Topic awaiting preservation: Religeon freedom to choose who you worship

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/24/uk.devilworship/index.html

Hehe...thanks tom.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

That's funny, because Satanists don't worship the devil.

Why should it matter what religious background you are from anyways? I mean does your neighbor need to know that you go to church every Sunday? No. So why should it matter in the military? Oh well.

BiGCaC

Indeed, freedom of religion is just what it says. In a pluralistic society, different religious beliefs and practices must be tolerated. Personally, I don't want to see satanism grow in popularity, in fact, I would prefer that no one practiced it, BUT anyone who chooses to do so is fully within their constitutional rights. At least that's the case here in the USA. I'm not as familiar with British law on this topic.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, Satanism isn't really that bad.
In fact, I only disagree with one of their major points.

The basic idea behind Satanism is "live and let live".
Or, as Alister put it, "do what thou wilt..." which is commonly taken out of context.
(Alister was a kook, but he did have a few good messages.)

Why, even Nike's slogan "just do it" can be considered Satanistic.

I'll put together some of my thoughts together later.
Right now I have to get my buttocks to the office for a bit.

The "Satan" in Satanism isn't the same "Satan" in Christianity, Bugimus. There's no animal or human sacrifices, no demonic creature with big horns and a pitchfork tail... Reality's Satanism isn't Hollywood's Satanism. Many of the words you'll read in other religious doctrines, like "magic" and "vampyres," have completely different meanings than what you've learned. If you're not a bigot, read the Theory-Practice essays for more information on Satanism. Satanism is more of a fantasy-philosophy than a religion, I think. Think of the Church of Satan as a Church of Ravers. Their prescribed values system is basically PLUR (Peace, Love, Understanding, Respect). ;p

Church of Satan

Honestly, I think the CoS is a bit extraordinary. The Temple of Set is far more reasonable yet I'm not a fan of any religion so...

The Temple of Set

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

What did I say that led you to conclude I don't know what Satanism is?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Does it matter?

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Yes. That's why I asked the question.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Whether you know or don't know about Satanism doesn't matter, those links serve others too, not just you.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

The "Satan" in Satanism isn't the same "Satan" in Christianity, Bugimus.

---

Definitely seems to be aimed specifically at Bugs, meta. If it wasn't, then it should be a bit more generic, like maybe "The "Satan" in Satanism isn't the same "Satan" in Christianity". Note that the "Bugimus" is missing in my example. Had you posted that, then I believe Bugs would not have asked his question. And of course, you could edit that out and then explain why.

And you still haven't answered Bugs question Unless you consider

quote:

---

Whether you know or don't know about Satanism doesn't matter

---

an answer.

Not much logic in that, really. I mean, why go to the lengths to point it out to Bugs, and then say "Oh, it doesn't matter. And the links serve others, as well."?

Well, in that case, it doesn't matter to me, your links don't matter to me, and you don't either.

Have a nice day.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-26-2004 12:53)

ooohhhh the furs a flying......

anyway i just thought it would inspire some debate.... for example when you join the military there is the equivalent of the american oth of allegiance, where you take an oath to serve the queen and country and you say it according tio which religeous denomination you belong to...

so i wonder how they will write this one into it...

I did have some stuff, but I'm going to go in a different direction.

You know, I'm really baffled by this whole idea of tolerance.
I don't tolerate - rather, I honestly don't care.

There is a difference between tolerating and not caring.

If something is activitely annoying and you put up with it, then that would be tolerance.
But how can someone's choice of religion in and of itself be annoying?

Does somebody else's choice of religion really matter? (Average Joe, not fanatics/zealots.)
What in your life changes?
Why care?

quote:

---

The basic idea behind Satanism is "live and let live".
Or, as Alister put it, "do what thou wilt..." which is commonly taken out of context.
(Alister was a kook, but he did have a few good messages.)

---

That would be Aleister Crowley. And yes by definition he was a neo-Satanist, long before that Anton LaVey crap (which is what I assume this soldier is apart of). Ancient Satanism (which is what Crowley would be) was defined by the Vatican as any religion that wasn't of a christianic holy denomination. This included Paganism, Islam, Atheism/Scientists, and... just about every other religion (though at the time the Vatican was only referring to the major religions in Europe).

Aleister Crowley was commonly known by the media and the lamens as a 'Satanist,' however he was more of a mystic. He was one of the elite who reach Degree 33 in masonry, the highest rank you can acheive, and later seperated from masonry as a Mystic. Moreso by his followers and and the scholars that study him, Crowley was known for his Mysticism. He wrote many books on Pagan Mysticism, Egyption Mysticism, Egyptian Tarot, Eastern Mysticism, and Cabbalic Mysticism. He also created an order that branched off of The Golden Dawn, called Ordo Templi Orientis. Ordo Templi Orientis is translated as Order of Oriental Templars or Order of the Temple of the East. In short it is referred to as Thelema or Thelemism. Followers are referred to as Thelemites. OTO was very similar to Masonry and the Illuminati as it combined the logics of Science and Mathamatics and combined them with Mysticism and Spirituality. Sort of like the ancient Illuminati, but more spiritual than scientific. Crowley was quite the arrogant man, one would not call him humble. He often referred to himself as The Beast.

Crowley wrote a book called 'Moonchild.' It detailed his procedures on how to ritualistically birth a sort of prophecetic child, or one of great knowledge, wisdom, enlightenment, etc. One day whilst browsing through my local (and shitty) library, I read something that was quite interesting. In 1969, after Crowley had passed, before LaVey's Satanism was created, and before Scientology. Anton LaVey attempted to create a 'moonchild' (I know to some this may sound extremely awkward or even flat out insane but try to be open minded). Anton LeVey had an overseer of the ritual, someone to watch and guide and make sure the ritual was done correctly. And of all people, Dr. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology and the study of Dianetics, was chosen by LeVey to oversee the ritual. And this was before Hubbard had created Scientology. Needless to say, it's doubtful that LaVey was successful, but this does pose some interesting questions.

In 1977 (or 75? one of those years) Anton LaVey founded the first Church of Satan in New York. I could go into detail of the religion but I figure you can just click this link to the official website for the Church of Satan and read for yourself.

And there's a brief history of Satanism. I hope that cleared some things up.

well, define it as you like and study it all you want, you all don't fool me.

(*been there - done that - it's a powerful thing, Satanism, but it pales in comparison to the power of love)

am i deceiving myself?

BiggaBush - This River

(Edited by outcydr on 10-26-2004 23:49)

I think Bugimus hit the nail on the head there. Satanism from the many different descriptions sounds dangerous, especially warjournal's. Doing what you want sounds like it could be a dangerous law. Could anyone elaborate on this one for me if there is a clause that says "within reason" or something like that?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Ancient Satanism (which is what Crowley would be) was defined by the Vatican as any religion that wasn't of a christianic holy denomination. This included Paganism, Islam, Atheism/Scientists, and... just about every other religion (though at the time the Vatican was only referring to the major religions in Europe).

---

Atheism and the sciences are not religions.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I think Bugimus hit the nail on the head there. Satanism from the many different descriptions sounds dangerous, especially warjournal's. Doing what you want sounds like it could be a dangerous
law. Could anyone elaborate on this one for me if there is a clause that says "within reason" or something like that?

---

Are you too afraid of the term "Satan" to visit the Church of Satan's homepage? www.churchofsatan.com


_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-31-2004 23:21)

The full phrase, from Mr Crowely himself, goes "do what thou wilt, and let it harm no one".

...let it harm no one?

Huh? Who'da thunk it, Satanists are our friends!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-01-2004 01:34)

Damn straight.

Nothing against you DL, thanks for finding that, but wouldn't it be hard to do that? I mean "harm no one." That is very dfficult to do along side doing what you want.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Of course, you make the assumption that "do what thou wilt" remains unqualified, and means do whatever you feel like with no regard to the consequences.

With that addendum of 'let it harm none', things change very drastically.

It implies the need for thought - not simple reaction to your basist impulses.

Of course, I am neither a 'satanist' or a follower of crowley. You should know that by now...

This is true. I just think that with some of the actions that go through many of my friends' heads (and mine sometimes too), that if we got used to doing what we want (within reason), couldn't we eventually slide into doing those completely evil thoughts (without reason) that cross our minds now and then?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Atheism and the sciences are not religions.

---

I'm quite aware of this. Quite aware. But try explaining that to the 18'th century pope.

Yes, the Popes of old did some bad things, but that doesn't mean that Atheism isn't like a religion in the fact that it is a belief system modeled around the basic theory of there not being a God instead of the other way around. It is still the basic idea, just with a different center.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon - we have been through this discussion many times here.

Atheism is *not* a system of beleifs. It is the singular lack of belief in god or gods. Period.

Anything beyond that is outside the scope of atheism, and is a matter of individual preference.

In the same way that simply beleiveing in god does not make you christian, not beleiving in god (ie, being an atheist), does not make you part of any other group or part of any structured belief system.

It is *not* the same basic idea - not in the slightest..

quote:

---

that if we got used to doing what we want (within reason), couldn't we eventually slide into doing those completely evil thoughts (without reason) that cross our minds now and then?

---

Gideon, it's not a matter of dogma, religious beliefs, or moral compass.
Not hurting someone comes from self-control.
The 'power' is you regardless of those other things.

Well warjournal, I don't know about you, but from all the stresses in my life my personal power source is quite low, and I know that I have a hard time controlling myself in certain situations. Just read "owwww...it hurts bad," and you will get the picture.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Atheism is *not* a system of beleifs. It is the singular lack of belief in god
or gods. Period.

---

DL, I hate doing this but I want to prove my point. Isn't a "lack of belief in god or gods" still a belief? That is my personal understanding, but I could be wrong.

Believing in God does not make me a Christain, but since I do believe in God that does make me a Theist, with that belief system of believing in God. Does your theory then conclude that Theists do not have a structured belief system, or do they? Just a question, please don't get angry. I need a little clarification.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

DL, I hate doing this but I want to prove my point. Isn't a "lack of belief in god or gods" still a belief? That is my personal understanding, but I could be wrong.

Believing in God does not make me a Christain, but since I do believe in God that does make me a Theist, with that belief system of believing in God. Does your theory then conclude that Theists do not have a structured belief system, or do they? Just a question, please don't get angry. I need a little clarification.

---

A lack of belief can also be said to be a belief in something not being.
It's a matter of semantics that I don't care to get into just now.

Now, to clarify:

a theist is simply someone who beleives in a god or gods.
an atheist is someone who does not.

Neither term attaches any further meaning to the person it is used to describe.

Anything that you tie together with either of those terms is a way of elaborating your belief system in the context of whether or not you beleive in god(s), but it does not alter the meaning of the terms.

The fact that you are a theist has nothing at all to do with the judeau-christian concept of god. You infer that to be a theist means to believe in your god.

It does not.

quote:

---

Well warjournal, I don't know about you, but from all the stresses in my life my personal power source is quite low, and I know that I have a hard time controlling myself in certain situations. Just read "owwww...it hurts bad," and you will get the picture.

---

Yeah, been there done that.

Then I realized certain things.

First of all, you can't control your emotions. If you get mad, then you get mad. They happen and they are a part of life.

However, what you can control is how you act on them. Just because you are mad, you don't have to hurt anybody. This is where self-control comes in. It's all you, dude. Grind your teeth, count to ten, walk away, or whatever.

Another thing I realized is that I was getting bent out of shape over the silliest things. Or even things completely out of my control (that may or may not affect me). Once I started identifying the silly/uncontrollable things, I was able to negate them.

Now, there are those emotional things that I do have control over. Pissed about my job? Get a new one or transfer or something. Kids running with scissors after I already yelled at them once? Put the scissors away where they can't get them (or think that they can't get them).

Along those lines, I have also learned confrontation - with temperment. If a particular person is getting on my nerves, I confront and get it over with. My relationship with my mother is a classic example of this. I used to just grit my teeth when she got on my nerves. Now a days, I let her know and we actually have much a much better relationship because of it.

It's all you, dude.
Now quit yer snivelin' and fix those negative things in your life.
No one is going to do it for you.

*thoughtless bull**** deleted* sorry

(Edited by White Hawk on 11-20-2004 06:00)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The fact that you are a theist has nothing at all to do with the
judeau-christian concept of god. You infer that to be a theist means to believe
in your god. It does not.

---

No, it doesn't. All others who believe in a God are theists. I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

It's all you, dude.Now quit yer snivelin' and fix those negative things in
your life.No one is going to do it for you.

---

Well, too late, someone already did.

Great motivational speech there WJ. It would work on most people, but I guess I have grown callous to them. Anyway, I don't have a big problem controlling my emotions, actions, etc. At least now I don't. In my span of life I have learned from many sources that people deal with things poorly. Simply put: We screw up. I just decided that it was time to stop screwing around and allow someone who doesn't screw up to take control of my life. It worked. Please go and read my post on the other thread, it explains alot.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. All others who believe in a God are theists. I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

---

*sights*

ohh boy, I guess you never listen to anyone anymore.

Just please reread DL's post. He already pointed out that your oppinion about atheism being a belief is fallible at most.

No Ruski, Gideon demonstrates no real ability to consider things from outside of his faith, unfortunately. Sad. He has made up his mind, and cannot be "swayed", apparently.

He also seems to misunderstand what others have posted.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-20-2004 08:33)

=(

it's sad Shaman...really is.
Like I said before, I am even more saddened to know that 75% of the world's population is that way.

(Edited by Ruski on 11-20-2004 08:33)

quote:

---

I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

---

No.

Read my post again.

If you still feel this way, read it again.

Rinse, repeat.

You are trying to attach a 'system' of beliefs to an objective term that defines *only* whether or not a person beleives that a god or gods exist.

I could also be a theist, and not be of any particular religion. The fact that I would be a theist would say absolutely nothing about what my system of beliefs are. I could, for example, be a theist who simply believed that god was all wrong, and that human science was the only answer, and was infallbile.

I could be steafast worshipper of Zeus.

I could hold Satan as the one true god.

I could worship Uma Thurman as god.

I could beleive that I am god.

Theism is not a religion. It is not a system of beliefs based on a religious idea. It regards *only* the concept of the existence of deities.

Same with atheism.

The concept of whether or not god exists is not a religious thought.

What you do after making that determination is what leads to religion.

No, Gideon, you haven't grown callous to what I've said.
You are being irresponsible and lazy.
Your life is your responsibility. Period.

Now, if you'll excuse me, dishes and laundry need to be done.
You see, they are being 'negative' and I need to 'fix' them.
No one is going to do it for me.
My life, my responsibility.

kbye

quote:

---

Gideon wrote:

DL, I hate doing this but I want to prove my point. Isn't a "lack of belief in god or gods" still a belief? That is my personal understanding, but I could be wrong.

and:

All others who believe in a God are theists. I am meerly trying to say that Atheism is a system of beliefs centered around a religious thought, much like many other "theistic" beliefs.

---

Yes, a "lack of belief in god or gods" is still a belief. However, it is not a SYSTEM of beliefs centered around a religious thought. Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a god, but is not a system of beliefs. It is not an organized doctrine, but simply a way of thinking. There are probably organized groups of people with a belief system that includes a lack of belief in a god or gods, but that is a separate thing.

Sorry to interupt, but I just though this was funny, and had to say, its good to see Webshaman back in his true form.

quote:

---

Webshaman - Well, in that case, it doesn't matter to me, your links don't matter to me, and you don't either.

---

Sort of busy, but finding this all very interesting...

quote:

---

Ruski said:

Just please reread DL's post. He already pointed out that your oppinion about
atheism being a belief is fallible at most.

---

Well, Ruski, I went back and reread what he said twice, once to remember why I said what I said, then to make sure that it worked. I'm not going to reread it again, becuase I don't think it was me who skimmed. Ruski, he didn't say that what I said was fallible. He said that I thought atheists are all those who are against my God. I said that statement was not true. That is all. He even said that those were semantics he didn't care to think about.

quote:

---

briggl said:

There are probably organized groups of people with a belief system that includes
a lack of belief in a god or gods, but that is a separate thing.

---

Is it?

quote:

---

briggl said:

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a god, but is not a system of beliefs.

---

Actually, if you believe in the absence of God or gods, doesn't that imply a system of beliefs that revolve around that thought. Beliefs on purpose, creation, etc.?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

No.

You are looking at Atheism as the oposite of your theism. One doesn't have "belief in the absence of gods." If you do not believe in something then it doesn't exist.

For example, do you believe in Santa Claus. I assume the answer to be "No" now, does this lack of belief now foster a system of worship around the idea of not believing in Mr. Claus. You do not develop a system of beliefs based around a disbelief. You actual find yourself outside of any system relating to the belief because the belief doesn't exist.

I think the symantics are what is mucking with you.

The use of the word believe in this context is "To accept as true or real" such as I believe that 1 + 1 = 2. You you are talking about believe you are refering to "To have firm faith, especially religious faith." If you look these up in a dictionary you will find that they are symantically very different. (Transitive and Intransitive).

A better way to state DL and other's opinions would not be to say "I do not believe in god" but "I do not think god is real." Or even better "The idea of god does not even cross my mind as anything worth thinking on" or "Would all you people quit musing on this god thing and do some real work."

Above and beyond the symantic arguement is the one of tollerance or of choice. The thing is that people like to give the illusion that you are offered a choice. It makes people feel good to think that they are tolerant. This is typified by the statement "You can make any choice you want, as long as it is the right one." This is a pretty standard pattern of belief that people hold. Now most people would argue and say "well but I am not like that, I think people should be able to make their own choices."

But it is by far and large not correct.

Lets look at it this way. Kids should be allowed to do drugs. A large majority would say a resounding "No" they should not. And then would actively work to prevent this. This is an instance of allowing people to make any choice they want as long as it is the right one. In this situation you would be an advocate against choice. This can be applied to religion, because often those polarised on either side of such an issue would not only be content to let the issue lay because it is not looked on as a choice made but as a cancer in the methods of thinking that should be erased.

<<Please commence that choices affecting kids are not part of this, however, once you do that you have missed the point. This can be extracted to affect decisions that affect only adults and religion in specifics, it just takes more effort defending the statement when applying it to all ages. This is left as an exercise for the reader>>

So this boils down to that people must have "Tolerance" because the choices that other people make can affect them. It is religious tollerance because often those with religion can not understand those who don't and will actively work to affect them, because they don't understand. It will often be looked upon as someone offering help, but the act of not offering help or "salvation" is the tollerance. The same goes for those who do not have religion. They have made their choice, but they now have to have tollerance for those who do discuss their religion in exclusion of the one without the belief.

Tollerance is a good word choice here. It is not the actual choice that causes the problems, but the ripples that form based on the impact of the choice.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 11-29-2004 19:56)

quote:

---

He said that I thought atheists are all those who are against my God. I said that statement was not true. That is all. He even said that those were semantics he didn't care to think about.

---

Not...that's not what I said at all...

quote:

---

quote:briggl said:

There are probably organized groups of people with a belief system that includes
a lack of belief in a god or gods, but that is a separate thing.


Is it?

---

Yes. Very much so. This is what I have been saying.....but you are not listening!

quote:

---

quote:briggl said:

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a god, but is not a system of beliefs.


Actually, if you believe in the absence of God or gods, doesn't that imply a system of beliefs that revolve around that thought. Beliefs on purpose, creation, etc.?

---

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't fathon why you cannot understand this, except that you must not be able to understand someone NOT needing the same sense of religion that you yourself need.


Theism is not a religion. It is not a system of beliefs, nor does it imply one.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a system of beliefs, nor does it imply one.

If you disagree, read it again.

Continue until you do not disagree.

Why? Because this is not an opinion, and is not debatable. Anything involving a system of beliefs is beyond the scope of the word(s) in question.

I can't possibly explain further - everything involved *is* that simple.

Period.

Yeah, what DL-44 said!




(Edited by briggl on 11-30-2004 04:20)

quote:

---

WarMage said:

If you do not believe in something then it doesn't exist.

---

So if I don't believe in gravity, will it go away?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

does this lack of belief now foster a system of worship around the idea of not
believing in Mr. Claus. You do not develop a system of beliefs based around a
disbelief.

---

Actually, those are two different ideas. There is no "worship" in the absence, but there is a belief system set up. I now have beliefs that friends and family give presents, not Santa. That is a belief. I no longer get up early for presents, that is a belief. So there is a belief system set up around the belief in the non-existance of Santa.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

"To have firm faith, especially religious faith."

---

This might be where everyone is mistaking my point, I am not saying a strong deeply religious set of beliefs is needed for Atheism, I am meerly saying that Atheism is a belief, and it has other beliefs centered on it. That is it. You don't have to be blunt and boistrious about Atheism, it is just a belief that others are centered around.

Warmage, people do have a choice to do things, even if drugs were outlawed people have a choice to go outside of the law to get them. There is something my Chem. teacher once told me that holds true for me still today. "The only thing you have to do is die." You don't have to do anything else. All other things are strictly your decisions on your part.

More to come

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Do you not believe in gravity? I believe in it, as do all the other people I know. If you meet someone who doesn't believe in it, ask them if it goes away.

I will grant you that the the absence does allow for a different set of reactions to events. We might even be on the same page here, but you might need to clarify how you are using belief. I would however go so far as to say that what you are refering to as a belief and what I am refering to a belief is very different. I think the near the end of the movie Dogma Chris Rock put it well on the difference between beliefs and ideas, I will leave it as a fun reader exercise to find the quote. See, I don't see it as a system of beliefs, I see it as a standard reaction, following what logic would dictate. You might argue that logic would be a belief system, and there I would totally agree with you.

Also, for the final point. I don't really have any ideas on god. My take on the whole god issue is the following: Some people talk about this God thing that they think did a whole lot of stuff and permiates every facit of their lives, and they get most of there ideas about this stuff from a really old book. It is an external thing. I can reference the idea of god, as something that I can read about in a book, or something that a good number of people like to talk about. But it is not something that touches my life anymore than say you reading about Norse mythology, it is not even something I think on. I might say, oh that was pretty interesting, but nothing more than that.

I have no beliefs based around the lack of a god any more than I have beliefs based on not believing in the Norse Gods, or Native American gods, or any other such idea. As an aside I do have and hold many beliefs, and I do have many beliefs that govern the way I live, but those beliefs are far and away from anything relating to a belief or disbelief in a god.

After righting this I think I see the problem more clearly. It is not belief that is tripping people up. It is disbelief. The dis implies the negitive, but also assumes that there was a belief to dispel. When there is no origional belief, there can't be a disbelief. I don't think it can be summed up in a single word. But the idea might be better explained by "The idea of gods doesn't exist for me." That might be sort of the idea but it is a hard one to present. The idea of nothing is a very hard one to wrap up in a neat little package. Nothing is sort of like infinity, it is just so huge it is nearly incomprehendable.

Dan @ Code Town

Maybe this can clear some things up.

Hypothetically speaking:

I do believe in God = Theist (Pro)

I do not believe in God = Atheist (Medium)

I beleive there is no God = Is there a word for this? I don't know. (Con)

Hmm, now that I think of it, I'm a bit confused myself .

Heh. Funny stuff here.

Let us look at it a bit differently - when left to themselves, in information isolation, humans tend to put together belief system(s) in Greater Beings...they differe from one another, sometimes wildly.

But the explanations that Science brings us does not. It is the same, although it may be presented in different forms (like languages or symbols), but they describe the same things.

So, which method is actually more factual? Hmmm?

Reliable? Hmmm?

If you have to base your existance on one or the other, which is it going to be? Hmmm?

Belief is good, knowledge of a factual basis of the natural world better.

quote:

---

Theism is not a religion. It is not a system of beliefs, nor does it imply one.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a system of beliefs, nor does it imply one.

...this is not an opinion, and is not debatable. Anything involving a system of beliefs is beyond the scope of the word(s) in question.

---

*cough*

quote:

---

I now have beliefs that friends and family give presents, not Santa. That is a belief.

---

No, that is not a belief - you know that your friends and family are giving you gifts.

quote:

---

I no longer get up early for presents, that is a belief.

---

No....... that is a fact, an action you undertake.

quote:

---

So there is a belief system set up around the belief in the non-existance of Santa.

---

No. There are things that happen, and the fact that there is no santa is part of the equation, but is not representative of a 'system of beliefs'.

And - this is the important part: even if YOU did have a system of beliefs set up around the belief/lackthereof insant that would not mean that not beleiving in santa requires that additional belief system, for that system would be outside the scope of whether or not you beleive in santa.

Now to finish that post last post I made...

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Tollerance is a good word choice here. It is not the actual choice that causes
the problems, but the ripples that form based on the impact of the choice.

---

Okay, I'm all for tolerance here, but there is a point of too much tolerance. Let me give you an example:
Let's say that you and another person are stranded in the middle of the Arctic ocean and the only way to saftey is the boat that you are in right now. On this long journey you and the other person get a little tired of each other (that happens on long trips) and you both agree to draw a line. You have jurisdiction on your half, and he controls his. Now do you have that picture in your mind? Let's say that he want's to make a hole in his side so that he can see the fish in the ocean. You ask him not to, but you have to be tolerant to his decisions and ideas. There is a point of disgust, ad nauseam, when tolerance goes too far. Tolerance is good and it makes peace, but when it effects more than one person it is wrong.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Continue until you do not disagree.

---

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Theism is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

It is not a system of beliefs

---

Correct, that one belief in its self is not a system of beliefs.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

nor does it imply one

---

Incorrect. That belief does not stop at that one implication, just like iceburgs, there are many things attached below the surface. Those are all different for each person (just like iceburgs), but the basic system is still there.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Do you not believe in gravity? I believe in it, as do all the other people I
know.

---

Ofcourse I believe in it, I am just trying to make a point. If I were to stop believeing in it, would it go away?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

If you meet someone who doesn't believe in it, ask them if it goes away.

---

Actually, have you ever read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

See, I don't see it as a system of beliefs, I see it as a standard reaction,
following what logic would dictate. You might argue that logic would be a belief
system, and there I would totally agree with you.

---

So... huh?

Warmage, I think you are right in the fact that people can't really make a belief system around something they have not come into contact with. An Athiest, however, does know what a god is. You have to know what a god is inorder to know that you don't believe in them. Assuming that fact, they have a system of beliefs governing their life that assumes that fact, same with Theists.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Belief is good, knowledge of a factual basis of the natural world better

---

What happens when that knowledge of a "factual" world gets confused?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

No. There are things that happen, and the fact that there is no santa is part of
the equation, but is not representative of a 'system of beliefs'.

---

Ok, those were things that happened. I am sorry. Maybe I should have used different examples. I have a question:
So are you saying that the beliefs in santa and no santa give completely different belief structures? Let me set it up for you:

Belief that Santa exists (BTSE)-write letters to him.
No belief that Santa exists(NBTSE)-don't write letters to him.

BTSE-Stay up at night listening for sleigh bells
NBTSE-Don't stay up late at night listening for sleigh bells

BTSE-Leave cookies and carrots for Santa and his reindeer
NBTSE-Eat the cookies the night before

etc...

Two different belief structures. One believes there is no santa, so he eats the cookies, one believes there is a santa so he leaves the cookies out for him. (Don't confuse this with someone who doesn't know about santa, just someone who doesn't believe he exists. He knows the stories, but doesn't believe them.)

Theist-does "religous stuff"
Atheist-doesn't do "religious stuff" (or at least doesn't want to)

One little side note, Billy Graham believes there are no Atheists in the world, what do you think?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 12-01-2004 18:51)

quote:

---

One little side note, Billy Graham believes there are no Atheists in the world, what do you think?

---

Just because he believes that doesn't make it so.

Gideon: the stumlbing block for you seems to be that you assume that the question of theistic thought *must* be the basis for people's beliefs.

The fact ( ) that there is no god is not what I base my life on. The idea that there might be one is not something I base my life on.

So no - my "system" of beliefs is not based on my lack of belief in "god".

The fact that I am an atheist is part of who I am - it is not the basis for who I am.

You *MUST* understand - you are attaching things to the idea of atheism that simply are not there, because you *want* it to be like a religion. you *want* to be able to equate it to something that it simpyl cannot be equated to.

PERIOD.


....and that's all i have to say about that.

quote:

---

What happens when that knowledge of a "factual" world gets confused?

---

That is not what I said - I said "knowledge of a factual basis of the natural world"

I have no idea what happens when knowledge of a "factual"world gets confused - do you get then Religion?

WS- (sorry, my mistake) Maybe. Or maybe you just relize that there is something else going on there. Who knows? I like to consider religion as a system of traditions, but that might just be me.

Okay, DL, you are right, Atheism does not emply a system of beliefs.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Just because he believes that doesn't make it so.

---

Well, I kinda agree with him. I mean, if you believe that there is absolutely no outside force governing the universe you are ignorant of many mishaps that cannot be contributed to science and reasonable thought. Also you are kinda narrowing your field of view. "Athiests" claim that many people who hold on to religious beliefs are narrow minded, but what about "Atheists" who claim there is absolutely no way for there to be a god or gods or supernatural force. Isn't that narrow-minded?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Just because he believes that doesn't make it so.

---

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Well, I kinda agree with him. I mean, if you believe that there is absolutely no outside force governing the universe you are ignorant of many mishaps that cannot be contributed to science and reasonable thought. Also you are kinda narrowing your field of view. "Athiests" claim that many people who hold on to religious beliefs are narrow minded, but what about "Atheists" who claim there is absolutely no way for there to be a god or gods or supernatural force. Isn't that narrow-minded?

---

Your argument here doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether there are atheists or not, but rather whether an atheit's views are narrow minded.

quote:

---

if you believe that there is absolutely no outside force governing the universe you are ignorant of many mishaps that cannot be contributed to science and reasonable thought

---

No, not ignorant of them, but rather believe that there is probably another explanation than that of a mystical being who won't let us have any tangible evidence of his existence.

quote:

---

you are ignorant of many mishaps that cannot be contributed to science and reasonable thought.

---

For example......?

quote:

---

but what about "Atheists" who claim there is absolutely no way for there to be a god or gods or supernatural force. Isn't that narrow-minded?

---

Once again, you are trying to attribute something to atheism that has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism does not mean that someone thinks there is "absolutely no way for there to be a god" and it also says nothing regarding "supernatural forces".

I am an atheist. I don't beleive in god. I beleive that there are most certainly things going on that some people call "supernatural". I suggest rather that they are purely natural, and we simply have not reached an understanding of them yet.

That is not narrow minded. That leaves a whole lot of possibilities wide open.

Suggesting that all things you can't grasp must therefore be the work of some mythical deity sitting in heaven watching our every move with utmost interest in our behaviour, on the other hand, is extremely narrow minded, and IMO, rather silly.

quote:

---

I mean, if you believe that there is absolutely no outside force governing the universe you are ignorant of many mishaps that cannot be contributed to science and reasonable thought. Also you are kinda narrowing your field of view.

---

As DL has said

quote:

---

I beleive that there are most certainly things going on that some people call "supernatural". I suggest rather that they are purely natural, and we simply have not reached an understanding of them yet.

---

I also believe this to be true. I believe that EVERYTHING is a natural process. It doesn't mean that we understand everything about nature - on the contrary, Science is young! To suggest that we know everything there is to know is quite premature, IMHO!

Why not give Science a chance? Give it at least as much time, as Religion has had - and we will see which has the better argument, the better explainations of reality, nature, and life. I see now that Science has pushed Religion far, far back into a corner of the unknown, and it will continue to do so, as we advance our knowledge of the unknown. At some point one crosses a line of no return, where to continue to believe is ludicrus. One could consider this a "half-way" point - I believe we have already crossed it, and god is being forced into the "less than 50%" area of the unknown.

Science is just a better method for understanding nature, reality and life. It is certainly more reliable than Faith.

Another question - Why did god even tell Noah, that he was going to kill off mankind with a Flood? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. "I am god, and man has pissed me off for the last time! I will rub them out! but first, I will tell this little gnat that I am going to do this." Then, he lets himself be "swayed" by Noah's pleas, says "Ok, I'll give man one last chance, Noah, go out and tell them that I am going to destroy them if they do not listen!. Heh. Well, Noah fails miserably, but pleads with god anyway. And god relents!!!! and spares Noah, his family, and some of the animals!! Not all, just some. Nice god...and why did Noah need an Ark? Couldn't god have just summoned him to a safe haven, let the flood come, and then transported him, his family, and all the animals back onto the now clean Earth?

The question is, if god is powerful enough to create everything, then he is powerful enough to destroy it. And since man disappointed him so severely, to the point that god was ready to give up (meaning? Did Satan then "win"?) and actually kill off all of them - why did Noah plead for mankind further? I mean, he was going to heaven, right? And his family as well, right? So, what is Noah's problem? God was summoning him to heaven, why make a fuss about it?

And this is just one little example, of the Bible. It is so full of holes, of "flip-flops" that it is just not credible. First, an act of god sets everything in motion, and sometimes he lets miracles happen, but other times, he does things according to nature, and kills, destroys, judges, etc like a deity out of control! Then he sends his only son (yeah, right...as if he couldn't have more - and why not have more, and send more? Hmm?) and doesn't even get a bit bent out of shape about man killing his only son? And now he is a "nice and loving god"...wow, what a flip-flop.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-03-2004 15:49)

quote:

---

briggl said:

Your argument here doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether there are
atheists or not, but rather whether an atheit's views are narrow minded.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

For example......?

---

Spectres, esp, dreams, visions, etc. Things that cannot be logically explained, and need faith to interpret.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I see now that Science has pushed Religion far, far back into a corner of the
unknown, and it will continue to do so, as we advance our knowledge of the
unknown.

---

Actually, science has been proving many things in the Bible time and again. As the old knowledge in the Bible used to be just accepted, now that a scientific revival is here and finding new evidence to support those claims that were just meerly accepted without proof in the Medival Age. I love to hear all the things that science is doing: curing diseases, describing the stars, discovering what happened in the past, taking men into the sky. It is incredible.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Why did god even tell Noah, that he was going to kill off mankind with a Flood?

---

Because WebShamman, Noah was the only one listening to God. God was entirely prepared to take Noah out of the Earth, but Noah pleaded with God to spare his family (especially since people weren't familiar with the thought of Heaven yet. They knew it was there, but in that time when you were dead, you were dead.) If the other people had just listened to God, led righteous lies, and obeyed His commands, then God would have talked to them too.

More to come...

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Spectres, esp, dreams, visions, etc. Things that cannot be logically explained, and need faith to interpret.

---

I fail to see any point here.

God is the answer to such things?

Most of these things are - again - people experiencing something they do not understand, and calling it "a ghost" or "a vision", or "god's work", etc.

I have yet to see much in the way of legitimate cases of *any* of the above issues you mention - which may be a good reason why science doesn't seem to be able to explain them: science usually can, and very well - the explanation just happens to be that these are are not ghosts, or esp, or the like.

Anything better than those poor examples?

Also -

quote:

---

science has been proving many things in the Bible time and again.

---

Again - such as...?

I know that there are many things in some of these bibilcal stories that have been shown to refer to real people/places. Ancient cities found that appear to be part of biblical stories, etc.

But this is very from from proving that the bible is any sort of factual account.





(Edited by DL-44 on 12-03-2004 19:10)

Everything that DL said...and more.

It appears, that there are things that we cannot see with the naked eye. Air, for example. Certain types of energy. There are also sounds we cannot hear.

Religion never really answered these things very well. But Science has. And it continues to do so. As I said before, Science is young, we are still developing the basic tools to be able to effectively use Science to explain things, and the knowledge base is far from finished.

quote:

---

Spectres, esp, dreams, visions, etc. Things that cannot be logically explained, and need faith to interpret.

---

They cannot be logically explained? If they truly exist, and are part of a natural process, yes, they can be explained and do not need faith to be interpreted. If they are part of a natural process, then either we don't have the necessary tools to discover and study them (most probable) or we just don't see a need to do so - most things get discovered and studied either by accident, or because someone was driven to do so.

It could also be, that they are just delussions of the mind - which is also possible.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If they are part of a natural process

---

What if they aren't?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Religion never really answered these things very well. But Science has.

---

Well, the Bible isn't a Science text book. It only has the history of the human race in it. What I believe is that where the Bible does touch on Science, Geology, etc. can be trusted.

Those are my beliefs, though, and I don't like to push them onto others. I like to understand why others believe certain things, trust their whole lives to things. I like to dig deep into them to see if they have any reasonable application to life. I try hard not to force my beliefs onto others, and I don't want someone to just blindly take my beliefs either. Blind men might fall off cliffs to thier deaths.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

God is the answer to such things?

---

Or Man's enemy, one of the two. Things unexplained. Science still has no explaination of esp. Most people I have talked to even have a mild case of it. I do even sometimes. Why?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Or Man's enemy, one of the two. Things unexplained. Science still has no explaination of esp.

---

So, clarify: anything that is not explained to your satisfaction is either god or the devil?
That is just plain absurd, any way you look at it...
There is obviously a great deal we have yet t understand. We understand a *great* many things about the natural world today that we did not 500 years ago.

If we stopped learning then, and simply ascribed what we didn't understand to god.....we would be in a pretty bad place right now...

Secondly: define 'esp'. Give examples of specifically what you are referring to as e.s.p.

quote:

---

Most people I have talked to even have a mild case of it.

---

Quite simply: bullshit.



(Edited by DL-44 on 12-04-2004 20:29)

Extra Sensory Perception?

I know *what* esp is insider....

I'm asking gideon to provide examples of what he is referring to, as I seriously doubt what he is talking about has much to do with esp.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There is obviously a great deal we have yet t understand. We understand a
*great* many things about the natural world today that we did not 500 years ago.

---

Yup. In comparison to omnipotence though, not so much.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If we stopped learning then, and simply ascribed what we didn't understand to
god.....we would be in a pretty bad place right now...

---

Right, that is a bad thing to do. I was just trying to point out that there are some things that are unexplainable that we don't understand. God does. He is omnipotent. He can fill us in when we are ready.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Extra Sensory Perception?

---

That is it exactly. Seeing things in dreams that happen, visions in window panes, shadows running into pictures, deaths fortold. All these things happen to a friend of mine. I get the dreams some times too. Another of mine does as well. There was a study done a while ago that stated that most people (can't remember the exact figure, sorry) have those forms of ESP.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I think you're referring to Sigmond Freud.

And quite ironically, he mentions in his book The Interpretation of Dreams, that his field of Psyche study was Mass Hysteria.

You should probably take Hysteria into account when assuming that you or your friends have this extra sense. I mean I'm not saying that you don't. Personally I believe that scientifically and spiritually, anyone can acheive a psychic conscious. But why would you tell people that you can?

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

You should probably take Hysteria into account when assuming that you or your
friends have this extra sense

---

I have a mild case of hysteria? That's interesting. I don't know much about the psycological side of things, but I didn't know that seeing the future was interpreted as hysteria. Hmm, my mistake.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

But why would you tell people that you can?

---

Why not?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.