain fixed states, and are not very good at dealing with change. Whether that is a positive or negative change - you could say is very much in the 'eye of the beholder'. You could say, it is not what hand of cards you get, its what you make of it. That said, the 2 of spades is still the two of spades.

Speaking of assumption, you might know I've always 'believed' myself (hard to do much at all without this 'stuff' called belief) - that atheism in itself is a belief, or an assumption all on its own. I think that 'truth' is an interesting word to use, when talking about 'belief' - it's the one thing that doesn't have to be true, to actually commit a change on the universe. This thing called belief.

This thing called belief is cheating physics rules surely, but is quite real. As real as a dream. It exists in reality. It effects change in reality.

You could say, belief is about as bloody minded as the human being can be - I would argue though, that can apply to anyone on any side of the equilibrium to that parachute, that to me can include the assumptions of science too.

I would say, that truth is so difficult to find in human beings because change is so difficult for the human being to philosophically deal with, there is a desire for terms you could say - expectations, rules of engagement. I believe that the opposite is true, the rules of engagement were created due to our resistance and ability to halt changes - illogical or not - the effect seems very real. Which leads me to conclude, it is a bit more complex than the ability to discern truth.

I think the reason religion isn't disappearing, is, because it is a little bit more complicated than pure rationalism, it doesn't even require rationalism ( as I am sure some may note ) - but theoretically in my mind truth can have no name. It is in the first moments of changing truth, we call comfort thereafter - and that is the boundary of our culture, expectation & belief.

I put forward the notion you are correct about the parachute being best neither too closed or too open - I just don't believe it only applies to religion. But to most states that prefer a resistance to change, and an appeal to authority. You might find religion, and free energy cooks aren't the only ones making such appeals, or assumptions -

Although many men may misuse religious wisdom, it does not mean there is wisdom in the archetype of 'everything' or 'god' - absolute truth; I would argue science throwing out religion led to the rise of the 20th century depression and breakdown of family values.

Just because we think 'were done with this thing called belief' - doesn't mean that division in society is healthy, anymore than just because atheists, namely scientists - think that what they put their faith and belief in is truth - because that is essentially what the human being does - puts faith in 'stuff' and isn't very good at determining the 'truth' - because the human mind needs a _reason_ , just like civilisation needed fear to begin the clumping.

I believe science is an amazing tool, but I don't believe it's any different than religion. This could be taken as offensive to atheists, but if truth has no name - any comment cannot be entirely true to itself; which would say religion and science could be found on the same philosophical level, even if sciences definition of fact and wisdom lay ungainly different from the 'throw the first stone' and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

Truly there is some wisdom that is so obvious - perhaps even science can miss it. Perhaps the human resistance to change, is the reminder of what we used to be, and science and religion both serve as evolution, science above religion in its following, but not above it in the archaic revival that I believe is necessary - to realise, if truth has no name, and science is the disassociation of the emotional human being - perhaps an archaic revival of religions associative human emotional behavior, and the rise in depression in the 20 and 21st century can be halted, be a re-adoption of all the high wisdom , philosophy and most importantly fear in which the modern cradle of civilisation came out of - fear of war.

It is true that 'fear' might seem bad at a first scientific approach - but perception is everything. Which often raises where, and when. For indeed, the reduction of fear, and adoption of science, seems to have substituted mans fear for the unknown and the misunderstood, for mans fear of himself and his interference. I truly believe that such removal of these so -called barbaric religious systems, substituted with science could be more dangerous than religion ever was, or at least as dangerous.

The danger perhaps, and the human built in evolutionary resistance to change - may not be illogical or unnecessary afterall. Perhaps this evolutionary resistance to change (on both sides of the parachute of belief!) - is what makes truth so subjective in itself - and is in many ways a reminder of the incompleteness of society, rather than just the consideration of objective science.

I suppose you could say I respect and love science, but I take disagreement at removing emotion and belief - this would seem like an unwise idea - however, until the human can be completely removed from society, I would consider it 'good practice' to continue practicing something that has been adopted for thousands of years , could it not be there was a good reason for the invention of religion?

Perhaps the fear and mystery was a critical factor in keeping society together, much like in early civilisation. Perhaps we have passed that, but I do not think we have elevated above the general rule - in the absence of fear you would be surprised what a man can do. If religion used fear, and wisdom, and we believe religion has had its day.

Perhaps an adoption of the high philosophical wisdoms found _all over the bible_ - are more important, to a human being, than any god ever could be. This is obviously, quite ironic.

Yours truly,
A

[ge0]

do not forget the crusaders though, one more thing to add Religion is war, hate, money...

well at least for me i guess, i am quite influenced by the zeitgeist movies even though they are endorsed by anarchists and possibly tektons, i agree to many things they present in their movies at least in the first one. Well i always knew that its all about war/hate/money just didn't really know the "how" they do it and i didn't believe that it in such a grand scale

[zyfoxmaster]

so.. more so pantheism?