|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:40 am
I fit into multiple catagories, at various times different one are more applicable than others.
I voted materialist on the poll.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:23 pm
I'm a materialist. I'm having trouble articulating why, which is interesting to me. But one argument against life after death that really made sense to me is the idea that a person is their mind and their experiences, which exist through chemical reactions in the brain. When you die, your brain ceases to function, and with the death of the brain that supports the mind, we have no way for the mind to go on. So the mind ceases to exist as well. There just doesn't seem to me to be any system in place for it to be otherwise.
I believe that everything has a physical component. If there's no physical process causing something to happen, nothing happens.
We may not understand all the physical processes or to be able to detect everything that's happening, but nothing happens without the physical world.
Spiritual things may exist, but as physical beings we have no way to know about them, so we're better off assuming that they don't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:07 pm
celestasia Dathu I dunno if I agree with the definitions, so let's just say that I'm Atheist, and I don't believe in anything with out scientifically recognized evidance. Well, I've learned them through my World Relgions studies. Of course it was in the abscence of religion section. So they are accurate. Also, I'm not saying we should go around and say, "Oh, I'm a philishophical atheists." Just saying your an atheist will do. However, I think it is important to understand atheism, I guess (not sure if that was put in the best way.) You see many people want to be atheists, but they think that all atheists are materialists. Also, when I talk to materialist it's like talking to an opposing side sometimes. What "kind" you are highly effects your out look sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:13 pm
I personally consider myself "agnostic-atheist/humanist" because I don't find the exhistance of a god to be likely, but I know I can't prove either way, but yet I also don't find it to be much of an issue worth worrying about.
I would also like to point out that agnostic isn't actually a category of atheism. There are agnostic-theist, agnostic-atheists, emperical-agnostics, and agnostic-humanists.
theist - finds the idea likely but not provable
atheist - finds the idea unlikely but also not provable
emperical - believes a god MAY exhist but that little to nothing can be known about him/her/it
humanists - don't fint he subject of importance and doesn't really have a viewpoint either way
Just felt the need to clarify this. Sorry if I seem like I'm being nitpicky or anything. sweatdrop
Also.. since I havn't read all the back posts, I don't know if this has already been said so don't yell at me if it has been please gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:27 am
ebiltifferz I personally consider myself "agnostic-atheist/humanist" because I don't find the exhistance of a god to be likely, but I know I can't prove either way, but yet I also don't find it to be much of an issue worth worrying about. I would also like to point out that agnostic isn't actually a category of atheism. There are agnostic-theist, agnostic-atheists, emperical-agnostics, and agnostic-humanists. theist - finds the idea likely but not provable atheist - finds the idea unlikely but also not provable emperical - believes a god MAY exhist but that little to nothing can be known about him/her/it humanists - don't fint he subject of importance and doesn't really have a viewpoint either way Just felt the need to clarify this. Sorry if I seem like I'm being nitpicky or anything. sweatdrop Also.. since I havn't read all the back posts, I don't know if this has already been said so don't yell at me if it has been please gonk I put agnostcisim under "things not to be confused with atheism".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:31 am
celestasia ebiltifferz I personally consider myself "agnostic-atheist/humanist" because I don't find the exhistance of a god to be likely, but I know I can't prove either way, but yet I also don't find it to be much of an issue worth worrying about. I would also like to point out that agnostic isn't actually a category of atheism. There are agnostic-theist, agnostic-atheists, emperical-agnostics, and agnostic-humanists. theist - finds the idea likely but not provable atheist - finds the idea unlikely but also not provable emperical - believes a god MAY exhist but that little to nothing can be known about him/her/it humanists - don't fint he subject of importance and doesn't really have a viewpoint either way Just felt the need to clarify this. Sorry if I seem like I'm being nitpicky or anything. sweatdrop Also.. since I havn't read all the back posts, I don't know if this has already been said so don't yell at me if it has been please gonk I put agnostcisim under "things not to be confused with atheism". hmm.. although I see that now.. there WAS a reason why I said all that.. but I can't remember it now gonk I hate it when that happens sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:39 pm
I started off a philosophical atheist when I was young, grew more towards materialistic atheist. Now I'm a Zen Buddhist atheist.
I don't believe whatever ultimate reality is...is a conscious being or anything like what we will ever be able to describe in words. I don't believe in souls, though I think it's possible that there are phenomena we can't explain yet...so I've not totally rejected the idea of "ghost" entirely.
I lost the "need" to believe in souls as I got more into Zen and understood the concept of rebirth. It matches up well with what we know with the Conservation of Energy/Matter laws...and karma in it's most basic definition is just cause and effect. A lot of metaphysical stuff has wandered into Buddhism over the centuries I don't really care for... but I enjoy the stories and philosophy all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:31 pm
Kagerou Osajima as I got more into Zen and understood the concept of rebirth. It matches up well with what we know with the Conservation of Energy/Matter laws...
I believe that you have just answered the question that is the real issue behind this. The arguement against God.
I would not consider myself any sort of athiest, nor would I consider myself a member of any religion.
The God issue is very simple for me. As Kagerou mentioned, the law of Conservation of Energy/Matter. What this means to me, is that the highest sum of all Energy and all Matter equals the highest potential of probability within the Universe.
Do I worship the Universe? No
Do I pray to the Universe? No
Do I ask the Universe for forgiveness? No
If I haven't made much sense with this idea, I would suggest that you watch the movie 
This sort of idea that we, as beings consisting of matter/energy are in a sense pieces of a whole, and if we decided to, we could call that whole 'God'.
Does this make sense to anyone else? I feel this is not a 'Religious' God, but rather a Meta-Physical God that we can see and feel through Math and Science. A God without identity, a God without commandments, a God that has very little to do with us socially, because it is us universally.
Perhaps it is the G word which makes this sort of discussion almost taboo. If that is the case, then as Locke would have put it we could go ahead and dub this the 'Mysterious Substratum'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:56 pm
I don't like calling it "God"... though one may, because it comes with thoughts of some kind of humanoid figure. It's just the way that word has been tainted.
I sum it up as existence. And sometimes, I like the Buddhist approach of just not naming "it"...since once it has a name, you are already jumping to conclusions about what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:57 am
I don't fall under any of them. I supose I'm not an atheist at all then. I'm a belief of my own. I'll call it Spenceriest.
Well, I'll be honest. I'm 14 and right now I don't really care. I was raised methodist, and I didn't know anything else. Then about a year or two ago I started to go on gaia and I never really talked about religion because I didn't know much about what I believed, but I saw others who did and they looked like complete loons. So I watched the flaming, thought, and I denounced.
I think every religion has good ideas, philosophy, or purpose. Honestly I've only thumbed through a few religions so I don't know everything yet, but one day I will.
Right now I have a theory and I tweak it every now and then as I learn more, but I'm not finished with my education so by the time I'm like thirty I'll launch my perfected theory.
Basicly, I think it all comes down to energy. Right now theres no way to find out how the first object, energy, whatever was made. If you think about it, it seems there is no possible way there can be an answer. How can anything come from nothing? And what is nothing? I think the answer could be found through space/ dimensional expolaration. But I'm not so sure we'll reach that point in technology to do so before we all die out.
I think energy is reused and I think that everything started with a certain amount of energy. I think that has something to do with soulmates too. Thats beside the point though.
I believe that there was something that started everything out but they are no way in power. They are dead now and being reused. So basicaly whatever "god" is, is now all of us. However, that is simply my explain it so I don't have to think about it again for a while. I think whatever started everything out can be proven, it just hasn't yet, but I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone watching my every move and waiting to send me to Hell if I don't obey them.
Well, I fell from the point, so here it is. Obviously something started from nothing, theres no denying that, even if everything just popped up at once at one point there had to be nothing before that. The reason I call myself an atheist is because I believe in no inpower power. I don't follow any rules or believe that right now there is anything all powerful that existes or cares about us. Everyone has to grasp the concept that something happened and we don't know what, even if you don't care. So labeling something so general isn't going to work.
The end. Its five in the morning so this is alittle blah. My apologys, I'm sure alot of you will disagree with this, but the only one that really mattered was that last paragraph.
I'm going to bed. @_@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:42 pm
I guess I'm a materialistic atheist. I wrote a fairly good essay one time on the subject that can basically be summed up in one sentence: There is only matter, nothing divine, but that is in no way a bad thing. So yeah... materialist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:19 pm
Lash Vereaux I don't fall under any of them. I supose I'm not an atheist at all then. I'm a belief of my own. I'll call it Spenceriest. Well, I'll be honest. I'm 14 and right now I don't really care. I was raised methodist, and I didn't know anything else. Then about a year or two ago I started to go on gaia and I never really talked about religion because I didn't know much about what I believed, but I saw others who did and they looked like complete loons. So I watched the flaming, thought, and I denounced. I think every religion has good ideas, philosophy, or purpose. Honestly I've only thumbed through a few religions so I don't know everything yet, but one day I will. Right now I have a theory and I tweak it every now and then as I learn more, but I'm not finished with my education so by the time I'm like thirty I'll launch my perfected theory. Basicly, I think it all comes down to energy. Right now theres no way to find out how the first object, energy, whatever was made. If you think about it, it seems there is no possible way there can be an answer. How can anything come from nothing? And what is nothing? I think the answer could be found through space/ dimensional expolaration. But I'm not so sure we'll reach that point in technology to do so before we all die out. I think energy is reused and I think that everything started with a certain amount of energy. I think that has something to do with soulmates too. Thats beside the point though. I believe that there was something that started everything out but they are no way in power. They are dead now and being reused. So basicaly whatever "god" is, is now all of us. However, that is simply my explain it so I don't have to think about it again for a while. I think whatever started everything out can be proven, it just hasn't yet, but I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone watching my every move and waiting to send me to Hell if I don't obey them. Well, I fell from the point, so here it is. Obviously something started from nothing, theres no denying that, even if everything just popped up at once at one point there had to be nothing before that. The reason I call myself an atheist is because I believe in no inpower power. I don't follow any rules or believe that right now there is anything all powerful that existes or cares about us. Everyone has to grasp the concept that something happened and we don't know what, even if you don't care. So labeling something so general isn't going to work. The end. Its five in the morning so this is alittle blah. My apologys, I'm sure alot of you will disagree with this, but the only one that really mattered was that last paragraph. I'm going to bed. @_@ I'd just call you areligous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:15 pm
celestasia I'd just call you areligous.
We should try to get that made into a real word. It is the perfect title for those who are not religious, yet still feel a sense of spirituality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:39 pm
The Zenogias celestasia I'd just call you areligous.
We should try to get that made into a real word. It is the perfect title for those who are not religious, yet still feel a sense of spirituality.Get everyone you know to start using it everywhere....in a few decades, it could make it into Webster! Maybe...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:35 am
I don’t believe in a supreme being or anything spiritual so I guess I’m a mix between a philosophical and a materialist atheists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
