Religion (and lack thereof) at Hypography

[BEAKER]

(BTW: Nice to see you back!)

 

Way down inside, :shrug:

Buffy

 

Thanks Buf.

 

Honey, you need it....:cheer:

Beaker

[IMAMONKEY!]

Conceited on who's part?

 

The theist's. The dictionary has no right to assume one person's belief holds precedence over another. A dictionary is supposed to be PURELY factional. No bias.

 

Getting Back on subject. I am an atheist. umm... not much more to explain I guess. :)

[Nikola Tesla]

Shocking-feasibly displacing in terms of statistics.....never in my soon to be brusque existence have i ever heard of such rebellion of tradition----Show me the visible electromagnetic radiation...i.e.wormhole to the future.:)

[rocket art]

----Show me the visible electromagnetic radiation...i.e.wormhole to the future.:)

 

Here.

[Larv]

Getting Back on subject. I am an atheist. umm... not much more to explain I guess.

Does this mean you think that god exists but you don't believe in he/she/it? Or does this mean you think that god does not exist and therefore you have no reason to believe in he/she/it?

 

An untheist would simple say: 'None of this god business really matters so why even bother with it?'

 

—Larv

[pgrmdave]

I think that you are misrepresenting what atheist means, and twisting the word believe. An atheist does not believe that any gods exist. Just like I don't believe that Santa exists (sorry Buffy!). And what does it mean to "believe in" something? There is a difference between "believing something exists" - which is simply in regard to whether or not it exists, and "believing in something" - which is closer to trust and faith. I believe my brother exists. I don't believe in my brother. Switching the meaning of "believe" is a simple logical fallacy. I'm not saying you were trying to trick IMAMONKEY! but rather that you yourself fell into this trap.

[Larv]

I think that you are misrepresenting what atheist means, and twisting the word believe. An atheist does not believe that any gods exist. Just like I don't believe that Santa exists (sorry Buffy!). And what does it mean to "believe in" something? There is a difference between "believing something exists" - which is simply in regard to whether or not it exists, and "believing in something" - which is closer to trust and faith. I believe my brother exists. I don't believe in my brother. Switching the meaning of "believe" is a simple logical fallacy. I'm not saying you were trying to trick IMAMONKEY! but rather that you yourself fell into this trap.

Well, perhaps. But my point is that the term "atheist" is trust upon people by the theists. It is their context that they are trying to impose. I use the term "untheist" to deflect their imposition.

 

Try this: Some people beleive in fashion. Some people believe in fashion so much they spend a lot of money on it. Let's call them "fashionists." Now, fashionists would want to distinguish themselves from those who don't believe in fashion. They would call them "afashionists." I believe fashion is about as important as god, which is not important at all, at least not to me. And I wouldn't care to be labeled an "afashionist" by the fashionists just because I wear old sweat pants and smelly t-shirts when I go out shopping.

 

See my point? When you're an "x-ist" you necessarily need to identify the "a-x-ists" for what they really are—disgraceful.

 

Sorry for drifting.

 

—Larv

[Nikola Tesla]

Interesting.....nothing short of marvelous denotes your statistics on the likes of religion.....you have quite an eye, if you will.........For the sake of furthering your exploration of religion, I am purely a seeker of wisedom.....not a hypocrite-atheist...who perceive-religiously, in agreeing on nothing.

[pgrmdave]

Perhaps I simply don't see what is offensive about the word. I never really attached any meaning to the word "atheist" beyond that which it means strictly.

[Nikola Tesla]

The definition of atheist is not one to cursorily speak of....The morals of the attender must be taken into account and then redirected in contrary to the conceptional truth of the definition....In other words the idea given is always in opposition to anothers definition and needs not to be defined...simply, employed to denote one standings on his or her's desires in life.

 

Further more, following the latter of my converstation in regards to rocket art....why quote me?

[kalesh]

In my opinion religion and belief in God are very different. I believe God exists but I dont follow any religion so what does that make me?:)

[pgrmdave]

Since the poll is only asking about theism, I would consider you a theist. However, this poll is more introspective - what would you label yourself?

 

Nikola - could you try, perhaps, to phrase that in such a way that other people could understand you?

[Lancaster]

Perhaps I simply don't see what is offensive about the word. I never really attached any meaning to the word "atheist" beyond that which it means strictly.

 

Agreed. Sure, a theist would call me an Atheist, but so would I. I have no negative connotation towards the word, regardless of what theists might attach to it.

[Larv]

Agreed. Sure, a theist would call me an Atheist, but so would I. I have no negative connotation towards the word, regardless of what theists might attach to it.

Words mean a lot in this context. I would never refer to myself as an "atheist," but theists certainly would. Instead, I prefer to call myself "conscious"—as in having "consciousness"—which is an evolutionary step forward and beyond the "bicameral mind" (again using Julian Jaynes' model to make the distinction*). Thusly the theists are bicameral in that they are obedient to the voice/word of God. Bicamerally minded people let God do their critical thinking and instead focus on their faith in the Big Thinker. Conscious people no longer hullucinate godly voices to guide them; they are detached and self-contained decisionmakers who are free to make their own choices.

 

*The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, 1976—the only worthwhile and enduring model of theism v. atheism I have found.

 

—Larv

[Nikola Tesla]

Why not a psychoanalytical apporach to the superhelical controversy of religion?

[ughaibu]

God is an imaginary entity, this should be acceptable to both theists and atheists, the insistence that something imaginary is definitely a part of an existing reality, even the reality of those who do not imagine that entity, is probably classifiable as delusional. There is no word 'adelusional', so why does the word or concept "atheism" need to be taken seriously?

[Nikola Tesla]

God is an imaginary entity, this should be acceptable to both theists and atheists, the insistence that something imaginary is definitely a part of an existing reality, even the reality of those who do not imagine that entity, is probably classifiable as delusional. There is no word 'adelusional', so why does the word or concept "atheism" need to be taken seriously?

 

Marvelous....your psyche's extensive reach is inspirational...........but obviously a non-thinker.....I mean no disrespect.....you simply -indirectly-stated yourself that you have no respect for individualized conceptional growth through the exploration of new terms.