BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Agnostic or Atheist

  
  

Page: 1(2)34567... 14

 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:18 / 21.11.06
OK.

Here

Start with "The Mistake of Enlightenment".

It might be listed as "The Mystique of Enlightenment", but he later requested it be changed, since he considered allowing it to be written down in the first place an enormous mistake.

That'll give you a little background as to who he is and why he is the way he is.

Then try "Thought is Your Enemy". And maybe "Mind is Myth".

You might be surprised at me loving this fellow so much.

Sample quotes:

"God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness. No such thing exists. Your wanting something that does not exist is the root of your problems. Transformation, moksha, liberation, and all that stuff, are just variations of the same theme: permanent happiness. The body can't take uninterrupted pleasure for long; it would be destroyed. Wanting to impose a fictitious permanent state of happiness on the body is a serious neurological problem. --U.G."

"You can never understand this; you can only experience this in terms of your past experience. This is outside the realm of experience. The natural state is acausal: it just happens. No communication is possible, and none necessary. The only thing that is real to you is the way you are functioning; it is an act of futility to relate my description to the way you are functioning. When you stop all this comparison, what is there is your natural state. Then you will not listen to anybody. - U.G"

(Italics mine and pertinent to the Dawkins challenge)

"This state is a state of not knowing; you really don't know what you are looking at. I may look at the clock on the wall for half an hour -- still I do not read the time. I don't know it is a clock. All there is inside is wonderment: "What is this that I am looking at?" Not that the question actually phrases itself like that in words: the whole of my being is like a single, big question mark. It is a state of wonder, of wondering, because I just do not know what I am looking at. The knowledge about it -- all that I have learned -- is held in the background unless there is a demand. It is in the 'declutched state'. If you ask the time, I will say "It's a quarter past three" or whatever -- it comes quickly like an arrow -- then I am back in the state of not knowing, of wonder. - U.G"

"When the questions you have resolve themselves into just one question, your question, then that question must detonate, explode and disappear entirely, leaving behind a smoothly functioning biological organism, free of the distortion and interference of the separative thinking structure. -- U.G."

OK, that's enough. Read and see what you think. He really is the most cantankerous old bugger in the whole 'spiritual' scene. A term he detests.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:29 / 21.11.06
'Krishnamurti' is a title, many people have it. There is no THE Krishnamurti. In fact, J and UG were, for a long time, friends. Then not. Because you have heard of, and possibly worship one and not the other, is merely evidence of the one you have heard of being a raging hypocrite and the other being largely unkown because he actually lives what he reflects.

Jiddu's relationship to UG is...well, why don't you try reading the link I've given above and see for yourself.

Sorry if this topples one of your personal Guru's. Or not, whatever.

You seem to always have this problem with me Ev_G. It's not the first time you've found my manner 'rude' or 'sarcastic'. I don't give a hoot what you believe to be 'possible' or 'preferable'. Of course I 'realise'. Your opinions are yours and mine are mine. You use the board one way, I use it another. You clearly associate more closely with youir ficsuit than I do. I choose to express myself here on Barbelith exactly the way I please through a fictitious masque, and it suits me to be this way, sometimes. Particularly with some other suits, particularly here in the Temple. It keeps things fruity, in my World, and hopefully in theirs as well.

If I offend you, by all means tell me. I might retract, apologise, or go for the throat. It's my prerogative. Otherwise, stick to your own knitting. Try not to be too attached to the letters dancing across the screen. Or do, whatever suits you, who the hell am I to tell you what to do or be?

Just my friendly return advice. The invoice is in the post.

Oh, sorry:

  
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:35 / 21.11.06
(And, btw - Evil Scientist is more than capable of fighting hir own battles, with aplomb and style and rapier wit when the mood takes hir. You rushing in like this just makes you look a little silly and is generally a bit embarrassing for all involved. Shall we agree to treat each other like grown ups?)

OK, now I'm just being a pain. Huggles?
 
 
EvskiG
15:46 / 21.11.06
'Krishnamurti' is a title, many people have it. There is no THE Krishnamurti. . . . Because you have heard of, and possibly worship one and not the other, is merely evidence of the one you have heard of being a raging hypocrite and the other being largely unkown because he actually lives what he reflects.

Obviously, you miss my point. I was simply observing that when most people think of Krishnamurti, they think of the far more famous and reputable Jiddu Krishnamurti.

As it happens, he's not an idol, although I've read about a half dozen of his books.

You seem to always have this problem with me Ev_G. It's not the first time you've found my manner 'rude' or 'sarcastic'.

True.

I believe it's because your manner is rude and sarcastic.

I choose to express myself here on Barbelith exactly the way I please through a fictitious masque, and it suits me to be this way, sometimes. Particularly with some other suits, particularly here in the Temple. It keeps things fruity, in my World, and hopefully in theirs as well.

Ah, your present ficsuit is an asshole. OK then.

(And, btw - Evil Scientist is more than capable of fighting hir own battles, with aplomb and style and rapier wit when the mood takes hir. You rushing in like this just makes you look a little silly and is generally a bit embarrassing for all involved. Shall we agree to treat each other like grown ups?)

I posted the mention of Dawkins that started this little thrash, remember?

Just continuing to contribute to the conversation.

OK, now I'm just being a pain. Huggles?

I don't think so.
 
 
Char Aina
16:12 / 21.11.06
You seem to always have this problem with me Ev_G. It's not the first time you've found my manner 'rude' or 'sarcastic'.

if it helps, i found your dismissive manner pretty rude as well.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:24 / 21.11.06
Obviously, you miss my point. I was simply observing that when most people think of Krishnamurti, they think of the far more famous and reputable Jiddu Krishnamurti.

No, now you're doing that thing again, where you are just plain wrong but can't quite bring yourself to admit it. Hey, s'cool, I do that too. DOn't we all?


You said : I see the Krishnamurti we are discussing is not THE Krishnamurti, as if that makes some sort of sense. Krishnamurti is a given name, not a family name, as you seem to think it is, nor a town (wtf? Care to point that out on a map, please?) You go on to suggest he might be trying to benefit from the reputation of the master, which is so funny, in context, that you might actually be a genius. Or maybe he's just, you know, known by his name. A very common name, as it goes.

You consider Jiddu Krishnamurti a master? Of what? Based on what?

Jiddu Krishnamurti was raised to be the Maitreya and travelled the entire world as the Leader of the Theosphoical Society, then of his own outgrowth of it after he left, preaching that no system nor guru was necessary to attain enlightenment, while at the same time founding a huge system and school and not sticking to his own claims, condensed version of a complex story.

Master of utter hypocrisy, maybe.

From the Wiki:

"Krishnamurti has been criticized, sometimes as to whether he practiced what he preached. A number of people who knew him through the years pointed out that Krishnamurti’s life expresses something of the Indian Brahmin lifestyle, for he was supported, even pampered, through the years by devoted followers and servants. The questions then arise as to whether his attitudes were conditioned by indulgence and privilege.

In her 1991 book, Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti, Radha Rajagopal Sloss, the daughter of Krishnamurti's associates, Rosalind and Desikacharya Rajagopal, wrote of Krishnamurti's relationship with her parents including the secret affair between Krishnamurti and Rosalind which lasted for many years. The public revelation was received with surprise and consternation by many individuals in the Krishnamurti community, and was also dealt with in a rebuttal volume of biography by Mary Lutyens (Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals, 1996).

Sloss's allegations were centered around the notion that the secret liasion indicated that Krishnamurti had lead a deceptive double life in that he was believed to be celibate by his public following. A later biographical volume by Roland Vernon (Star in the East: Krishnamurti, the Invention of a Messiah), questions the ultimate impact of the revelations when compared to Krishnamurti's body of work as a whole."

Yes, bearing in mind he wrote lots of good books, let's ignore the fact that he was a brazen liar and hypocrite when it came to getting his end away. After all, he's a master

So, you are trying to correct me, in your own arrogant and irritating way, when I think you don't really know what you're on about. I've read both Krishnamurti's, and have a fairly deep interest in Advaita Vedanta, and would utterly disagree with you that J Krishnamurti is 'more...reputable'. Better marketing, yes. But that sort of proves my point, not yours. The fact that UG seeks no publicity, writes no books, claims no copyright, holds no seminars and can't be easily found in Waterstone's under the 'Spiritual' plaque doesn't render him irrelevant, just hidden to you until now.

Ah, your present ficsuit is an asshole. Ok then

Sticks and stones, brother. I see you're as hypocritical as your guru's. Good luck with the practice that does nothing for you (your own admission). At least you're nice, though.

No, wait, hang on, you're a supercilious nameslinger. I didn't notice Evil getting worked up or reaching for the ad hominem...we often play this way in here, it's a hormonal thing.


You seem a bit sensitive, mate. Try some pranayama.

Just continuing to contribute to the conversation

Really? Other than unnecessarily defending a grown up who is more than capable of holding their own, and calling me names, what exactly have you contributed since mentioning the 'strong arguments' of Dawkins latest book (widely regarded as his weakest to date) other than a slightly cloying smell of ick?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:24 / 21.11.06
By the way, I am, for you, what the 'Ignore' function is for...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:28 / 21.11.06
if it helps, i found your dismissive manner pretty rude as well.

Ah, s'my Moon-time...

I'll leave now, and the thread can get back On Topic.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
17:02 / 21.11.06
Paz e luz, meus Irmãos e Irmãs

(Secular) redemption requested!
 
 
EvskiG
17:20 / 21.11.06
I'll leave now, and the thread can get back On Topic.

This is a rhetorical gambit common to the Internet:

"Here are my comments.

Whoops, I hear my mum calling. I can't stay and argue with you anymore.

But since I'll be gone and can't reply, it isn't appropriate for you to respond to my comments."

You said : I see the Krishnamurti we are discussing is not THE Krishnamurti, as if that makes some sort of sense.

It doesn't?

Plenty of people are named Madonna, but if I mention THE Madonna you really wouldn't know what I mean?

nor a town (wtf? . . .)

If I remember correctly, South Indian names often include the name of the family's ancestral town. (E.g., B.K.S. Iyengar.) Thought that conceivably might be the case here.

You go on to suggest he might be trying to benefit from the reputation of the master.

Hmm. Why would an Indian "anti-guru" seek to benefit from the use of the name of a far more famous Indian anti-guru?

Oh, yes -- for lots of possible reasons.

Same reason we've got a Vivienne Crowley, I'd guess.

Not saying it isn't his real name, although I don't know one way or the other.

Just a thought.

You consider Jiddu Krishnamurti a master? Of what? Based on what?

Actually I'm not a huge fan, but he's pretty well respected as a writer on spiritual matters -- far more than the guy you mentioned, who I'd never previously heard of.

As you concede, Jiddu Krishnamurti "wrote lots of good books."

Master of utter hypocrisy, maybe.

Yes, he seemed to have been a hypocrite.

"Utter" hypocricy, though?

I'm not even sure what that is.

I see you're as hypocritical as your guru's.

Not my guru, actually.

Good luck with the practice that does nothing for you (your own admission).

Huh?

I find yoga stunningly effective, and I've picked up a few useful bits from Eastern and Western magic and spirituality -- from zazen meditation to Liber O -- over the years. Don't really see them as "spiritual" practices, though -- at least not in a conventional sense.

I'm the first to admit I'm not a conventionally spiritual person.

Other than unnecessarily defending a grown up who is more than capable of holding their own, and calling me names, what exactly have you contributed since mentioning the 'strong arguments' of Dawkins latest book (widely regarded as his weakest to date) other than a slightly cloying smell of ick?

I thought I had pointed out that your statement

I take it you haven't read U G Krishnamurti, though.

was a weak rhetorical gambit that didn't actually advance the conversation in any meaningful way.

Then we got caught up in this thrash.

But I now see your apology.

Let's move on, then.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:01 / 23.11.06
Hmm.



THE Madonna?



Or THE Madonna?

;-)
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:18 / 23.11.06
There's a difference?
 
 
Quantum
13:47 / 23.11.06
Waaay back upthread there was a quote from one of those Krishnamurtis I want to pick out and comment on;

God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness. No such thing exists.

Toss. Neither God nor enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, or happiness interrupted or otherwise, what a bizarre and idiosyncratic definition. Uninterrupted happiness doesn't exist? Equally toss.

IMHO. Biography aside, the quotes from that K. lead me to believe, from the content, that I disagree sharply with what he's saying and it sounds like regurgitated rhetoric to my ears. Straw man argument, looks like.
 
 
Quantum
14:21 / 23.11.06
From the link (my emphasis);
U.G. is India's most controversial teacher and categorizing him is extremely difficult. He has been called "the anti-guru", "the un-guru", the "seer with no solutions", "the raging sage", "the thinker who shuns thought" and "the anti-Krishnamurti", referring to his namesake, J. Krishnamurti, U.G.'s better known contemporary with whom he shares no family tie.

Here's some quotes from THE MYSTIQUE OF ENLIGHTENMENT;
There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God.
...
The search is always in the wrong direction, so all that you consider very profound, all that you consider sacred, is a contamination in that consciousness. You may not (Laughs) like the word 'contamination', but all that you consider sacred, holy and profound is a contamination.

I'd put him in the Atheist camp myself. Probably as a reaction to his grooming;
every morning those fellows would come and read the Upanishads, Panchadasi, Nyshkarmya Siddhi, the commentaries, the commentaries on commentaries, the whole lot, from four o'clock to six o'clock, and this little boy of five, six or seven years -- I don't know -- had to listen to all that crap.

but maybe he and Dawkins would get on;
I have no particular message for mankind, except to say that all holy systems for obtaining enlightenment are bunk, and that all talk of arriving at a psychological mutation through awareness is poppycock. Psychological mutation is impossible. The natural state can happen only through biological mutation.

Hmm.
 
 
sn00p
08:03 / 24.11.06
I would say the definition of an atheist is: A person who has no belief in god/gods/intelligent designer/supernatural influence.
This is different from the definition: A person who believes there is no god. The difference is that it’s a lack of belief rather than a different belief, because you can’t believe in nothing. You can't actively put emotional weight behind the thesis of 'nothing'.

Agnosticism is someone without knowledge and acts as like a tagline onto your theism or atheism.
You can be an agnostic theist: “I have no knowledge of whether god exists or not, but I believe he exists.”
You can be an agnostic atheist: “I have no knowledge of whether god exists or not but I chose to believe that he doesn’t.”
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:28 / 24.11.06
This is different from the definition: A person who believes there is no god. The difference is that it’s a lack of belief rather than a different belief, because you can’t believe in nothing. You can't actively put emotional weight behind the thesis of 'nothing'.

I'd take issue with that. I'm an atheist and I believe that there is no god. I was originally a Christian and quite a devoted one at that. Believing that god/supernature doesn't exist is not what I would consider to be a thesis of nothing. It's a belief in a universe that doesn't require a god as an explanation why it's here.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:24 / 24.11.06
We all have such different conceptions of the term 'God', limited totally by experience and knowledge...so personal.

The whole question 'Do you believe in God?' makes no sense to me. It's terms of reference and knowledge or assumed knowledge set up a context which does not exist, in my view. The question presupposes a certain understanding / concept which I just do not relate to. The notion of 'believing in God'...well, the question limits understanding.

(Aside...Lets start a new thread about UG if that seems pertinent...but for now. just to quickly respond to Quantum)

Quantum : UG would say that you are incapable of understanding his words. (bear in mind, he doesn't write books, nor profit from the one's that have been written - they are transcripts of conversations people have had with him, and things like "namesake" are written by Western seekers who visited him, applying their own understanding, and should hardly be taken as evidence to cling to to justify a point...if you look a bit further, you'll find a 'proper' explanatin of Krishnamurti and how common a given name it is. J Krishnamurti's family name is 'Jiddu'. He does not profit from anything to do with his....condition.) To elaborate on what he might say to you: You read only your own understanding, and you and he function in totally different ways. You have never heard anything except your own voice and your own words, nor seen anything except your own experience and knowledge and views. It is impossible for you to do anything but this. So it's hardly surprising, having spent at most a couple of hours digesting the transcripts of his experience, that you find much to object to. Because you are relating it to your own...comparing, contrasting, looking for something 'you' can use. Not judging this at all...just saying what he'd respond with (if I may be so bold and presumptuous). The quotes re: God and Enlightenment...I think there is more to understanding what is being said here, without rushing to pre-existing non-contextual or out of context definitons of what is being discussed...Your dismissal seems...a little hasty, given such a brief absorption of such a complex character.

This is not to say that I don't see why the confusion exists.

I can't think of an analogy to help explain this, other than a nugget which will probably annoy people:

Q : 'Is there a God'?
A : 'Is there a Question'?

No extra words or parentheses necessary, no extra meaning other than what is there. If there is a question (Is there a question??) then...well, fill in the blank for yourself. It's not 'then there is a God', unless you explore this a bit further...

Or, alternatively, it relates to the tendency to want to turn verbs into nouns.

eg compare:

God is 'the' Supreme Being.

to

God is Supreme Being.

(Isness. Everything that is must be, right? Even nothing and nowhere, if such actually 'exist' must have the fundamental quality of 'isness', Being, that which form and structure divide 'within'...so to speak...)

Slightly different?

Or try:

God is 'in' the process of becoming. (this in itself is probably heresy to a lot of theists, but...well, that's their cake)

with

God is process of becoming.

EHIH

Ahyuh asher ahyuh

I will be who is I will be

It's an iterative function. The output becomes the input back to the same equation, In+1=In+WILL : The next state of Being (In+1) is the present state of the I (In) + WILL.

I + WILL = BE

According to the ancient Hebrews, well one rather famous one particularly, this is the fundamental formula of Creation, God's Name. All that is required for the Universe to exist and continue existing. From a mystical understanding, natch.

Like so:

The universe, by it's very nature, is cyclic.

The output of a cycle is the input of the next.

The Universe is a fractal, the universe is self-reflective.

So, each structure or pattern found in the system reflects or images itself throughout the rest of the system. Thus, "I WILL BE" is true for God, each creature, governments, businesses, and all other structures, down to the most microscopic scale.

The central, crucial essence of the universe is an "I", eternal and immutable. This "I" has only 1 attribute: WILL. Absolute and perfect. This is The Logos or Word; Hinduism's Maya. The "I" applies Its (his/her) WILL to Itself (there is nothing else to apply it to), thus becoming. "BE-ING." I + WILL = BEING. This is the incarnation, the manifest Self, the Personality.

This Personality is, ultimately, an illusion. In as much as there is no outside force (God is ONE without an other), the "I", despite apparent changes, remains unchanged.

As the "I" applies its WILL, it BEcomes the Person, or 'Separate Self'.

As the "I" identifies itself with its BEING, this is called the Fall, the identification of the unmanifest, eternal with the illusory Personality.

During the Personality (Incarnation) phase, the Lower Self (ahyh) retains all the attributes of the "I" (AHYH). That is what it means to be created in the image of God. Thus, "I Will Be What (who) I Will Be" remains the highest truth an individual can know. In short, we decide our destiny. Will power, so ignored and renounced by the materialist / chemical / victim / disease models fashionable today, is actually the ONLY operative element in a person's life. The current infatuation with the materialist / chemical / victim / disease model is thus the single greatest hindrance to the growth of the human species.

Within the person (ahyh) lies the Spirit (AHYH), the spark of the Immutable Self ("I"). Through applying its WILL, the Spirit enfolds itself within Mind, then Desire, then Emotion, then a physical Body.

As the Personality responds to the call of the Higher Self, it dies to itself, re-identifying itself with the Eternal "I". This is called Redemption.

The entire cycle is called the Breath of God:

God dies so that

We can live, so that

We can die, so that

God can live.

The confusion relates to Evil's question upthread - you asked me 'What sort of evidence?'

This is not, to me, the 'right' question...it betrays your already existing understanding and knowledge, which is why the question is framed this way. It doesn't really make sense. It shows you are looking in strange places for that which you apparently are looking for. (Or not...be whatever you will be...)

All the words are there, plus some baggage, but in a strange order...the question itself presupposes a certain type of answer or actual answer, which simply doesn't exist - which does not be.

Sorry, I know this opens a whole knew bucket of worms, but I gots to go for the whole weekend...maybe back later.
 
 
sn00p
12:47 / 24.11.06
High evolutionary: I see your point and I think I might agree...
But, is it that atheists have a belief in a godless universe or that we have no belief in anything and only accept what we know to be true.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:19 / 24.11.06
Interesting post there Nutrient. Actually this bit at the start:

The whole question 'Do you believe in God?' makes no sense to me. It's terms of reference and knowledge or assumed knowledge set up a context which does not exist, in my view. The question presupposes a certain understanding / concept which I just do not relate to. The notion of 'believing in God'...well, the question limits understanding.

Seems (to me of course) to be quite a nice example of an agnostic perspecitive on the existance of God. Acknowledging of course that my saying that doesn't mean that you Nutrient are agnostic, but it's just how it reads to me.

This is not, to me, the 'right' question...it betrays your already existing understanding and knowledge, which is why the question is framed this way. It doesn't really make sense. It shows you are looking in strange places for that which you apparently are looking for. (Or not...be whatever you will be...)

Which is a fair enough answer from your spiritual perspective. But I think it demonstrates quite effectively why materialist science-types such as myself find it frustrating on occasion to talk about this kind of thing with people who have faith.

Nutrient: Evidence, you see. Just not the sort I can put on Youtube, or under a microscope.

Me: What sort of evidence is it then? Are you talking about something that provided you personally with, what you consider to be, sufficient evidence of a spiritual force? I genuinely feel it might help if you explain what you mean by evidence.

To me, it's a fairly simple question and makes perfect sense. To you it's extremely complex to the point that you apparently can't explain what you consider to be evidence.

Which, to some materialist atheist types, might look like dodging the question because you don't know the answer. Personally I understand that it isn't easy to frame religious sensations in a way that can be easily understood.

However, it can come across as being slightly patronising ("Ahh, you wouldn't understand my answer."). Again, I'm sure that isn't your intention here. The frustration stems in part from very different worldviews, one of which gives the impression that you have to be "within" it, believing it, to understand why it's real.

When you get back after the weekend I wouldn't mind you explaining what you mean when you say I'm looking in "strange places".

Have a good one!
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:28 / 24.11.06
But, is it that atheists have a belief in a godless universe or that we have no belief in anything and only accept what we know to be true.

Well, atheism is quite hard to pin down to one particular over-ruling opinion (like most schools of thought). Someone must've linked to the wiki on atheism, but the introduction to it says:

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God and other deities. It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion that deities do not exist), or the deliberate rejection of theism (ie. the refusal to believe in the existence of deities). However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities(cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well. In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief no gods exist, or of negative unbelief.

Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding empirical evidence for spiritual or supernatural claims. They cite a lack of evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the personal to the philosophical to the social to the historical. Additionally, while atheists tend to accept secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, they do not necessarily adhere to any one particular ideology, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors.

Atheism is very often equated with irreligion or nonspirituality in Western culture, but they are not the same. Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities. Atheism is also sometimes erroneously equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion). Some philosophers and academics, such as philosopher Jurgen Habermas call themselves "methodological atheists" (also known as or methodological naturalism) to denote that whatever their personal beliefs, they do not include theistic presuppositions in their method.

Which seems to indicate that both views you suggest could be seen as being right.
 
 
Quantum
16:10 / 24.11.06
UG would say that you are incapable of understanding his words.

I'm sure he would, but he'd be wrong. Feel free to start a thread on him and his thoughts. What he's saying is not unique, and while I'm not going to slag him off he's not my cup of tea.

I think the whole atheist debate seems to be over-complicating things personally. The terms are just descriptors defining a person's response to a very culturally specific question, 'Do you believe in the Christian God as described by the church?'.
 
 
some guy
05:23 / 26.11.06
The terms are just descriptors defining a person's response to a very culturally specific question, 'Do you believe in the Christian God as described by the church?'.

Surely that's overly narrow? I'm not sure many athiests would say their athiesm doesn't also apply to, say, any other deity you want to toss in as an example. My atheism is the lack of a belief in a supreme being. It's precisely analogous in every way to my lack of belief in unicorns and flying whales.
 
 
Quantum
13:02 / 26.11.06
It's precisely analogous in every way to my lack of belief in unicorns and flying whales.

Exactly, you wouldn't define yourself as someone who doesn't believe in pink unicorns, but whether or not you believe in God seems important to those who do, who comprise the bulk of those who historically defined our culture in the west. If the Spaghetti Monster were the dominant religion you'd be defined by not believing in his noodly appendages, from an atheist's perspective it's weird to describe yourself that way.
 
 
some guy
15:55 / 26.11.06
Exactly, you wouldn't define yourself as someone who doesn't believe in pink unicorns

I would in situations where it was appropriate to do so. But similarly I don't define myself in relation to Christianity except in situations where it is appropriate to do so. My atheism has nothing to do with Christianity and it would be incorrect to say that it's a culturally specific framework tightly linked to that particular faith.

I would be an atheist even if I had never heard of Christianity. You're making an overly narrow and unfair condition here.
 
 
Enamon
18:33 / 26.11.06
For me atheist has always meant "No religion". No God would be adeist.
 
 
Char Aina
19:25 / 26.11.06
I would in situations where it was appropriate to do so.

i think the point is that it isnt currently appropriate.
denying the christian god can be, and that is why much atheism is tied to dealing with that particular issue.

i dont agree that you can say for sure that you would have been an atheist without christianity either. atheists from traditionally christian areas or families, rather than areas or families with traditional unicorn obesiance, will necessarily build their atheism in opposition(at least at first) to christianity over unicornianism.

assuming a christian upbringing(or at least one where christianity was the main religious force you were aware of), it would seem establishing disbelief in that would be an integral part of your atheism.

if you had been brought up hindu you might still have become an atheist, but certainly, had you done so, become one of a different flavour.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:31 / 26.11.06
For me atheist has always meant "No religion". No God would be adeist.

Um. Isn't that the same thing? Except in Latin instead of Greek?
 
 
some guy
22:14 / 26.11.06
i think the point is that it isnt currently appropriate

Well of course it is. Christianity is by no means the only major religion present in my country or - to get even more "current" - the subject of international geopolitical discussion.

that is why much atheism is tied to dealing with that particular issue

Can you please break this down?

i dont agree that you can say for sure that you would have been an atheist without christianity either.

I disagree. I have never entertained a theistic thought and rejected theism as a child the moment it was presented to me. Many atheists have similar experiences, which makes me think that in part we could be dealing with an interior process rather than any sort of environmental set up at all (see gay men "always knowing" they were gay).

atheists from traditionally christian areas or families, rather than areas or families with traditional unicorn obesiance, will necessarily build their atheism in opposition(at least at first) to christianity over unicornianism.

With respect, you seem to be fundamentally missing the point of atheism entirely.
 
 
Char Aina
00:04 / 27.11.06
that is why much atheism is tied to dealing with that particular issue

Can you please break this down?

sure.
denying unicorns is not appropriate because there is no one sincerely arguing for unicorns. denying the christian god is appropriate because there is a large group arguing for it.

denying the default religion of your family or area is an action, not an absence of action.
i think atheism without reference to any prevailing religion makes no sense in an environment with a default religious affiliation.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:07 / 27.11.06
For me atheist has always meant "No religion". No God would be adeist.

Theos - Ancient Greek - means "god". So, no.
 
 
some guy
00:39 / 27.11.06
denying unicorns is not appropriate because there is no one sincerely arguing for unicorns. denying the christian god is appropriate because there is a large group arguing for it.

Okay, I see what's happening here. You seem to think atheism is necessarily an act of denial rather than the absence of a proposition. I disagree this is the case.

i think atheism without reference to any prevailing religion makes no sense in an environment with a default religious affiliation.

Of course it does. I would be an atheist even if I had never heard of religion. I am without belief in god(s). Any effort to link this to a specific faith fundamentally misses the point.
 
 
Char Aina
02:03 / 27.11.06
I would be an atheist even if I had never heard of religion.

i appreciate that, but i was specifically drawing attention to the fact that you have heard of it. you have also, if you are like most people on the planet, been exposed to a pretty limited spread of different religious traditions.

when i say in an environment with a default religious affiliation i'm referring to the one you are from.

I would be an atheist even if I had never heard of religion
as soon as you are described as an atheist you are talking about an absence of religion. the word itself describes just that.

You seem to think atheism is necessarily an act of denial rather than the absence of a proposition.

i do, but only when there is a default religion(or several) to deny. it is only necessarily an act of denial when there is something it is necessary to deny.
a kid brougt up without any access to religious influence at all would seem able to build hir atheism without reference to specific religious beliefs.
i am of the opinion that someone who has been so influenced will not.
 
 
some guy
02:49 / 27.11.06
i appreciate that, but i was specifically drawing attention to the fact that you have heard of it.

Yes, but that's irrelevant. The attempt to link lack of belief with others' specific belief just misses what atheism is about, in my opinion. It's a theistic framing mechanism.

you have also, if you are like most people on the planet, been exposed to a pretty limited spread of different religious traditions.

A deaf person isn't going to place any more importance on jazz than disco.

when i say in an environment with a default religious affiliation i'm referring to the one you are from

I'm sorry, I don't come from a country with a single faith.

as soon as you are described as an atheist you are talking about an absence of religion. the word itself describes just that.

I disagree. Religion is relevant here only in the sense that whoever coined the term to describe lack of faith chose to artificially frame the issue in a theistic context. Which makes sense, because many theists are unable to think outside that box (quite understandably and fair enough). But the "thing" being described by that term would exist without religion. I'd still lack belief in divinity even if nobody proposed the divine. It's that prefix.

it is only necessarily an act of denial when there is something it is necessary to deny.

I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree that this is anything other than an effect of the lack of faith. Precisely the same as your "denial" of the existence of unicorns. The frequency of claims that unicorns exist doesn't actually have any bearing on your lack of belief in them. So it's a passive denial in the same way that one would deny grass is blue.

a kid brougt up without any access to religious influence at all would seem able to build hir atheism without reference to specific religious beliefs.
i am of the opinion that someone who has been so influenced will not.

So such a person would be credulous when presented with myriad alien faiths? I think not.
 
 
Char Aina
05:13 / 27.11.06
Precisely the same as your "denial" of the existence of unicorns.

my denial of pink unicornianism only began when the concept was mentioned here.
my denial of the existence of unicorns in general was similarly provoked by the concept of their existence.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:09 / 27.11.06
But is concrete atheism a tenable philosophical standpoint? What level of evidence would be required to change your mind? The strength of agnosticism is that it is at least open to possibilities. It knows enough to say I don't know. In that respect it is much closer to a scientific viewpoint. One may say 'I do not believe in life on other planets due to lack of evidence', but to say absolutely 'there is no life on other planets as I have not seen any' is surely a different argument altogether.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34567... 14

 
  
Add Your Reply