More than One Atheism

[vicente]

There is more than one atheism. For many, atheism is a BELIEF in NO GOD. Well, a belief is a belief, and thus theists and belief driven atheists share a common ground.

Vajrayana or Mahamudra Buddhism could be said the be atheist because they do not believe in a god. http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
However, their disbelieve in a god is usually not about belief, but truth.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']In the book Tantric Transformation, Osho said, “Start knowing what you really know, and stop believing what you really don’t know. Somebody asks you. “Is there a God?” and you say, “Yes, God is.” Remember: Do you really know? If you don’t know, please don’t say that you do. Say, “I don’t know.”. . . False knowing is the enemy of true knowledge. All beliefs are false knowledge.”[/font]

On the other hand, science, for the most part, is a religion based on belief, much like the patrifocal insanities of christians, muslems, and jews.

Many of today's atheists consider themselves to be Humanists, and believe in "true intelligence." They promote an idea of "core human values." Perhaps such an idea has potential, but is fully unattainable in today's world. The ONLY way that "core human values" can be accessed by a global community is on the grave of christianity and theism.

As Religious Studies was my college major, I can say confidently that in order to obliterate the religious memes, and thus the insanity on this planet, christianity must fall first. The other patrifocal delusions like islam and judeaism will fall as a consequence.

The atheist Sam Harris said, "Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about. They do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the god of their fathers because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world—to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish—is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. However, we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price that we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance."

I agree,...true intelligence cannot be built upon ignorance,...nor can any core human values grow from the soil of religion.

What is religion? Religion is a set of beliefs (based on faith).

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don't realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith." Science is a
religion,...which I assure you, would send Frances Moore-Lappe into a volatile rage against me. I've never seen such hate as self-professed Humanists when should proof that their beloved belief in science is just as insane as christainity.

I was once nearly killed by a group of Atheist/Humanists for saying:

Most people fail to recognize that the foundation of a mathematical statement is only true in relation to the assumptions of "set theory," the assumption that any collection of objects actually exists. All objects, without exception, are indeed mathematical. The reason for that lies in the multiplying/dividing nature of the optically organized universe. However, the modern cosmological understanding of the universe suggests that no objects exist, indicating that mathematics pivots on a misguided belief in materialism. The sciences usually expound on relative reality through the assumption that object-ive reality actually exists. However, objectivism is based on objects, and those objects are no more real than last night's dream.

I do not believe in a god. Perhaps I could be labled an atheist,...however, I resonate more with Buddhist Paul Brunton's lable of Short Pather. http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/23/5

JV Marco

JV Marco

[schrodinger]

You say all this and yet you knock science? Science relies on mathematical models, repeatable empirical experiments and, above all, peer review. To equate the scientific method with religious belief is just plain nuts. I’d say you are nuttier than a fruit cake, Vicente.

[vicente]

Originally Posted by schrodinger

You say all this and yet you knock science? Science relies on mathematical models, repeatable empirical experiments and, above all, peer review. To equate the scientific method with religious belief is just plain nuts. I’d say you are nuttier than a fruit cake, Vicente.

Yes, mathematics is simply another belief system,...that was a point of my post.

Few seem to realize that those considered priests of the scientific method have neither uncovered nor explained truth. That is not their job. Scientists have little interest in truth or reality, for their paychecks are derived from the pursuit of facts about objects. Science builds its theorems or working hypotheses upon previous beliefs, and therefore it often labels any discussion of absolute certainty as absurd. For example, to say that there is no "present in time" is antithetical to science’s established beliefs. Truth and reality confuse the priests of the scientific method. Their paradigm, or fixed set of beliefs, is founded on concepts of a materially existing world; that is, sciential theorems, not the sapiential truth or the reality beyond objects. Scientists, like most others who are uninterested in truth, are as characters within a dream who think that the dream is real. As truth and reality are taboo in the scientific groupthink, they cling to a faith in objects, to make the dream—and their attachment to separateness—more palatable.

Infinity is another voguish belief topic among the mathematical, object-ive minded. Theories of infinite space, time, and quantity are just more object-ive math. Definitions of infinity are related or relative to the concept of immeasurability in space, time, or quantity. However, if there is no space, time, or quantity, as implied by quantum cosmology, then there is no infinity. In contrast, the word eternity points to that which is without beginning or end, timelessness beyond the perception of space, time, and quantity. Recognizing the difference between infinity and eternity is inevitable for those shifting towards an earnest spiritual viewpoint and subsequently a clearer understanding of consciousness. Time and eternity are contradictions. A belief in time perpetuates the dream as a dream. Eternity points to a timeless present in which the dream is just a dream and does not actually exist.


Quantum cosmologists Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle have articulated some profound insights through their observations. They have suggested that concepts such as the classic Big Bang model, a belief in a beginning and an end, or the Christian model of a beginning without an end are meaningless because time does not exist. Their "No Boundary" theory is consistent with what Mahasiddhas or Great Spiritual Magickians of the Eastern traditions have been saying for thousands of years. We only uncover who we are through understanding when we are, by directly experiencing the reality of eternal timeless.

Scientific or phenomenological principles are object-ive or relative truths. Within mainstream American society, the most agreed-upon definition of truth, apart from the superstitions of religious feelings, proceeds from individual perception or what today’s therapeutic society calls personal truth. Those who uphold the validity of these personalized, relative truths contend that there is one truth for him and another for her, which is a belief that everyone’s separate, personal truth is somehow meaningful in relation to reality.


Few, especially scientists and mathematicians who depend on those fields for their livelihood, have no interests in uncovering truth. To uncover truth, freethinkers, such as Johann Wolfgang Goethe, exclaimed, "Truth lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." And Nietzsche, commenting on people who cling tightly to personal, individual truth, said, "What they really mean is ‘I don’t want to know the truth.’ "Those able to appreciate these aphorisms can surely agree with Stephen Hawking when he says, "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" or with Albert Einstein for saying, "Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one."


JV Marco

[abaris]

vincente:

There is more than one atheism. For many, atheism is a BELIEF in NO GOD. Well, a belief is a belief, and thus theists and belief driven atheists share a common ground.

out of curiosity, how do you know what atheists "believe"? Did you conduct a survey? If not, I must assume that either you don't understand the rational foundation of atheism or you construe a classical straw man argument.

[Thomas Knierim]

Strictly speaking, there are two types of atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the active rejection/denial of God's existence, or -in atheist terms- the God concept. It is by definition a reactionary movement to theism. Weak atheism does not even consider the question of God's existence and thus makes no propositions about God. Weak atheism is synonymous with non-theism and it is considered by many the default position. Sometimes strong atheism is called antitheism or explicit atheism. Weak atheism is sometimes called implicit atheism and it is often associated with the position of agnosticism.

Just to clarify meanings, before the discussion develops...

I don't think it makes much sense to call mathematics a belief system, because mathematics are just formal structures of thought without any inherent meanings. So the question is: belief in what?

Perhaps it is correct to call science a belief system, because science is knowledge producing and in epistemology knowledge is merely a subset of belief systems, namely the the subset of true, justified beliefs (according to the classical definition). But that is quite different from the everyday meaning of "belief", and I am not sure if it is a good idea to mix it with the epistemological meaning of belief.

Maybe we can agree that science creates models of reality and that these models serve the purpose of making predictions. In this regard, there is a similarity to religious belief systems, because all religions make predictions according to their internal models. The problem is that scientific hypotheses are always falsifiable and religious or metaphysical hypotheses are most often not.

Cheers, Thomas

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Thomas Knierim

I don't think it makes much sense to call mathematics a belief system, because mathematics are just formal structures of thought without any inherent meanings. So the question is: belief in what?

Numbers.

Many societies had only a rudimentary grasp of the plural. They lived in the communal and natural now. The advent of numbers has within it an objectivisation process which removes peoples from their natural apprehensions.

There are no numbers in bliss, peace, enlightenment, understanding (in the subjective sense) or love.

[schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Michael

Numbers.

There are no numbers in bliss, peace, enlightenment, understanding (in the subjective sense) or love.

Correct! And that is why you cannot group mathematics together with the "emotional" belief systems, which include religion. Mathematics at its core is cold and hard logic; and it can also be absolutely beautiful, in a logical sort of way!

[Michael]

For the mystically minded the seeds of all religions are very real, if not as predictable as the mathemathical model. It is lax to call them 'emotional', although they may be for the vast majority of adherents.

The mathematical model also requires belief, for if nobody believed in it it could have no outcome.

I believe Heisenberg was right, we can't have it both ways, we can't have both wave and particle, religion, or spirit, being wave, and math being particle. Though I do wonder, do we change or make things by our mode of observation?

[vicente]

Originally Posted by Thomas Knierim

Strictly speaking, there are two types of atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism. .....
Just to clarify meanings, before the discussion develops...

I don't think it makes much sense to call mathematics a belief system, because mathematics are just formal structures of thought without any inherent meanings. So the question is: belief in what?

Perhaps it is correct to call science a belief system, because science is knowledge producing and in epistemology knowledge is merely a subset of belief systems, namely the the subset of true, justified beliefs (according to the classical definition)....
Cheers, Thomas

Yes,...there is a so-called Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism, however, my point was meant to be different. I consider both Strong and Weak Atheism to be part of the "Long Path",...that is, a belief based path,...whereas the Atheism that is beyond belief belonging to the "Short Path" (as linked in the top post).

Also from my point of view, science and mathematics very much needs to be identified as the belief system it is,...fundamentally no different than any other beliefs. After all, a beLIEf is a beLIEf is a beLIEf. If something were true, it would not be a belief. A "justified belief" is simply a lie agreed upon by the majority, not a truth. A dream, no matter how much it appears to be real, is not real.

Humanities belief in OBJECTS and its object-ivity about things is a fundamental promoter, and sustainer, of the illusion.

Gurta said, "none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

True liberation is the freedom from belief. In the USA, its Founding Father's recognized that,...the first sentence of the first Civil Right states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (that is FREEDOM FROM RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (that is FREEDOM OF RELIGION). By law, one can follow no belief, or the delusion of their choice. Unfortunately, the deluded majority interpret the laws.

Vicente

[schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Michael

For the mystically minded the seeds of all religions are very real, if not as predictable as the mathemathical model. It is lax to call them 'emotional', although they may be for the vast majority of adherents.

The mathematical model also requires belief, for if nobody believed in it it could have no outcome.

I believe Heisenberg was right, we can't have it both ways, we can't have both wave and particle, religion, or spirit, being wave, and math being particle. Though I do wonder, do we change or make things by our mode of observation?

The problem here is; there are so few mathematicians, and so many religious adherents. You cannot ever hope to understand what a differential equation means without years of ardous study. But any fool can thump the bible, or the koran or whatever religious scroll they may come across, and call it "Truth" without even any need to understand what it means, because by its religious nature it transcends human understanding and logically, nobody knows what it means!
There are two main differences here: 1) Mathematicians are not even searching for ultimate truth, just a way to describe and to interpret the physical world we find ourselves in. Carried to the limits, we may ultimately come face to face with what is called the ultimate truth, but that is not the immediate objective. If we get there at all, we will get there based upon facts, not beliefs. 2) Every step of the way must be verifiable and once it is falsifiable it must be rejected.
Now how does that compare with religious belief? The answer is; it does not compare in any way, not even in the slightest. The only resemblance that I can possibly see is that both mathematics, at the very highest level, and religious dogma appear to be inscrutable to the common man in the street. A second-order differential equation involving transcendental functions is just as mysterious and indecipherable as the dead sea scrolls, unless you happen to have spent at least 6 years of your life working with second order differential equations. And there is the difference! With sufficient education, mathematics is all logic, totally unlike the fairy tales told in all religious texts which are not supported by any logic at all.