Worldviews?

[Darkforbid]

But it is about one not faith.



The only difference is the atheist does not believe in a god or gods. Everything else is fluff.

If everything else was fluff. There'd be no need for secularism would there

And no you're not derailing another topic with inane rubbish

 

[ChristineM]

If everything else was fluff. There'd be no need for secularism would there

And no you're not derailing another topic with inane rubbish

You are the one asking about worldviews,. So perhaps the thread should have been about worldviews that you agree with?

And this is the first time i have replied to one of your original posts, it has in the past always been you attempting to derail the thread by injecting your own inane views.

See what happens here?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Wow, no bright line distinction between

liberal and conservative

night and day

large and small

I'd anwer but answering that rubbish in the way it should be and it would be deleted

If I had to guess, your brain informed you that the distinction is "obvious" between things like night and day, and so you replied as if @Audie's post was bound to be seen by everyone as ridiculous. Well... I agree with her wholeheartedly. For example in each case:

"Liberal and conservative": A single person may hold the (traditionally) more conservative view about one topic, and yet be "liberal" (again, traditionally speaking) on just about every other relevant topic. You do understand WHY I needed to include the qualifier "traditionally" when invoking the words "liberal" and "conservative," don't you? The lines are blurry, regardless. Give 10 people a scenario and ask them what "a liberal" would think of the scenario and then what "a conservative" would think. You think you're going to get the same (or even correlating) answers from everyone?

"Night and day": The Earth is a sphere, and the spinning of it causes a large portion to be in the light of the sun, and a large portion to be in shadow throughout each full revolution (1 day), and on the fringes it is what? Dusk? Dawn? Is that more day? More night? Not to mention it can simultaneously be night in one part of the world and day in another. You can even just stop and think about the fact that we use the word "day" to refer to both the "light" portion of a full revolution and the full revolution itself (both night and day as one unit).

"Large and small": When, exactly does something become "large?" At what size is a given thing "large?" If you have three cups, one 2 oz., one 8 oz. and one 10 oz., then the "2 oz." one is "small," and the "10 oz." one is "large" right? But what if we change the line up to include the same 10 oz. cup from before, then a 16 oz. cup and finally a 20 oz. cup? Suddenly the "large" size from a moment ago is now "small." Isn't that just plain WEIRD?!

All of these things contain a level of subjectivity. Subjectivity implies that one is hard-pressed to draw hard lines to represent these things.

I believe your post was the one that was "rubbish" - and it should probably be deleted even though it wasn't the profane one you implied you felt inclined to write.

 

[Deeje]

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

What factors differentiate perspective within these worldviews?

Isn’t the more important question.....”Why is there such a vast divide over the factors that govern our individual worldviews in the first place?”

For theists, if we are one race, with a single origin, how did we become so divided? How did “God” (or gods) become so diverse in numbers and persona? For what reason did this “God” (or gods) permit this divisive situation? If God is all-powerful, why did he (they) not prevent this division, over which much blood has been shed all through our history?

For atheists, how did “God” (or gods) disappear? Why did they see a need to dispense with him completely?

In either camp there is a religious fervour to defend and maintain their own position. Any way you look at it, and despite protests to the contrary, humans are “religious” in their concepts and behaviors.

The religious have their churches or temples...they have their religious idols (human or otherwise)......and they have their sacred scripture.

The irreligious also follow that formula, but God is replaced by other passions....science....sport....celebrities....each have their temples....their idols, and their writings.

Like it or not, we are programmed for “worship”, but somewhere along the way, humans decided to do what they are programmed to do, but in a way that is more acceptable to themselves and their own wants and needs.

They also seek out like-minded ones so that there is a ‘security in numbers’ factor involved as well. (Birds of a feather)

Does anyone else see this very predictable behavior?

 

[Darkforbid]

You are the one asking about worldviews,. So perhaps the thread should have been about worldviews that you agree with?

And this is the first time i have replied to one of your original posts, it has in the past always been you attempting to derail the thread by injecting your own inane views.

See what happens here?

'And this is the first time i have replied to one of your original posts, it has in the past always been you attempting to derail the thread by injecting your own inane views.' ChristineM

Really then what's this:

 

[Audie]

Isn’t the more important question.....”Why is there such a vast divide over the factors that govern our individual worldviews in the first place?”

For theists, if we are one race, with a single origin, how did we become so divided? How did “God” (or gods) become so diverse in numbers and persona? For what reason did this “God” (or gods) permit this divisive situation? If God is all-powerful, why did he (they) not prevent this division, over which much blood has been shed all through our history?

For atheists, how did “God” (or gods) disappear? Why did they see a need to dispense with him completely?

In either camp there is a religious fervour to defend and maintain their own position. Any way you look at it, and despite protests to the contrary, humans are “religious” in their concepts and behaviors.

The religious have their churches or temples...they have their religious idols (human or otherwise)......and they have their sacred scripture.

The irreligious also follow that formula, but God is replaced by other passions....science....sport....celebrities....each have their temples....their idols, and their writings.

Like it or not, we are programmed for “worship”, but somewhere along the way, humans decided to do what they are programmed to do, but in a way that is more acceptable to themselves and their own wants and needs.

They also seek out like-minded ones so that there is a ‘security in numbers’ factor involved as well. (Birds of a feather)

Does anyone else see this very predictable behavior?

For atheists, how did “God” (or gods) disappear? Why did they see a need to dispense with him completely?

You misunderstand.

Nothing disappeared, it was never there.



Like it or not, we are programmed for “worship”

I wasnt

 

[Darkforbid]

If I had to guess, your brain informed you that the distinction is "obvious" between things like night and day, and so you replied as if @Audie's post was bound to be seen by everyone as ridiculous. Well... I agree with her wholeheartedly. For example in each case:

"Liberal and conservative": A single person may hold the (traditionally) more conservative view about one topic, and yet be "liberal" (again, traditionally speaking) on just about every other relevant topic. You do understand WHY I needed to include the qualifier "traditionally" when invoking the words "liberal" and "conservative," don't you? The lines are blurry, regardless. Give 10 people a scenario and ask them what "a liberal" would think of the scenario and then what "a conservative" would think. You think you're going to get the same (or even correlating) answers from everyone?

"Night and day": The Earth is a sphere, and the spinning of it causes a large portion to be in the light of the sun, and a large portion to be in shadow throughout each full revolution (1 day), and on the fringes it is what? Dusk? Dawn? Is that more day? More night? Not to mention it can simultaneously be night in one part of the world and day in another. You can even just stop and think about the fact that we use the word "day" to refer to both the "light" portion of a full revolution and the full revolution itself (both night and day as one unit).

"Large and small": When, exactly does something become "large?" At what size is a given thing "large?" If you have three cups, one 2 oz., one 8 oz. and one 10 oz., then the "2 oz." one is "small," and the "10 oz." one is "large" right? But what if we change the line up to include the same 10 oz. cup from before, then a 16 oz. cup and finally a 20 oz. cup? Suddenly the "large" size from a moment ago is now "small." Isn't that just plain WEIRD?!

All of these things contain a level of subjectivity. Subjectivity implies that one is hard-pressed to draw hard lines to represent these things.

I believe your post was the one that was "rubbish" - and it should probably be deleted even though it wasn't the profane one you implied you felt inclined to write.

What a fantastic concept. Different word exist for no reason.

 

[Audie]

Wow, no bright line distinction between

liberal and conservative

night and day

large and small

I'd anwer but answering that rubbish in the way it should be and it would be deleted

That was uncalled for.

 

[ChristineM]

'And this is the first time i have replied to one of your original posts, it has in the past always been you attempting to derail the thread by injecting your own inane views.' ChristineM

Really then what's this:

View attachment 36432

Would you care to put a date on that, i see it there but i dont remember it. Interesting that you do and could access it so quickly, do you keep a database?

And of course it was not trying to derail the thread, it was stating fact of you constantly knocking atheism.

 

[Darkforbid]

Would you care to put a date on that, i see it there but i dont remember it. Interesting that you do and could access it so quickly, do you keep a database?

And of course it was not trying to derail the thread, it was stating fact of you constantly knocking atheism.

Do you remember this one, from my 'Justify your Ignore list':

 

[ChristineM]

Do you remember this one, from my 'Justify your Ignore list':

View attachment 36433

I see no answer, please date that and provide a thread title or link

And you seem to be so obsessed you are derailing your own thread

 

[Darkforbid]

I see no answer, please date that and provide a thread title or link

And you seem to be so obsessed you are derailing your own thread

I did provide a thread title

And only a few days ago you point blank refused to provide any link for posts you, yourself claim to have made

 

[ChristineM]

I did provide a thread title

And only a few days ago you point blank refused to provide any link for posts you, yourself claim to have made

You are trying to use your unidentified screenshots as evidence, do the honest thing and provide the source or stop derailing your own thread

But yes i see it for your second one. Note it was not addressed to you but answered the question posed by the thread

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What a fantastic concept. Different word exist for no reason.

So you're of the opinion that there is a "bright line of distinction" between all these things? I mean, especially something like "large" and "small" - if you can't see the subjectivity there and the need to further explain yourself unless the context is extremely well defined between yourself and your target audience (again here though - this would mean an explanation was already provided), then you're just being unreasonable.

 

[Milton Platt]

Considering the variety of theism and atheist beliefs it's hard to tell. The only difference between the two that is certain is the belief in the existence of a deity vs that lack of belief. What can give rise to such a difference can be staggering in diversity, but I would say the one of the main and almost ''omnipresent'' driver would be reification. Theist are more likely to make reification than atheists.

The only thing that distinguishes me as an atheist is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Everything else is something else and atheists will vary in what the believe. As far as I have seen, the same is largely true for theists.
Speaking for myself and only for myself, I am basically a humanist, socially liberal, and my view of the world is grounded in science.

 

[Audie]

I'm religious pacifist, and I defend myself with inner peace without violence. This is what I call a miracle.

No snark either. What I’d call a good citizen.

 

[Darkforbid]

So you're of the opinion that there is a "bright line of distinction" between all these things? I mean, especially something like "large" and "small" - if you can't see the subjectivity there and the need to further explain yourself unless the context is extremely well defined between yourself and your target audience (again here though - this would mean an explanation was already provided), then you're just being unreasonable.

No, buddy. What I'm saying,, this topic is wide open feel free to pick any group you like.

 

[blü 2]

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

What factors differentiate perspective within these worldviews?

This can include natural philosophy, fundamental, existential, and normative postulates, themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Obviously upbringing. If your culture believes in spirits and ghosts and angels and devils and gods, and that was your environment through your first five or more years, then very likely so do you.

But on a more level playing field, it may be that gods, miracles and so on are more attractive to personalities that think synthetically (explain by putting things together / by stories) than to those who think analytically (explain by taking things apart, by reasoning from facts).

I don't mean that the categories are exclusive─ obviously there'll be overlap ─ but where one tendency is more pronounced.

 

[Quintessence]

If everything else was fluff. There'd be no need for secularism would there

Secularism functions to define what "religion" looks like in a particular culture in ways that directly reflect whatever the dominant religion is in that society (and by extension, ignore or exclude expressions of religion that do not match this construct). I notice this in action routinely as someone who falls outside that dominant religious spectrum. While court cases argue about whether or not Christian-based displays of religion (e.g., Ten Commandments) on public property are acceptable, religious displays of my own tradition (e.g., trees) are not contended and considered "secular." At the end of the day, something is religious because we stuff it in a box labeled "religious." Some religion somewhere stuffs everything you can imagine in that box. It's not that different with the concept of god, which is why I remarked earlier that neither atheism or theism (you can split hairs about the suffix if you want, but the point still stands) isn't a worldview nor is a substantive label without context.

To add...

No one was saying isolated -ism's could have a independ worldview. I also very surprised you don't think theist doesn't cover all god-concept of reference.

Of course it includes all god-concepts. That's the problem. If we include all god-concepts that could be referenced, gods are literally everything in the physical universe and then some. Nothing can be said about some so-called "theistic" or "atheistic" worldview when the gods literally cover the entire territory of everything. One must be specific about the type of theism and the theological perspectives we're talking about to talk about what worldview might be implied from that. Such teachings are attached to broader cultures/religions, which is why I say theism/atheism in of itself really doesn't constitute a worldview.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Magical thinking.
Faulty or absent investigational methodology.
Lack of critical analysis.
Faulty logic.
Ignorance of relevant facts.

That certainly seems a pretty good description of atheism to me.