NationStates Jolt Archive

Are there "atheist religions"..?

Are there "religious atheists"..?

My contention: Yes to both, as my culture is this way.

comments:

What? Following a religions "rules" but not believing in the god?

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Are there "atheist religions"..?

yes, buddhism for instance.


but atheism itself isn't a religion if that's what you're trying to get at. that's like saying that theism is a religion.

No. Atheist = no god(s)
Religion = yes god(s)

It could be possible if you would change religions into believes.

yes, buddhism for instance.


but atheism itself isn't a religion if that's what you're trying to get at. that's like saying that theism is a religion.
Or anything from Fascism to watching Big Brother is.

i suppose if you want to make a religion with all the other supernatural beliefs that people have but not include any "gods" of any sort then you could have an atheist religion. i suppose you could even get an atheist to join up.

personally, as an atheist, i include a disbelief in all supernatural ideas, but since there is no "official book of atheism" another atheist might believe otherwise.

yes, buddhism for instance.


but atheism itself isn't a religion if that's what you're trying to get at. that's like saying that theism is a religion.

Many would argue that buddhism isn't a religion but a spirituality, as it has no divine spirit to bow down to.

Well, a religion is simply a collection of beliefs, practices and values related to the trascendance of the human spirit. These don't necessarily have to include a god or other supernatural force.

However, a religion must believe there is something that trascends the human flesh. So, we can say that althoug a religion may have no god, it's more difficult for an atheist to be religious if they don't believe in a spirit or soul.

What? Following a religions "rules" but not believing in the god?

Can you be religious and an atheist simultaneously...?

The answer is yes, as I am one.

Can you show me how that would possible, or impossible, in your culture...?

Well, a religion is simply a collection of beliefs, practices and values related to the trascendance of the human spirit. These don't necessarily have to include a god or other supernatural force.

However, a religion must believe there is something that trascends the human flesh. So, we can say that althoug a religion may have no god, it's more difficult for an atheist to be religious if they don't believe in a spirit or soul.

Hmmmmmm...... :)

My culture believes in "it is".

The "it is" is essentially "absolutely everything".

It is the only absolute.

And it fragments itself into the infinite phenomena that we see as the world.

Our interaction with it is a religion because we draw comfort and direction from it in our dealings with the requirements of life.

We live. We die.

While we live, we know that we must die.

When we die, we will have no further opportunity to do anything in the world.

This creates anxiety. The anxiety of "does what I do matter at all?"

Our religion gives us comfort in that what we see is part of a whole that we've seen is well ordered and relatively benevolent, regardless of the occassional catastrophy.

It also gives us direction in that we see that the more we observe of the world, of "it is", the more "wisdom" we receive in conducting our lives as the world wants.

I am an atheist, in that I don't believe in anything supernatural.

I believe in gods as representations of the fragments of "it is".

My culture does not consider this a contradiction.

My culture is a very religious a-theistic one.

Is this possible in your culture..?

Taoism, which I suppose 'your culture' is, doesn't really strike me as a fully fledged religion to be honest. Actually, it's closer to the beliefs of a 2 am pothead than anything else.

Taoism, which I suppose 'your culture' is, doesn't really strike me as a fully fledged religion to be honest. Actually, it's closer to the beliefs of a 2 am pothead than anything else.

Uh,... no,.. we're not taoist. :)

My culture is a very religious a-theistic one.

Is this possible in your culture..?

Not in my culture, but I can see how it would make sense.

A religion can exist without having gods. LaVeyan satanism doesn't have any gods.

Are there "atheist religions"..?

Are there "religious atheists"..?

My contention: Yes to both, as my culture is this way.

comments:


Who is your culture? Where is your culture from? What exactly is your religion? Where can we find information about your religion so that we may understand it before we comment on it? I've asked you in the other thread, but you never responded.

My answer to both questions is that religion and atheism is mutually exclusive. I am standing by my previous assertions about your religion (that it is indeed a religion and is not atheistic), and I will continue to do so until I find some independent reason to think otherwise.

Defining something into existence doesn't make it so.

Going by your name, are we to assume you're Japanese? So, probably Shinto(or Buddhist)? Regardless, from what little information you've procured so far, it's obvious what you're talking about is from the Far East.

In which case, your culture is not an exception. The terms "religion" and "atheist" as you are using them are purely Western terms, and only work when applied to purely Western concepts. Eastern basic philosophy is markedly different, so attempting to describe it as an "atheist religion" is a fallacy -it would be like trying to explain calculus with only algebraic formulas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Are there "atheist religions"..?

Are there "religious atheists"..?

My contention: Yes to both, as my culture is this way.

comments:



Who is your culture? Where is your culture from? What exactly is your religion? Where can we find information about your religion so that we may understand it before we comment on it? I've asked you in the other thread, but you never responded.

My answer to both questions is that religion and atheism is mutually exclusive. I am standing by my previous assertions about your religion (that it is indeed a religion and is not atheistic), and I will continue to do so until I find some independent reason to think otherwise.

Defining something into existence doesn't make it so.

"Defining something into existence" is what this entire forum is about.

"Pretend" you washed up on the shore of an island.

You know nothing about the island, and you know nothing of the natives.

I appear.

What do you wish to know...?

I also understand that you think that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive. That is your way, apparently.

We can leave it at that, or we can ask each other questions toward understanding each other.

We believe in no god above nature, but we do believe in those gods that listen to our prayers and help us to find our way in the world when we have a question. These gods are the fragments of "it is" (we know of no other way to simply put it) that we see around us.

We also believe in only one great truth that comforts all troubles. And that is simply the "it is". That which is beyond comprehension. That which calms the mind of the knowledge that we all will die and be able to do no more some day.

Going by your name, are we to assume you're Japanese? So, probably Shinto(or Buddhist)? Regardless, from what little information you've procured so far, it's obvious what you're talking about is from the Far East.

In which case, your culture is not an exception. The terms "religion" and "atheist" as you are using them are purely Western terms, and only work when applied to purely Western concepts. Eastern basic philosophy is markedly different, so attempting to describe it as an "atheist religion" is a fallacy -it would be like trying to explain calculus with only algebraic formulas.

No... not eastern, but thanks for playing..! :)

The terms ARE rather westernly loaded, aren't they..!

That is part of my point. The tyrany of words, and how so many people become ensnared in their words to the exclusion of simply having a conversation with someone from somewhere else.

Those who prefer winning to talking, by "talking to win", instead of talking to understand, create some "interesting istuations".

:)

Certainly an interesting spin on the debate over whether atheism constitutes religion, and the definitions of both terms.

Still seems like semantics, though.

What is a religion? Essentially, it's a system of beliefs, typically held with ardour or faith, often coupled with dogma (simplistic or complex) and creed. In short...it's what someone believes coupled with how they observe that belief.

That's all.

Certainly an atheistic religion can exist. There is nothing particularily deistic about...a tree, or aliens. But a person can believe that trees, or all nature, posess some spiritual quantity...or that aliens exist. They can observe that belief in a specific, repeated manner...and that fits the strict definition of religion.

In another sense, this can mean that atheism is religious. The belief that is held is that there is no deity. This is not a proven fact, after all (in brief: one could argue that there the lack of empirical proof of a deity means there is no deity, but this is logically somewhat absurd. I mean, I have never empiracally observed the continent of Africa, yet clearly...;) Also, I have only ever empirically observed the atmosphere of this planet to be blue, when in fact air is transparent. Furthermore, since when can a lack of empirical evidence be used to dis/prove the existence of a being that as a necessity of the definition of its nature exists above the realm of the empirical?). So it is a belief (why do so many people have such a hard time acknowledging this?). And if there is a methodology to how it is believed...that is also a religion.

But in the end...this is a semantic debate, and the meaning of excessively quibbling over it is lost on me.

:) Aiera

Taoism and Confucianism might be considered atheist religions, though i think they have a omipresent thing(not being or voice) called heaven, i.e. mandate of heaven

chinese religions are pretty athiest, but i dont know much about them

Are there "atheist religions"..?

Are there "religious atheists"..?

My contention: Yes to both, as my culture is this way.

comments:
Atheism merely denies the existence of God, hence, technically speaking one who denied God's existence, yet believed in the existence of lesser spiritual beings would be an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Are there "atheist religions"..?

Are there "religious atheists"..?

My contention: Yes to both, as my culture is this way.

comments:

Atheism merely denies the existence of God, hence, technically speaking one who denied God's existence, yet believed in the existence of lesser spiritual beings would be an atheist.

So a "lesser god" would be acceptable to an atheist..?

What do my fellow a-theists say about that..? :)

Are you going to tell us what culture you are from?

"Atheist"(in spite of its technical definition) is generally used to mean someone who believes only in what can be seen/proven/et al. It's a position of absolute cynicism(in regards to spiritual matters anyway) -that the only beliefs one does, or should, have are those which can be quantified, verified, observed. It's a Western term, and using it to describe an Eastern mindset(although you may not be Eastern yourself, the kind of "religious" position you're describing is itself undeniably Eastern in origin) is iffy at best -and dangerous at worst.


Taoism and Confucianism might be considered atheist religions

Taoism, certainly -although I've never heard Confucianism being described as a religion. It doesn't take any definite position on supernatural matters, after all.

although you may not be Eastern yourself, the kind of "religious" position you're describing is itself undeniably Eastern in origin.


Not necessarily so. The statements are consistent with varients of animism (undeniably a religion, but generally without a supreme being), for example in the Innuit culture. They also seem to have parallels with psychical monism in western philosophy, which seems to me to be similar to beliefs in in Orthodox Christianity, that all matter has a spiritual dimension (hence icons). Not that this last is particularly atheist of course.

A religious atheist? Hmm... that's a tough one. A Western dictionary defines religion as "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe", or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship ".

Now, seeing as atheism is defined as "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods", one cannot be a "religious atheist" in a Western sense, but it is possible to be an atheist and follow a set of beliefs religiously. What culture are you from, by the way?

Incidentally, there is a joke of some standing that it's practically a prerequisite of being a successful minister in the official Church of England that one is an atheist. It has some truth to it. There is an English tradition of taking a pragmatic attitude towards religion, seeing the merits in adherence to religious values without requiring belief either in detail or overall. More recently, there is a strong liberal strand in the Church that believes in divinity, but not necessarily a God as described in the Bible (or at least sees that as just one manifestation of the divinity).

Well, nothing is impossible.

So a "lesser god" would be acceptable to an atheist..?

What do my fellow a-theists say about that..? :)


I, your fellow atheist, say that any sort of God is not acceptable, no matter if it is lesser, because it is still a God.

Religion, in my view, is simply a detailed philosophy that requires faith to believe in.

Many forms of Buddhism and Taoism are non-theistic, for a start.

The statements are consistent with varients of animism (undeniably a religion, but generally without a supreme being), for example in the Innuit culture.

Not really; the statements being made here are essentially that "god" is the universe -i.e., everything, which is undefinable by the human mind. And that the various specific objects or effects you CAN concretely identify are only "aspects," portions, or reflections of this ultimate reality(or even all three at the same time). Depending on how you look at it, it's almost circular in its reasoning. There's a parallel to this in the Hindu religion, which is not actually polytheistic(all the various "gods" are considered to be merely avatars of the ultimate "being"), but the difference is that in Hinduism this "godhead" IS seen as a distinct being. The kinds of beliefs Iakeokeo is describing are more intricate, in that the "atheistic" reality and the "spiritual" reality are one and the same -not necessarily because of any factual evidence for this position, but rather because you choose to see it that way. It can be atheism with a religious intonation, or religion with a pragmatic intonation -it's up to you, the individual adherent, which path you choose to take, but in the end, they're both equally true.

religion is a belief in something. if you worship that something and believe that it can do things, like answer prayers then you r moving it up to a God because you are giving it extra powers over other things, making it less like a being and more like a deity, a god, so even if u dont believe in god, u make what u believe in a god.

I may have chosen my words badly, or my memory may be faulty, but I saw parallels in what I've heard about animism. This is a broad spectrum, but as I understand it has the central notion of souls within all living things (or even things we do not think of as living). In some variants, these souls (and gods) are seperate, in some just representions of a single unity at a deep level. Similarly, the boundary between material and psychical states may be ambiguous or not exist at all, with the former being simply a manifestation of the latter. I also saw the clear Hindu parallel, but simply wanted to point to parallels in non-Eastern traditions.

No. Atheist = no god(s)
Religion = yes god(s)

It could be possible if you would change religions into believes.

That's not correct. Religion is a set of rules that, if followed, will allow one to reach Salvation. It doesn't necessarily need a god(s).

Are you going to tell us what culture you are from?
I am curious, why do so many people keep pushing him for this? It won't make any difference in how he presents his ideas, philosophies and opinions, and it shouldn't make any difference in how we read and respond to them, or what value we eventually put on them (based on our own judgements). Can we not take his ideas 'at face value'? Putting him in a larger context would only seem to serve to allow us to assign preconceptions to him.

To address the original post, I never much understood people who refer to atheism as a religion; it's not, in my book. I think the person who said it is a semantical question hit closest to home. 'A-theism' is 'not-godism'. An -ism is a set of beliefs; therefore, atheism is a set of beliefs about the not-ness of god. Religion is a connection with something (be it idea, feeling or abstracted concept) that transcends the human being/mind. Religion also involves some reason to believe in this transcendent thing, be it a rational or an irrational reason, and all the trappings (rites, rituals, myths and traditions) that prepare and assist the individual to better connect with it. So... to have a religion of atheism it would necessarily mean that the not-ness of god that one believes in transcends the person ...and then suitable myths and rituals would have to be developed accordingly. ;-)

If that sounds as silly to you as it does to me, then perhaps it is all nonsense. I would say rather that you are an athiest, Iakeokeo, and that you are religious. Both, not exclusive of each other.

I am curious, why do so many people keep pushing him for this?.. it shouldn't make any difference in how we read and respond... Can we not take his ideas 'at face value'? Putting him in a larger context would only seem to serve to allow us to assign preconceptions to him.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. It's simple curiosity. You know, like when you meet someone, you ask them what their name is, what they do, etc. It's been asked several times, and not been answered -I merely want to know if that lack of an answer is intentional or not, so that I can decide whether or not to continue to pursue the question. Obviously, if Iakeokeo does not want to answer, there's no point in continuing to ask -if Iakeokeo has denied to answer simply out of neglect, however, I'd like to make sure he(she?) knows that we're curious as to his background.

Not really; the statements being made here are essentially that "god" is the universe -i.e., everything, which is undefinable by the human mind. And that the various specific objects or effects you CAN concretely identify are only "aspects," portions, or reflections of this ultimate reality(or even all three at the same time). Depending on how you look at it, it's almost circular in its reasoning.
What is undefinable about the universe?

I am curious, why do so many people keep pushing him for this? It won't make any difference in how he presents his ideas, philosophies and opinions, and it shouldn't make any difference in how we read and respond to them, or what value we eventually put on them (based on our own judgements). Can we not take his ideas 'at face value'? Putting him in a larger context would only seem to serve to allow us to assign preconceptions to him.

To address the original post, I never much understood people who refer to atheism as a religion; it's not, in my book. I think the person who said it is a semantical question hit closest to home. 'A-theism' is 'not-godism'. An -ism is a set of beliefs; therefore, atheism is a set of beliefs about the not-ness of god. Religion is a connection with something (be it idea, feeling or abstracted concept) that transcends the human being/mind. Religion also involves some reason to believe in this transcendent thing, be it a rational or an irrational reason, and all the trappings (rites, rituals, myths and traditions) that prepare and assist the individual to better connect with it. So... to have a religion of atheism it would necessarily mean that the not-ness of god that one believes in transcends the person ...and then suitable myths and rituals would have to be developed accordingly. ;-)

If that sounds as silly to you as it does to me, then perhaps it is all nonsense. I would say rather that you are an athiest, Iakeokeo, and that you are religious. Both, not exclusive of each other.

no we can't
if he is a religion of ONE, then fine, he can just say so and we can take his word for everything he says about his religion and culture.

if he is a member of some established religion and some real life culture, then it does matter what one it is, as he may not be particularily knowlegible about it.

consider what you might think of christianity if all you knew about it was what one of our nazi friends say about it. pretty far off from what you might hear on a fine sunday morning from a baptist pulpit in ohio.

i too was thinking of animism when i said before that perhaps one could be religious and not believe in god, and thus technically be atheist. i dont really know much about the people who practice animism, so i cant comment on how "godish" it all is.

This is a broad spectrum, but as I understand it has the central notion of souls within all living things (or even things we do not think of as living). In some variants, these souls (and gods) are seperate, in some just representions of a single unity at a deep level.

Yes, but at this point it ceases to be animism -"The belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit natural objects and phenomena," or "The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable or separate from bodies," going by the (nefarious) dictionary.com website. I don't hold much stock in dictionaries(particularly those found online) but this can also be evidenced by the etymology of the word itself -in the most succint way of putting it, that it describes a belief in an animation of the various elements of the physical world, i.e. a personification thereof. It attributes spiritual elements to (from an objective point of view) non-spiritual aspects, not vice-versa.

What is undefinable about the universe?

Go ahead, try and define all of existence with your puny human brain. I doubt it will be an easy feat for you, especially since you aren't even AWARE of everything in the universe.

It's been asked several times, and not been answered -I merely want to know if that lack of an answer is intentional or not, so that I can decide whether or not to continue to pursue the question.
Ah. I believe he answered the question each time I saw it asked, but then perhaps that's just the interpretation I put on his words.

Go ahead, try and define all of existence with your puny human brain. I doubt it will be an easy feat for you, especially since you aren't even AWARE of everything in the universe.
I look around me, everything is perfectly definable. I walk to the end of the street and look around; still definable. I get in a boat and sail to the horizon, stop and look around; still I find things that are definable. I get in a spaceship and fly to a distant galaxy; still finding things I can put definitions to. What is indefinable about the universe?

i too was thinking of animism when i said before that perhaps one could be religious and not believe in god, and thus technically be atheist. i dont really know much about the people who practice animism, so i cant comment on how "godish" it all is.
Quoted from a webpage (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/animism.htm): "The term animism is derived from the Latin word anima meaning breath or soul. The belief of animism is probably one of man's oldest beliefs, with its origin most likely dating to the Paleolithic age. From its earliest beginnings it was a belief that a soul or spirit existed in every object, even if it was inanimate. In a future state this soul or spirit would exist as part of an immaterial soul. The spirit, therefore, was thought to be universal."

I would say that closely resembles "it is" as Iakeokeo has described it.

When you fly to a distant galaxy, you are able to ascertain and categorize each individual star's heat, it's gravitational pull, it's size, it's mass? When you sail, you notice, observe, and (mentally) explain each fish? You are able to account for every drop of water in the ocean, every molecule of air? How do you define "sailing to" a horizon, a thing that you can never reach, or touch? When you walk down the street, are you aware of what you are walking on? Not only gravel and dirt, but sweat, long days of labor, thousands of dollars. It's easy to categorize the world into pretty little independent pictures of distinct elements, but nothing exists of its own accord. To define one thing, you have to define everything. At what point does a stream become a river? At what point does an orbiting body go from "asteroid" to "planet"? How can you hope to understand a universe that has no edge, no center, but is limited in size? Define black matter; define gravity; define muons and mesons; do this, and I will stand in awe and proclaim you the one and only true god.

Quote:
The statements are consistent with varients of animism (undeniably a religion, but generally without a supreme being), for example in the Innuit culture.


Not really; the statements being made here are essentially that "god" is the universe -i.e., everything, which is undefinable by the human mind. And that the various specific objects or effects you CAN concretely identify are only "aspects," portions, or reflections of this ultimate reality(or even all three at the same time). Depending on how you look at it, it's almost circular in its reasoning. There's a parallel to this in the Hindu religion, which is not actually polytheistic(all the various "gods" are considered to be merely avatars of the ultimate "being"), but the difference is that in Hinduism this "godhead" IS seen as a distinct being. The kinds of beliefs Iakeokeo is describing are more intricate, in that the "atheistic" reality and the "spiritual" reality are one and the same -not necessarily because of any factual evidence for this position, but rather because you choose to see it that way. It can be atheism with a religious intonation, or religion with a pragmatic intonation -it's up to you, the individual adherent, which path you choose to take, but in the end, they're both equally true.

A "being" like, for example this humble savage, and a "being" like "a god", simply merge in meaning as you approach "the absolute", which is everything, which is "it is" to my people.

It's rather like, I'm a very very tiny part of the universe, but since any one thing is as small as any other one thing in relation to the "ultimate absolute BIG THING" that is "it is", then we're all infinitesimal in importance and we're all infinitely important at the same time.

Even gods bow equally humbly as we do to "it is".

A "being" like, for example this humble savage, and a "being" like "a god", simply merge in meaning as you approach "the absolute", which is everything, which is "it is" to my people.

It's rather like, I'm a very very tiny part of the universe, but since any one thing is as small as any other one thing in relation to the "ultimate absolute BIG THING" that is "it is", then we're all infinitesimal in importance and we're all infinitely important at the same time.

Even gods bow equally humbly as we do to "it is".

This is expressed differently to what was in my mind when I put up animism as an idea. Now I'm curious where you come from (my day job side - an analyst - coming out, Willamena).

Plus this 'it is' is niggling away at my memory - like when there's a word you can't quite call to mind. I'm sure I've come across it before. South America? Probably not.

PS: Cool type face, Iakeokeo. Suits your delivery very well.

A religious atheist? Hmm... that's a tough one. A Western dictionary defines religion as "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe", or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship ".

Now, seeing as atheism is defined as "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods", one cannot be a "religious atheist" in a Western sense, but it is possible to be an atheist and follow a set of beliefs religiously. What culture are you from, by the way?

:)

"Western Dictionaries" are fun, aren't they..!? :)

You might try reading some of the other writings of this smiling savage from his little island in the warm tropics, but I'll give you some hints...

My culture believes that life IS religion, because life is what we do while we can do it, and anything that is doing is done to re-link (re-ligion) ourselves to the world, to "it is", so as to leave a sense of gratitude for our being here in those we leave behind.

Our gods are simply fragments of "it is" that we choose to give name to and "speak with" in hopes of hearing some wisdom from that point of view of our situation.

To us, no human being can be without religion because a belief in something that holds back the anxiety of the realization that we will one day be completely gone is inherent in us.

But there is no "god" but "it is", in the end.

There is no supernature, only nature,.. so we can not believe in supernatural things,.. only things that are "not quite clearly" understood.

What we see as good, is that which will reflect on us with smiles from those people we leave behind when we can do no more.

Evil is the other side of that.

Those who do good, live on in the "after life" (after their life) with smiles and adoration from those whom they or their works touched.

Those who do evil, live on with degradation from those whom they or their works touched.

Those who look at the world openly and learn from it, and take direction from it are the wise ones.

Are you going to tell us what culture you are from?

"Atheist"(in spite of its technical definition) is generally used to mean someone who believes only in what can be seen/proven/et al. It's a position of absolute cynicism(in regards to spiritual matters anyway) -that the only beliefs one does, or should, have are those which can be quantified, verified, observed. It's a Western term, and using it to describe an Eastern mindset(although you may not be Eastern yourself, the kind of "religious" position you're describing is itself undeniably Eastern in origin) is iffy at best -and dangerous at worst.



Quote:
Taoism and Confucianism might be considered atheist religions


Taoism, certainly -although I've never heard Confucianism being described as a religion. It doesn't take any definite position on supernatural matters, after all.

What culture do you claim..? Does it really matter what my culture is..? :)

Knowing your culture would not help me understand you very much, and it would in fact add considerable noise to what I hear you say and do.

I'm interested in your culture as expressed by you, as an individual.

That's just the way of this sandy smiling savage and his people on this lovely talk-talk beach... :)

When you fly to a distant galaxy, you are able to ascertain and categorize each individual star's heat, it's gravitational pull, it's size, it's mass? When you sail, you notice, observe, and (mentally) explain each fish? You are able to account for every drop of water in the ocean, every molecule of air? How do you define "sailing to" a horizon, a thing that you can never reach, or touch? When you walk down the street, are you aware of what you are walking on? Not only gravel and dirt, but sweat, long days of labor, thousands of dollars. It's easy to categorize the world into pretty little independent pictures of distinct elements, but nothing exists of its own accord. To define one thing, you have to define everything. At what point does a stream become a river? At what point does an orbiting body go from "asteroid" to "planet"? How can you hope to understand a universe that has no edge, no center, but is limited in size? Define black matter; define gravity; define muons and mesons; do this, and I will stand in awe and proclaim you the one and only true god.
I cannot see gravity. I don't need to know how hot a star is to know it's hot, or how big it is to know it's big. I don't have to account for all the drops in the ocean to define the ocean. The horizon is the division between sky and Earth; quite definable. I have no particular need to define the universe in minute measurements of invisible forces. The universe I see, in it's parts, is definable. It is. I don't have to define everything at once to define it --that would be impossible. I define it through the mechanism of experiencing it.

Quote:
I am curious, why do so many people keep pushing him for this?.. it shouldn't make any difference in how we read and respond... Can we not take his ideas 'at face value'? Putting him in a larger context would only seem to serve to allow us to assign preconceptions to him.



Methinks thou dost protest too much. It's simple curiosity. You know, like when you meet someone, you ask them what their name is, what they do, etc. It's been asked several times, and not been answered -I merely want to know if that lack of an answer is intentional or not, so that I can decide whether or not to continue to pursue the question. Obviously, if Iakeokeo does not want to answer, there's no point in continuing to ask -if Iakeokeo has denied to answer simply out of neglect, however, I'd like to make sure he(she?) knows that we're curious as to his background.

Curiousity is good..! :)

What is YOUR culture, again..?

I decline (very intentionally) to state flatly what "culture" I claim, simply because it IS provocative..!

Thanks very much for asking though, as the way in which the question is asked tells me much about the person asking it.

Many think that not stating my culture's name flatly is "being rude", when, to my people, it's both "minimizing interpretational noise" and "provoking more talk-talk", which is the main recreation of my people,.. talk-talk. :)

So,.. you'll just have to use your imagination, as perhaps I represent no actual culture, yet perhaps I do, but in any case, my culture exists because all humans must belong to SOME culture,... so where does that leave us..!?


And the silly Iakeokeoian savage, once again, cavorts in the sand,.. smiling and chuckling in his pleasure of having talk-talk with such intelligent and different people...

:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
I am curious, why do so many people keep pushing him for this? It won't make any difference in how he presents his ideas, philosophies and opinions, and it shouldn't make any difference in how we read and respond to them, or what value we eventually put on them (based on our own judgements). Can we not take his ideas 'at face value'? Putting him in a larger context would only seem to serve to allow us to assign preconceptions to him.

To address the original post, I never much understood people who refer to atheism as a religion; it's not, in my book. I think the person who said it is a semantical question hit closest to home. 'A-theism' is 'not-godism'. An -ism is a set of beliefs; therefore, atheism is a set of beliefs about the not-ness of god. Religion is a connection with something (be it idea, feeling or abstracted concept) that transcends the human being/mind. Religion also involves some reason to believe in this transcendent thing, be it a rational or an irrational reason, and all the trappings (rites, rituals, myths and traditions) that prepare and assist the individual to better connect with it. So... to have a religion of atheism it would necessarily mean that the not-ness of god that one believes in transcends the person ...and then suitable myths and rituals would have to be developed accordingly. ;-)

If that sounds as silly to you as it does to me, then perhaps it is all nonsense. I would say rather that you are an athiest, Iakeokeo, and that you are religious. Both, not exclusive of each other.



no we can't
if he is a religion of ONE, then fine, he can just say so and we can take his word for everything he says about his religion and culture.

if he is a member of some established religion and some real life culture, then it does matter what one it is, as he may not be particularily knowlegible about it.

consider what you might think of christianity if all you knew about it was what one of our nazi friends say about it. pretty far off from what you might hear on a fine sunday morning from a baptist pulpit in ohio.

i too was thinking of animism when i said before that perhaps one could be religious and not believe in god, and thus technically be atheist. i dont really know much about the people who practice animism, so i cant comment on how "godish" it all is.

"if he is a member of some established religion and some real life culture, then it does matter what one it is, as he may not be particularily knowlegible about it. "

Hmmmmm... I thought we were talking as individuals.

Is it really necessary to have "authoritative 3rd party sources" of your conversation partner for interacting with another person in your culture..?

I'm rather glad that my people can talk to people as individuals, realizing that each person only "represents" their culture as an individual in it.

It's good to have as much knowledge as possible about any situation, but it is not a bad thing to simply listen to what IS presented and deal with what is there, either.

Thanks for asking though..! :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
A "being" like, for example this humble savage, and a "being" like "a god", simply merge in meaning as you approach "the absolute", which is everything, which is "it is" to my people.

It's rather like, I'm a very very tiny part of the universe, but since any one thing is as small as any other one thing in relation to the "ultimate absolute BIG THING" that is "it is", then we're all infinitesimal in importance and we're all infinitely important at the same time.

Even gods bow equally humbly as we do to "it is".


This is expressed differently to what was in my mind when I put up animism as an idea. Now I'm curious where you come from (my day job side - an analyst - coming out, Willamena).

Plus this 'it is' is niggling away at my memory - like when there's a word you can't quite call to mind. I'm sure I've come across it before. South America? Probably not.

We were the last touched by the thinking of the "far inland people".

We were the most distant. The most alone. The most together.

We have existed since the very beginning, and will exist forever. We exist because there is no choice to do otherwise. The line of life can not be stopped, and we are of that people.

"It is" will always cause recognition and confusion, simultaneously, when mentioned, because "it is" is by it's being the creator of the great and all subsequent anxieties, and the salve of those same anxieties.




And the savage stopped, sat still, wept a bit perhaps at the thought that not everyone recognized that they too were of his people,.. then bounded to his feet,... ready to play some more in this beautiful sand and marvelous surf...

,... ready to play some more in this beautiful sand and marvelous surf...
In the absence of those, we draw patterns in our ideas and remark on their distinctions. And then watch as the next wave of ideas re-draws them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

,... ready to play some more in this beautiful sand and marvelous surf...

In the absence of those, we draw patterns in our ideas and remark on their distinctions. And then watch as the next wave of ideas re-draws them.

Exploring new cultures, when you are the first to meet them, and you have no dictionary, encyclopedia, or guide, is quite the adventure,... no..?

:)

Consider how the first folk of your cultures dealt with the first meeting with other cultures.

It is a good thing, and quite an amazing opportunity, to meet this way on this lovely beach where weapons are outlawed by the gods themselves...

"if he is a member of some established religion and some real life culture, then it does matter what one it is, as he may not be particularily knowlegible about it. "

Hmmmmm... I thought we were talking as individuals.

Is it really necessary to have "authoritative 3rd party sources" of your conversation partner for interacting with another person in your culture..?

I'm rather glad that my people can talk to people as individuals, realizing that each person only "represents" their culture as an individual in it.

It's good to have as much knowledge as possible about any situation, but it is not a bad thing to simply listen to what IS presented and deal with what is there, either.

Thanks for asking though..! :D
you are the one who keeps talking about "my culture" and "my people"
to continually reference these without specifying what culture and what people you are talking about leads a person to wonder just WHY you dont name them

your ill defined "religious beliefs" dont add much to the thread you have started since you refuse to speak plainly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"if he is a member of some established religion and some real life culture, then it does matter what one it is, as he may not be particularily knowlegible about it. "

Hmmmmm... I thought we were talking as individuals.

Is it really necessary to have "authoritative 3rd party sources" of your conversation partner for interacting with another person in your culture..?

I'm rather glad that my people can talk to people as individuals, realizing that each person only "represents" their culture as an individual in it.

It's good to have as much knowledge as possible about any situation, but it is not a bad thing to simply listen to what IS presented and deal with what is there, either.

Thanks for asking though..!

you are the one who keeps talking about "my culture" and "my people"
to continually reference these without specifying what culture and what people you are talking about leads a person to wonder just WHY you dont name them

your ill defined "religious beliefs" dont add much to the thread you have started since you refuse to speak plainly

I am from the tiny island kingdom of Iakeokeo, in the great warm ocean, and my culture and religion are centered around the wisdom of the elder Aunties. We also take wisdom from our talks with our neighboring cousins on the various other tiny (and not so tiny) islands in the vicinity, some of whom have very much different ways of looking at things than we do.

We use your books, or rather the WORDS from your books, to talk to you about things so that we can understand each other,... more or less.

Now,.. does that really help..? :)



Of course, you may say I'm not taking this seriously, because I don't give you a longitude and latitude. Is that really the purpose of this talk-talk on this nice beach...?

you are the one who keeps talking about "my culture" and "my people" to continually reference these without specifying what culture and what people you are talking about leads a person to wonder just WHY you dont name them
A person is informed by their culture --literally in-formed, formed from within. By participating as a part of the culture, they demonstrate it in what they do and how they do it. (QUOTE Iakeokeo) Exploring new cultures, when you are the first to meet them, and you have no dictionary, encyclopedia, or guide, is quite the adventure,... no..?(/QUOTE) Online, to us on the "other side" of the monitor, this is represented by the words that appear on the monitor, in what manner they appear, and most importantly what thoughts and logical conclusions were needed to produce those words.

I am from the tiny island kingdom of Iakeokeo, in the great warm ocean, and my culture and religion are centered around the wisdom of the elder Aunties. We also take wisdom from our talks with our neighboring cousins on the various other tiny (and not so tiny) islands in the vicinity, some of whom have very much different ways of looking at things than we do.

We use your books, or rather the WORDS from your books, to talk to you about things so that we can understand each other,... more or less.

Now,.. does that really help..? :)



Of course, you may say I'm not taking this seriously, because I don't give you a longitude and latitude. Is that really the purpose of this talk-talk on this nice beach...?

it explains you very nicely
thank you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I am from the tiny island kingdom of Iakeokeo, in the great warm ocean, and my culture and religion are centered around the wisdom of the elder Aunties. We also take wisdom from our talks with our neighboring cousins on the various other tiny (and not so tiny) islands in the vicinity, some of whom have very much different ways of looking at things than we do.

We use your books, or rather the WORDS from your books, to talk to you about things so that we can understand each other,... more or less.

Now,.. does that really help..?



Of course, you may say I'm not taking this seriously, because I don't give you a longitude and latitude. Is that really the purpose of this talk-talk on this nice beach...?


it explains you very nicely
thank you

Very COOL...!! :D

Excellent..!

Now we can do mo' talk-talk..!?