What happens to Atheists when they die??

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Interpreting words differently from the standard meaning can lead to confusion and misunderstandings when interacting with others on the topic.

Ugh. Very well. No more discussion from me, then.

And, on that note, I can see that creating another thread on the topic of atheism would pointless.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Frisky

...a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins.

LOL

You were just accusing him of being condescending and arrogant right?

I'm sorry, but if you (the general ''you'') come into any conversation or experience with the assumption that all your beliefs, observations, current musings are true, you can't expect to learn anything or grow. In any sense.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Ugh. Very well. No more discussion from me, then.

And, on that note, I can see that creating another thread on the topic of atheism would pointless.

Don't be silly Beingist, you know we love you!

All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to be mindful of the fact that you're not using a standard definition. Which means others could be using their own definitions as well. It's always good to clarify!

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You were just accusing him of being condescending and arrogant right?

Yup, and I especially listed Dawkins and Hitchens as some of the worst.

Neither of those guys are objective, they both have a serious hate-on for religion or any type of deity

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Frisky

Yup, and I especially listed Dawkins and Hitchens as some of the worst.

Neither of those guys are objective, they both have a serious hate-on for religion or any type of deity

You missed my point. You're displaying the same behaviour you're accusing them of. That's called hypocrisy. And I don't mean that in an accusing manner. We've all been hypocrites at some point of our lives. Usually, we're not aware of it. I don't think there was any malicious intent behind your hypocritical behaviour. That's why I'm bringing it to light.

They're not objective because they're human. They hold (held in Hitch's case) a particular perspective which you disagree with, that's all. Dawkins in particular doesn't seem arrogant, condescending or full of hate to me. The way I see it, Dawkins doesn't let political correctness censor his words or his thoughts. It's a highly unconventional approach nowadays and it might offend some people. That doesn't make him any of the things you're accusing him of in my mind.

Which one of us is right in our assesments of their behaviours? Neither of us. We just have different perspectives because our life experiences, our environment and our genetic dispositions are different. Just different opinions, nothing else.

People are free to dismiss other people's arguments based on their personalities. It's easier to do that than it is to look past the superficial and investigate the merits of their arguments themselves. Ultimately though, it's a sure path to stagnation and everybody loses in the process.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Can't help but agree, there. But when the JWs come a-knocking, there's simply no avoiding it, so I cut to the chase.

Oh I know how that is. My point, though, is much the same Maricones was making, that it tends to be confusing to use non standard definitions. You did clarify there, though.

I suppose the New Atheist movement, though I personally think it's done a lot of good, hasn't helped very much as far as the general blurring of the definition of "atheist".

Originally Posted by Beingist

Ugh. Very well. No more discussion from me, then.

And, on that note, I can see that creating another thread on the topic of atheism would pointless.

I don't think so. I appreciate your contributions and think this forum can get past semantics.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You missed my point. You're displaying the same behaviour you're accusing them of. That's called hypocrisy. And I don't mean that in an accusing manner. We've all been hypocrites at some point of our lives. Usually, we're not aware of it. I don't think there was any malicious intent behind your hypocritical behaviour. That's why I'm bringing it to light.

And where did you think I was being hypocritial??

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

They're not objective because they're human. They hold (held in Hitch's case) a particular perspective which you disagree with, that's all. Dawkins in particular doesn't seem arrogant, condescending or full of hate to me.

No, Dawkins is not as angry and as militant as Hitchens, he's still condescending a lot of times, however.

See what Deepak Chopra says about Dawkins: Hot Debate: Religion vs Atheist Philosophy - YouTube

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Frisky

No, Dawkins is not as angry and as militant as Hitchens, he's still condescending a lot of times, however.

See what Deepak Chopra says about Dawkins: Hot Debate: Religion vs Atheist Philosophy - YouTube

I've seen Chopra be condescending plenty of times. All movements have their gurus that are (generally the ones that are most visible too), even if it's in different ways.

Sometimes it's not obvious if you haven't exposed yourself to that media while being on the other side, though. The thing with me, is that I've clung to most of the beliefs from here to the other side of cookoo-town at one time or another, but that a story's for another time.

Here's the things: you won't get the best of what these different perspectives have to offer unless you can let go and see past your own (current) one for a while, and you certainly won't be able to empathize with other's perspectives, which greatly impedes your ability for meaningful conversation--especially on topics like spirituality--except with people who completely agree with you.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Frisky

No, Dawkins is not as angry and as militant as Hitchens, he's still condescending a lot of times, however.

See what Deepak Chopra says about Dawkins: Hot Debate: Religion vs Atheist Philosophy - YouTube

To be perfectly blunt, whatever Deepak has to say about most things is complete and utter bs. I recall watching a debate between him and Sam Harris and Deepak wouldn't shut up long enough for anybody else to make their arguments, not to mention all the logical fallacies, the twisting of quantum physics, and everything else that was wrong with what he was saying.

He's the last person you want representing you. When I considered that most within the mainstream new age circles shared a lot in common with him I decided it wasn't for me.

As for the topic at hand, it's certain they rot in the ground. Everything else is negotiable.

[Frisky]

^^^ I didnt post that because I follow Deepak Chopra, I'm posting it because its just one example of Dawkins acting very condescending towards someone spiritual or religious.

Then again, I seen Chopra act very condescending twoards Chrisians.

Meh.......I dont know any more

[theuprising]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I just doint see how you can be spiritual, and at the same time conclude the universe was created without some type of God.

But hey, thats just me. Maybe I'm wrong

There's so much we don't know, maybe there was a creator God. Or the more likely scenario is that stuff is just there and we are looking at one of an infinite of existing possibilities. This is backed up by the recent theory proposed by Hawking that multiple (infinite?) universes may exist.

Imo, if there is an absolute God that made everything and controls everything, praying to him would hardly matter since the universe would be perfect in his eyes, so his effect in your life should be negligible. I never understood divine intervention, Gods need to intervene if their creation was imperfect, and thus those Gods are just imperfect beings like us.

[Wombels]

Karma is a joke, it's part of a belief system which doesn't fit any actual state of being and reality.

One doesn't just end up in a higher plane, astral planes are fake, while nothing to worry about,...

[ZephyrusX]

I wouldn't say that I am agnostic as that implies that I am undecided and sitting on the fence. I think I may be a bit different from atheists insofar as I claim that I do not believe in god, but do not know that for absolute certainty. I could simply be wrong, but I personally doubt it. I think most atheists would resort to the scientific method and claim that there is no proof that God exists.

Based on the knowledge that I have accumulated, the existence of god just doesn't make sense to me. I also have to say though, that I am largely indifferent on the matter. I do agree with the scientific method insofar as I think we need a mechanism in order to filter out the non-sense, but quite frankly, I am too indifferent to apply the scientific method on this regard. So my position remains a strong belief rather than a statement of fact.

I certainly don't think there is evidence of an anthropomorphic god. I think the disparities in historical and cultural religions is proof enough of that. That leaves more of an impersonal, deistic kind of god in my head, but really, does knowing whether there is such a god tell me how I ought to live my life? If I'm striving to be a more compassionate, loving and connected person, why would knowing for absolute certainty whether there is a god help me out in this regard?

So I say I'm atheist. Because god doesn't make sense in my mind, but mostly because I'm too indifferent on the matter to really examine the issue. I use to frequent spirituality forums a lot. Some where along the line I discovered that it just wasn't my cup of tea though. There is too much talk on subjects that don't really inform me on how I ought to be living my life. I mean, OBE and so on sounds interesting and all, but really, how does their existence or non existence inform be about how I ought to me living my life right now? It doesn't, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Beingist

You sound more agnostic than atheist, to me, Zeph.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I wouldn't say that I am agnostic as that implies that I am undecided and sitting on the fence. I think I may be a bit different from atheists insofar as I claim that I do not believe in god, but do not know that for absolute certainty. I could simply be wrong, but I personally doubt it. I think most atheists would resort to the scientific method and claim that there is no proof that God exists.

The term, agnostic, as we all know, of course, (), comes from the Greek, ἀ- (a-, “without”, “lacking”) + γνῶσις (gnōsis, “knowledge”).

This is the only reason I mentioned it, Zeph.

[MariconesUnited]

Atheism itself does not claim knowledge on the matter. It is simply a lack of a belief. The wikipedia entry on it should help the discussion.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The term, agnostic, as we all know, of course, (), comes from the Greek, ἀ- (a-, “without”, “lacking”) + γνῶσις (gnōsis, “knowledge”).

I was gonna say that...

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

I was gonna say that...

Okay, next time, I'll let you.

(If it's any consolation, I was thinking about you when I posted it ).

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Beingist

(If it's any consolation, I was thinking about you when I posted it ).

[el insoportable]

Not shure what EXACTLY will happen to them, but im shure its gonna be the same as with these spiritual fairy tale believers

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Frisky

And where did you think I was being hypocritial??

Here:

Originally Posted by Frisky

...a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins.

LOL

If you want to get reliable info on someone, go to the source. I certainly don't think Bill O'Reilly is objective, and neither is Deepak Chopra, as inspiring as his books may be.

But really, I'm not interested in debating personalities. You made a thread proclaiming atheists to be negative and condescending people. You rested that argument using 2 vocal atheists. That's downright ill logic. What about everyone you know who is atheist? What about everyone in this thread who came out as atheist? Were we condescending and negative before saying we were atheist? Are we now? Did you know we were atheist before this thread? If not, how many people out there do you know who are atheist without you knowing?

My point is that I believe your vision is skewed. Because of a tiny, vocal minority within atheism.

And I'm sorry but you're refusing to seek out for yourself the answer to a very important philosophical question because you don't like someone's personality. You should always judge a book's arguments' based on its logical merits mostly. And I'm sorry but you're also showing that you need a refresher course in that domain also.

All up to you of course.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Cado

To be perfectly blunt, whatever Deepak has to say about most things is complete and utter bs. I recall watching a debate between him and Sam Harris and Deepak wouldn't shut up long enough for anybody else to make their arguments, not to mention all the logical fallacies, the twisting of quantum physics, and everything else that was wrong with what he was saying.

He's the last person you want representing you. When I considered that most within the mainstream new age circles shared a lot in common with him I decided it wasn't for me.

As for the topic at hand, it's certain they rot in the ground. Everything else is negotiable.

That video is the basis for a thread I started here. A good conversation could be had here. A certain level of detachment is needed however.

And just to correct you...We don't know for a fact that dead people rot in the ground. Some are cremated. Some die in the sea. Etc.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Here:

If you want to get reliable info on someone, go to the source. I certainly don't think Bill O'Reilly is objective, and neither is Deepak Chopra, as inspiring as his books may be.

But really, I'm not interested in debating personalities. You made a thread proclaiming atheists to be negative and condescending people. You rested that argument using 2 vocal atheists. That's downright ill logic. What about everyone you know who is atheist? What about everyone in this thread who came out as atheist? Were we condescending and negative before saying we were atheist? Are we now? Did you know we were atheist before this thread? If not, how many people out there do you know who are atheist without you knowing?

My point is that I believe your vision is skewed. Because of a tiny, vocal minority within atheism.

And I'm sorry but you're refusing to seek out for yourself the answer to a very important philosophical question because you don't like someone's personality. You should always judge a book's arguments' based on its logical merits mostly. And I'm sorry but you're also showing that you need a refresher course in that domain also.

All up to you of course

LOL...taking this a little personally, are we?? I didnt say all atheist are arrogant and/or condescending. I just said most are (at least the ones I met). I only know 2 atheists in Toronto and both think they're the smartest people on the planet.

Here, I give you another example of Hitchens giving the finger to his Bill Maher's audience:

Christopher Hitchens gives Bill Maher's crowd of leftist automathons a well-deserved finger - YouTube


Another example where Hitchens goes wrong. In this video first he says religion is a source of hatred (which I often, but not always, agree with him on). But then right after that he says religion should be hated upon in return.

First few minutes of video: Christopher Hitchens - The Best of the Hitchslap - YouTube

You see, he's doing exactly the same thing, he's no better then Westboro or some of the other churches.


AFA Dawkins is concerned, I LOL at him because he's not objective at all. He hates religion plus he doesnt hold any major science credentials, he's a zoologist by trade. These very lack of credentials is what Deepak Chopra called him on, and Dawkins got mad and acted condescending towards Chopra.

Good scientists are truth seekers, not ego-driven, arrogant know-it-alls

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I didnt say all atheist are arrogant and/or condescending. I just said most are (at least the ones I met).

Not even most of them are. Most atheists, like most people in general, don't get all up in your face all the time about their spiritual beliefs. And that tendency to be all up in your face is a human thing, not an atheist one (because people of all religions and political persuasions do it, if they're that kind of person).

Originally Posted by Frisky

I only know 2 atheists

You probably know more than that, you're just not aware of it, because they just don't talk about it. Generally speaking, "Are you an atheist?" is not something that comes up in conversation all that much for most people, and, quite rightly, a lot of people feel that one's spiritual perceptions are nobody else's business, anyway.

You really can't decide what "most" atheists are like based on a few very outspoken, world-famous writers who made money by being antagonistic.

And for the record, I am NOT an atheist, so I'm not arguing about that. For me, it's more about making big assumptions based on insufficient understanding. It's like judging all California women based on your knowledge of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I LOL at him because he's not objective at all...

Do you think YOU are objective? You have in this thread declared that most atheists are xyz and that you know a grand total of two of them, plus a couple of highly vocal atheist activists, on whom you base this opinion about "most" atheists.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I just doint see how you can be spiritual, and at the same time conclude the universe was created without some type of God.

But hey, thats just me. Maybe I'm wrong

Define the word God.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Not even most of them are. Most atheists, like most people in general, don't get all up in your face all the time about their spiritual beliefs. And that tendency to be all up in your face is a human thing, not an atheist one (because people of all religions and political persuasions do it, if they're that kind of person)

Thats mostly true

Originally Posted by Angela

Do you think YOU are objective? You have in this thread declared that most atheists are xyz and that you know a grand total of two of them, plus a couple of highly vocal atheist activists, on whom you base this opinion about "most" atheists

No, I'm not perfect. I do try to be as objective as possible.

Let me ask you, are YOU 100% objective yourself??!

Originally Posted by Angela

You have in this thread declared that most atheists are xyz and that you know a grand total of two of them, plus a couple of highly vocal atheist activists, on whom you base this opinion about "most" atheists

I base it on 2 people I know here in Toronto, Hitchens, Dawkins and other atheists who I encountered on these similar types of forums

Originally Posted by lycan

Define the word God

Undefinable in my opinion



.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I'm not perfect. I do try to be as objective as possible.

Basing your assertion on 2 people you know, 2 public figure activists, and some people you've encountered on forums is as objective as possible for you? It's not possible for you to be any more objective in your assessment of "most atheists" than that? That seems like an extremely small sample to me.

Let me ask you, are YOU 100% objective yourself??!

No. I don't hold that as a standard. I'm simply asking you if you find yourself as LOL as other people who are not perfectly objective in their viewpoint (e.g., everybody).

I don't find you to be LOL because of your highly subjective perspective in this matter. It does sound pretty mean-spirited to me, though, and not what I'd call "spiritual." That's because referring to the majority of a group as something insulting, like "arrogant and condescending," contributes to a feeling of hostility and us vs. them, like:

"Most African American people are lazy."
"Most Mexicans are stupid."
"Most gay people are perverts."
"Most men are dogs."
etc.

This kind of remark is sometimes followed by, "of course, there are a few exceptions - some of my best friends are African American/Mexican/gay/men" or "you're too sensitive/taking it personally" but that doesn't tend to mitigate the hostile environment that such remarks create. It's just crazy making -- in the sense that it occurs to listeners like pretending to have a win/win intention when there's really a win/lose intention going on. It's hard for anyone to believe you have a win/win intention when you're using insulting prejudiced terms and then LOLing when someone lets you know they find it insulting.

What astral plane do people who do that end up on?

I think you're probably genuinely concerned about the spiritual wellbeing of others. And I invite you to consider the feelings of the people whom you generalize in an insulting way, and what it is you're actually creating in the conversation -- what kind of astral plane you are generating right now.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by Angela

Basing your assertion on 2 people you know, 2 public figure activists, and some people you've encountered on forums is as objective as possible for you? It's not possible for you to be any more objective in your assessment of "most atheists" than that?

No. I don't hold that as a standard. I'm simply asking you if you find yourself as LOL as other people who are not perfectly objective in their viewpoint (e.g., everybody).

I don't find you to be LOL because of your highly subjective perspective in this matter. It does sound pretty mean-spirited to me, though, and not what I'd call "spiritual." That's because referring to the majority of a group as something insulting, like "arrogant and condescending," contributes to a feeling of hostility and us vs. them, like:

"Most African American people are lazy."
"Most Mexicans are stupid."
"Most gay people are perverts."
"Most men are dogs."
etc.

This kind of remark is sometimes followed by, "of course, there are a few exceptions - some of my best friends are African American/Mexican/gay/men" or "you're too sensitive/taking it personally" but that doesn't tend to mitigate the hostile environment that such remarks create. It's just crazy making -- in the sense that it occurs to listeners like pretending to have a win/win intention when there's really a win/lose intention going on. It's hard for anyone to believe you have a win/win intention when you're using insulting prejudiced terms and then LOLing when someone lets you know they find it insulting.

What astral plane do people who do that end up on?

I think you're probably genuinely concerned about the spiritual wellbeing of others. And I invite you to consider the feelings of the people whom you generalize in an insulting way, and what it is you're actually creating in the conversation -- what kind of astral plane you are generating right now.

I have no idea which astral plane I'm generating right now. But arent you also being critical of me, and which astral plane are you generating with that criticism right now??

But I see your point, I will digress and say only the atheists I encountred were highly condescending and arrogant. I'm sure there's plenty of intelligent, nice ones also. Perhaps they are in the majority as well??

[qwertyportne]

Originally Posted by supertom

“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.” - Douglas Adams.... the word spirituality has become very vague.

Thanks for the quote, Supertom, reminds me of the Zen saying that spirituality isn't thinking about god while peeling potatoes, it's just peeling the potatoes...

--Bill

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I have no idea which astral plane I'm generating right now. But arent you also being critical of me, and which astral plane are you generating with that criticism right now??

I'm not suggesting that you ought not to be critical, or that you should remain silent when someone is behaving in a way that doesn't work well for you. And criticizing a particular person's behavior does not equal insulting and stereotyping an entire group of people -- or "most" of them -- and it doesn't have to disrespect the person who is doing the behavior, as insults and stereotypes tend to. What I intend to generate with my criticism of what I see as your insulting stereotype of atheists is a stand for courtesy: that I'm not going to let such insulting stereotypes go unremarked upon, anymore than I would a racial joke or slur.

But I see your point, I will digress and say only the atheists I encountred were highly condescending and arrogant. I'm sure there's plenty of intelligent, nice ones also. Perhaps they are in the majority as well??

If you go around asserting that atheists are highly condescending and arrogant, I think many atheists are going to respond to you in a way that occurs to you as highly condescending and arrogant. By making that judgement, you tend to powerfully create a reality filled with highly condescending, arrogant atheists.

It's kind of like people who say things like: "Why are all the men I meet such jerks?!" or "I prefer to be friends with men rather than women, because women are so catty and b*tchy and petty, and only want to talk about shopping." In these people's evaluations, that occurs as reality -- really, that's what they really do see when they look at the men and women they encounter. Is it The Truth about men and women? Well, it's THEIR truth -- it's how things really are in their model of the world.

So, do you think you might get different results in your survey of atheists if you were to do, say, a 30 day trial of generously listening to atheists and really understanding their positive purpose? Do you suspect that if you were to use a presupposition that atheists are cool, you might be more attractive to cool atheists? (I'm not suggesting you do a 30 day trial, by the way; only asking you to speculate about how your attitude skews your results.)