Religion (and lack thereof) at Hypography

[arkain101]

I chose Spiritual aithiest, since it seems to describe closest to what my view is.

 

I used to be what one would refer to as athiest. I strongly stood behind facts and still beleive in those facts today. But at the same time I never looked into the other option. When I finally decided I could not declare myself non spiritual when I had little to no knowledge of what exactly it was about.

 

So I said I may aswell study it before declaring myself either or. So I did, and arrived at a new understanding.

 

Allow me to share an example with you that is just a part of how I see it.

 

Lets take an apple. If we asked the apple what do you see. Well the apple will reply in silence. But, to replace the silence we fill in the words for the apple. I am an apple I grow on a tree, when I ripen I fall to the ground and rot, I do not see.

 

Now lets take one million apples and ask them the same question, well obviously we get the same answer. It didnt matter the amount of apples we added to the scenario. An apple is an apple is an apple.

 

Now, lets replace the apple with an "atom". If we ask an atom, what do you see. We get silence. But to fill the silence we speak for it, and it says; I am an atom, I contain mass and am composed of charged particles. I react to light waves and other atoms in a measureable consistent manner. I do not see, nor do I need to see, for my purpose is only to function under the laws that I do. Color is non existent to me. There is only frequencies which cause me to respond in certain ways.

 

Now lets take a trillion, trillion, trillion atoms and put them together in the form of a human. Now we ask all these atoms together, Hey atoms, what do you see??

Well they would all respond by saying; I am an atom, I contain mass and am composed of charged particles. I react to light waves and other atoms in a measureable consistent manner. I do not see, nor do I need to see, for my purpose is only to function under the laws that I do. Color is non existent to me. There is only frequencies which cause me to respond in certain ways.

 

It did not matter how many atoms we added or removed to the scenario, the result was the same. We just had to ask ALOT more atoms.

 

Now somewhere in between 1 and 99999999999999 atoms there is a part that is responsible for everything that is a mind and that is a consciousness.

 

I do not have a name for it, but it is there, and experiencing a color is the act of you being something other than a particle.

 

So, I do not name it, but I do observe it, thus my choice of spiritual athiest. But I'd much rather call it, "a witness".

[Pyrotex]

I am an atheist. I do not feel that I (or any human) is in a position to "rule out" the existence of a deity. Therefore, the limit of my position is my choice to not "believe" in one (or more). However, I will gladly offer to point out the lack of evidence for a deity -- AFTER laboring on the extensive difficulty in even defining WHAT a deity IS or should be.

 

Spirituality is something else. It is the search for inner peace and a sense of accomplishment, the striving to make a difference in this world. So, I am a spiritual atheist.

[Pyrotex]

Atheism is a subjective belief system, and a non-empirical one at that. Isn't that kinda what the word "religion" describes, or no?

Sorry, but "religion" is not defined as a subjective belief system.

 

Or else, EVERYTHING from religion to politics to your career (assuming you have one) to your preference for sports, literature and food is a "subjective belief system". If EVERYTHING is a "subjective belief system", then it is a useless definition. For example:

 

Do you like blondes with long legs? That's a religion.

Do favor chocolate over vanilla? That's a religion.

Are you a Republican? That's a religion.

What is your position on illegal immigration? That's a religion.

 

See what I mean? Pointless. In other words, you cannot make a point with that kind of argument.

[Spiked Blood]

Uh oh. There are 6 votes for each option. BEWARE.:hihi:

Perhaps the devil is already with us.:friday:

 

This is called agnosticism, and could possibly have been an option in this poll.

 

That's me officially labelled.:xparty:

 

arkain101, I think the point you were making went completely over my head. What I got from your analogy is... we can speak.

 

Single atoms communicate, they just don't care for your questions.

[arkain101]

My point was, if one or two atoms doesnt have a mind, then it is difficult to see why when you put billions of them together they can form one.

[Boerseun]

Humans are the local embodiment of stellar ash raised to self-awareness. It's pretty cool. But it still doesn't necessitate a Creator. It's just some of the cool stuff hydrogen does if left alone for a few billion years.

 

Me = Atheist. Still.

[hallenrm]

I would like to repeat my ideas on this subject posted in a current thread

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/8678-atheism-religion.html

[Jay-qu]

Atheist, I was born and remain to this day a catholic - I am unsure if you can 'divorce' a religion :confused: non-believing is enough for me at the moment.

[arkain101]

I feel the selection is not broad enough. Is there sections where we can discuss what each version is and is not?

 

 

I have a question though for each person who is what we call athiest.

 

Have or do you often make a wish? A wish of sorts like I hope I get that date, or whatever it is that interests you.

 

what would you call your act when you are asking/wishing?

 

who-what are you asking?

 

why are you wishing?

[CraigD]

I chose “Atheist” as most closely represented my religion or lack thereof. I strongly believe that supernatural phenomena such as ghosts, life after death, and reincarnation, do not exist. Likewise, I believe events described in holy writings, such as the burning bush, the parting of the Dead Sea, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, did not happen. I believe, however, that the moral philosophies expressed in nearly all religions, have the potential to improve human society, or to harm it, even if their claims are factually untrue, and many of their religionists only pretend to believe them true.

I have a question though for each person who is what we call athiest.

 

Have or do you often make a wish?

If I understand arkain’s meaning, I “make a wish”, typically in a ritual/ceremonial way, such as on new years eve, when blowing out candles on a birthday cake, or watching a meteor shower.

 

I sometimes wish for general, good things, such as peace and harmony among my family, community, and the world. Other times, I wish for specific things of an ordinary nature, such as a solution to a vexing but well-defined problem.

what would you call your act when you are asking/wishing?

Visualization. Imagining something I wish would happen

who-what are you asking?

As I am not speaking aloud or otherwise communicating my wish, I am asking myself.

why are you wishing?

I believe that much of my – and all humans’ – behavior is determined not by conscious, planned intent, but by the unconscious fulfillment of “whole image”, or gestalt, cognitive information. By visualizing – “wishing” - one might even say, praying for it - I believe that it may be possible to influence this unconscious behavior to make the wished for outcomes more likely.

[arkain101]

I apreciate the shared thoughts, craig.

 

Valid points indeed.

 

Although valid, there is room for more understanding, considering what we do not understand so far.

[TheFaithfulStone]

My favorite answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is "Yours or mine?"

 

I'm not sure how to answer this. I consider Jesus to be one awesome dude - but frankly, not the product of the Holy Ghost and Mary gettin' busy.

 

I believe in sacredness, but not God.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

I would like to know where Idealistic Dialetic Materialist with a Panthesistic bend would fit into this? Does that qualify me as a Spiritual Athesist? Or simply an athesist?

 

Technically I could qualify under Thesist, because I do believe in god as the sum of that which exists. However I do not believe god to be greater than the sum of that which exists. That is I do not believe of things above what exists or what might be generally called the supernatural.

 

Just thought I would ask before I voted.

[CraigD]

I would like to know where Idealistic Dialetic Materialist with a Panthesistic bend would fit into this? Does that qualify me as a Spiritual Athesist? Or simply an athesist?

 

Technically I could qualify under Thesist, because I do believe in god as the sum of that which exists. However I do not believe god to be greater than the sum of that which exists. That is I do not believe of things above what exists or what might be generally called the supernatural.

From my inexpert theological POV, that would depend on what attributes you ascribe to your pan-universal god. Some sort of human-like, super-human, or even omniscient awareness? The ability to cause inexplicable “miracle” events, even as minor as communicating with human beings?

 

If yes, I’d place you in this poll's “spiritual atheist” category. If no, I’d place you in “atheist”.

 

As folk like Anselm and Aquinas point out, what a reasonable person can call “God” must have particular attributes. For example, I can’t, without simply being silly, say the large oak tree in my back yard is God, and point to the tree as concrete, objective proof that God exists. Whether God = the Universe, or even whether God must actually exist, are involved theological questions, with different positions held by many respected experts.

[pgrmdave]

I would like to know where Idealistic Dialetic Materialist with a Panthesistic bend would fit into this? Does that qualify me as a Spiritual Athesist? Or simply an athesist?

 

Technically I could qualify under Thesist, because I do believe in god as the sum of that which exists. However I do not believe god to be greater than the sum of that which exists. That is I do not believe of things above what exists or what might be generally called the supernatural.

 

Whatever you think you qualify as, you qualify as. If you believe in a diety of some sort, then I would consider you to be theistic. If you do not, then you'd be atheistic. As for spiritual vs. non-spiritual, that's a very subjective thing, but I think that it can be made most accurate by letting people decide for themselves what that means.

[HydrogenBond]

It is hard to answer that question based on the choices given. When I look at religion, instead of looking at modern religion, I try to go back to the earliest forms of religion to see what practical purpose they had.

 

The earliest religions were based on nature worship. In that respect, they were a percursor attempt to explain nature. Such people were not reasonable and didn't have the benefit of modern eduction to tell them what to think. Within their dreams and imagination, explanations came into being. Certain explanations hit a chord in the tribe to become the center of their beleif system. One can see this in modern physics when physicists talk about parallel universes and other dimensions. They are attempting to explain imaginary stuff beyond reality proof and set up a type of mystical explanation for their tribe.

 

The earliest religion not just the precursor of natural science but also an attempt to explain the instinctive dynamics behind human nature. But it went beyond explanation, into instinctive induction rituals. For example, to eat the flesh of a lion would give one the courage of a lion. There is no scientific evidience for this. However, the belief and the rituals, were advanced software pertubations of the brain, such that someone would actually get all stoked up by the rituals and become more fiece for battle.

 

In modern terms, picture someone taking final exams, who knew an Einstein ritual that could tweak the unconscious, allowing them an extra level of concentration and focus for the exam. The primatives did not understand the nature of the brain but would attribute the output affect as coming from their gods because it was something the ego just could not do on its own. It needed the ritual and the blessing of the god to make it possible. This gave the primative an ability to tap into their higher innate potential.

 

As religion advanced the tweaks were at higher and higher levels within the hierarchy of the human brain, i.e., hypothalamus to limbic system. It is almost like mind software the helps pertubate aspects of the human psyche that will eventually become a normal future part of human nature. The primate had to do rituals to focus and concentrate on simple tasks. This innate potential is common to modern humans without the needs of rituals due to centuries of these ritualistic training finally taking hold. It took thousands of years for human to evolve to where some have shed their religious training wheels. Other who continue the rituals of religions are preparing the brain for future generations.

 

The question of God can be addressed by looking at polytheism. Although a controversial example, ancient orgy rituals, where a way to get a group all on the same sexual page. The ritual was not only inducing the drive in the individual but also coordinating it within a group. It was almost like all the brains became networked becoming a type of singualar organism with one large brain. It is not clear where the brain center of the organism is but it makes it coordinate like one unit. The center can even distribute the tasks differently to the many terminals. Monotheism created a type of human distributed netwark with all the terminals multitasking as a highly extended network with many layers of distrubuted tasks. Such social unconscious programming is so complex God is a fitting analogy because who knows for sure if the connections transcend space and time. At the same time, the affect can be like virtual sound stemming from a point where their are no speakers.

[pgrmdave]

HydrogenBond, I think that you are possibly making it more complex than it needs to be. The poll is not, despite what you may read into it, about religion. It is about belief in god or gods or no belief in god or gods. I considered having only those two categories, but added in the third to catch those who might be spiritual and/or religious but not have a diety attached to it. This is also an introspective poll, which, as far as I understand, should not require a very logical, detailed exploration of past religions, practices, and spirituality.