Are you a theist or an atheist?

[BidenPresident]

Just that this Mr. Goff is selling books and doing interviews that aren't based on any deeply original and visionary insights of his own. He is plagiarizing religious ideas that have been around for thousands of years.

"Plagiarism" is the direct quoting of a text without citation. Your use is wrong.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I think that I know what they mean,
and if my understanding is correct,
I'm an atheist.

Other than handed down hearsay,
there's no evidence of a divine creator.

It's an imagined concept that caught on
before people started to understand
the scientific reasons for things happening.

That's Mr. Owl's take on things as well. Like me, he was raised as a Lutheran. Like me, he rejected it when he got old enough to figure out that it was, putting it kindly, bunkum.

 

[BartenderElite]

I'm fuzzy on the theist definition - but I've become extremely anti-religion.

I think a lot of what religion does is take what can be explained scientifically, but adds mysticism, superstition & a bunch of arbitrary rules.

 

[Cypress]

Panpsychism is the idea that physical particles have consciousness.

Brahman (from Hinduism) is the fundamental reality underlying all objects and experiences. Brahman is explained as pure existence, pure consciousness and pure bliss. All forms of existence presuppose a knowing self. Brahman or pure consciousness underlies the knowing self.

.

 

[BidenPresident]

.

Again, not panpsychism. No such thing as "pure consciousness."

 

[BidenPresident]

I'm fuzzy on the theist definition - but I've become extremely anti-religion.

I think a lot of what religion does is take what can be explained scientifically, but adds mysticism, superstition & a bunch of arbitrary rules.

The author of the article explains:

"The dichotomy I have been especially in recently is: Are you a believer in the God of traditional Western religion or are you a secular atheist who thinks we just live in a meaningless, purposeless universe? Are you with Team Dawkins or Team Vatican? I was raised Catholic, but decided when I was 14 that I didn’t believe in God and upset my grandmother by not getting confirmed. And I’ve been living very happily in the secular world for a long time."

https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/the-glitter-is-in-everything

 

[Cypress]

I think that I know what they mean,
and if my understanding is correct,
I'm an atheist.

Other than handed down hearsay,
there's no evidence of a divine creator.

It's an imagined concept that caught on
before people started to understand
the scientific reasons for things happening.

My perspective is that atheism more broadly is a rejection of all religious belief and experience.

I don't see how one could reject divine providence, but then on the other hand accept other aspects of religious practice and belief.

I agree with that article that it's perfectly rational to hope for some kind of higher meaning and purpose, even if we don't have scientific experiments to 'prove' it. It's not irrational.

I don't think scientific proof is neccessary for all human belief, experience, and practice.

 

[BartenderElite]

The author of the article explains:

"The dichotomy I have been especially in recently is: Are you a believer in the God of traditional Western religion or are you a secular atheist who thinks we just live in a meaningless, purposeless universe? Are you with Team Dawkins or Team Vatican? I was raised Catholic, but decided when I was 14 that I didn’t believe in God and upset my grandmother by not getting confirmed. And I’ve been living very happily in the secular world for a long time."

https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/the-glitter-is-in-everything

Ah, got it. Thanks.

I'm neither.

 

[goat]

Neither, I am an apatheist.

There is something beyond the physical world, even if it's only a different dimension of our psyche.

 

[BidenPresident]

" I think there’s a bit of a split in the panpsychist research community, analogous perhaps to the split in the early psychoanalytic community between followers of Jung and followers of Freud. Jungians were into spiritual archetypes, the collective unconscious, and so on, while followers of Freud wanted psychoanalysis to move on from what they perceived as superstitious nonsense and become a serious science. Analogously, there are some panpsychists, like David Chalmers, Luke Roelofs, and Angela Mendelovici, who are sympathetic to panpsychism, but have no time for any spiritual transcendent reality. "
https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/the-glitter-is-in-everything

 

[Cypress]

Again, not panpsychism. No such thing as "pure consciousness."

That's not what you said.

You said it was different because panpsychism predicted that particles have conciousness.

I don't see any meaningful distinction between,'particles' and 'all objects'

 

[BidenPresident]

That's not what you said.

You said it was different because panpsychism predicted that particles have conciousness.

I don't see any meaningful distinction between,'particles' and 'all objects'

ok

 

[IBDaMann]

"Plagiarism" is the direct quoting of a text without citation.

Incorrect. Plagiarism is the taking of credit for someone else's work/ideas. If you and I are discussing dishonesty in international politics, and I say "Hey, trust but verify!" That isn't plagiarism because I'm not taking credit for the idea or words.

 

[IBDaMann]

My perspective is that atheism more broadly is a rejection of all religious belief and experience.

Your perspective is wrong. An active rejection of everything supernatural is itself a theistic position which precludes atheism.

Atheism is simply the lack of any theism. It's all right there in the rules of the English language. All it takes to have a lack of theism is to not be convinced of any theism. Frank Apisa would be a good example of an atheist if he didn't worship Global Warming and Climate Change.

I don't see how one could reject divine providence, but then on the other hand accept other aspects of religious practice and belief.

Is this because of severe limitations to your imagination?

I don't think scientific proof is neccessary for all human belief, experience, and practice.

There is no such thing as scientific proof. I see that you are going to insist on remaining ignorant on topics in which you pretend to participate.

There is no science of any religion, especially of Global Warming and Climate Change.

 

[Cypress]

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

 

[Obtenebrator]

I am genuinely fascinated at how atheism can still scare people. It doesn't make any sense in the 21st century but it seems there are otherwise rational (or rational-presenting) people who seem to really dislike that some people have failed to believe that the supernatural exists and that gods exist.

I understand the desire to call oneself an 'agnostic', especially if one maintains that level of agnosticism in all things in their lives, but I also realize that few self-proclaimed agnostics do that. If these rational people were asked to pay $5000 for a sure-cure cure for the common cold they'd ask for data and when finding none or finding data that they don't accept, they will gladly go with the hypothesis that it doesn't work and will not pay the fee for the cure. Even if they have a cold at the time.

No, that's because all agnostics function like regular humans and if evidence is not present for a concept they don't usually hold in their minds the idea that it can never be known one way or the other...no, they simply FAIL TO BELIEVE. Just like a good atheist.

But that word, 'atheist' seems to really frighten or anger some people...even non-Holy Rollers.

What an interesting psychology.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, that's because all agnostics function like regular humans and if evidence is not present for a concept they don't usually hold in their minds the idea that it can never be known one way or the other...no, they simply FAIL TO BELIEVE. Just like a good atheist.

But that word, 'atheist' seems to really frighten or anger some people...even non-Holy Rollers.

What an interesting psychology.

You haven't said anything. What about atheism are you claiming scares people? You are very incoherent when writing on this topic, jumping between unrelated opinions as though you believe you are forming some sort of logical argument.

So, no, you have not discussed any interesting psychology.

 

[Into the Night]

I am genuinely fascinated at how atheism can still scare people. It doesn't make any sense in the 21st century but it seems there are otherwise rational (or rational-presenting) people who seem to really dislike that some people have failed to believe that the supernatural exists and that gods exist.

Just one religious person fearing another religion. Pretty common.

I understand the desire to call oneself an 'agnostic', especially if one maintains that level of agnosticism in all things in their lives, but I also realize that few self-proclaimed agnostics do that. If these rational people were asked to pay $5000 for a sure-cure cure for the common cold they'd ask for data and when finding none or finding data that they don't accept, they will gladly go with the hypothesis that it doesn't work and will not pay the fee for the cure. Even if they have a cold at the time.

No, that's because all agnostics function like regular humans and if evidence is not present for a concept they don't usually hold in their minds the idea that it can never be known one way or the other...no, they simply FAIL TO BELIEVE. Just like a good atheist.

They are not atheist. A belief that there is no god or gods is a religion. Believers in the Church of No God call themselves 'atheists' when they are theists. Worse, they are fundamentalists, trying to prove their religion is True.

But that word, 'atheist' seems to really frighten or anger some people...even non-Holy Rollers.

Not really. It's the fundamentalism that bothers people, and the redefinition fallacies that bother people.

An atheist is one with NO religion. They simply do not care whether there is a god or gods or not. They simply don't go there.
Science, for example, is atheistic.

What an interesting psychology.

One way to put it, I suppose.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am genuinely fascinated at how atheism can still scare people. It doesn't make any sense in the 21st century but it seems there are otherwise rational (or rational-presenting) people who seem to really dislike that some people have failed to believe that the supernatural exists and that gods exist.

I understand the desire to call oneself an 'agnostic', especially if one maintains that level of agnosticism in all things in their lives, but I also realize that few self-proclaimed agnostics do that. If these rational people were asked to pay $5000 for a sure-cure cure for the common cold they'd ask for data and when finding none or finding data that they don't accept, they will gladly go with the hypothesis that it doesn't work and will not pay the fee for the cure. Even if they have a cold at the time.

No, that's because all agnostics function like regular humans and if evidence is not present for a concept they don't usually hold in their minds the idea that it can never be known one way or the other...no, they simply FAIL TO BELIEVE. Just like a good atheist.

But that word, 'atheist' seems to really frighten or anger some people...even non-Holy Rollers.

What an interesting psychology.

I do not know if there are any gods.

I acknowledge that I do not know.

There are many other things that I do not know.

I acknowledge that I do not know them. I am consistent in that kind of acknowledgement.

Atheists and theists are essentially alike. Both are making guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I prefer not to make those kinds of guesses.

Your thoughts about agnosticism are bullshit.

And the notion that one uses the descriptor "atheist" simply because one does not "believe" there is a god...is also bullshit.

It is my contention that the vast majority (perhaps EVERY) person who uses the descriptor atheist...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The notion that atheists are not "believers"...is bullshit.

 

[Obtenebrator]

You haven't said anything. What about atheism are you claiming scares people? You are very incoherent when writing on this topic, jumping between unrelated opinions as though you believe you are forming some sort of logical argument.

So, no, you have not discussed any interesting psychology.

Your lack of ability to read is not my problem.