Originally posted by KellyJayYou're missing the point, it's not even as complicated as what the measurements mean, it's simply that there are measurements to discuss at all. In matters of faith there are no measurements, no empirical data, nothing but faith itself. As such there's no possibility of a discussion about which measurements are right and wrong, that's just invalid.
Athiest and Thiest are different no doubt about it, but theist are
different from each other too, that does not mean that theist are not
part of a religion. If you want the "RIGHT WAY" things must be looked
at, I'd say everyone wants that! If you want to claim one groups views
are the "reasonable and justified beliefs" I think each group of people
who ...[text shortened]... ot be proven wrong about, with some things it isn't a
big deal with others it is.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingett😉
I was going to go easy on you. But when twhitehead jumped in there, I was no longer able to restrain my rhetorical excesses. They were not necessarily directed at you. I'm sure you have good reasons for employing the terminology you do, but most people do not.
I'm not sure my reasons are good ones. They are probably they same ones that lead to overly verbose posts: trying to preempt arguments that I am not interested in making while I make the points I do want to.
Rhetorical excesses? Well, they had flourish, anyway! Be well, Robb.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou might be right. Nevertheless, my ego-peeve at Robb indicates that I need to empty some sludge from the cup...
I am not sure that non-dualism, at least all non-dualism, is compatible with Rob's definition of atheism. I think his "burden of proof" assertion is at odds with the Zen attitude of searching for the truth whatever it may be without pre-existing conceptions. One can hardly empty the cup if one insists that the shape of the cup itself implies what its contents should be.
The empty-cup metaphor can be taken in any number of directions. I want to think about it a bit.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, KellyJay, according to you, it is impossible to be without a religion?
The ones you didn't pick did show a reason why Atheism could be
thought of as a religion, I didn't even address those, but went to
the ones you did pick instead.
The use of the word while trying to define it is really a rat hole, it isn't
something I care to argue about when the subject is still be
discussed. You agree?
Kelly
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay—
I am not sure that non-dualism, at least all non-dualism, is compatible with Rob's definition of atheism. I think his "burden of proof" assertion is at odds with the Zen attitude of searching for the truth whatever it may be without pre-existing conceptions. One can hardly empty the cup if one insists that the shape of the cup itself implies what its contents should be.
You once said something (about experiencing the Brahman/Tao) that blew open the mind-doors for me. For whatever reason: the time was ripe, whatever...
I take the empty cup as a metaphor for preconceptual/nonconceptual just-being-aware; all talk about how one “understands” that experience comes after, and is back in the domain of thinking, concept-making mind.
“Why are you a non-dualist?”
“Empty your cup!”
“What the hell does that mean?”
“First find your original mind.”
“What the hell does...?”
“Look. Both developmentally and existentially, first you are aware, and then you conceptualize about it. That ‘first being aware’ is what the Buddhists call ‘original mind.’ Without that, you are just thinking about thoughts and conceptualizing about concepts. ‘God’, ‘I’, whatever. You want some meditative techniques to spend time in that ‘original ground’?”
“I don’t think that’s possible...”
“ ‘I don’t think...’”
“Well, I don’t.”
“Empty your cup!”
“Crazy Zennist...”
Originally posted by rwingettI wouldn't call it 'gross intellectual cowardice', but rather laziness on my part. I simply find it tedious and in some cases simply not practical, to explain to anyone who asks my what my religion is, that when I say 'I am an athiest' I am not in fact a member of the 'atheist religion' and that such a religion does not in fact exist etc etc. Even when there is a whole thread on the matter it seems that some people do not get the point, so maybe it is also a case of intellectual inability to get my point across by any other way?
So you prefer to pander to the ignorance of the masses by implicitly buying into their miscategorization of atheism? People who know the actual definition of 'atheist' but still go shopping for alternate adjectives are guilty of gross intellectual cowardice.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is where you are making your mistake, and where your misunderstanding of the term 'atheist' comes in. You are using it as a label and assuming that all atheists have something in common. That is simply not true. It may be possible that many or even all of the people you have met on this forum or elsewhere do hold some beliefs in common, but you should then give those beliefs a name and accuse them of belonging to that religion. Atheism is not a name for a set of beliefs. Do you understand that point? Do you consider that non-belief in unicorns is part of your set of beliefs? Are you willing to be called a member of the a-unicornist religion?
With an Atheist there is an active cause, a system of beliefs, and
various principles to that belief system that are defended and people
are very active in pushing those here. If I were to accept that Atheism
were simply a ~belief in God and not a religion I don't believe I'd
see strong defences for the cause, an us against them attitude
towards believers and so on.
The reason for the conflicts between Christians and atheists on this site is because they do have different beliefs, but whereas Christians all have at least some beliefs in common, atheists do not. In theory it would be perfectly possible to have 5 groups of atheist each with its own set of beliefs as different from each other as they are from Christianity, and thus we would have 6 groups all different and no good reason to group together those that are not-Christian, anymore than we would want to group together those that are not flat-earthers or those that are a-unicornists.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou could say, "I have no religion. I'm an atheist."
I wouldn't call it 'gross intellectual cowardice', but rather laziness on my part. I simply find it tedious and in some cases simply not practical, to explain to anyone who asks my what my religion is, that when I say 'I am an athiest' I am not in fact a member of the 'atheist religion' and that such a religion does not in fact exist etc etc. Even when th ...[text shortened]... aybe it is also a case of intellectual inability to get my point across by any other way?
Then they might say, "You know what? That sounds jolly good. I think I'll discard my stupid belief in god and then we can be jolly atheists together."
The two of you would have a good laugh and then exit the room together singing John Lennon's 'Imagine.'
At least that's how I picture the scenario unfolding.
Originally posted by rwingettYou see how easy it is to assume that being atheist gives you something in common with other atheists?
You could say, "I have no religion. I'm an atheist."
Then they might say, "You know what? That sounds jolly good. I think I'll discard my stupid belief in god and then we can be jolly atheists together."
The two of you would have a good laugh and then exit the room together singing John Lennon's 'Imagine.'
At least that's how I picture the scenario unfolding.
They could just as easily have said "Hey, we must be fellow ahinduists" or even "Are we fellow aunicornists?" - my admission to atheism of course does not rule out my belief in invisible pink unicorns hiding in fridges.
The use of a label creates a category. In the case of atheism, the category does not actually exist. My answer should be "I have no religion" and should end there. The only reason for specifying a lack of belief in a deity is because a belief in a deity is surprisingly common.
Originally posted by StarrmanWe view faith differently.
You're missing the point, it's not even as complicated as what the measurements mean, it's simply that there are measurements to discuss at all. In matters of faith there are no measurements, no empirical data, nothing but faith itself. As such there's no possibility of a discussion about which measurements are right and wrong, that's just invalid.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioYep, there will be no vacuum in that realm of the human equation
So, KellyJay, according to you, it is impossible to be without a religion?
Nemesio
we walk out our beliefs/faith every day, we will put some importance
on the truth of the universe as we understand or believe it to be and
walk it out.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo all atheist accept or believe there is no God or gods and carry
That is where you are making your mistake, and where your misunderstanding of the term 'atheist' comes in. You are using it as a label and assuming that all atheists have something in common. That is simply not true. It may be possible that many or even all of the people you have met on this forum or elsewhere do hold some beliefs in common, but you shoul ...[text shortened]... would want to group together those that are not flat-earthers or those that are a-unicornists.
on as if that were true in ways they feel they should?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't say faith or belief. I said religion.
Yep, there will be no vacuum in that realm of the human equation
we walk out our beliefs/faith every day, we will put some importance
on the truth of the universe as we understand or believe it to be and
walk it out.
Kelly
So, you conclude that everyone has religion or that it is impossible to be without it, right?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is a difference between not believing in your god and being against your religion. I couldn't care less whether you believe in god. But I find your religion to be repugnant. When I bicker with you I'm not arguing against your belief in god in the general sense, but am arguing about the specifics that arise from that belief. Topics which I tend to savagely attack are the inerrancy of the bible, creationism, or theocratic tendencies. But I never argue against the belief in god in itself.
Do all atheist accept or believe there is no God or gods and carry
on as if that were true in ways they feel they should?
Kelly