Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piscivore]

I think that Pisci is just saying "god" exists in the same way that "morality" or "justice" exist... humans think of it as "out there"-- but it is subjective.

Almost. But not just that. It is subjective, but it is also universal. Every single culture that we know of at some point produced a god. Every one. Many of them independantly, and most of them several examples.

People speak of the will of god. No one speaks of the "will of justice", do they?We can recognise that the "will of god" is the will of the people who serve it, speak for it, but how is this different from the men who speak for the United States?

We have kids dying in Iraq right now because they think it is serving "America". How is this different from the kids that died in the Crusades because they believed it would serve God?

 

[articulett]

Not much difference... but they are both dying for "ideals" not concrete "things". They are causing suffering for some supposed higher goal or happiness or whatever. Yes, people have invented gods... and demons and pixies and souls and hobgoblins and muses and boogeymen... --we anthropomorphize things in an attempt to understand them and control them. We visualize these feel as separate entities... but they are all products of the mind. Mythological figures and fuzzy ideals move and inspire people... but not because they actually exist-- but because people have made them "uber human" in character... "higher than human knowledge"-- "out there".

When people die for a "cause" or a "god" it's always something they perceive of as outside themselves--but it's value or "essence" or meaning is clearly a product of the brain-- a perception. Because there is no "there" out there. It's like moths being drawn to a light... they perceive it as a "light" to go towards... but it's like those flashes of light you get when you rub your eyes or bumpyour occipital lobe-- a product of the brain. Or do you think it's more than that?--when you fight for "America" it's a "thing out there... but not the land mass or particular people-- I think people have a hard time saying the concrete things they are fighting even though the suffering and cost generated is concrete. The same for gods people believe in. Their buildings are concrete--the feelings are real-- but there is no "entity" "out there.

 

[Piscivore]

Not much difference... but they are both dying for "ideals" not concrete "things".

I don't see a requirement that a god be something concrete.

They are causing suffering for some supposed higher goal or happiness or whatever. Yes, people have invented gods... and demons and pixies and souls and hobgoblins and muses and boogeymen... --we anthropomorphize things in an attempt to understand them and control them. We visualize these feel as separate entities... but they are all products of the mind.

Agreed. Just like "America" or "China" or even "Piscivore" and "Articulett".

Mythological figures and fuzzy ideals move and inspire people... but not because they actually exist--

How do they move and inspire people if they don't exist? You're making the mistake here of assuming that everything that exists must be concrete. We know this isn't true. Dying for democracy leaves you just as dead as dying for a sack of gold.

but because people have made them "uber human" in character... "higher than human knowledge"-- "out there".

I did say that god was created by people, was a product of human culture.

When people die for a "cause" or a "god" it's always something they perceive of as outside themselves--but it's value or "essence" or meaning is clearly a product of the brain-- a perception.

Agreed. So is "America", but you don't doubt that's "real", do you?

Because there is no "there" out there.

That's sounding a bit like solipsism. Is that what you meant?

It's like moths being drawn to a light... they perceive it as a "light" to go towards... but it's like those flashes of light you get when you rub your eyes or bump your occipital lobe-- a product of the brain.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that every thought every human has ever had about any god has been an hallucination?

Or do you think it's more than that?--when you fight for "America" it's a "thing out there... but not the land mass or particular people

Right, so where is it? Where is the "concrete America"?

What about a corporation? What, where is Dow Chemical? Is it just the factories, warehouses and offices? Is it the employees, or the stockholders, or the board of directors? The bylaws, the shares of stock, the tanker trucks full of oozes and goo? When the CEO screws his wife, is it Dow Chemical that penetrates her?

-- I think people have a hard time saying the concrete things they are fighting even though the suffering and cost generated is concrete.

Maybe because the entites for which they fight are not all concrete? Did our grandfathers kill millions of people because they despised them each personally, or because they were "Japanese"?

The same for gods people believe in. Their buildings are concrete--the feelings are real-- but there is no "entity" "out there.

But it just isn't in any one person's head, either. I can go up to any random person in the mall and ask them about "god" and they are going to have some idea what I'm talking about. It won't be the same as my idea, but if we come from similar backgrounds and upbringing it will be not to different either.

Now, if I go up to someone and start talking to them about Felbas Rungadoon, they aren't going to have any idea, because I just made him up just now. They won't know what he is, what he means to me, or how many heads he has. Even If I begin to care about Felbas, even if I go totally loopy and devote my life to him, and try to build a monument to him, he's not going to live anywhere else but my own head. But if I share him, make a story about him, get someone to repeat the stories- Felbas grows. Maybe if people like him, there will be meetings, a convention, a cosplay, a fanbase.

Is Spock "real"? He exists outside of the skin of Leonard Nimoy, the pen of Gene Roddenberry, doesn't he? People devote resources to him, to dress like him, to own things with his image, to share him with other people.

Just because we cannot point to some concrete "thing" and say "THAT is Spock" doesn't mean Spock does not exist. Does it?

 

[articulett]

Spock is a character... the character exists. God is like "demons" or "thetans" or angels--an abstraction that people personify. A character, that has no "look" or matter or agreed upon qualities-- just "characteristics. But people who believe in these things believe that this things affect the external universe... that they can pray to them or communicate telephathically or that they can "know" them. These are the equivalent of "Santa"-- but even more nebulous because the people who believe in them don't believe they are make-believer or "characters" or mythological figures.

God becomes no more "real" than demons by this definition. Belief in demons cause exorcisms to occur... but not actual demons. Belief in god causes churches to be built--but that doesn't mean gods are any more real than demons. Or any more or less a human concept than "good" and "evil" and "justice". In fact, they are anthropomorphic expressions of these kinds of ideals as far as I can tell. Just like "death" is anthropomorphized as a dark dude with a sickle. Would you say your god is more or less than the character we know as death? Sure, death is real. It's not a conscious entity. Is your definition of god on par with death with this case? We see proof that death happens and affects our physical world. In the same way we see churches. We don't really believe that a "character is behind it". I feel the same way about churches. But believers do not. In their head god is more real than "Death".

 

[Piscivore]

Spock is a character... the character exists.

Agreed.

God is like "demons" or "thetans" or angels--an abstraction that people personify.

No it isn't. God to some people is a homeless Jewish carpenter. To some it is a beautiful blue-skinned manchild. To others, a fat naked guy with an elephant head. To still others, a old man in white robes with a long beard. "God" is no more an abstraction to most people than Spock.

A character, that has no "look" or matter or agreed upon qualities--

Absolutely not true. The agreed on qualities may vary from culture to culture, but they are there. You put a skinny guy with scraggly hair and beard in a robe and sandals on the screen You'll get "Jesus" from most Westerners. You put a young, beautiful boy with blue skin and a flute in front of an Indian and he'll recognise Krishna. Show someone a brown man in a loincloth and the head of an eagle, even if they don't know the name "Horus" they are going to recognise a god.

just "characteristics.

What is the difference between a characteristic and a quality?

But people who believe in these things believe that this things affect the external universe...

They do. Chartres. Giza. Nazca. Chichen Itza. Jonestown.

that they can pray to them or communicate telephathically or that they can "know" them.

They do pray to them. They do "know" them. Better than they think they do, because they help create them.Why is it that gods always agree so well with the prejudices of thier "followers"?

These are the equivalent of "Santa"-- but even more nebulous because the people who believe in them don't believe they are make-believer or "characters" or mythological figures.

There's nothing nebulous about it. The only reason Santa isn't a god is because we who have created him decided he isn't. Yet we still give gifts in his name, still emulate his behaviour, perpetuate his values, dress up like him for a few weeks each year.

There is nothing nebulous about "America" or "Dow Chemical" is there? Exactly the same kind and amount of evidence is out there for "god", correctly defined, as either of those two entities.

God becomes no more "real" than demons by this definition. Belief in demons cause exorcisms to occur... but not actual demons.

That depends on what you mean by "actual demons". It's a problem of definitions, and I think we've been using the wrong one for "god".

Belief in god causes churches to be built--but that doesn't mean gods are any more real than demons.

See, I don't know what you mean by "demon". There isn't a church for demons where I am. There is no local demonologist I can go visit tomorrow, I don't suspect any of my neighbors are going to have any particularly considered thoughts about them. I doubt any of them know the name of a demon, or credit them with any influence in their lives, or try to do thing they think that demons want them to do. They don't seek guidance from them, don't hold ceremonies in their honor, don't colour eggs and give children candy in the name of any demons.

They do all this for god. So no, there is no comparison for "god" and "demons".

Or any more or less a human concept than "good" and "evil" and "justice".

Are you saying "good" and "evil" and "justice" don't exist?

In fact, they are anthropomorphic expressions of these kinds of ideals as far as I can tell.

I don't hold any anthropomorphic images of "good" or "evil", and the only thing close for "justice" is that statue in fromt of courthouses. But people do not generally credit the statue as dispensing justice, any more than they credit the tall green bird in New York Harbour with granting liberty.

They do, however, credit god. And they dispense it in his name.

Just like "death" is anthropomorphized as a dark dude with a sickle.

Interestingly, my aunt saw that man in a dream right after my cousin died, only he was without his customary farm implement.

But that's not evidence. Do people build temples to that creature? Do they have rituals to appease that specific "dark dude"? Do they act in a manner they hope will effect his will?

Would you say your god is more or less than the character we know as death?

Much, much more real, as I hope I've shown.

Sure, death is real. It's not a conscious entity.

Agreed. Is "America"? Does "America" have a will? Does "Dow Chemical"?

Is your definition of god on par with death with this case?

No.

We see proof that death happens and affects our physical world.
In the same way we see churches.

No, not at all the same. A man alone in the desert long enough will die. Alone, and without any help or need for anyone or anything else but the environment. A man alone in the desert will not become a church.

We don't really believe that a "character is behind it". I feel the same way about churches.

Then why did they build it? They just wanted to go make a building for no other reason than to go hang out in it for an hour or two a week and a few special days a year? If that's all, why not a bar?

But believers do not. In their head god is more real than "Death".

That's faulty generalisation- you cannot say every believer thinks this way. In fact, for some of them, death is god, or one of them.

Regardless, my understanding of 'god" is not contingent on what "believers" understand, anymore than my understanding of psychology is contingent on what Freud or L. Ron Hubbard understood.

 

[articulett]

To me their gods are no more real than the demons said to possess people or the witches burned at stakes. They are no more real than "skeptic bad vibes" that cause this stuff to be "unproven". Although gods are a much more common belief... they have become increasingly "fuzzy" over the eons... as they are contradicted by facts. I would say that the voices people hear and the buildings they build and the entities they pray to--don't exist... not any of them. Not Xenu-- not Allah --not Jesus --not the holy "spirit' --not god.

The concept exists... but that is in the human mind... there is no matter or physical characteristic of a god that can be measured... so, he is by definition, immeasurable-- and immeasurable things are the same as imaginary things.

I've heard Gayak and others present this concept of god as god-- but it's more like a metagod... a minimal definition of something a god might be... I'd say it's more akin to the character of death than to "America" per your description. That makes it a anthropomorphized metaphor... like mother nature and Jack Frost. I don't care that lots of people believe in things called gods... that doesn't make the things that they believe in more real or valid than "mother nature" to me. And I think they are delusional if they believe it's more or "more real" than that.

And when I think of a brown guy in a loin cloth I think of Mowgli

 

[Piscivore]

To me their gods are no more real than the demons said to possess people or the witches burned at stakes. They are no more real than "skeptic bad vibes" that cause this stuff to be "unproven". Although gods are a much more common belief... they have become increasingly "fuzzy" over the eons... as they are contradicted by facts. I would say that the voices people here and the buildings they build and the entities they pray to--don't exist... not any of them. Not Xenu-- not Allah --not Jesus --not the holy "spirit' --not god.

"the buildings they build... --don't exist... not any of them. "
You surely didn't mean that?

You are still hung up on a definition of god I'm not using. It's like I'm trying to explain behaviourism and you keep asking me how that affects the Id.

there is no matter or physical characteristic of a god that can be measured...

Well, again, I have to ask the question are tangible, material things the only things that are "real"?

so, he is by definition, immeasurable--

Not by my definition. I've never said that.

and immeasurable things are the same as imaginary things.

How long is love? What does America weigh? how much light does Dow Chemical reflect?

Or are those things "Imaginary"?

I've heard Gayak and others present this concept of god as god-- but it's more like a metagod... a minimal definition of something a god might be...

You are misunderstanding me. The gods I'm talking about are not abstract, nebulous, or "meta" anything. Nor are they minimal, they are specific, and often complex.

I'd say it's more akin to the character of death than to "America" per your description.

Considering that's I've explicitly said I don't mean anything like some cheap anthropomorphized metaphor, and I've also explicitly said that "god" is almost exacly the same sort of entity as "America" I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion.

That makes it a anthropomorphized metaphor...

No, nothing like. There in nothing whatsoever metaphorical about the god I'm talking about. It does not stand for or represent anything but itself.

like mother nature and Jack Frost.

These are not gods, and they are not anything like the gods I'm talking about.

I don't care that lots of people believe in things called gods... that doesn't make the things that they believe in more real or valid than "mother nature" to me. And I think they are delusional if they believe it's more or "more real" than that.

Does Dow Chemical, or AT&T fit into that assesment as well? Are the people that believe in America, or China delusional?

And when I think of a brown guy in a loin cloth I think of Mowgli

Even with the head of an eagle?

 

[articulett]

I meant their the entities they build the building for don't exist any more than the gods they sacrificed virgins into Volcanoes for.

People have done all sorts of sacrifice, built buildings and, honored mother nature and assorted gods... via pyramids and such... the gods you are describing ARE the same... they are just more nebulously defined and keep changing roles... it's sort of this thing that people claim to believe in so they can feel like one of the humble, good, faithful people. But they will offer forth no qualities for this god that distinguish him from other invisible entities and personification of concepts that people have believed in or claimed to believe in over the years. To me, it's like saying "the universe is my god"-- Kids leave money under their pillow for a tooth fairy... they believe in that-- they are good because Santa "knows". You seem to try to be making god sound like more than that because more people claim to believe in a god... but that doesn't make any of the gods they believe in real.

I think what you are describing in your head is more useful of a definition or a concept than a real definition. It really is like describing nature as "mother nature"--and then hanging the qualities or vision you want on to that "character". I would say such a god "exists" only in the way that "mother nature" or "GAIA" exists. Just because more people have more varieties and definition and attributes to things that they or we call "gods" and/or pretend that it is a singular "outside" entity they believe in-- doesn't make "god" any more real or that definition any more useful or explanatory than for me to say I believe in "mother nature" or the fates came and took him to death. It's an anthropomorphized concept... America has qualities that you can pin down... measure... define-- not so much gods. To you your definition might not be like demons or they might be more "real" than demons... or more "influential" (I suggest many people may get morals from fear of demons and hell as well as gods)-- But I still can't distinguish the god you are describing from delusions of gods past and present.

You don't "believe in" America. And when you fight for "America"; it's an ideal you are fighting for. Companies are material things that can be measured and described. Gods have only fuzzy, fleeting, disappearing definitions in order so no-one can pin them down and prove they do not exist. But to me... and I imagine to Piggy... gods exist no more than demons... no more than Xenu or thetans or ghosts or angels or "Mother Nature". They exist only in the imagination of the believer even as the believer builds monuments or practices exorcisms or pays lots of money to get "cleared". To me you sound like you are trying to play a semantic game to make "god" a more meaningful less dismiss worthy phrase. But I can't tell "god" from "Allah" or "Zeus" the way you describe him. If they are the same... than they are all "characters" like Santa.

If someone can make a claim that "gods" are more real than "demons" (however defined) I'd like to see the case. For now, I put gods in the same category as Demons and Mother Nature and Jesus and Mithras. I don't need to disprove beings that have not been shown to exist in reality. I just don't believe. Gods are the same as Leprechauns as far as being "real" in any way. People who believe in invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness that exist absent a material brain are all delusional per my assessment. There is no evidence to suggest this can happen. I'd like a coherent definition or piece of evidence, but it just sounds like words to take "god" out of all other categories, but not make him fit in any category of things known to exist.

Sure, people do things because they thinK god is real... but people traveled the globe thinking the earth was flat. I find no reason to believe in either even as I understand why others do. Your analogies don't follow. We are talking about visible entities that are conscious and based in matter versus invisible entities that are purported to be conscious--but show no evidence of existing at all. I think you are saying that when you hear people say they believe in god--you give that more "weight" than demon belief and such. But that doesn't make "god" more real.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think that an atheist who is vocal about their atheism inspires a defensive reaction in believers... it forces them to define exactly what they believe and why... faith encourages you not to think about this... it also forces them to consider rather their beliefs may be as delusional as Scientology or Islam or reincarnation or whatever other beliefs they do not share. If one can be true... then they are all equally likely as a starting point; we can't call examine every possible belief to see what "feels" right or gives us "signs". And if ONE is true, that still makes the vast majority of people throughout history and currently alive-- wrong... deluded. And yet each believer is sure it cannot be them.

So instead of facing that conundrum, they demonize the atheist. They do anything and everything to avoid facing the fact that they do not have a logically consistent belief system--just a need to believe. They have nothing more... they may be as delusional as a schizophrenic: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108989

It must be a good feeling knowing that one has the truth and the vast majority of humanity, past and present have psychological impairments.

 

[hammegk]

It must be a good feeling knowing that one has the truth and the vast majority of humanity, past and present have psychological impairments.

I think the answer you seek regarding her mindset is discussed here.

www apa org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

[Nick227]

Would that mean that a non-dualist does not have an interpretation of reality, but is aware of actual reality? Could a non-dualist describe this actual reality?

Non-duality is simply how things are without the experience of there being a limited self present. Nothing is sensorily any different.

Well, not exactly. I can agree that it is a philosophy without agreeing that it is a useful philosophy.

Can you give us an example by posting something here that is not based on an interpretation of the "I" that is posting it? I'm not sure what that would look like. In fact, I'm really struggling to see any advantage to non-dualism. It seems useless for communication, since there is no "I" and no "you". How do two brains exchange information?

I consider non-dualism personally to be the most useful philosophy there is. If you follow non-dualism then all philosophy is itself negated, leaving you with time to do things which are a lot more useful than philosophising.

I made the comment previously about being oppressed by your own mind, and to me your question asks about this. In trying to "be correct" people constantly adapt their behaviour and communication according to what they believe. Non-dualism does away with all this. Understanding that there are no maps, that there is anyway nothing you can possibly do to move towards or escape from yourself, you are free! Now, if you try to live according to non-dualism as a philosophy - pretty soon you're going to drive yourself crazy! You get to see - how much am I prepared to be oppressed by my own beliefs, my own conditioning.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick you said: "The 'ground of being' doesn't exist either."

But you assume a "baseline reality" exists--and that you experience it as a sort of oneness with the universe, right?

Well, yes and no. I mean nothing looks any different. Nothing is sensorily at all changed.

I think they are both sort of conceptual and subjective. There's objective reality... the one we each have subjective experiences of...we all interpret what is going on for our "organism". I'd say that subjective experience is both our "ground of being" and our "baseline reality". It's the "I", isn't it?

If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about or if it's useful or what it means. I'm presuming you have strong right brain experiences as described by the woman with the stroke. What she spoke of describes my own feeling of "being at one in the universe"... my body not having boundaries. (I hope I wasn't having a stroke...but it appears this has to do with a blending or failure of communication across the corpus colossum... it's been studied in split brain patients and people experiencing various sorts of hallucinations as well.

You seem to believe there is a "collective consciousness" that we "channel" so-to-speak, and that that is god, right? And so we (or "I") is just a "molecule" of this god or "life force" or something like that--right? Can it be falsified? Or is this on par with all invisible immeasurable gods, entities, and so forth?

If this cosmic consciousness is indistinguishable from a delusion, why shouldn't we treat it as such-- why it more likely than a matrix scenario or something?

I don't think I've mentioned many of the concepts you're writing about above. I don't personally believe in God, and channelling, collective unconscious, life force, whatever aren't much to do with non-dualism imo.

In non-duality nothing is different. It's just that there's no longer the experience of there being a limited observer present. That's all.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick, did you watch the Tedtalks from the I Am Soul thread? I would think that you would related to some of Jill's experiences. I thought it was moving.

No, I think I missed that.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let us cultivate our garden.

 

[Nick227]

So instead of facing that conundrum, they demonize the atheist. They do anything and everything to avoid facing the fact that they do not have a logically consistent belief system--just a need to believe.

I think atheists want to be demonised. It's their hidden agenda. This whole drama with atheists and theists is just a giant "act out." They need each other.

Nick

 

[Tricky]

Non-duality is simply how things are without the experience of there being a limited self present. Nothing is sensorily any different.

I don't see how this is any different from what most people call objective reality. It is reality apart from any subjective point of view. The only difference is that it recognizes that an individual is incapable of knowing perfect objective reality. I don't see how non-dualism improves on that.

I made the comment previously about being oppressed by your own mind, and to me your question asks about this. In trying to "be correct" people constantly adapt their behaviour and communication according to what they believe. Non-dualism does away with all this.

I cannot see how. How can you have behavior that is based on anything other than personal beliefs, morality and experiences? Can you give me an example of one such behavior? Or are you saying that non-dualism does away with behavior too?

Understanding that there are no maps, that there is anyway nothing you can possibly do to move towards or escape from yourself, you are free!

This is, as far as I can tell, a meaningless statement. What are you free from? Beliefs? Individuality? Brushing your teeth? Have you been freed from your mind?

Now, if you try to live according to non-dualism as a philosophy - pretty soon you're going to drive yourself crazy! You get to see - how much am I prepared to be oppressed by my own beliefs, my own conditioning.

Then it occurs to me that as a philosophy, non-dualism is useless, since you can't live by it and maintain your sanity. But of course, most of us recognize that what we believe is the product of our environment and experience, and probably a healthy dose of genetic predisposition. By using objectivity, seeing yourself as another might see you, then you recognize these things. If you are aware of them, then you can deal with them better than if your aren't (although still not perfectly).

So it seems that non-dualism, as a philosophy, is like being "super-objective", in that it would look at things as if one could observe it from every possible perspective. But then it makes, what I consider to be a mistake, of denying the self, which is one of the most obvious characteristics of humanity.

You can only deny the existence of "self" until you get hungry.

 

[Apathia]

Non-duality is simply how things are without the experience of there being a limited self present. Nothing is sensorily any different.

I consider non-dualism personally to be the most useful philosophy there is. If you follow non-dualism then all philosophy is itself negated, leaving you with time to do things which are a lot more useful than philosophising.

I made the comment previously about being oppressed by your own mind, and to me your question asks about this. In trying to "be correct" people constantly adapt their behaviour and communication according to what they believe. Non-dualism does away with all this. Understanding that there are no maps, that there is anyway nothing you can possibly do to move towards or escape from yourself, you are free! Now, if you try to live according to non-dualism as a philosophy - pretty soon you're going to drive yourself crazy!You get to see - how much am I prepared to be oppressed by my own beliefs, my own conditioning.

Nick

Nick,

I'm glad you made that qualifier (What I bolded.)
The non-dual perspective is very important in my own personal philosophy.
But philosophy in my non-dual context isn't about Metaphysics and Ontology, but my way of living and relating. Moments of stark apprehension of my seamless integration with my environment and others is very instructive to my attitudes, but I don't take those experiences as delivering up the world as it really is, as opposed to the illusory world of perceiving individual objects.
It's just as real and just as unreal as the ordinary state of consciousness.

You and I are a seamless whole, but we are also seperate individuals. Wisdom celebrates seeing the unity, but it also requires personal boundaries.
The boundaries aren't to be taken too seriously, and the unity is not to be taken too seriously. When they don't negate each other, they are the ground of compassion. With both perspectives, one grows out of the fotress/hoarding type ego to a fluid, open, integral, and compassionate self.

Yes, you can experience a smadhi of negation of your person, but your blessed body will not let you remain in this negative. Moving beyond this illusion of absolute emptiness to the fullness of integration is what Zen calls "Satori."

Many here are reading you as saying that you can experience reality as it really, really is in a Metaphysical and Ontological sense. If you are, that's an obstacle on your path. Doing your taxes is just as really, really.

Celebrate the Non-Dual as it helps you live in Integration and Openess.

The first time my plastic ego fortess collasped and I found openess and oneness, I was frightened. It looked a bleak and threatening negation of my being. So I tried to avoid having that awful experience again.
The next time it came around, it felt like soul had been removed from me, and I was just an impersonal machine. But I didn't shake it off but examined it.
In time seeing non-duality ceased to be a threat, and being integral to reality and others became for me something to affirm.

 

[Apathia]

I think atheists want to be demonised. It's their hidden agenda. This whole drama with atheists and theists is just a giant "act out." They need each other.

Nick

I want my very own Daemon!

 

[Limbo]

"Daemon"? Like Socrates had?

 

[dglas]

I don't really see the point in being an atheist if you end up spending so much time thinking about God.

Nick

I don't really see the point in being a non-dualist if you end up spending so much time thinking about dualism.