RE: Democracy... (fwd)

> Atheism means that one believes that there is no God.

You trying to claim atheism is a religion itself is like the christians
always claiming non-christians are satin worshippers. Forget about the
origination of the word, in today's reality most atheists simply forgo
religion completely.

There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even
need to think about or believe in the negative.

> Ah, so there are personal beliefs that aren't religion and 
> then there are personal beliefs that are?

Yes, beliefs based on valid reason, empiricism and science are not
religious, the generally follow the path from conjecture to theory to
fact. You may hold lots of personal conjecture that do qualify as
beliefs but are not religious in nature, they are not exempt from
empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics. Beliefs based on
faith and mysticism are religious. Religion is irrational.

> What a self-rightous, pretentious,  egotistical viewpoint.

Thank you.

> Actualy not, the vast majority of people believe in God, just not your
> particular brand - which after all is what the 1st is all about.

Perhaps in Bible-belt Texas, not around here (not in the city anyway).

	Matt

Michael Hohensee wrote:
> 
> Actually, you may be interested to know that *everyone* is religious, in
> some manner.  Everyone has at least one untestable assumption about the
> world.  That is, everyone has a kind of faith.  Let's give some
> examples:
> 
> Christians believe that there exists a Being, called God, which somehow
> Moslems believe in the existance of a different God, and have different
> Atheists believe that God *doesn't* exist, which is essentially the same
> Even people who are nonreligious, or agnostic, have a religion.  For
> The Transcendentalists of the 19th century, for example, do not really
> Scientists tend to think differently.  Their beliefs can be described by

Lots of scientists look pretty religious about their 'science' to me.
Their untestable assumption being that they are capable of comprehending
what may be beyond them. Try reading His Master's Voice' by Stanislaw
Lem: very nice piece of fiction.
 
I'm now an avowed Apatheist - I don't give a damn what the answers to
unanswerable questions are. Especially when those answers come from
someone with an obvious agenda. Is that religious? 

Put a worm on the hook, pop the top off my beer. Argh! It's Coors. I
only wish it were imaginary. If not Guiness, at least let it be a
Corona.

Happy Friday,
Mike

Michael Motyka wrote:
> 
> Michael Hohensee wrote:
> >
> > Actually, you may be interested to know that *everyone* is religious, in
> > some manner.  Everyone has at least one untestable assumption about the
> > world.  That is, everyone has a kind of faith.  Let's give some
> > examples:
> >
> > Christians believe that there exists a Being, called God, which somehow
> > Moslems believe in the existance of a different God, and have different
> > Atheists believe that God *doesn't* exist, which is essentially the same
> > Even people who are nonreligious, or agnostic, have a religion.  For
> > The Transcendentalists of the 19th century, for example, do not really
> > Scientists tend to think differently.  Their beliefs can be described by
> 
> Lots of scientists look pretty religious about their 'science' to me.

I believe that I said that.  We religiously believe that the universe
exists, but, since we're honest with ourselves, we admit that we can't
prove it, and simply choose to act under the assumption that it is real.
(after all, that model seems to work pretty well)

> Their untestable assumption being that they are capable of comprehending
> what may be beyond them. 

No.  All we assume is that the universe exists.  Whether or not we can
fully comprehend everything about how it works is another question
entirely.  We currently understand all kinds of interesting things about
how the universe works, but no one says that that's everything.  If
something is physically beyond our understanding, then of course we
won't be able to understand it,  but we haven't hit such a wall yet. 
Who knows, if we ever do hit that wall, we may be able to build machines
which can help us understand (or at least take advantage of) things
beyond that wall.

I'd say to worry about it when we come to it. :)

> I'm now an avowed Apatheist - I don't give a damn what the answers to
> unanswerable questions are. Especially when those answers come from
> someone with an obvious agenda. Is that religious?
>
> Put a worm on the hook, pop the top off my beer. Argh! It's Coors. I
> only wish it were imaginary. If not Guiness, at least let it be a
> Corona.

So you do believe (or at least act under the assumption) that the
universe is real, then? ;)

Michael Hohensee wrote:
> So you do believe (or at least act under the assumption) that the
> universe is real, then? ;)
>
Don't know, don't trust anyone else's answer therefore don't really care
about the question. I'll contemplate it while sitting by the pool (
still at 88 degrees without a heater! ) after lots of margaritas. 

NYU, eh. Whether this is all real or I'm just a brain in a tank
somewhere playing every part and doing props too, I love the restaurant
hunting in The City. I can't take the population density for too many
days in a row but it's *great* for a visit. Crack dealers still
operating openly in WSP?

Mike

Actually, you may be interested to know that *everyone* is religious, in
some manner.  Everyone has at least one untestable assumption about the
world.  That is, everyone has a kind of faith.  Let's give some
examples:

Christians believe that there exists a Being, called God, which somehow
created the universe and guides (or not, depending on whether or not
you're a Deist) its development.  Furthermore, they believe that Jesus
Christ was the son of God.  This is an untestable assumption.  Nobody
can *prove* that God exists.  They simply choose to act on the
assumption that He does.

Moslems believe in the existance of a different God, and have different
rules and details in their religion, but their fundamental assumption is
the same.  God exists.  God created the universe.  They can't prove any
of it, but they nevertheless choose to act as if it is true.

Atheists believe that God *doesn't* exist, which is essentially the same
kind of belief that is described above.  If you can't prove that God
*does* exist, you can't prove that He doesn't exist either.  This is
their untestable assumption about the universe.

Even people who are nonreligious, or agnostic, have a religion.  For
them the question is not whether or not God exists,--they don't know one
way or the other-- but whether or not the *universe*, (the external
world) exists apart from themselves.  After all, if I choose to believe
that the universe doesn't exist, and is instead some dream that I'm
entertaining myself with, there is no test you can perform which can
convince me otherwise.  Similarly, if I choose to believe that the
universe *does* exist apart from myself, there is no test that can be
carried out what will convince me otherwise (because, if it *doesn't*
exist, I must be very good at decieving myself).

The Transcendentalists of the 19th century, for example, do not really
believe that the universe exists apart from themselves.  They believe
that the human mind (or, more specifically and honestly, their minds)
are what governs the way the universe works.  To them, when men
"discover" new effects in nature, those effects are a direct result of
the discovery.  That is, that the belief in the effects are what cause
the effects.  To them, the map is the territory.

Scientists tend to think differently.  Their beliefs can be described by
those laid out in General Semantics.  "The map is not the territory; the
word is not the thing."  That is, the universe exists *apart* from our
conceptions of it.  This is my personal religion.  I begin from the
fundamental assumption that the universe does in fact exist apart from
myself, and base all further beliefs on that.  

I personally feel that this philosophy is one of the most mature and
socially responsible ones in existance, because, knowing that the
universe is not in fact something I've dreamed up, I know that other
people are emphatically *not* mine, and that I have no natural right to
impose my will upon them in any coercive way.  This is quite different
from the stance that many God followers and Transcendentalists take.

But then, that's just my biased point of view, since I'm religious and
everything. :)



Matthew James Gering wrote:
> 
> > Atheism means that one believes that there is no God.
> 
> You trying to claim atheism is a religion itself is like the christians
> always claiming non-christians are satin worshippers. Forget about the
> origination of the word, in today's reality most atheists simply forgo
> religion completely.
> 
> There is no reason to think that a god does exist, so why would one even
> need to think about or believe in the negative.
> 
> > Ah, so there are personal beliefs that aren't religion and
> > then there are personal beliefs that are?
> 
> Yes, beliefs based on valid reason, empiricism and science are not
> religious, the generally follow the path from conjecture to theory to
> fact. You may hold lots of personal conjecture that do qualify as
> beliefs but are not religious in nature, they are not exempt from
> empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics. Beliefs based on
> faith and mysticism are religious. Religion is irrational.
> 
> > What a self-rightous, pretentious,  egotistical viewpoint.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > Actualy not, the vast majority of people believe in God, just not your
> > particular brand - which after all is what the 1st is all about.
> 
> Perhaps in Bible-belt Texas, not around here (not in the city anyway).
> 
>         Matt