Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jasper76 wrote: I was pointing her out as an example of the kind of leftist I was trying to describe, not a millennial. You said you'd never met anyone on the left who is constantly offended.
Have you in person? I mean, using the internet to find a leftist who is offended by someone is pretty easy, but the same technique could be used to point out anything. Also, it seems like she has more of a power complex than an "is offended by everything" complex, which would explain why she is leading a group of people half her age.
Yes, in fact many of the professors I had in school were of this general stripe, most of whom still teach at the college I attended.
What was your degree in? Just curious, because I'm assuming most of those professors tend to be on the English/Vocational Arts side. My Engineering/math professors were all either right-wing or never discussed politics in the classroom.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
I think the connection being suggested there is that both are things that people believe in despite a lack of evidence proving their veracity.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
Yeah, I can see how astrology can be seen as analogous to religion, but not believing in gods doesn't mean you don't have superstitions- I mean, I consider myself a pretty rational guy and an atheist because of it (among other things). But that doesn't mean when I'm at the gaming table, I don't do silly stuff like sometimes take out new dice if I feel like my current ones have been rolling poorly, or whatever other silly routines. I know it's silly, but I'm also not a robot, so sometimes don't do the absolutely logical thing.
Regarding rationalism, you could make the (IMHO) pretty harsh and exaggerated argument that superstitions are somehow hypocritical in not being based on fact (though a lot are based on (supposed) correlation, so you could also make the argument that it's just not very rigorous).
Regarding atheism (without knowing why someone's atheist), there's no hypocrisy in them not believing in deities but believing in random juju.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/03 19:47:26
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
I think the connection being suggested there is that both are things that people believe in despite a lack of evidence proving their veracity.
That and it is/was a religion. Thinking that a cosmology needs a god-head to be a religion seems to show a lack of knowledge on non-Abrahamic religions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
spiralingcadaver wrote: there's no hypocrisy in them not believing in deities but believing in random juju.
I never accused anyone of being a hypocrite, just that there is an interesting dichotomy that pops up sometimes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/03 22:16:39
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Atheism as a term is really only applicable to the question of deity.
You can be an atheist, and be religious. For example, many Bhuddists are atheists. And there are atheists who attend religious services for family reasons, for community reasons, because they like to meditate, nostalgia, etc. And there's the CoS with their rituals and such.
It's probably not the typical description of an atheist, but there are religious atheists, and religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
(I'm just making untargeted statements here)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/03 22:20:10
jasper76 wrote: Atheism as a term is really only applicable to the question of deity.
Well forgoing that an example that also used a theist was made, it just seems to be the thread to also discuss such things. It would be silly to start a different thread just to talk about what theism/athiesm aren't considering we already have a thread about athiesm/thiesm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/03 22:25:44
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
Ahtman, IDK, contradiction's maybe a little less loaded?
jasper-
Regarding atheist buddhism, I personally think that it's some kind of ignorant appropriation that ignores a lot of history and culture, gutting it for the convenient bits of philosophy you enjoy- it's like saying you're an atheist catholic. I've actually studied buddhism a decent bit, and there's a lot of stuff I agree with on a conceptual level, but that sure doesn't make me a buddhist.
Regarding attending religious ceremonies more generally, that doesn't make you religious. I'll respect (some of) my extended family's religion/ceremonies enough to (rarely) participate in that community, but that doesn't mean I believe in it.
Personally, idea of religious atheists makes me think that they're lying to themselves about one thing or another.
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
Yes. People think all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, and holding one unfounded belief doesn't strictly require cognitive dissonance to find another unfounded belief silly. Belief is belief. You feel it in your gut, and maybe sometimes other special places, not in your rationality.
Regarding atheist buddhism, I personally think that it's some kind of ignorant appropriation that ignores a lot of history and culture, gutting it for the convenient bits of philosophy you enjoy- it's like saying you're an atheist catholic. I've actually studied buddhism a decent bit, and there's a lot of stuff I agree with on a conceptual level, but that sure doesn't make me a buddhist.
Regarding attending religious ceremonies more generally, that doesn't make you religious. I'll respect (some of) my extended family's religion/ceremonies enough to (rarely) participate in that community, but that doesn't mean I believe in it.
Personally, idea of religious atheists makes me think that they're lying to themselves about one thing or another.
The Church of Satan throws a wrinkle in. They are both atheist and religious. Maybe not your cup of tea, and not mine, but I don't think you can say they are not religious, since many of them do attend religious ceremonies, there's some sort of magic rituals, etc.
And just because you're not an atheist Bhuddist, that doesn't make an atheist Bhuddist less atheist, if that makes any sense.
feeder wrote: Does anyone really not think there would be a massive amount of cognitive dissonance required to say on one hand that "there is no god" because there is no evidence, while on the other thinking that wearing the same socks on game day helps their team win?
I could be wrong, but I would suspect that most people don't really believe that their 'lucky socks' actually make any difference... It's just a thing that you do, without really thinking about the legitimacy of it.
But that aside, people quite often believe all sorts of things without bothering to look at why they believe them. It's only when someone questions that belief that there's a push to go looking at whatever underpins it. Most people, at some point in their lives, find themselves questioning life, the universe and everything and as a result go looking (some more comprehensively than others, and with varying results) for explanations that make sense to them personally.
People are less likely, I would think, to go on an introspective quest to determine the legitimacy of their socks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/03 23:13:02
From a personal experience, I'm firmly convinced in the existence of a benevolent higher power. What form it takes I haven't a clue. What happens after we die? Something more than oblivion, but what precisely I haven't a clue.
I find dogma and specific religions claims on such matters to be futile attempts to make sense of something we should all just admit is beyond our comprehension. It's tiresome, particularly when those beliefs are in blatant conflict with what science is definitively telling us (case example being Creationism vs Fossil Evidence)
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
But hey, that's just what I think.
Yeah, the fact that you find a world without a benevolent higher power to be bleak and/or mundane might reveal a bit about you as an individual, but it doesn't really say anything about atheists or atheism.
Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/03 23:21:12
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
But hey, that's just what I think.
Yeah, the fact that you find a world without a benevolent higher power to be bleak and/or mundane might reveal a bit about you as an individual, but it doesn't really say anything about atheists or atheism.
Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
Well until a higher power comes out of no where then blows your mind! assuming that happens or not.
I'd be more likely to think that a higher power coming out of nowhere and blowing my mind was an alien, or maybe Jimi Hendrix come back from the grave, before I thought it was a god.
jasper76 wrote: I'd be more likely to think that a higher power coming out of nowhere and blowing my mind was an alien, or maybe Jimi Hendrix come back from the grave, before I thought it was a god.
I'm counting on them to recognize my special genius and make me king of the world!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I find Atheism to be likewise tiresome, because individuals are choosing a bleak and mundane outlook, out of over-reliance on facts...when we are clearly not in possession of the entire facts of the universe, time, space and existence, if even a fraction of them.
But hey, that's just what I think.
Yeah, the fact that you find a world without a benevolent higher power to be bleak and/or mundane might reveal a bit about you as an individual, but it doesn't really say anything about atheists or atheism.
Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
But how much do any of us really know? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? If it was all just oblivion then how can nothing come out of oblivion? And what exactly was this state of oblivion. What is beyond the expanding borders of the universe? They've always been the biggest mysteries to me. Until they're answered I don't see how anything on the nature of existence can possibly be conclusive.
Probably not much in terms of what there is to know, but modern science has actually given us a pretty good understanding of how the physical world operates. The questions you're asking are pretty much at the border of current knowledge. Scientists are interested in these questions too, as are regular Joe Schmoe atheists like me. I hope science comes up with convincing answers to each of these questions. These types of questions are so interesting, I can't just answer them with "God" and be satisfied with that. I want to know the actual answer, not a surrender to ignorance or someone's made up fictional version.
thegreatchimp wrote: What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? If it was all just oblivion then how can nothing come out of oblivion? And what exactly was this state of oblivion. What is beyond the expanding borders of the universe? They've always been the biggest mysteries to me. Until they're answered I don't see how anything on the nature of existence can possibly be conclusive.
Incidentally, here is a video that might be interesting to you on at least one of the questions you're asking about. Whether or not you find Krauss's presentation to be persuasive, I'll leave up to you.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/03 23:57:39
jasper76 wrote: Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
Well put.
On the church of satan, while it's a set of beliefs, I'm having a little trouble figuring out if I believe it fits the criteria of a religion. Frankly, it sounds far closer to religion than buddhist atheism. (So in response, no, that doesn't make sense to me: I don't understand how the religion of buddhism is reconcilable with not believing in the basis of it, which is fundamentally based in deities etc.- I totally get, that you can think something's smart and follow its philosophies without believing its basis, but then you're talking about philosophy, not religion.
...But, I also don't really understand why you'd follow any belief system without full conviction, so don't understand anyone who's casually religious- I disagree with religion, but think that there's far more merit in being very actively religious than believing in all that stuff but not really following through.
jasper76 wrote: Also, atheism isn't really a choice. It's a conclusion. I couldn't un-become an atheist if I tried. Alas, I know too much.
Well put.
On the church of satan, while it's a set of beliefs, I'm having a little trouble figuring out if I believe it fits the criteria of a religion. Frankly, it sounds far closer to religion than buddhist atheism. (So in response, no, that doesn't make sense to me: I don't understand how the religion of buddhism is reconcilable with not believing in the basis of it, which is fundamentally based in deities etc.- I totally get, that you can think something's smart and follow its philosophies without believing its basis, but then you're talking about philosophy, not religion.
...But, I also don't really understand why you'd follow any belief system without full conviction, so don't understand anyone who's casually religious- I disagree with religion, but think that there's far more merit in being very actively religious than believing in all that stuff but not really following through.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I am not even casually religious but I do understand the lure of things like churches, communities, and stuff like incense, music, candles, rituals, etc. I think rituals can be useful to individuals and/or groups to give special meaning to transitions in life, so I understand the allure of that because religion provides rituals beyond the secular rituals we all typically go through like graduations and so forth.
...But, I also don't really understand why you'd follow any belief system without full conviction, so don't understand anyone who's casually religious- I disagree with religion, but think that there's far more merit in being very actively religious than believing in all that stuff but not really following through.
For most people, whether or not they believe in God really has a minimal impact on their day to day life, so the 'casually religious' would be those who just haven't had sufficient incentive yet to drag out the beliefs that they've up to that point taken for granted and actually look at them.
There's a bit of a thing going on down here about that at the moment, as we have a national Census coming up. There's a bit of a push by one of the big 'Atheist' groups to try to get people who identify as religious but don't actually practice or participate in that religion to have a think about whether or not they really are religious, or whether they should be ticking the 'No Religion' box.
Last census (2011) showed us to be around 65% Christian of some flavour, and 20-ish% 'No Religion'... I'm rather curious to see how that stacks up this time around, but I suspect that there'll be some sort of swing towards 'No Religion'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 01:19:32
The questions you're asking are pretty much at the border of current knowledge.
I'll totally disagree with that. We haven't even been able to detect -what is it -80% of the mass of the universe? There's a high chance that the questions I listed are beyond our ability to truly comprehend, ever.
Interesting discussion though. Thanks for the link. I'll watch it, though I have absolute conviction in my albeit vague belief in a higher force because it stems from something which happened to me, not scientfic or religious theses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 10:23:04
I concede that some questions may be beyond our grasp in a practical sense.
Some questions we ask about the universe may not even be valid questions. For example, if I ask "how can our universe come from nothing?", it's an interesting question, but if our universe did not come from nothing, then the premise of the question is incorrect, so the question itself would become invalid.
There are things we don't know, and it's OK to just say "I don't know.". For my part, I don't know the answer to a single one of your questions.
As to the video, I don't think you'd find it too incredibly hostile to the idea of a higher power...there are probably some atheist jibes in there here and there, but mostly it's just a scientist trying to find a way to answer the "something from nothing" question.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.
You should never be a suicide counselor.
Do you have a reason for trolling me?
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
There are things we don't know, and it's OK to just say "I don't know.". For my part, I don't know the answer to a single one of your questions.
As to the video, I don't think you'd find it too incredibly hostile to the idea of a higher power...there are probably some atheist jibes in there here and there, but mostly it's just a scientist trying to find a way to answer the "something from nothing" question.
I have given myself a sore head thinking about such things since I was about 10! Thanks again, should enjoy watching that.
Another I have seen, and I am curious how much this is influenced by internet culture to be fair, is when someone claims Athiesm and Astrology at the same time i.e. "Oh I don't believe in religion, but that is because I am a Pisces* and that is what we do".
Unless astrology is some sort of theism, I don't see the contradiction between not believeing in any gods and at the same time believe anything other than gods.
I think the connection being suggested there is that both are things that people believe in despite a lack of evidence proving their veracity.
That and it is/was a religion. Thinking that a cosmology needs a god-head to be a religion seems to show a lack of knowledge on non-Abrahamic religions.
Thinking that atheism can't include religious belief seems to show a lack of knowledge about non-theistic religions. There are many examples of atheists being religious and religions being atheistic. Theism is alot more than Abrahamic religions and atheism is alot more than non-religious.
