Theism, Atheism, Non-Theism

[MisterBeale]

Deism: Belief in a creator, but said creator doesn't necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "God".

These are two articles you may find interesting. . .

Some Scientists Believe the Universe Is Conscious​

Some Scientists Believe the Universe Is Conscious

Sounds like a bad trip ... but what if it's true?

www.popularmechanics.com

Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?​

A new paper argues the condition now known as “dissociative identity disorder” might help us understand the fundamental nature of reality

Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?

A new paper argues the condition now known as “dissociative identity disorder” might help us understand the fundamental nature of reality

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[Ringtone]

I am referring to the belief in any gods whatsoever. I do not recognize a difference in Pagan gods or the Abrahamic god

That's because you are unlearned, uninformed and thoughtless.

 

[Blues Man]

That's because you are unlearned, uninformed and thoughtless.

No it's because the Abrahamic god is just one of the hundreds or even thousands of gods man has worshiped.

IMO man invented gods. And that's a conclusion based on years of reading books on the history or religion, anthropology, sociology and philosophy.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Agnosticism as I see it is akin to non-theism in that the existence of any gods is not affirmed but the possibility of the existence of gods is not denied but that gods if they exist are thought to be unknowable and that there is also the possibility that gods do not exist. ...

First of all is a-theism and non-theism the same and second is no one seriosly discussing philosophically about "gods" in such a context - but only about "god". Indeed this are philosophically two totally different "things" or "subjects". If you like to know that Zeus lives not on the Olymp you have just simple to go to the Olymp and to search for Zeus there and you will not find him. On such reasons were many ancient Greek philosophers - and also the early Christians - often called "atheists".

The philosophy agnosticism (agnosticism is not a belief!) means something what's totally different. Agnosticism makes clear that as well the belief in god and the not-belief in god (=the belief in not-god) is a philosophically not decideable question. As far as I know it was the first time in history that a problem had not only the solutions "true" and "false" but also the solution "not-decideable".

Oh by the way - nearly I forgot to say what's very important in this context: Nevertheless we are not able to say god is existing and not existing the same time - what's not any problem for god himselve, because he's allmighty. But it's a problem for our use of logic. If we think a contradiction is true then everything is true. But it's for example not true that grass will say "moo". So I fear we still have to make a decision - about something what we are philosophically (=also scientifically) not able to decide. ¿Crazy world in which we live? - Or just simple a wonderful creation from god?

 

[Blues Man]

First of all is a-theism and non-theism the same and second is no one seriosly discussing philosophically about "gods" in such a context - but only about "god". Indeed this are philosophically two totally different "things" or "subjects". If you like to know that Zeus lives not on the Olymp you have just simple to go to the Olymp and to search for Zeus there and you will not find him. On such reasons were many ancient Greek philosophers - and also the early Christians - often called "atheists".

The philosophy agnosticism (agnosticism is not a belief!) means something what's totally different. Agnosticism makes clear that as well the belief in god and the not-belief in god (=the belief in not-god) is a philosophically not decideable question. As far as I know it was the first time in history that a problem had not only the solutions "true" and "false" but also the solution "not-decideable".

Oh by the way - nearly I forgot to say what's very important in this context: Nevertheless we are not able to say god is existing and not existing the same time - what's not any problem for god himselve, because he's allmighty. But it's a problem for our use of logic. If we think a contradiction is true then everything is true. But it's for example not true that grass will say "moo". So I fear we still have to make a decision - about something what we are philosophically (=also scientifically) not able to decide. ¿Crazy world in which we live? - Or just simple a wonderful creation from god?

The god you worship is just one of the many gods humans have worshiped

 

[zaangalewa]

The god you worship is just one of the many gods humans have worshiped

And how do you "know" this - specially if you think about that you are able to say the same about the beliefs of atheists (and all other beliefes)? If we are all wrong - who is right? You?

My belief in god has by the way a totally different background than the religious belief of Buddhists - but in the moral components we are very near together. Even the rule to love enemies exists in this religion. So if 2 totally different approaches with a totally different "methodology" delivers in the end a comparable result (similar rules for a happy life in harmony with god, his children and the whole living creation) then this is a great indicator for a common truth in the background of this backgrounds - isn't it?




PS: One basic rule is by the way "Everything what's not definetelly wrong is true." So nothing becomes true or wrong because someone believes about something else it is true or wrong - independent whether it is true or wrong what he believes. ... More simple: If I calculate 2+3=6 in the mathematics of nodes and another one calculates a+b=a/b in the extended universal law about beauty, which corresponds to the Lorentz factor in the theory of relativity - why should not both be true?

 

[Blues Man]

And how do you "know" this - specially if you think about that you are able to say the same about the beliefs of atheists (and all other beliefes)? If we are all wrong - who is right? You?

My belief in god has by the way a totally different background than the religious belief of Buddhists - but in the moral components we are very near together. Even the rule to love enemies exists in this religion. So if 2 totally different approaches with a totally different "methodology" delivers in the end a comparable result (similar rules for a happy life in harmony with god, his children and the whole living creation) then this is a great indicator for a common truth in the background of this backgrounds - isn't it?




PS: One basic rule is by the way "Everything what's not definetelly wrong is true." So nothing becomes true or wrong because someone believes about something else it is true or wrong - independent whether it is true or wrong what he believes. ... More simple: If I calculate 2+3=6 in the mathematics of nodes and another one calculates a+b=a/b in the extended universal law about beauty, which corresponds to the Lorentz factor in the theory of relativity - why should not both be true?

Anthropology.

Humans have worshiped gods their entire existence.

Humans invent gods to explain things they do not understand. As our understanding of the natural word grew we discarded the gods we invented to explain the unknown.

 

[zaangalewa]

Anthropology.

Anthropology? Whose anthropology? And what answer on what is this?

Humans have worshiped gods their entire existence.

What do you mean by using the word "gods"?

Humans invent gods to explain things they do not understand.

Aha - you think "gods" are explanations. In this view to the world we would pray today to the god of relativity and the god of quantum mechanics and so on. We would speak about how the god communisms forced the half world into his ban and how the god capitalism freed the world and so on and so on.

As our understanding of the natural word grew we discarded the gods we invented to explain the unknown.

Who is "we"? You? And do you not think your belief "physics replaces spirituality" is only a little simple minded wrong view to natural science? In a similiar way how gods and god are different things are also believers in science and scientists two different things. The god of physics is "the experiment" and the spirituality of physics is called "mathematics". I don't think any physicist has a problem to understand this simple relation. To compare the words "god" and "experiment" drives no one nervous. Your way to think the world in your brain separates this world in two parts which are in reality not separated at all. Every member of every serios religion is able to be a natural scientist. The doctrine natural science has to follow only the spiritual belief or the church "atheisms" is as senseless as to say all bakers should be atheists or all taxi-drivers should be atheists and so on and so on.

 

[Blues Man]

Anthropology? Whose anthropology? And what answer on what is this?



What do you mean by using the word "gods"?



Aha - you think "gods" are explanations. In this view to the world we would pray today to the god of relativity and the god of quantum mechanics and so on. We would speak about how the god communisms forced the half world into his ban and how the god capitalism freed the world and so on and so on.



Who is "we"? You? And do you not think your belief "physics replaces spirituality" is only a little simple minded wrong view to natural science? In a similiar way how gods and god are different things are also believers in science and scientists two different things. The god of physics is "the experiment" and the spirituality of physics is called "mathematics". I don't think any physicist has a problem to understand this simple relation. To compare the words "god" and "experiment" drives no one nervous. Your way to think the world in your brain separates this world in two parts which are in reality not separated at all. Every member of every serios religion is able to be a natural scientist. The doctrine natural science has to follow only the spiritual belief or the church "atheisms" is as senseless as to say all bakers should be atheists or all taxi-drivers should be atheists and so on and so on.

You obviously have a hard time with English.

We invented gods to explain things we didn't understand.

For example.

Rain gods
Thunder gods
Sun gods
Moon gods
Fertility gods

the list is long but as we came to actually know the causes of these things we stopped believing in those gods

 

[zaangalewa]

You obviously have a hard time with English.

No. You do not like to think. That's all.

We invented gods to explain things we didn't understand.

Again: Who is "we"? You?

For example.

Rain gods
Thunder gods
Sun gods
Moon gods
Fertility gods

That's how you classify gods - but that's not how the people in the past thought about Donar for example.

the list is long but as we came to actually know the causes of these things we stopped believing in those gods

Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.
CG Jung

 

[Blues Man]

No. You do not like to think. That's all.



Again: Who is "we"? You?



That's how you classify gods - but that's not how the people in the past thought about Donar for example.



Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.
CG Jung

We as humans throughout our history.

Like I said anthrpology

Definition of ANTHROPOLOGY

the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture; theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of anthropology​

1: the science of human beingsespecially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture

 

[zaangalewa]

We as humans throughout our history.

But you did not invent a god? For example the god atheism? Or a "spiritual" act like to burn three hairs and to dance around on a graveyard as for example Tom Sawyer did do?

Like I said anthrpology

Definition of ANTHROPOLOGY

the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture; theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of anthropology​

1: the science of human beingsespecially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture

Phrase for something what starts with biology and ends with culture. In general is your definition nothing else than what we study in universities and what has to do with human beings. Seems to me you love a kind of esoteric component, because no one is able to know everything about human beings starting from biology, psychology over sociology and history. Too big theme in one direction to know really something about all this themes in a qualified way - and too little on the other side to find the real complexity of life between the biggest universal structures up to the individual degrees of freedom of the spirit of a human mind.

And what for is "anthropology" your answer here? For human beings who don't need a religion? The anthroposophy from Rudolf Steiner is for example seen in France as a kind of dangerous brainwashing [pseudo-]religious sect. And to be honest: I see this the same way.

 

[Blues Man]

But you did not invent a god? For example the god atheism? Or a "spiritual" act like to burn three hairs and to dance around on a graveyard as for example Tom Sawyer did do?



Phrase for something what starts with biology and ends with culture. In general is your definition nothing else than what we study in universities and what has to do with human beings. Seems to me you love a kind of esoteric component, because no one is able to know everything about human beings starting from biology, psychology over sociology and history. Too big theme in one direction to know really something about all this themes in a qualified way - and too little on the other side to find the real complexity of life between the biggest universal structures up to the individual degrees of freedom of the spirit of a human mind.

And what for is "anthropology" your answer here? For human beings who don't need a religion? The anthroposophy from Rudolf Steiner is for example seen in France as a kind of dangerous brainwashing [pseudo-]religious sect. And to be honest: I see this the same way.

You believe in a god today because prehistoric humans invented the concept of gods to explain things they didn't understand and that belief became ingrained in every society.

 

[zaangalewa]

You believe in a god today because prehistoric humans invented the concept of gods to explain things they didn't understand and that belief became ingrained in every society.

Aha. And now you are happy with this explanation ... ah sorry: with this god, which you invented now?

 

[Blues Man]

Aha. And now you are happy with this explanation ... ah sorry: with this god, which you invented now?

I don't worship any gods.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't worship any gods.

Sure. You only explain what you believe what's real. Others from your "we" invented gods - you don't do so - that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right. The only problem: You don't know what you try to speak about when they (whoever they are) use the word "god", because you never studied anything about the anthropology of culture. You refer to things which you don't understand on your own.

Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ... (Gnṓthi seautón ...)
Know yourself ... and the god within you
was once witten over the entrance of the temple of the god Apollon in Delphi

In my own German language the word "know" here has two components: "wissen" und "erkennen". "Wissen" (to know) is a result of the process "erkennen" (and the English word "recognize" for erkennen is also not a good way to understand this word, because it refers to old things which still exist and not to new things (in German it would be "wiedererkennen").

We say "Erkenne" yourself - that's a process which never ends and always again creates new knowledge. The god within you is by the way not always the same god. God is always new. I fear it could be a little senile to think god has always to be an atheist. I would say we Christians are often naive - because we always hope for the best - but we are seldom senile (even if we are senile).

 

[Blues Man]

Sure. You only explain what you believe what's real. Others from your "we" invented gods - you don't do so - that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right. The only problem: You don't know what you try to speak about when they (whoever they are) use the word "god", because you never studied anything about the anthropology of culture. You refer to things which you don't understand on your own.

Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ... (Gnṓthi seautón ...)
Know yourself ... and the god within you
was once witten over the entrance of the temple of the god Apollon in Delphi

In my own German language the word "know" here has two components: "wissen" und "erkennen". "Wissen" (to know) is a result of the process "erkennen" (and the English word "recognize" for erkennen is also not a good way to understand this word, because it refers to old things which still exist and not to new things (in German it would be "wiedererkennen").

We say "Erkenne" yourself - that's a process which never ends and always again creates new knowledge. The god within you is by the way not always the same god. God is always new. I fear it could be a little senile to think god has always to be an atheist. I would say we Christians are often naive - because we always hope for the best - but we are seldom senile (even if we are senile).

I never said I was the only one who is right.

That's 100% your invention

 

[zaangalewa]

I never said I was the only one who is right.

That's 100% your invention

I never said so you are the only one who is right. But obviously you attack all people, who are not atheists = believers in atheism. A great worshipper of atheisms died by the way this days: Steven Weinberg. He said for example: "One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."
Such sentences always sound extreme "wise" or "smart" - but in the end this is not a sentence about natural science - this only the religious dogma of a believer in atheism, who thinks atheism is the hightest step of evolution and all other believers are more primitive. Okay - the universe showed now how senseless it is by killing itself in Mr. Weinberg. Keeps the problem why Mr. Weinberg never stopped to try to find out senseful things about the senseless universe.

 

[Blues Man]

I never said so you are the only one who is right. But obviously you attack all people, who are not atheists = believers in atheism. A great worshipper of atheisms died by the way this days: Steven Weinberg. He said for example: "One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."
Such sentences always sound extreme "wise" or "smart" - but in the end this is not a sentence about natural science - this only the religious dogma of a believer in atheism, who thinks atheism is the hightest step of evolution and all other believers are more primitive. Okay - the universe showed now how senseless it is by killing itself in Mr. Weinberg. Keeps the problem why Mr. Weinberg never stopped to try to find out senseful things about the senseless universe.

You said and I quote

that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right.

 

[zaangalewa]

You said and I quote

that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right.

You degrade yourself to an idiot.