Atheism is a faith.

[Mr Clingford]

Lord Muck oGentry - thanks for that! It was a few years ago that I came across his idea.

I just want to say thanks to everyone for their Salvia advice; as I have a bit of a predisposition to feeling down I want to do some research first before any experiments.

Do you think I could ask my family for some Salvia as a Christmas present?

 

[The Atheist]

Lord Muck oGentry - thanks for that! It was a few years ago that I came across his idea.

I just want to say thanks to everyone for their Salvia advice; as I have a bit of a predisposition to feeling down I want to do some research first before any experiments.

Do you think I could ask my family for some Salvia as a Christmas present?

Christmas is good, just make sure they get salvia divornum otherwise you might get some flavouring for your christmas stuffing, but no high! (As you suspected, sage is a member of the salvia family.)

 

[soarwing]

This might be re-hash, but - - -

Atheism is not a faith. It is not a belief system or a philosophy.

Atheism, simply, is without theism. Therefore, if one does not believe in gods or a god, regardless of whether or not the lack of belief is grounded in evidence, rationality - or lack of it, one is still an atheist.

ALL "agnostics" are either confused atheists or just irrational. If an agnostic claims that there isn't enough evidence to support belief in any god(s), then he is without theism and an atheist.

If an agnostic claims that there isn't the evidence to support theistic belief or the evidence is currently not available, but yet still is a theist of some kind, then his theism is irrational.

Agnosticism is not a "third way" or a happy medium between atheism and theism. You either believe that there is a god or gods or you don't. If you're "not sure" about the matter - whatever the reason - then you're an atheist through and through.

 

[Tricky]

Sorry for being so slow, Mr. C. I’ve been busy tormenting some of your less flexible brethren.

Part of my nature is drawn to the far out, let's take a trip man, but I differ greatly in that I don't think that sleeping around is a great idea and that monotony (er, monogamy) is best. I'm glad I watched Easy Rider once; it is also interesting as a social document.

Yeah, me too. I’ve always been totally monotangamous, though usually not out of choice. Is there such a word as anogamous?

And I’m glad I watched ER because now I know I didn’t miss anything important.

Hey, perhaps one should take it whenever you can get it (oops that's the cult leader in me again).

Typical Brit. I make a hilarious pun and you smile and nod, indicating you got it, but not deigning to laugh. I hate you limey bastards.

I have encountered many Xtians like me because I have sought them out.

I guess that’s why you find them, coupled with the fact that in Europe, they aren’t so fundy in many places so such creatures are more common. But I checked out the Ship. Interesting, but I can’t get into it much yet because most of it is so dry. Give me time.

People do seem to have a nuts idea of heaven - I don't know what it will be like, but of course it won't be dull - alright you might tire of 66 virgins eventually. Anyway, let's say you like walking in mountains with your friends; in heaven there are billions of people you could walk with in many beautiful places and have unlimited fascinating and moving conversations. Of course I have no idea what it will be like but for me the above encapsulates just a little of how great it could be.

Yeah, mate, but were talking about freekin eternity. The universe isn’t unlimited. Like Asimov’s suicidal computer, there has to come a time when you say “enough”.

Good q and I will answer it later as suddenly I am getting keyboard fatigue

LOL. Take a few days off between posts. It works for me.

Careful, soon I'll get you saying 'I wuv you Jeebus' and wanting the Queen to rule over you.

I seriously doubt it.

I also got your Shakespeare joke (was it original as it was very good?).

I wuv you Mr. Clingford.

But yes, it was original, as far as I know. It is a funny thing about “originality”. Two people can have the same thought and it can be original with both of them. Am I the first to make this spoonerism? I don’t know, but I seriously doubt it. There’s no such thing as an original joke either. (See my sig)

Plausible in the sense of not being totally incoherent and sounding like an insane evil bastard, that sort of thing.

While I know what you mean, I would say that definition of “plausible” is schizoid. Even insane, evil bastards can sound plausible. We’ve seen them gather large followings before. Incoherent is different, but even then, logically incoherent is different from incomprehensible. Arggh! Foiled again by definitions!

I have found a weakness. Mwhah ha ha. I love playing with words too.

Then to arms, my linguistic leviathan. Let us draw and crosswords.

I have said some things about this to The Atheist in my previous post.

So I read. I’ll try to address that later. Hopefully not days later, like this post.

No no. I love paradoxes because they make my brain hurt.

At least it doesn’t affect a vital organ.

 

[Tricky]

Hi soarwing, welcome aboard

This might be re-hash, but...

Don't worry. Everything here is a re-hash, but there are always new folks who haven't yet seen it, so it's not wasted.

Atheism is not a faith. It is not a belief system or a philosophy.

It is not a faith. It is (IMO) a philosophy. The philosophy is, "only gods with evidence deserve belief." Very basic, but still a philosophy. (FWIW, all skepticism, whether about god(s) or anything else is a philosophy.)

Atheism, simply, is without theism. Therefore, if one does not believe in gods or a god, regardless of whether or not the lack of belief is grounded in evidence, rationality - or lack of it, one is still an atheist.

Here I split with many atheists. I don't think that lack of belief is enough to classify one as an atheist. If this were true, infants would be atheists. Dogs, amoebas, even rocks would be atheists, because they all lack belief. So for me, an atheist must be someone who has, however briefly, considered the question of the existence of God or gods. Lack of consideration does not make a person (or thing) an atheist. Maybe we need a new word like "non-theist" for things which have not or cannot consider the question of God.

ALL "agnostics" are either confused atheists or just irrational. If an agnostic claims that there isn't enough evidence to support belief in any god(s), then he is without theism and an atheist.

Not necessarily. He can agree that he doesn't have enough evidence, and yet still believe. There are any number of reasons for doing so. Maybe it gives him comfort. In my mind, everybody is an agnostic because the only way to have certain knowledge of God or of the absence of God is to know everything. I don't know anybody, theist or atheist, who claims to know everything, though many will claim to "know" God exists or doesn't exist. Since I'm busy coining phrases, lets call them "false gnostics".

If an agnostic claims that there isn't the evidence to support theistic belief or the evidence is currently not available, but yet still is a theist of some kind, then his theism is irrational.

I agree, but many would question your definition of irrational. To some, rational means "believable to a sane person". In case you haven't figured it out, we spend a lot of time wallowing in semantics here.

Agnosticism is not a "third way" or a happy medium between atheism and theism. You either believe that there is a god or gods or you don't. If you're "not sure" about the matter - whatever the reason - then you're an atheist through and through.

I disagree. One can be "not sure" but still believe. In fact, almost all theists I have ever met are "not sure" about some things.

Again, welcome, and I look forward to your input.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Sorry for being so slow, Mr. C. I’ve been busy tormenting some of your less flexible brethren. Yeah, me too. I’ve always been totally monotangamous, though usually not out of choice. Is there such a word as anogamous?

There is now, but it could mean without a marriage partner (and therefore single) or without the social confines of marriage (whatever you want, whatever you need).

Typical Brit. I make a hilarious pun and you smile and nod, indicating you got it, but not deigning to laugh. I hate you limey bastards.

My sense of humour is so dry that lakes shrivel up from one of my mere minor moments of mindless mirth.

I guess that’s why you find them, coupled with the fact that in Europe, they aren’t so fundy in many places so such creatures are more common. But I checked out the Ship. Interesting, but I can’t get into it much yet because most of it is so dry. Give me time.

We have all the time in the world (Bond on the mind - I liked Casino Royale)

Yeah, mate, but were talking about freekin eternity. The universe isn’t unlimited. Like Asimov’s suicidal computer, there has to come a time when you say “enough”.

As God is outside of time as time came into existence in the creation of this universe, perhaps we will be outside of time too after death as we will be with God. Alternatively when you finally get bored you could ask God to annihilate you. The best of heaven and hell. Also, theoretical physics posits alternative universes with different fundamental laws, perhaps matter and time would be different in them too.

LOL. Take a few days off between posts. It works for me.

Good idea. I think it might be necessary for the retaining of whatever sanity I can cling on to.

At least it doesn’t affect a vital organ.

I find the empty place in my skull quite usefulfor keeping sweets and snacks [vulgar]No, really, when it looks as though I am picking my nose I'm just collecting a candy that I have stashed away for a rainy day[/vulgar].

I agree with almost everything you've said, except that it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. Anybody can do that. Like you, I think any God worthy of my respect would care more about goodness than He would about making sure you say the right words in mass, but where does Christ come into the picture? You are describing a humanist more than a Christian. (Not that that's bad...

Actually I'm not sure what you mean here as I can think of more than one meaning. Would you spell it out for me?

 

[Tricky]

There is now, but it could mean without a marriage partner (and therefore single) or without the social confines of marriage (whatever you want, whatever you need).

Usually monogamous means married or committed to one person and faithful. My meaning of anogamous would be something like "celebate, but not by choice," or as the old joke goes, "for birth control, I use my personality."

Though I did have one more popular friend who used to assert that if you had no intention of getting married, then it wasn't pre-marital sex.

My sense of humour is so dry that lakes shrivel up from one of my mere minor moments of mindless mirth.

We all wonder at your waterless wit which... does something that begins with "w".

As God is outside of time as time came into existence in the creation of this universe, perhaps we will be outside of time too after death as we will be with God.

The whole concept of "outside of time" is pretty iffy too. Does it mean you can go forward and backward? Really, our brains are not geared to truly conceive of anything that does not have a time element, so "outside of time" sounds like either sci-fi or theobabble to me. Describe for me what it means to you and we'll discuss it.

Alternatively when you finally get bored you could ask God to annihilate you. The best of heaven and hell. Also, theoretical physics posits alternative universes with different fundamental laws, perhaps matter and time would be different in them too.

LOL. Yep. Anything goes in heaven. But to me, discussing heaven is like discussing what it is really like in Narnia. Shucks, it can be like anything you imagine. In order to discuss it in any way that can be differentiated from fiction, it must have some clear, unambiguous characteristics.

I find the empty place in my skull quite usefulfor keeping sweets and snacks [vulgar]No, really, when it looks as though I am picking my nose I'm just collecting a candy that I have stashed away for a rainy day[/vulgar].

For some reason, I am reminded of a vulger joke that ends with the punch line, "Pity Princess Margaret wasn't here. We could have saved the Bently."

I agree with almost everything you've said, except that it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. Anybody can do that. Like you, I think any God worthy of my respect would care more about goodness than He would about making sure you say the right words in mass, but where does Christ come into the picture? You are describing a humanist more than a Christian. (Not that that's bad...

Actually I'm not sure what you mean here as I can think of more than one meaning. Would you spell it out for me?

It seems to me that you agree that God wouldn't punish people simply for "not knowing" about Jesus or even for knowing about Jesus, but, because of their God-given free will or the way their God-given reasoning works, failing to believe in Him. Instead, your version of God appears to care about goodness more than filling out the correct forms. (You will correct me please if I am mistaken in appraising your attitude.)

Well, that is exactly what Humanists believe, except the part about God caring. Their feeling is that literally, virtue is its own reward. Certainly I find that to be true. So what does throwing in God, Jesus or heaven add to the equation? In my mind, it only diminishes the value of virtue, because now you are doing it for some reward in the afterlife or to please some entity who will pat you on the head for it.

Ponder that without probing your olfactory cavities.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Usually monogamous means married or committed to one person and faithful. My meaning of anogamous would be something like "celebate, but not by choice," or as the old joke goes, "for birth control, I use my personality."

Though I did have one more popular friend who used to assert that if you had no intention of getting married, then it wasn't pre-marital sex.

Good points, both of them - I like the logic of the second (and wll try and remember both of them). That's the great thing about old jokes, for younger people like me (a whipper-snapper of 34), they're new to me .

We all wonder at your waterless wit which... does something that begins with "w".

At least you didn't say I'm a witless wonder (saving it, hmm).

The whole concept of "outside of time" is pretty iffy too. Does it mean you can go forward and backward? Really, our brains are not geared to truly conceive of anything that does not have a time element, so "outside of time" sounds like either sci-fi or theobabble to me. Describe for me what it means to you and we'll discuss it.
LOL. Yep. Anything goes in heaven. But to me, discussing heaven is like discussing what it is really like in Narnia. Shucks, it can be like anything you imagine. In order to discuss it in any way that can be differentiated from fiction, it must have some clear, unambiguous characteristics.

I agree that talk about time(lessness) does ones head in. But as time-space had a beginning at the Big Bang I think that it can be considered scientific to ponder what was before (what may be after); did the quantum fluctuations that may have led to the BB 'exist' in a timeless state (as space-time as we know it didn't exist)? Seems reasonably legitimate, not too babbly, whether sci-fi or theo.

For some reason, I am reminded of a vulger joke that ends with the punch line, "Pity Princess Margaret wasn't here. We could have saved the Bently."

You will have to tell me (and I may not to ask for your head if it insults the royals - insulting God is one thing, but us Englishmen have to draw the line somewhere).

It seems to me that you agree that God wouldn't punish people simply for "not knowing" about Jesus or even for knowing about Jesus, but, because of their God-given free will or the way their God-given reasoning works, failing to believe in Him. Instead, your version of God appears to care about goodness more than filling out the correct forms. (You will correct me please if I am mistaken in appraising your attitude.)

That's about it - the God in the OT who says the stench of your hypocritical sacrifices offends me as you let the poor starve and injustice reign.

Well, that is exactly what Humanists believe, except the part about God caring. Their feeling is that literally, virtue is its own reward. Certainly I find that to be true. So what does throwing in God, Jesus or heaven add to the equation? In my mind, it only diminishes the value of virtue, because now you are doing it for some reward in the afterlife or to please some entity who will pat you on the head for it.

"Except the part about God" or "the part about God caring"?

Why be good? Some religious people, it seems, are good purely because of fear of hell or hope of rewards/pats on the head. I don't think it is meant to be like that, though. For me rewards in heaven are too abstract (perhaps a failing of mine). I see it more along these lines; you live in relationships with family and friends and as well as the benefit of 'me scratching your back etc' sometimes you just simply want to do good things for others because you want to (you love them). I see it as more like that. Spending time in the company of a loving person can rub off on one and change one if you spend long enough in their company. Now believers of many religions would say that God is the most loving, amazing and wonderful of all things and that 'getting to know her/him/it' in some way can transform and fulfill a person's life.

Ponder that without probing your olfactory cavities.

I love the sound of words - do you find that phrases just please you? "probing your olfactory cavities" makes my mouth move as it's a phrase that you can get your facial muscles around.

PS Would you do me a favour and look here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63238&page=3 and get as far as my reply to The Atheist? I seem to have upset RandFan - he has stopped talking to me - and although he says he has pointed out how to me I still don't get it.

 

[The Atheist]

But I checked out the Ship. Interesting, but I can’t get into it much yet because most of it is so dry. Give me time.

Mate, they LOVE me!

 

[Tricky]

Mate, they LOVE me!

Another good example of why it is so dull there.

 

[Tricky]

Good points, both of them - I like the logic of the second (and wll try and remember both of them). That's the great thing about old jokes, for younger people like me (a whipper-snapper of 34), they're new to me .

Yeah, you callow youths are good for telling old jokes. Senile people are good too because you can tell them the same joke every day.

I agree that talk about time(lessness) does ones head in. But as time-space had a beginning at the Big Bang I think that it can be considered scientific to ponder what was before (what may be after); did the quantum fluctuations that may have led to the BB 'exist' in a timeless state (as space-time as we know it didn't exist)? Seems reasonably legitimate, not too babbly, whether sci-fi or theo.

The phrase "before time" has no meaning. It is not only unknown, it is, by most definitions, unknowable. So any attempt to discuss what timelessness is "like" is doomed to babbleosity.

There are some old discussions here with a character called Iacchus which go into this in some depth. I can try to dig them out if you are interested, but I recall your earlier comment about having too much to read already.

"Except the part about God" or "the part about God caring"?

Either, really. The absence of God or the absence of a God who cares would look about the same to us mere mortals.

Why be good? Some religious people, it seems, are good purely because of fear of hell or hope of rewards/pats on the head. I don't think it is meant to be like that, though. For me rewards in heaven are too abstract (perhaps a failing of mine).

I see it as one of your strengths.

I see it more along these lines; you live in relationships with family and friends and as well as the benefit of 'me scratching your back etc' sometimes you just simply want to do good things for others because you want to (you love them). I see it as more like that. Spending time in the company of a loving person can rub off on one and change one if you spend long enough in their company.

This is my position perzackly.

Now believers of many religions would say that God is the most loving, amazing and wonderful of all things and that 'getting to know her/him/it' in some way can transform and fulfill a person's life.

Yes I know. Kurios Kathy says things like this all the time, and I agree that a religious experience can change your life. I just believe that religious experiences are human experiences, not divine. An atheist or a Zoroastran can have a similar experience but with different stimuli. I still see no need for God's existence to enter this equation.

I I love the sound of words - do you find that phrases just please you? "probing your olfactory cavities" makes my mouth move as it's a phrase that you can get your facial muscles around.

Keep your facial muscles away from my olfactory cavities sir. We barely know each other.

PS Would you do me a favour and look here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63238&page=3 and get as far as my reply to The Atheist? I seem to have upset RandFan - he has stopped talking to me - and although he says he has pointed out how to me I still don't get it.

I will have a look. I'm sorry if you and RandFan have hit it off poorly. I did the same thing with him when we first met because we differ on so many things political, but we eventually came to respect each other greatly. You might try PM-ing him and explaining this to him. He is really a great guy, if a bit self-conscious and irratable because of the length of his fuse.

 

[The Atheist]

You will have to tell me (and I may not to ask for your head if it insults the royals - insulting God is one thing, but us Englishmen have to draw the line somewhere).

Oh boy, if you think I'm hard on christians, you'd never want to hear me comment on that bunch of [bloody foreigner] in-bred, whining, worthless, puritanical hypocrites who deign to let us mere mortals refer to them as "majesty". GRRRRRRRRRR. She'd have a horrible anus after she had my size 10 workboots removed.

Anyway, another time....

Back to the god-bloke.

Your heaven's an amazing place, eh? You've shown me that your god is the real one, you and your buddies at the SOF. He is the true god of love, sitting and waiting in heaven for humans to join him. In heaven, I will retain my essential "me-ness" and be happily together with my loved ones.

Being a heaven, I think I'm pretty safe in suggesting that there will be no violence, hatred, bigotry or any of man's sins.

Human experience would tend to show that those particular traits are pretty well established in humans. Where do those traits go? To conform to what an actual heaven would be, I suggest that the one you seek is going to require removal of free will. That being the case, it isn't going to be much of a heaven.

How do you personally rationalise such issues?

 

[The Atheist]

Another good example of why it is so dull there.

Good point!

 

[Tricky]

Your heaven's an amazing place, eh? You've shown me that your god is the real one, you and your buddies at the SOF. He is the true god of love, sitting and waiting in heaven for humans to join him. In heaven, I will retain my essential "me-ness" and be happily together with my loved ones.

Being a heaven, I think I'm pretty safe in suggesting that there will be no violence, hatred, bigotry or any of man's sins.

Human experience would tend to show that those particular traits are pretty well established in humans. Where do those traits go? To conform to what an actual heaven would be, I suggest that the one you seek is going to require removal of free will. That being the case, it isn't going to be much of a heaven.

How do you personally rationalise such issues?

To be fair, TA, I don't think Mr. C. has really given (at least not here) specifics of what heaven is like. He has repeatedly said that he can't get his head around the nature of it. Perhaps he thinks violence, hatred, bigotry etc. are simply not concepts that have any meaning in heaven. As far as I can tell, all he is saying is a sort of generic, "heaven is good". As descriptions go, it is pretty worthless, but it has the advantage of not being subject to dissection by nitpicky atheists. But you have more experience with him than I, so maybe there are things I've missed.

 

[The Atheist]

... As far as I can tell, all he is saying is a sort of generic, "heaven is good". As descriptions go, it is pretty worthless, but it has the advantage of not being subject to dissection by nitpicky atheists...

Not trying to be nit-picky so much - I leave that for complete idiots like insane Canucks - but it seems that a version of heaven which is universally "good" would be as bad as one which is universally "bad". If, during the short speck of our lives, we have lived according to Jesus' "first stone" rule, then we could claim some experience of what it might be like, but given human propensity for those sins, nobody is without them. Where do they go? They are as much a part of us as any other part. If heaven gets watered down to this extent, then it isn't heaven, it's hell.

 

[Tricky]

Not trying to be nit-picky so much - I leave that for complete idiots like insane Canucks - but it seems that a version of heaven which is universally "good" would be as bad as one which is universally "bad". If, during the short speck of our lives, we have lived according to Jesus' "first stone" rule, then we could claim some experience of what it might be like, but given human propensity for those sins, nobody is without them. Where do they go? They are as much a part of us as any other part. If heaven gets watered down to this extent, then it isn't heaven, it's hell.

Amen, Brother!

My (similar) contention is that if I somehow made it to such a heaven, it wouldn't be "me", because what I am is my experiences, good and bad, my morality, my way of dealing with adversity (as well as versity). This treacle dream of eternal goodness holds no allure for me.

 

[CapelDodger]

I know that Anglicans have got very liberal in recent years, but Rowan's Benedictine piece seems to indicate that his liberality has limits. Maybe he's just trying to appease the RCC. Pity if he is.

Poor Rowan is constrained enough in what he says by the Anglican "Community" which he feels (I think) obliged to keep together. Life after schism would be so much easier for him but that's not Rowan's way. Nice enough chap from what I know of him, erudite, charming, he's good people. Dreadfully misguided, of course, but there it is. Does he listen to the likes of us? Well yes, actually, but he's not persuaded. I'm not entirely persuaded that Rowan's entirely persuaded of anything, not in the sense that we'd use the term. He's certainly committed to decency and charity and self-assumed obligations, things which he never needed persuading of.

 

[CapelDodger]

Amen, Brother!

My (similar) contention is that if I somehow made it to such a heaven, it wouldn't be "me", because what I am is my experiences, good and bad, my morality, my way of dealing with adversity (as well as versity). This treacle dream of eternal goodness holds no allure for me.

I can see the allure of the magic free sweetshop to children, heck, I was a child once. As I grew up the whole growing-up thing became the reason for the ride. How much growing up goes on in this sugary afterlife? If there's a sweet tastier than baklava, how long's that going to take to get old?

How often would we get to say "Told you so!" without the "Well, Duh!"? Not often, I think. Down here in reality is where we get those opportunities. And what is life without them?

 

[CapelDodger]

To be fair, TA, I don't think Mr. C. has really given (at least not here) specifics of what heaven is like. He has repeatedly said that he can't get his head around the nature of it. Perhaps he thinks violence, hatred, bigotry etc. are simply not concepts that have any meaning in heaven. As far as I can tell, all he is saying is a sort of generic, "heaven is good". As descriptions go, it is pretty worthless, but it has the advantage of not being subject to dissection by nitpicky atheists. But you have more experience with him than I, so maybe there are things I've missed.

For what it's worth, I think Mr. Clingford is good people, he has a strong sense of what's decent behaviour. I suspect he'd be such a person without ever hearing about religion, other things being equal.

Mr. Clingford, for entirely other reasons I won't guess at, likes the idea of a higher plane conforming to his own innate morality. It only interacts at this self-conscious, subjective level but that's where we all live, after all. If self-consciousness is important to us and to all the people we interact with it must be important in a wider sense, no? (No. All the self-consciousness that's ever been observed occurred within a bone surround.) This higher plane is conceptual, a work in progress with a lot less work done than by science already, hence the lack of precision.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh boy, if you think I'm hard on christians, you'd never want to hear me comment on that bunch of [bloody foreigner] in-bred, whining, worthless, puritanical hypocrites who deign to let us mere mortals refer to them as "majesty". GRRRRRRRRRR. She'd have a horrible anus after she had my size 10 workboots removed.

You can imagine how well Batty Prince Charlie goes down in these parts. Prince of Wales my arse.