Atheism, the discussion

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Mon, 17. Feb 20, 18:48

Oh I missed that.
So no soul in Buddhism? Is there after life?
Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 01:31
It doesn't make any claim about any of that stuff.
Cool, thanks.

That is the better way.

RegisterMe wrote:
Sun, 16. Feb 20, 22:50
Go for it. Let's break it out into another thread though. It does have relevance to this discussion but I can foresee us getting bogged down in more nitty gritty than this thread believes.

Anyway, as my goddaughter's father said to me once, "she may not believe in Santa any more, but she certainly believes in presents!" ;).
What should be the main topic? How to prove that Santa is real or not real?
Or more, if kids should be told one way or another?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by pjknibbs » Mon, 17. Feb 20, 22:34

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 18:48
Oh I missed that.
So no soul in Buddhism? Is there after life?
As I understand it, in Buddhism you keep getting reborn until you achieve a state of nirvana, which in this case means total calm and realisation of your lack of self.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Mon, 17. Feb 20, 23:05

pjknibbs wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 22:34
fiksal wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 18:48
Oh I missed that.
So no soul in Buddhism? Is there after life?
As I understand it, in Buddhism you keep getting reborn until you achieve a state of nirvana, which in this case means total calm and realisation of your lack of self.
you can get that with some good weed. dead serious.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 18. Feb 20, 01:59

Observe wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 18:41
Just to clarify, the essence of why Buddhists do not subscribe to the existence of an immortal personal soul, is because they do not accept the existence of a fundamental self, and therefore there is no soul for a non-existent self to have.
I'm not verse in English Buddhism so this is a guess after looking up the reference: are you referring to "the law of change" here? Or at least I think that's what it's called in English.

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 18:48
Oh I missed that.
So no soul in Buddhism? Is there after life?
It could be a matter of language and cultural assimilation, but in my version of Buddhism we have a soul. I don't know how other religion describe a soul but in Buddhism a soul is like an information package that hold our accumulated life that will be used to determine how we're reborn in the next cycle. So like a DNA package or a seed that passed to the next generation ... maybe. The after life concept in Buddhism is quite short, and simply refer to the time we transit one life to the next.
pjknibbs wrote:
Mon, 17. Feb 20, 22:34
As I understand it, in Buddhism you keep getting reborn until you achieve a state of nirvana, which in this case means total calm and realisation of your lack of self.
Yes, and whoever manage to reach that state are people we call Buddha. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Observe » Tue, 18. Feb 20, 03:26

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 18. Feb 20, 01:59
I'm not verse in English Buddhism so this is a guess after looking up the reference: are you referring to "the law of change" here? Or at least I think that's what it's called in English.
Yes. In Pali (the language used during the time and place of the Buddha), the word is "anicca". It means constant change. Absence of permanence and continuity.
Mightysword wrote:In my version of Buddhism we have a soul. I don't know how other religion describe a soul but in Buddhism a soul is like an information package that hold our accumulated life that will be used to determine how we're reborn in the next cycle. So like a DNA package or a seed that passed to the next generation ... maybe. The after life concept in Buddhism is quite short, and simply refer to the time we transit one life to the next.
This refers to "Sankhara". These are the formations that manifest as mental phenomena and they are the forces responsible for creation of a new life. Another, more common word, is Karma. Same thing. When all old sankara's dissipate and no new ones are formed, the cycle of life and death ends. No soul. :)

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Rei Ayanami » Sun, 5. Apr 20, 10:49

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 9. Jul 19, 04:40
EDIT: skip to the last page for most recent posts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been awhile for my random topics,
so here's one that may or may not turn to a discussion

It comes up in my conversations often enough, but people seldom want to talk about it. So I figure let's give it a go here.

so Atheism.
- are you one, do you know one?
- what is it to you, what it is not?
- if not, do you believe beyond your belief? for example: a religion may not include ghosts, spirits, souls of animals, or horoscopes.

- And what's your take on this:
One of the times it came up recently was a chat with a buddy of mine of what's more reasonable / factual even: agnosticism or atheism.

His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

My claim: You can prove a statement of a negative, depending on what that statement is. And additionally, while the universe is nearly impossible to discover in its entirety, given our most common ideas of what we think when we say "god", an atheist can still say that such entity does not exist.
- are you one, do you know one?
I am an atheist and every one of my close family members are also atheists (as far as i know).

- what is it to you, what it is not?
Atheism is by definition, and to me, is nothing more and thing less than the statement that no theistic religion so far has met their burden of proof that their religious claims for the existence of their claims for a god/gods are sufficiently enough to make me believe. Atheism makes no claim whatsoever that there is no god, just that there is not enough evidence to make us believe that there is one. Perhaps there is a god, but so far there was not enough evidence presented to convince me. That's all that atheism is, by definition.

Atheism does not make a positive claim "there is no god" and therefore has no burden of proof. Theistic religions on the other hand DO have a burden of proof, since they actually make a positive claim : "god exists". If any atheist claims that there is no god, then that has nothing to do with "atheism" itself, but is an entirely separate matter. Saying "there is no god" is a positive claim and therefore needs to be proven. While proving certain negatives is possible or even trivial ("there is no negative number larger than 0"), proving a negative like "there are no gods" is quite impossible, because that would require us to be able to examine all of existence everywhere and beyond (if that exists).

That being said, while it is impossible to prove that there is no god whatsoever, claims for the existence of gods with specific features of can be proven wrong by pointing out inconsitencies and contradictions in holy texts that claim the existence of gods with these features and therefore be dismissed as false.

Gavrushka
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri, 26. Mar 04, 19:28
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Gavrushka » Sun, 5. Apr 20, 10:58

I don't think it matters whether you believe in god (God) or not. - I see organised religion as more a series of tenets as to how we live our 'mortal' lives. - If there is a god (God) I'm sure they didn't do it for the 'likes,' so doesn't give a stuff about whether we believe or not.

We live, we die. If there is another chapter beyond, then theist and atheist alike will come across it regardless of what they believed during their mortal tenure.

Where we should all take issue is when one religious/non religious group denigrates another, simply for not sharing their belief/lack of belief.
“Man, my poor head is battered,” Ed said.

“That explains its unusual shape,” Styanar said, grinning openly now. “Although it does little to illuminate just why your jowls are so flaccid or why you have quite so many chins.”

“I…” Had she just called him fat? “I am just a different species, that’s all.”

“Well nature sure does have a sense of humour then,” Styanar said. “Shall we go inside? It’d not be a good idea for me to be spotted by others.”

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Sun, 5. Apr 20, 11:41

Gavrushka wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 10:58
We live, we die. If there is another chapter beyond, then theist and atheist alike will come across it regardless of what they believed during their mortal tenure.
Thats is a rather atheistic stance to take. This is basically saying, religion is not really needed even if a god(s) entity exists.

Meanwhile, religions go ahead and try to enforce their stances both in subtle and less, well lets say, healthy ways.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Gavrushka
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri, 26. Mar 04, 19:28
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Gavrushka » Sun, 5. Apr 20, 12:16

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 11:41
Gavrushka wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 10:58
We live, we die. If there is another chapter beyond, then theist and atheist alike will come across it regardless of what they believed during their mortal tenure.
Thats is a rather atheistic stance to take. This is basically saying, religion is not really needed even if a god(s) entity exists.

Meanwhile, religions go ahead and try to enforce their stances both in subtle and less, well lets say, healthy ways.

MFG

Ketraar
I'm not an atheist, nor even an agnostic.

But what I feel about organised religion is a very, very different matter...
“Man, my poor head is battered,” Ed said.

“That explains its unusual shape,” Styanar said, grinning openly now. “Although it does little to illuminate just why your jowls are so flaccid or why you have quite so many chins.”

“I…” Had she just called him fat? “I am just a different species, that’s all.”

“Well nature sure does have a sense of humour then,” Styanar said. “Shall we go inside? It’d not be a good idea for me to be spotted by others.”

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 5. Apr 20, 19:18

Gavrushka wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 12:16
But what I feel about organised religion is a very, very different matter...
And it's important to make this distinction so no matter what you believe or don't believe in order to avoid antagonizing people of different views.

As mentioned ealier in the thread, there are several type of atheism:

- I believe there is no god, but what other people believes is not my business.
- I don't really care whether god exists or not, doesn't affect me either way.
- I don't believe in god, and anyone believe in them are delusional and I will use my sermon on "scientific reasoning" to open their eyes.

The first 2 reasons are what - in my view - are true atheism, and I can respect that. The last one though, ironically I think is what make atheism simply just another religion.

It's the same thing for religious people, and it's very important not to impose the behavior of organized religions on everyone, especially if you only gonna focus on the bad side of it.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51741
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by CBJ » Mon, 6. Apr 20, 17:50

Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 19:18
And it's important to make this distinction so no matter what you believe or don't believe in order to avoid antagonizing people of different views.
At what point do you draw the line, though? What about all those "pastors" in the US who are encouraging their congregations to ignore social distancing guidelines, and in the process putting at risk the lives of the medical professionals who may have to end up dealing with the consequences? Does their belief that they don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else make them exempt from those rules, despite the fact that it has a potentially deadly impact on people who don't share those beliefs? Or do you just take the risk of "antagonising" them by telling them that they are delusional and that they need to follow the damn rules like everyone else?

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Mon, 6. Apr 20, 20:43

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 6. Apr 20, 17:50
Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 19:18
And it's important to make this distinction so no matter what you believe or don't believe in order to avoid antagonizing people of different views.
At what point do you draw the line, though? What about all those "pastors" in the US who are encouraging their congregations to ignore social distancing guidelines, and in the process putting at risk the lives of the medical professionals who may have to end up dealing with the consequences? Does their belief that they don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else make them exempt from those rules, despite the fact that it has a potentially deadly impact on people who don't share those beliefs? Or do you just take the risk of "antagonising" them by telling them that they are delusional and that they need to follow the damn rules like everyone else?
What you do is put together a containment team to storm the congregations, isolate and strip them all naked and scrub them with decontaminants every time they get together. put them in a 48 hour health and safety hold. They'll get the message.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Mon, 6. Apr 20, 21:58

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 6. Apr 20, 17:50
At what point do you draw the line, though? What about all those "pastors" in the US who are encouraging their congregations to ignore social distancing guidelines, and in the process putting at risk the lives of the medical professionals who may have to end up dealing with the consequences? Does their belief that they don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else make them exempt from those rules, despite the fact that it has a potentially deadly impact on people who don't share those beliefs? Or do you just take the risk of "antagonising" them by telling them that they are delusional and that they need to follow the damn rules like everyone else?
This is not the angle I was talking from but I certainly can answer your question. My line regarding religions is actually the same as the line I have for most other aspect in society, like freedom, liberty ...etc... And that is when it cross over and affecting others negatively. Right now with most places under a stay-at-home or shelter-in-places order, I have no sympathy for anyone may get prosecuted for violating the order without a just reasons. And religious gathering is definitely not a just reason in this situation. If you want to antagonizing those people as delusional, or if you want to call those priest as greedy whose main reason to hold the gathering for the shake "passing the basket", you will not hear any argument from me.

To clarify: I don't have problem people saying mean or politically incorrect things, as long as they are true.

However, the line I was referring to in my original comment is about "not over generalizing".

- Yes, there are a few churches, congregate, pastors who defiled this critical situation. Shame and blame them all you want. But also do remind yourself that those are only a few exception while around the world hundred, thousand, hundred thousands if not millions other religious group who are obeying the rule for not gathering.
- Also in my belief that when you look at instances where people violating the order, like those students flooding Florida's beach during spring break, or those people on the caravan to the country like in England, or those corona party around the world ...etc... among those participant, there are probably some really religious people, some semi-religious, and probably atheists as well.

The point is: this is not something "religious people do" which is the manner a lot of time when these kinds of "talks" come up, there are always seem to cast a overall umbrella. Action of a few (selfish-messup-whatever you want to call them) should not be used as the label for the larger majority. Just like I said, even when you look at religious people, there are still distinct lines between how people choose to follow their belief.

Edit: clarification.
Last edited by Mightysword on Mon, 6. Apr 20, 22:27, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Mon, 6. Apr 20, 22:09

Rei Ayanami wrote:
Sun, 5. Apr 20, 10:49
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 9. Jul 19, 04:40
EDIT: skip to the last page for most recent posts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been awhile for my random topics,
so here's one that may or may not turn to a discussion

It comes up in my conversations often enough, but people seldom want to talk about it. So I figure let's give it a go here.

so Atheism.
- are you one, do you know one?
- what is it to you, what it is not?
- if not, do you believe beyond your belief? for example: a religion may not include ghosts, spirits, souls of animals, or horoscopes.

- And what's your take on this:
One of the times it came up recently was a chat with a buddy of mine of what's more reasonable / factual even: agnosticism or atheism.

His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

My claim: You can prove a statement of a negative, depending on what that statement is. And additionally, while the universe is nearly impossible to discover in its entirety, given our most common ideas of what we think when we say "god", an atheist can still say that such entity does not exist.
- are you one, do you know one?
I am an atheist and every one of my close family members are also atheists (as far as i know).

- what is it to you, what it is not?
Atheism is by definition, and to me, is nothing more and thing less than the statement that no theistic religion so far has met their burden of proof that their religious claims for the existence of their claims for a god/gods are sufficiently enough to make me believe. Atheism makes no claim whatsoever that there is no god, just that there is not enough evidence to make us believe that there is one. Perhaps there is a god, but so far there was not enough evidence presented to convince me. That's all that atheism is, by definition.

Atheism does not make a positive claim "there is no god" and therefore has no burden of proof. Theistic religions on the other hand DO have a burden of proof, since they actually make a positive claim : "god exists". If any atheist claims that there is no god, then that has nothing to do with "atheism" itself, but is an entirely separate matter. Saying "there is no god" is a positive claim and therefore needs to be proven. While proving certain negatives is possible or even trivial ("there is no negative number larger than 0"), proving a negative like "there are no gods" is quite impossible, because that would require us to be able to examine all of existence everywhere and beyond (if that exists).

That being said, while it is impossible to prove that there is no god whatsoever, claims for the existence of gods with specific features of can be proven wrong by pointing out inconsitencies and contradictions in holy texts that claim the existence of gods with these features and therefore be dismissed as false.
Thanks for the reply.

I agree that no religion had met the burden of proof. Therefore, we can say, that no god was proven to exist.

Some people, including myself, think this can be taken further however, that no such proof, for very detailed definitions of gods we have recorded - can exist at all. So at least we can say that, do you agree?

Unlike agnostics, who would say that it's impossible to disprove existence of any god, in fact, they can still exist.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

g04tn4d0
Posts: 2040
Joined: Mon, 26. Apr 04, 12:58
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by g04tn4d0 » Tue, 7. Apr 20, 03:08

Okay, how about this one...

Let's say it's all true. There is a god and he did create everything. And he did initially interact directly with humanity. But... you know how when you get a new game that you've been waiting for years to come out and it finally does and it's super fun and you can't imagine yourself doing anything else with your computer... and then after a few years of playing it non-stop you get bored and you go find something else to play?

Just a thought... :mrgreen:

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sat, 11. Apr 20, 15:08

A new religion : bored god?)
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by pjknibbs » Sun, 12. Apr 20, 09:20

Or maybe the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent from Kurt Vonnegut's "The Sirens of Titan", which posits that God exists but really doesn't care about us or our prayers in any way... :)

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sun, 12. Apr 20, 19:13

pjknibbs wrote:
Sun, 12. Apr 20, 09:20
Or maybe the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent from Kurt Vonnegut's "The Sirens of Titan", which posits that God exists but really doesn't care about us or our prayers in any way... :)
That at least would be reasonable explanation of why diseases exist and why people suffer.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Sun, 12. Apr 20, 20:35

well, if you believe christian dogma, god doesn't interfere anymore. since he went on his baby killing spree as well as hitting reset on the human race and every other living thing by flooding the world and killing everyone and everything that didn't live on a magical boat. After Jebus was killed supposedly god promised not to be wrathful or whatever and left it to us to choose our fate. So neither help not hindrance is forthcoming from the sky wizard.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Sun, 12. Apr 20, 20:59

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Sun, 12. Apr 20, 20:35
So neither help not hindrance is forthcoming from the sky wizard.
yet he surely made sure to leave behind imaginative ways for people to suffer. Not to mention he/she created them in the first place.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”