From atheism to idolatry?

[ppp]

I'm sorry, @Joe W - I am trying to provide insight into how people think so we can better understand others, but you are seemingly not interested in that. Since we do not share the same goals in this conversation, it is not going to be very fruitful so I will not be continuing it.

In my experience Quintessence, people with valuable insight to provide, such as mental health professionals, social workers, and the like are happy to promote understanding by providing the reasoning and evidence that supports their conclusion. Best to you.

 

[Quintessence]

In my experience Quintessence, people with valuable insight to provide, such as mental health professionals, social workers, and the like are happy to promote understanding by providing the reasoning and evidence that supports their conclusion. Best to you.

If I thought you would listen (note, listen - not necessarily agree with), I would, but you've taken a fairly argumentative tone. Your response to me saying it's okay for you to have your own view of things was to argue again. That sends the message to me that you will argue about whatever else I say anyway, as you have not done anything other than that since this conversation began. Is this conclusion in error?

 

[ppp]

What I'm trying to encourage is looking at things from their perspective. It isn't that they're trying to lie to you, or about you.

What is your justification for your claim that you know their perspective?

 

[Quintessence]

What is your justification for your claim that you know their perspective?

I don't. I'm not making a "claim" as much as I am making an observation. I'm not talking just about the person you were responding to, specifically. Just in general, folks have to square other's circles within their worldview. I mean, you do it, I do it, we all do it. It's not hard to observe on your own. I guess if you want to construe this as lying to ourselves and others, that's the story you can tell about it, but... I can't manage to be that cynical, I guess? If your observation is different and your conclusion is different, that's fine.

 

[Orbit]

I would like to know whether you worship anything and if you do not, what is your opinion about the blog post or the point I made in the OP (if you don't want to read the blog post)?

Are they nihilists? What do you think about what the writer implies about an atheist who worships nothing?

Why do you think a lack of worship is nihilism?

 

[Bear Wild]

Hi Piculet. Good afternoon. It is interesting. Atheists will say they worship nothing but we know from the Bible that anything we put in place of Yahweh becomes an idol. Indeed, atheists may not bow down to another figure, or pray to something, but what do they put in place of Yahweh? Do they put themselves in His place, or their children, their jobs, or money etc. That void of spirituality is usually filled with something else.

Yahweh is

That's actually a really interesting take on it and gets me thinking a bit on how this might relate to my own practices. I have gods and worship practices, but I also hold the perspective that everything is equally worthy (that is, nothing is more important than any other thing; all things have equal intrinsic value). For you, this means you worship nothing. But for me, it means it is worth giving thanks and praise to everything. Hmm... I wonder where our life experiences led us to different results here?

As and aside It was the recognition that everything on this planet is equal and important in its own right and that we are all interconnected and in some way interdependent that was the most transforming religious experience and lead me to the pagan pathway I now follow. My view of gods and goddesses in a very naturalistic compared to many following pagan pathways but It was not until I found this pathway that I finally became at peace with myself and my relationship to the world.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Weaker atheists, in whom a remnant of intuition remains, will cling to something (anything) in order to avoid total despair. It is the weaker ones who still have a small chance to be restored to humanhood.

Have you ever been an atheist? Or are you, like most theists, speaking out of ignorance about how atheists interact with the real we actually live in now?
Restored to humanhood?

Are you willing or/andr able to explain what "humanhood" consists of in your opinion? What is the criteria needed?

 

[DKH]

What is a thing that I, Joe W, an atheist, believes about science that goes beyond what is deserved or justifiable?

Since, you have decided to focus on the term "extravagant" (in the supplied definition of worship), we will need to address if an atheist's worship of science goes beyond what is deserved or justifiable. I am unable to address "your" request, because you haven't supplied the necessary information to do so…Hence, the thing I will choose is science's position on the creation of the universe. Because, science's position seems to be universal for atheists.


Theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser and science's position on the creation of the universe:


The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing: it assumes the whole machinery of quantum field theory, the modern description of how elementary particles of matter interact with one another, was already in operation.


This idea or theory is full of assumptions and would negate the idea that it is deserved or justified to be considered as the actual reason for the creation of our universe. It may seem reasonable to those who only believe in the physical or want an option to the supernatural cause, but it really doesn't prove how the universe came to be. However, this is not a "knock" on Mr. Gleiser or science…It is just an opinion, related to the fact that science really doesn't know how the universe came to be, there are only speculations. Where, my belief in a Supreme Being or God, who created all that was necessary to allow our universe to exist, explains how the universe came to be devoid of all the technical issues that only God would know, not man.


Note: This posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

 

[rational experiences]

Why doesn't the information own claim to a self, human first. All conditions one and first before you begin to want to describe a thinker or thinking condition?

A review, what do you think is accurate about what you claim is important.

A state claimed to be nothing.

Or the one status that already owns everything.

As if you infer science is looking for God, the ancient terms and stories/themes, seeing it is already previously human expressed in those words. Or you claim you are owner of new thoughts and are not looking for anything?

Which is a challenge to the thinker to ask that thinker, what actually are you looking for?

 

[ppp]

Since, you have decided to focus on the term "extravagant" (in the supplied definition of worship), we will need to address if an atheist's worship of science goes beyond what is deserved or justifiable. I am unable to address "your" request, because you haven't supplied the necessary information to do so…

First, I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you of something analogous to racism. But I am gong to point out that there are issues with making the broad statement that members of group X have characteristic Y until confronted by an actual member of group X. You are pulling back to say that you don't know. Maybe I am one of the good X'ers. If that does not discommode you, it should.

Hence, the thing I will choose is science's position on the creation of the universe. Because, science's position seems to be universal for atheists.

If you are a westerner, I can see how that a casual glance might give you that impression. But atheist just means that one does not believe a god exists. Which includes most Buddhists and Jain. When I was in Wicca, many of my fellow pagans were atheists. There is a very large Jewish atheist community, and significant Quaker and Catholic atheist communities - cultural as opposed to religious. Weird, right?

On the flip side, among the developed nations, it is only the US and Turkey that have a very large creationist population among believers. Christian and Muslim respectively. Around 43% according to PEW, iirc. Everyone else's Creationist Christians range between 5% and 15%. So, a large portion of the worlds Christian and Muslim population also take the science position, as you phrase it.

This idea or theory is full of assumptions and would negate the idea that it is deserved or justified to be considered as the actual reason for the creation of our universe. It may seem reasonable to those who only believe in the physical or want an option to the supernatural cause, but it really doesn't prove how the universe came to be.

It's just a model. Do you not understand that? It's not a theory. Not even close. It's just a mathematical construction that is a promising idea. Before any cosmologist takes it half as seriously as you suggest [deserved or justified to be considered as the actual reason for the creation of our universe], there would have to be a crap-ton of evidence and demonstration and confirmation - none of which currently exist.

Remember the Higgs Boson? That was a mathematical model proposed back in the 60's. The reason it was such a big deal among physicists in 2012 was because after 50 years they were finally able to perform a test to see if the mathematical model was worth the paper it was written on. To see if the thing actually exists. To see if Higgs' work was worth believing.

Where, my belief in a Supreme Being or God, who created all that was necessary to allow our universe to exist, explains how the universe came to be devoid of all the technical issues that only God would know, not man.

Unfortunately, the God Idea does not propose a model that can be justified. Nor does it actually explain the existence of the universe. Explanations detail how an event occurs in terms of things that we know and can demonstrate to be true. The God Idea just asserts that God a) exists, b) is all powerful, and c) made the universe. And that's it.

 

[rational experiences]

Did science ever own a claim to state that maths, numbering does not own a factor for space as the nothing, deep pit or oblivion to say began from?

Yet science on Earth says mass, I will, my will, apply numbers to mass that is not zero. Destroy/remove/convert that mass to own a place of converted radiating zero and then convert the rest of the mass by that event, radiating space?

Science said God by defined inferred O planet travel in a cycle was 1010101010101010101010101010101010 because the cycle was unbroken, the travel in space. And also the mass O the circle owning no beginning and no end also was not broken.

Science not only discusses maths it also discusses design and says O the circle if broken, would not be enabled to apply timed counting of 12 hours of light one side and 12 hours of the light the other side.

1 year O therefore is only half light travel.

Why you said it was a circuit of 10101010101010101010101010, in its own O cycle.

That God inference 10 is not owned anywhere else.
Meaning of the Number 10 in the Bible

The religious ideal against Scientific Satanism TAN, meaning cause to flog said an idol to worship in life, Mother and baby inheritance.

Remember what the adult male did to the adult male.

Science as a human first owns in origin their own male self, as science designer historically, so his own self should be his own idol.

As his MATHS about space, nothing was proven wrong, his science quotes space is a womb, false female quote, therefore so is Mother Abomination, his science/maths also a false female quote. Therefore science female quote caused him to be sacrificed, and it was his own idol MATHS that caused it.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Have you ever been an atheist? Or are you, like most theists, speaking out of ignorance about how atheists interact with the real we actually live in now?
Restored to humanhood?

Are you willing or/andr able to explain what "humanhood" consists of in your opinion? What is the criteria needed?

He just did that, but it seems to me you either don't like what he said or don't understand what he said. Perhaps it's a bit of each. Such things often go hand in hand.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is such a poor essay. He believes in his god so all others are evil idol worshipers. Instead of being honest and saying he hates atheists so he places this spin from the writing of his "holy" book to justify is prejudice.

What is the penalty for idolatry in Islam? Labelling people as idolater can create a justification for persecuting them. Historically, this has happened in several religions.

 

[night912]

Atheists believe that they don't believe in anything. But they are in denial.

Every living human believes in something. Some believe in luck, some in fate, some in a standard religion, some in superstition.

That's why you are wrong about atheists.

Here's just a few examples of my beliefs:

1. I believe that you are wrong about atheists because I know that what you said, "Atheists believe that they don't believe in anything," above is false regarding atheists (from the context, you mean all atheists).

2. I believe that you are wrong when you said, "But they are in denial," because I'm not denying that atheists do have beliefs.

3. I believe that you do not and cannot, come up with any evidence to support your arguments so you end up making false claims about atheists and science in order to convince yourself that you've triumphed over those in opposition to your arguments. I know this because that's what you were doing in your post above.


I suggest you shouldn't take the ad hominem route in the future because your comments towards atheists and science are easily being used and turn it back against you demonstrating your humiliating failures in here.

 

[Roguish]

Have you ever been an atheist? Or are you, like most theists, speaking out of ignorance about how atheists interact with the real we actually live in now?
Restored to humanhood?
Are you willing or/and able to explain what "humanhood" consists of in your opinion? What is the criteria needed?

A clipped bird may forget what it's like to fly.
And when the full-fledged bird points out
that the clipped bird has lost the essence of birdness,
the clipped bird may well ask in defiance,
"How would you know?
Have you ever been a clipped bird?"

But this only shows,
that the clipped bird
does not understand his predicament.

Flight offers an intrinsically superior point of view.
It is not a matter of opinion.
The clipped bird may insist
that his view is equally correct --
or perhaps correcter.
But it isn't so.

The only way for the clipped bird
to ever understand
the inviolate bird's point of view,
is for him to regrow his flight feathers
and take to the skies once again.

 

[Roguish]

1. I believe that you are wrong about atheists because ...
2. I believe that you are wrong when you said ...
3. I believe that you do not and cannot, come up with any evidence ...

In points 1, 2, and 3 above, you are using "believe" as a synonym for "think" or "have the opinion that" or "am convinced that". Using the word "believe" in that way is indeed common nowadays, but it is actually incorrect. Belief is not having an opinion, or thinking something. It is different. It involves a loving adoration, or veneration, or worship of the matter believed. Etymologically this is quite clear: be-lief contains "lief" at its core, which means "dear".

 

[night912]

In points 1, 2, and 3 above, you are using "believe" as a synonym for "think" or "have the opinion that" or "am convinced that". Using the word "believe" in that way is indeed common nowadays, but it is actually incorrect. Belief is not having an opinion, or thinking something. It is different. It involves a loving adoration, or veneration, or worship of the matter believed. Etymologically this is quite clear: be-lief contains "lief" at its core, which means "dear".

You're opinion I noted, but you are wrong. It does not have to involve a loving adoration, or veneration, or worship of the matter believed. Using etymologically doesn't define the word, so it means nothing. With that said, I don't know why some people use that to define a word as if it's the definition/meaning of the word. The origin/root of a word does not necessarily mean the same thing as it's modern and common definition, which is usually how it's being used in an average conversation today.

convince

1. cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something.

mid 16th century (in the sense ‘overcome, defeat in argument’): from Latin convincere, from con- ‘with’ + vincere ‘conquer’.


Whenever the word, "convince" is being used in a conversation today, it does not mean "with conquer."

If I was to say, "I'm convinced that the earth is global in shape and not flat."

Now say it again using the origin of the word, "I'm with conquer that the earth is global in shape and not flat."

Does not make any sense at all.

 

[ChristineM]

In points 1, 2, and 3 above, you are using "believe" as a synonym for "think" or "have the opinion that" or "am convinced that". Using the word "believe" in that way is indeed common nowadays, but it is actually incorrect. Belief is not having an opinion, or thinking something. It is different. It involves a loving adoration, or veneration, or worship of the matter believed. Etymologically this is quite clear: be-lief contains "lief" at its core, which means "dear".

belief

noun

1. 1.
   an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
   "his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2. 2.
   trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
   "a belief in democratic politics"

 

[Bear Wild]

Hi Piculet. Good afternoon. It is interesting. Atheists will say they worship nothing but we know from the Bible that anything we put in place of Yahweh becomes an idol. Indeed, atheists may not bow down to another figure, or pray to something, but what do they put in place of Yahweh? Do they put themselves in His place, or their children, their jobs, or money etc. That void of spirituality is usually filled with something else.

Yahwah is and Idol from my perspective. No lack of spirituality here.

 

[ppp]

Yahwah is and Idol from my perspective. No lack of spirituality here.

An idol representing what?