astronaut said:

Atheists:  you don't know what you're missing.

edit -- I do love you all though. I genuinely hope that hopeless atheists find spirituality, as I did.

---

Pimpz0r said:

The Cypher said:

by taking the refuge of agnosticism it seems you're merely hiding from the question itself.

---

or just admitting you don't know.
(a)without + (gnostic)knowledge

---

astronaut said:

Atheists:  you don't know what you're missing.

edit -- I do love you all though. I genuinely hope that hopeless atheists find spirituality, as I did.

---

guruu said:

astronaut said:

Atheists:  you don't know what you're missing.

edit -- I do love you all though. I genuinely hope that hopeless atheists find spirituality, as I did.

---

Dude, seriously?  If you think theism is a prerequisite for spirituality, I don't know what to tell you.  I'm an atheist, but through psychedelics my views have shifted from pure empiricism to more of a godless transcendentalism.  If that makes any sense.  I'd probably have to talk to you in person to explain it properly, but I feel like a very spiritual person without resorting to the supernatural world to explain anything.

---

guruu said:

misos said:

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god


My point.

---

I don't know where you got that definition but that's not the philosophically accepted definition.  An atheist is exactly what it sounds like: a non-theist.  A baby who doesn't understand the concept of god is an atheist, as are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and others who outright deny a deity's existence.  It's not a religion because it's not a belief, it's the absence of a belief.

---

The thing about theist is that they base there experience/view of the world on belief without ANY evidence, or reason to do so. This general perspective on life is the core of the issue. Theism is only one of its many characteristics, where as atheism is a lack of theism, or a lack of belief without cause. In the same way that cold is not a thing, it is the absence of warmth, and in the same way that god is not a thing, it is the absence of human understanding.

• We do not know what to expect (if anything) after the eventual failings of our bodys......what happens?....(god/heaven)
  

• My current recollection of existence has a beginning, so everything else must have one too........Where did it come from?.........(god)
  
  

......etc.

"God" as a concept is representative of an absence of direct knowledge, in the same way that a negative number is representative of the absence of a quantity. 

• If we were to represent "knowledge" as X then god would be -X. God represents mystery, and the unknown.
  

• We will let C represent curiosity, and -c represent obstinacy.
  

• 
  If we were to represent "logic" as Y, then "faith" would be -Y, Faith is the absence of logic in the same way that atheism is the absence of theism.
  

• T will represent time, and I have yet to determine what the opposite of time would be, but its is quite the mind fuck of a question, and probably deserves its own thread.
  

• And finally, we will let P represent "perspective", and -P represent its absence, or bias/prejudice.
  

• With this in mind, we can say that X = (PC)^T/Y
  

It is absurd to accept, or deny an the absence of a quantity, or to treat the suspension/decrease of logic (faith/belief) as an attribute. The assertion that "god" must be accepted or denied begins from the standpoint that your lack of understanding on a particular occurrence is a thing in and of itself.

As knowledge increases, so does atheism.  Atheism = a lack of theism. Theism = a belief in the existence of god. Belief = acceptance without reasoning. Reasoning = the act of evaluating, and forming conclusions.

Our current recallable couscous experience of the world around us, has an apparent beginning and end. As a result, it is hard for us with our perspective thats entire existence is an expression of the finite to conceptualize the infinite.

blewmeanie said:

guruu said:

misos said:

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god


My point.

---

I don't know where you got that definition but that's not the philosophically accepted definition.  An atheist is exactly what it sounds like: a non-theist.  A baby who doesn't understand the concept of god is an atheist, as are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and others who outright deny a deity's existence.  It's not a religion because it's not a belief, it's the absence of a belief.

---

The thing about theist is that they base there experience/view of the world on belief without ANY evidence, or reason to do so. This general perspective on life is the core of the issue. Theism is only one of its many characteristics, where as atheism is a lack of theism, or a lack of belief without cause. In the same way that cold is not a thing, it is the absence of warmth, and in the same way that god is not a thing, it is the absence of human understanding.

• We do not know what to expect (if anything) after the eventual failings of our bodys......what happens?....(god/heaven)
  

• My current recollection of existence has a beginning, so everything else must have one too........Where did it come from?.........(god)
  
  

......etc.

"God" as a concept is representative of an absence of direct knowledge, in the same way that a negative number is representative of the absence of a quantity. 

• If we were to represent "knowledge" as X then god would be -X. God represents mystery, and the unknown.
  

• We will let C represent curiosity, and -c represent obstinacy.
  

• 
  If we were to represent "logic" as Y, then "faith" would be -Y, Faith is the absence of logic in the same way that atheism is the absence of theism.
  

• T will represent time, and I have yet to determine what the opposite of time would be, but its is quite the mind fuck of a question, and probably deserves its own thread.
  

• And finally, we will let P represent "perspective", and -P represent its absence, or bias/prejudice.
  

• With this in mind, we can say that X = (PC)^T/Y
  

It is absurd to accept, or deny an the absence of a quantity, or to treat the suspension/decrease of logic (faith/belief) as an attribute. The assertion that "god" must be accepted or denied begins from the standpoint that your lack of understanding on a particular occurrence is a thing in and of itself.

As knowledge increases, so does atheism.  Atheism = a lack of theism. Theism = a belief in the existence of god. Belief = acceptance without reasoning. Reasoning = the act of evaluating, and forming conclusions.

Our current recallable couscous experience of the world around us, has an apparent beginning and end. As a result, it is hard for us with our perspective thats entire existence is an expression of the finite to conceptualize the infinite.

---

astronaut said:

As admirably rational and formidable your argument may be, you don't seem to understand that spirituality is beyond science for theistic believers. I sympathize with the impulse to disprove "God", as religion is clearly irrational. But your definitions (e.g, God being the absence of human knowledge) presuppose the validity of human reason, and truth being accessible, both of which many (myself now included) refuse to accept. You see God as the absence of knowledge, I see it as an admirable meta-concept unto which to project noumena. You seem to be locked in a truth-seeking paradigm, which is certainly a valuable paradigm, but not the only one.

---

Quote:

Do you understand that everything that is "known", was at one point filtered through the infinitely fallible 5 senses. I've written this line many times, but I think it's relevant here as well -- we did not evolve to see the world as it is, only to see it as it is insofar as our survival would require. To pursue 'truth' is to run blindly in circles, I would say. Skip the bullshit and realize the ecstasy of spiritual awareness.

---

astronaut said:

I sympathize with the impulse to disprove "God", as religion is clearly irrational.

---

guruu said:

astronaut said:

As admirably rational and formidable your argument may be, you don't seem to understand that spirituality is beyond science for theistic believers. I sympathize with the impulse to disprove "God", as religion is clearly irrational. But your definitions (e.g, God being the absence of human knowledge) presuppose the validity of human reason, and truth being accessible, both of which many (myself now included) refuse to accept. You see God as the absence of knowledge, I see it as an admirable meta-concept unto which to project noumena. You seem to be locked in a truth-seeking paradigm, which is certainly a valuable paradigm, but not the only one.

---

You're right, his definition does presuppose the validity of human reason.  What else can he do?  Your ideas also presuppose the validity of human reason.  It's not like reason is one of your mental tools; it's the whole fuckin toolbox.  If you are honestly going to say that human reasoning is invalid, then even attempting to hold a discussion is pointless because human reason is literally all we have to work with.

Quote:

Do you understand that everything that is "known", was at one point filtered through the infinitely fallible 5 senses. I've written this line many times, but I think it's relevant here as well -- we did not evolve to see the world as it is, only to see it as it is insofar as our survival would require. To pursue 'truth' is to run blindly in circles, I would say. Skip the bullshit and realize the ecstasy of spiritual awareness.

---

Same thing here.  If you are going to reject the validity of our senses, then you are literally left with nothing.  You would probably tell me you have a "sixth" sense or something, but I'm just going to tell you, at the best that's only a complex arrangement of the conventional five senses.

Basically, I can see where you're coming from, but your argument is about as illogical as any argument could possibly be.  If you want to hold your beliefs in spite of logic there's really nothing that can be said, but you could never ever expect anybody else to do the same.

---

awesomebastard said:

I suppose I would fit into the agnostic atheist classification.

---

guruu said:

agnosticism isn't an alternative to atheism or theism; by definition you have to be one or the other.

---

guruu said:

agnosticism isn't an alternative to atheism or theism; by definition you have to be one or the other.

---