GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:How does the love that an atheist feels for a wife or dog differ from the love a Christian feels for God?

You are stepping down a ladder one rung at a time until you meet me in the middle.

top rung = Athiests all have a God.
next rung down = Athiests worship their pets.
next rung = Treating objects as gods.
next rung = Love = Worship.

Soon you will be down to "talking to your mother in law is worshiping a God."

Pincho Paxton wrote:

David Quinn wrote:An atheist is simply someone who believes in one less god than theists do. They are still a long, long way from being entirely godless.

-

Surely this is just some sort of Poetic word play.

As Trevor says, I'm speaking plainly. The psychology behind joining a religion and worshiping a God is one of seeking emotional security, peace of mind, easy answers, comfort in being part of a crowd, a sense of being special, etc. The only thing that the atheist does is reject one particular source of these things. He still continues to indulge in other sources. He doesn't abandon the mentality entirely, which is what he should be doing if he had any genuine interest in truth.

-

"The only thing that the atheist does is reject one particular source of these things. He still continues to indulge in other sources. He doesn't abandon the mentality entirely, which is what he should be doing if he had any genuine interest in truth."

Now, this I can agree with. It's easy to latch on to another belief that serves the same purpose as the one you've abandoned. One has to be very careful. Although, you can also be too careful, so that you reject everything instantly and may miss a truth in doing so; balancing it can be tough.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Once you take out the assumption that the Totality is intelligent, you are a pantheist.

Why do you assume the Totality is intelligent?

The Battle of Gods and Giants

Sócrates: What we shall see is something like a Battle of Gods and Giants going on between them over their quarrel about reality.
Theaetetus: How so?
Sócrates: One party is trying to drag everything down to earth out of heaven and the unseen, literally grasping rocks and trees in their hands; for they lay hold upon every stock and stone and strenuously affirm that real existence belongs only to that which can be handled and offers resistance to the touch. They define reality as the same thing as body, and as soon as one of the opposite party asserts that anything without a body is real, they are utterly contemptuous and will not listen to another word.
Theaetetus: The people you describe are certainly a formidable crew. I have met quite a number of them before now.
Sócrates: Yes, and accordingly their adversaries are very wary in defending their position somewhere in the heights of the unseen, maintaining with all their force that true reality consists in intelligible and bodiless Forms. In the clash of argument they shatter and pulverise the bodies which their opponents wield, and what those others allege to be true reality they call, not real being, but a sort of moving process of becoming. On this issue an interminable battle is always going on between the two camps.

--Plato

Neil: I don't believe the Totality is intelligent. Read more carefully.

David Quinn wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

David Quinn wrote:An atheist is simply someone who believes in one less god than theists do. They are still a long, long way from being entirely godless.

-

Surely this is just some sort of Poetic word play.

As Trevor says, I'm speaking plainly. The psychology behind joining a religion and worshiping a God is one of seeking emotional security, peace of mind, easy answers, comfort in being part of a crowd, a sense of being special, etc. The only thing that the atheist does is reject one particular source of these things. He still continues to indulge in other sources. He doesn't abandon the mentality entirely, which is what he should be doing if he had any genuine interest in truth.

-

peace of mind, easy answers, comfort in being part of a crowd, a sense of being special,

All these are Gods too? We are down nearly to the bottom of the ladder now.. I was joking when I said the mother in law would end up as God, but now we have surpassed even that stage to get to.. easy answers are an athiest's God.

Why do you insist that an Athiest must have a God? Is it because you do not want to be the only one wearing a red nose at the party?

Pincho & David,

DQ: The psychology behind joining a religion and worshiping a God is one of seeking emotional security, peace of mind, easy answers, comfort in being part of a crowd, a sense of being special, etc.

How is this different from what sages do? They seek security and peace of mind in truth and derive their sense of being special from knowing the truth whereas everyone else is "deluded". Note -- as for the "being in a crowd" part, I think it is fitting for yourself and other religious people only in the sense an elitist crowd; you/they want to be special so to be in a crowd without being elevated above all other (doesn't include spreading widsom/the_gospel) wouldn't fit here.

Postmodernists have it the toughest. They have no answers and have to create something for themselves. They have no God or truth to fall back onto. It must be tempting for postmodernists to just drop out and go live in a hut somewhere renouncing themselves and the wretchedness of life and then perhaps inventing Gods or truths to redeem themselves.

The only thing that the atheist does is reject one particular source of these things. He still continues to indulge in other sources. He doesn't abandon the mentality entirely, which is what he should be doing if he had any genuine interest in truth.

Err. You say someone should reject all interest if they have an interest in truth. Sounds a little contradictory to me. Sounds like you are promoting the renouncing of all desires and interests (life) under the banner of truth. Is life an illusion? a delusion? is it false? Convenient for those who are looking for a way out of life.

AlyOshA wrote:The Battle of Gods and Giants

Sócrates: What we shall see is something like a Battle of Gods and Giants going on between them over their quarrel about reality.
Theaetetus: How so?
Sócrates: One party is trying to drag everything down to earth out of heaven and the unseen, literally grasping rocks and trees in their hands; for they lay hold upon every stock and stone and strenuously affirm that real existence belongs only to that which can be handled and offers resistance to the touch. They define reality as the same thing as body, and as soon as one of the opposite party asserts that anything without a body is real, they are utterly contemptuous and will not listen to another word.
Theaetetus: The people you describe are certainly a formidable crew. I have met quite a number of them before now.
Sócrates: Yes, and accordingly their adversaries are very wary in defending their position somewhere in the heights of the unseen, maintaining with all their force that true reality consists in intelligible and bodiless Forms. In the clash of argument they shatter and pulverise the bodies which their opponents wield, and what those others allege to be true reality they call, not real being, but a sort of moving process of becoming. On this issue an interminable battle is always going on between the two camps.

--Plato

Possibly not true, because the goalposts to reality get nearer, and nearer every year for those that believe in evolution. However, for those that believe in God, the goalposts are fixed, and the answer will only come from death.

Mr. Paxton either you are not understanding what I am getting at because: A.) I was unsuccessful at articulating what I was trying to communicate, B.) You have put your blinders on and refuse to see anything outside of your own agenda or C.) You cannot comprehend the significance of the ideas presented. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume reason A. But I honestly feel that you are just reacting to the prominent historical associations with the term God – which is just an unreasonable and unfruitful argument of semantics.

Do you think that a person’s belief system is the foundation for which all of their decisions and actions are based? Whether that person is conscious of it, or knows how to articulate about that belief system is a different matter, but whether we like it or not we are communicating something about what we believe by every action and every decision we make in life. If actions are founded on erroneous or delusional beliefs much harm can befall that person and their surroundings. This sounds cheesy but I personally believe it. A person and their life are like an onion and of course every person is completely different. There are so many details on the outside shell and those details should be recognized and have their significance but someone who wants more (or the most) from their life should keep peeling off layers and searching deeper within themselves and into the nature of their life until they are left with the very essence, that essence being the absolute most important thing about who they are and the purpose of their life. But many times they get stuck on one layer and can’t see what’s beyond that layer. When they get too occupied with the outside layers they start to loose their way in life and become increasingly miserable, unhealthy, and destructive both to themselves and to others. To further complicate things, sometimes what is an outside layer for one person is more of and inside layer for another so it is the sole responsibility of the individual to inquire into their own purpose and their own inner happiness – only they have that power.

To make an incredibly long winded and convoluted story short – I am trying to distill a belief system out of Atheism and I feel that when it is taken to its inevitable conclusion – either the person accepts and embraces (harmonizes with) the higher, potentially eternal, and uncontrollable power(s) that be (better yet the Totality) or that person denies it and rejects it.

AlyOshA wrote:Mr. Paxton either you are not understanding what I am getting at because: A.) I was unsuccessful at articulating what I was trying to communicate, B.) You have put your blinders on and refuse to see anything outside of your own agenda or C.) You cannot comprehend the significance of the ideas presented. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume reason A. But I honestly feel that you are just reacting to the prominent historical associations with the term God – which is just an unreasonable and unfruitful argument of semantics.

Do you think that a person’s belief system is the foundation for which all of their decisions and actions are based? Whether that person is conscious of it, or knows how to articulate about that belief system is a different matter, but whether we like it or not we are communicating something about what we believe by every action and every decision we make in life. If actions are founded on erroneous or delusional beliefs much harm can befall that person and their surroundings. This sounds cheesy but I personally believe it. A person and their life are like an onion and of course every person is completely different. There are so many details on the outside shell and those details should be recognized and have their significance but someone who wants more (or the most) from their life should keep peeling off layers and searching deeper within themselves and into the nature of their life until they are left with the very essence, that essence being the absolute most important thing about who they are and the purpose of their life. But many times they get stuck on one layer and can’t see what’s beyond that layer. When they get too occupied with the outside layers they start to loose their way in life and become increasingly miserable, unhealthy, and destructive both to themselves and to others. To further complicate things, sometimes what is an outside layer for one person is more of and inside layer for another so it is the sole responsibility of the individual to inquire into their own purpose and their own inner happiness – only they have that power.

To make an incredibly long winded and convoluted story short – I am trying to distill a belief system out of Atheism and I feel that when it is taken to its inevitable conclusion – either the person accepts and embraces (harmonizes with) the higher, potentially eternal, and uncontrollable power(s) that be (better yet the Totality) or that person denies it and rejects it.

Even reading this I am still stuck on A)

I don't understand what you are writing. You use hardly any commas, or anything, but even with commas I wouldn't know what you meant.

I think that the real reason that I do not know what you mean is because you are telling me what I am, and I am way more likely to know who, or what I am than you are. You don't even know if I am God or not, and would God have a God? It would surely be Athiest.

Sorry to single you out Mr. Paxton maybe I should have included Ergasiophobic as well. I guess that is telling that I am also blindly promoting my agenda. Haha. But I am aware of it and will work on that.

Maybe we should be arguing about commas instead. Haha. Well commas are a grammatical grey area (or should I say "gray" - that is open to debate as well). There are basic tenets of comma use, but I have known English professors to be rather contradictory when it comes to the more complicated and ambiguous realms of comma use. Is there a more specific area where you find my lack of comma use particularly egregious?

Maybe I should just try to rewrite your post as I try to understand it...

Your version....

Do you think that a person’s belief system is the foundation for which all of their decisions and actions are based? Whether that person is conscious of it, or knows how to articulate about that belief system is a different matter, but whether we like it or not we are communicating something about what we believe by every action and every decision we make in life. If actions are founded on erroneous or delusional beliefs much harm can befall that person and their surroundings. This sounds cheesy but I personally believe it. A person and their life are like an onion and of course every person is completely different. There are so many details on the outside shell and those details should be recognized and have their significance but someone who wants more (or the most) from their life should keep peeling off layers and searching deeper within themselves and into the nature of their life until they are left with the very essence, that essence being the absolute most important thing about who they are and the purpose of their life. But many times they get stuck on one layer and can’t see what’s beyond that layer. When they get too occupied with the outside layers they start to loose their way in life and become increasingly miserable, unhealthy, and destructive both to themselves and to others. To further complicate things, sometimes what is an outside layer for one person is more of and inside layer for another so it is the sole responsibility of the individual to inquire into their own purpose and their own inner happiness – only they have that power.

To make an incredibly long winded and convoluted story short – I am trying to distill a belief system out of Atheism and I feel that when it is taken to its inevitable conclusion – either the person accepts and embraces (harmonizes with) the higher, potentially eternal, and uncontrollable power(s) that be (better yet the Totality) or that person denies it and rejects it.

My attempt to understand it....

Is a person the product of their beliefs?
Every action we make is a cause of our beliefs, but our beliefs are ever changing, so we learn better actions, and adapt our life to fit this situation. But a person who's beliefs are founded on false information will most likely live a life that is unsocial, and maybe dangerous to themselves, and others.

A person and their life are like the layers of an onion, and of course every person is completely different. There are so many details on the outside skin, and those details should be recognized and have their significance. But someone who wants more (or the most) from their life should keep peeling off layers, and searching deeper within themselves, and into the nature of their life until they are left with the very essence. That essence being the absolute most important thing about who they are and the purpose of their life.

(But many times they get stuck on one layer and can’t see what’s beyond that layer. When they get too occupied with the outside layers they start to loose their way in life and become increasingly miserable, unhealthy, and destructive both to themselves and to others.) I WOULD OMMIT THIS ALTOGETHER, AS I HAVE NEVER SEEN A CASE OF THIS.


(To further complicate things, sometimes what is an outside layer for one person is more of and inside layer for another so it is the sole responsibility of the individual to inquire into their own purpose and their own inner happiness – only they have that power.) CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS, OR BREAK IT DOWN. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IT SWITCHES BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS HALF WAY THROUGH THE SENTENCE. AND FORGETS WHICH ONE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT.

(To make an incredibly long winded and convoluted story short – I am trying to distill a belief system out of Atheism and I feel that when it is taken to its inevitable conclusion – either the person accepts and embraces (harmonizes with) the higher, potentially eternal, and uncontrollable power(s) that be (better yet the Totality) or that person denies it and rejects it.) DON'T EVEN RECALL YOU TALKING ABOUT EXTERNAL POWER IN YOUR POST.. I AM CONFUSED?

Couldn't even break it down.

Wow now you really have made a mess of things. Maybe you are very clever and have confused things simply to avoid discussing them. But I will admit that I am sort of rushing these responses and maybe I should resume this exercise in rhetoric at a more opportune time.

I will start the spoon feeding session and finish it later when I have more time:

"Every action we make is a cause of our beliefs"

Well actually it would be more accurate to say that: Our beliefs are the cause of every action we take (not the other way around). But that is not exactly what I was trying to say - the belief system is not necessarily the cause more like the foundation or the springboard (from the conscious or subconscious mind). The cause of action is way more complex and I may not have enough knowledge to encompass it (when it comes down to the specifics). The exact cause(s) for that action could have manifold influences and could have been set in motion way before that person even existed. I feel that we were thrown into this massive, tumultuous ocean of preexisting causes and effects - so there is a certain evolving force in place that we are not in control of. Good lord I don't have time for this. But I do enjoy it. Later yo!

While none of the Greek philosophers were atheist, the Stoics seem pretty clear saying that to worship god is a waste of time. The divine is not subject to sychophancy, much less that of men. To pray is to second guess divine judgment.

Well actually it would be more accurate to say that: Our beliefs are the cause of every action we take (not the other way around). But that is not exactly what I was trying to say - the belief system is not necessarily the cause more like the foundation or the springboard (from the conscious or subconscious mind). The cause of action is way more complex and I may not have enough knowledge to encompass it (when it comes down to the specifics). The exact cause(s) for that action could have manifold influences and could have been set in motion way before that person even existed. I feel that we were thrown into this massive, tumultuous ocean of preexisting causes and effects - so there is a certain evolving force in place that we are not in control of. Good lord I don't have time for this. But I do enjoy it. Later yo!

You are talking about cause, and effect? That nature's physics are just a video recording? But our origin is not physical. Sentience is not part of the physical environment. It is a force that can spin particles just by observing them. The particles can be far away. We can originate beyond our brain by spinning a particle beyond our brain. And we can do it without using energy. We could spin the cogs in our brain in the same way, like a clock full of cogs that can go in any direction, and then fire the necessary electrons to pass between the gates that we revolved. Observation, or sentience disobeys the rules of nature.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

peace of mind, easy answers, comfort in being part of a crowd, a sense of being special,

All these are Gods too?

The psychology behind the craving for them is identical to the psychology behind craving for God.

Why do you insist that an Athiest must have a God? Is it because you do not want to be the only one wearing a red nose at the party?

I know what it means to be entirely without Gods, and atheists are still a million miles away from reaching such a lofty attainment.

They are like the camel who is unable to pass through the eye of the needle, so rich are they still in egotism and attachments.

-

Neil,

DQ: The psychology behind joining a religion and worshiping a God is one of seeking emotional security, peace of mind, easy answers, comfort in being part of a crowd, a sense of being special, etc.

Neil: How is this different from what sages do? They seek security and peace of mind in truth and derive their sense of being special from knowing the truth whereas everyone else is "deluded".

A person might start off seeking those things in truth, but he soon comes to realize that truth cannot provide them. And it is here, with this stark discovery, that his love for truth begins to be seriously tested.

Alas, most fall away here .....

Postmodernists have it the toughest. They have no answers and have to create something for themselves. They have no God or truth to fall back onto.

On the contrary, postmodernists take refuge in glib, easy answers, such as "there is no truth", "everything is relative", "everything is uncertain", etc. It is essentially no different to what Christians do - namely, use a collection of simplistic, pre-packaged answers to divorce all personal relationship to truth. Freedom from truth means freedom from conscience, which is bliss for the ego. The same bliss that Christians enjoy.

-

The psychology behind the craving for them is identical to the psychology behind craving for God.

Come along now, use English how it is meant to be used. You can't use a sentence like that as a response to the quote. You have Objects, and feelings all mixed up deliberately to cheat in an argument.

I know what it means to be entirely without Gods, and atheists are still a million miles away from reaching such a lofty attainment.

What? Replace the word game.....

atheists are still a million miles away from being athiests.

With this sort of reply I can see a challenge that will never reach a goal.

To put it another way, I find the claim that atheist make that they are atheists to be wholly unbelievable.

If you want to see some genuine atheists in action, read some Huang Po or Chuang Tzu. These men were truly godless.

-

David Quinn wrote:To put it another way, I find the claim that atheist make that they are atheists to be wholly unbelievable.

If you want to see some genuine atheists in action, read some Huang Po or Chuang Tzu. These men were truly godless.

-

I'm truly Godless believe me. I know where I came from... I'm about 999999.99 sure. I have math's to prove it, but nobody believes me. It's too unbelievable.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:To rephrase this such that someone doesn't pretend that this is a belief system that can be avoided: "a pantheist has admitted that he, including his consciousness, is a part of the Totality. He understands that the only access he will ever have to the world is through his consciousness (Heidegger would call this organ "Dasein"; Sartre the "for-itself"). Once this has been admitted, the pantheist then understands that he, like everything else, is a causal part of the universe. Thenceforth, he doesn't need to believe in the eternity of the soul, or the primacy of himself, to appreciate the glory of Nature.

The Buddha sums it up well here.


Who is it that shapes our lives?
Is it Isvara, a personal creator?
If Isvara be the maker,
all living things should have to submit to their maker's power.
They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand;
and if this were so, how would it be possible to practise virtue?

If the world had been made by Isvara
there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or evil;
for both pure and impure deeds must come from him.
If not, there would be another cause beside him,
and he would not be self-existent.
Thus, you see, the thought of Isvara is overthrown.

Again, it is said that the Absolute has created us.
But that which is absolute cannot be a cause.
All things around us come from a cause
as the plant comes from the seed;
but how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike?
If it pervades them, then, certainly, it does not make them.

Ataraxia wrote:The Buddha sums it up well here.

That's pretty good. Where did it come from?

Gospel of Buddha -Paul Carus.

it's on David's website.