HOME | DD
SolJuniper — Man Created God
#god #1 #atheism #atheist #christian #christianity #homophobia #homophobic #islam #jewish #judaism #lgbt #muslim #quotes #racism #religion #sexism #sexist
Published: 2015-04-08 01:37:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 7238; Favourites: 126; Downloads: 12
Redirect to original
Description
meetville.com/quotes/tag/relig…I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and favorites
Related content
Comments: 89
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That would be Satan actually who created those things...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's what a misunderstood Misotheist would say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right, but did Marie de France would know such word as sexist and homophobic at her times? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A very good point.
You're probably getting flamed for this aren't you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The human race has created a plethora of gods in its image illustrating in poetry and prose the depths of its darkness in all its shades. ...and, occasionally, glimmers of light. Believers sell the story by extolling those glimmers while practicing the darkness with vigor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Bean,have you been cloning yourself again?You are freaking everyewhere?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you somehow believe that posting a comment like that is a better option?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You better keep that god of yours safe in that box you locked him in. It may escape and bite you! ; )
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*grabs popcorn*
Dis gon b gud...
I love me some good ol' fashioned battle of the words between Atheists and Christians
Meanwhile, the Agnostics are laughing at both groups
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Any one person agnostic with regards to god is per definition an atheist. Sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look at the definitions again, then get back to me
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I have. An atheist, per definition, is somebody who disbelieves the existence of a god or gods. An agnostic, having taken the approriately cautious approach, does not actively believe in any god or gods. Hence, any agnostic is an atheist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
An agnostic to regard to God is not an atheist. The fundamental difference is that an atheist claims there is no God, while an agnostic will simply say that we don't know.
That's neither the notion of believing nor disbelieving. It's literally the middle.
What you're referring to however, is the third kind, which is an agnostic atheist. The kind that doesn't believe, but don't claim they know for sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fundamental difference is that an atheist claims there is no God,
Factually incorrect. Atheism means only disbelief in god- what you describe is gnostic atheism, an uncommon subset.
Agnostic atheism is the single most common position an atheist will hold. Agnosticism is not, nor will it ever be, a "third position" with regards to god.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What about apatheism? I personally don't believe in a supernatural deity, but honestly it's not important to me whether someone does. You could worship Harry Potter as your lord and savior and I wouldn't mind as long as you were a good person and not an asshole.
And while I don't believe in a supernatural deity, I practice meditation in a spiritual sort of way, taking bits from all sorts of faiths and combining them into something that works for me. A bit of Judaism, a bit of Christianity, a bit of Buddhism, a bit of Wicca, and to a certain extent, a bit of Jedi as well. (Jedi is not unlike a lot of Eastern religions like Buddhism.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A non-issuer, de facto atheist- that's fine. Although, just being fine with people regardless of their beliefs... I mean, most atheists are like that. It's the religion that anti-theists take issue with, not the individual.
Being spiritual is not exclusive to being religious, so there's nothing strange with that.
Jedi... oh right, that is an actual faith.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eeyup, it is.
But I've noticed a lot of anti-theists online believe that religion is THE source of ill in the world, as if war would magically go away if there wasn't any religion. It's not like there are other reasons to go to war, such as natural resources, revenge, or just plain bigotry, amirite?
Some anti-theists seem to believe that they're automatically good people because they don't have a religion. Those are usually the types of anti-theists who spout off hateful bile about Muslims and feminists, as well as anyone who expresses some level of spirituality. I saw one of them send rape threats to a teenage girl just because she referred to a jaguar cub as "one of God's creatures," telling her he'd stick a switchblade covered in anthrax up her vagina for being a theist. And he believed he was a good person because of his (lack of) faith and saw no problem with what he said.
And I may not believe in any sort of traditional "faith," but I've seen video proof of what meditation can do. Some Sufi Muslims are able to mutilate their bodies in ways that would kill most people, but they're able to perform these death-defying feats of sticking swords in their skulls and eyes and such after intense deep meditation. I feel like scientists should study people who can go into trances just through their own faith and study their brainwaves. Same for people who can survive hot coals and freezing ice through the power of controlling their brainwaves.
What we call neuron paths and nerve impulses, others might call chi, prana, baraka, the Holy Spirit, or the Force.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, sadly that's true- I used to be a little like that, too. It's an all too common pitfall- most atheists across the world are ex-religious, and... once you've been raised to think of something as the end-all truth of truths only to find out that it's all nonsense, you can easily become a little... bitter about it. You feel cheated. And you can't force yourself to believe again, because you've seen the lack of reason and evidence. So from that point, it's very easy to become hostile towards religion- moreso than maybe it deserves. That said, religion does do a lot of harm, and I consider basic christian dogma to be degrading and anti-human.
There is a lot of arrogance, yes- the notion is a bit more common than I would like, that the atheist is intellectually superior by default. While I do hold that atheism is the most reasonable intellectual position, and while it is true that most academics and scientists are non-religious, it doesn't mean an atheist can't be a stupid fuckwit... because y'know, we're all human and humans are often stupid.
Islam, and so forth... the issue gets so easily muddled. On the one hand, there is a lot of islamophobia going on, both in and outside the atheist sphere- but on the other hand, people also often confuse an anti-theistic criticism of the religion, with racism or prejudice. I consider islam vile, just like christianity, but I judge christians and muslims based on how they treat other people and what they do in life- not by their beliefs.
The effects of meditation on the body are well documented- what we call "spirituality" in this case is a relaxation technique with real, physical effects on the body. This isn't really mystical- it's a fascinating aspect of human antomy. I would be surprised if there hadn't been scientific studies on the subject. I think rationalwiki (the atheist wiki of sorts) has an article rationalwiki.org/wiki/Meditati…
See, that sounds like a pitfall. Neurons and nerves are measurable, quantifiable and can be studied. "The force", chi, "holy spirit"... those are outlandish claims that can't really be proven.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I also don't like how a lot of New Atheists online seem to have no imagination whatsoever. I would see people on r/tumblrinaction say "Emotions are nothing but changes in brain chemistry" and saying they're completely useless.
They're the kinds of people who would look at a nebula and say "Meh, just a bunch of gasses in a vacuum," or look at a view from a top of a mountain and say "Meh, just at a high altitude."
You know the movie Equilibrium? Where all emotions were outlawed and anything that would invoke strong emotions, such as visual art, music, etc. were destroyed? That's what I imagine a world without any spirituality would be like.
My mom is a prime example of this. She's very much atheist, and she dislikes anything even remotely fantastical. She doesn't like sci-fi, animation, video games, or abstract political theory, and she certainly doesn't like furries. To her, a talking dog is just too "out there" for her. My dad, on the other hand, isn't particularly religious, but when he does go to Church on Christmas and Easter, he always gets Communion. (Mfw the Episcopalian Church now has gluten-free Communion wafers.) He likes all of this stuff. While he's not a furry himself, he was totally fine with me putting a furry Christmas ornament on the tree. (It was of the mascot of FurAffinity wishing their users a Merry Christmas for 2013. It's well-made and smells like cedar!)
I'm concerned that getting rid of ALL spirituality (and not just organized religion, which I think is inherently bad) will create a society of emotionally-repressed people with no imagination who are unable to see the beauty and wonder of the universe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That emotion and so forth is a chemical reaction isn't incorrect- that is how the human body functions; it's the one explanation we've gotten through the scientific method. However, to assert that just because it's a physical phenomenon it's "useless", that's kind of nihilist. To quote Sagan, "the beauty if a rainbow is not diminished for knowing how it came to be" (paraphrased).
There's actually a lot of focus in the new atheism movement, by its leaders at least, at awe and wonder of the magnificence of the universe. We know a lot about how things happened, how things work; we know that love is a set of chemicals. That doesn't make love any less important or valuable.
I know that one, yes. I don't imagine "spirituality" is what makes us compassionate and kind- because compassion is a human instinct; as much a physical thing as anything else. Even if all of us on earth were atheists, we'd still feel pity for the downtrodden and poor.
I don't know your mom so I can't comment much, but her behaviour seems pretty atypical- I know a lot of atheists, and I've not seen one- nor even heard of one- who takes that attitude. Are you sure that has to do with her being an atheist, and not just her personal tastes?
Well, you needn't worry- first off, it's not actually possible to get rid of such a thing; it's inherent to human culture. Getting rid of all religion, though, that I believe would be for the better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, maybe I've just been looking at the wrong kinds of people. Though sometimes I've found Redditors can go too far in the direction of "reals" where they lose all sense of wonder and creativity.
And my mom could just be sort of curmudgeonly. She has other problems of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Reddit is not a great site to go if you want a general feeling for how a community at large behaves. Or sometimes even plain human decency.
Well, that makes sense then. I mean, "spirituality" (as broad and generic a concept as that is) is in no way directly tied to religiosity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, you're definitely right about that. Reddit is pretty bad a lot of the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly that. r/atheism doesn't represent atheists worldwide.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And what you described it agnostic atheism. Not agnosticism in itself.
"Agnosticism is not, nor will it ever be, a "third position" with regards to god."
I said the "third kind", meaning that there are three viewpoints present in this issue; atheism, agnosticism and atheist agnosticism. There are subtle differences between the three. In which you fallaciously described atheist agnosticism as agnosticism.
And that is factually incorrect according to the definitions you flaunt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, with regards to a position on god, that is agnosticism. And atheism.
There is no third kind. If you do not believe in god, you are an atheist, whether you choose to call yourself an agnostic or not, per definition. "Subtle difference", my rear- they are different applications; it's like comparing a bicycle to a meteor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're confusing your definitions, mate. With regards to a position on God, it's agnostic atheism.
Let me break it down for you again, this is obviously somewhat perplexing for you.
Atheism - lack of belief in the existence of deity.
Agnosticism - neither a belief nor disbelief in the existence of deity.
Atheist agnosticism - general disbelief in the existence of deity, although not claiming it as a fact.
You keep bringing up "per definition" yet you generalize it as a black & white issue based on your personal incentive of how you think it is and not what the definitions actually entail.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think I am confused at all. Let's see here:
One: correct.
Two: Now who's confused? Agnosticism is a much wider principle than that, boiling down to "I could be wrong"- about anything. If you want to be correct, you write agnosticism with regards to the existence of god.
Now, even under your own definition, you cannot be an agnostic without also being an atheist. So what's really unclear here? Because I'm not seeing a third position- not under my rationale, nor under yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"you cannot be an agnostic without also being an atheist"
Apparently, you're still confused.
Again, pay attention. This is the third time I'm paraphrasing a very simply concept.
Agnosticism is a doctorine of neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God. It's the notion of accepting that you simply don't know. Atheistic connotations have about as much in common with agnosticism as theistic do. Which is none.
Atheism is about not believing.
Theism is about believing.
Agnosticism is neither.
How do you not get that? I cannot stress this enough. Read the definitions of the words.
And what about "your own definition"? They're not "my" definitions. They're universal, clear-cut, dictionary definitions. What you're describing is an agnostic atheist. According to the definition.
This is simply the case of you wanting a word with an established definition to mean something that it isn't. To be more precise, something that you want it to mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I am really not. You put down the definitions. Under the definitions you made, any agnostic- that is to say, anybody agnostic about the existence of god- is also an atheist.
"Agnosticism is a doctorine of neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God."
Incorrect. Agnosticism is the intellectual discipline of reserving judgment, of caution when approaching a subject critically. It can be applied to the existence of god, but is, as a concept, far larger and with much wider use than that.
I reiterate: agnosticism is not a separate camp. Either you believe in god, or you do not believe in god. If you do believe in god, you are a theist, a deist, a pantheist, anything there is to be. If you do not believe in god, you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not separate from either. You can be an agnostic christian as much as you can be an agnostic atheist. It's a discipline that can be applied to literally any claim or idea.
I am using its established definition. That's the thing. This is what atheism means. This is what agnosticism means.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No you're not. You're using an interpretation of what you're inclined to believe it's the case. Not how it actually is. Then you go on the defensive by claiming I made it up because you disagree with the assertion. All you do is counter it by simply denying the given definition by saying; "anybody agnostic is an atheist" with no real base. You're just repeating yourself. And saying it many times won turn it into a fact.
Furthermore, " intellectual discipline of reserving judgment, of caution when approaching a subject critically" is just a rephrased "doctorine of neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God." Your astute explanation only reinforces my claim. Hence the part where I associated you with a confused person. You're disagreeing with my declaration, by giving an explanation that supports it.
You're dealing in absolutes. In your perception there's the believer and disbeliever camp. That sort of black & white reasoning is an informal false dilemma fallacy. You're perpetuating a choice to a situation that has none.
Not everyone has an opinion on the existence of God. They neither care, believe, disbelieve, and simply do not affiliate with the notion of being or not being. Or as mentioned before, like to acquire sufficient data before writing on the empty paper that at the moment represents agnosticism.
The problem is, that this kind of strawman allows you to conclude that just because someone's not conforming to the idea of God like religious people do, then it must mean they're on the far end on the opposite side of the spectrum. It doesn't work like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is getting repetitive and annoying, so I'll spell out this one final time before calling this over:
The atheist does not believe in god.
The atheist does not necessarily rule out god as being possible.
The agnostic with regards to the existence of a god holds that the existence of a god cannot be known.
The agnostic with regards to the existence of a god does not believe in a god.
Hence, per the definition of the word "atheist", the agnostic is an atheist.
If you yourself are an agnostic with regards to god, you are also an atheist. This is simple logic. Deal with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Once again, you fail to retort with a valid counterclaim other than repeating yourself in hopes of your personal interpretation to somehow gain credibility.
If an atheist doesn't rule out the existence of God, that ceases to be an atheistic viewpoint, since it changes the core definition of what the word implies.
An agnostic who doesn't believe in the existence of God is not an agnostic, but rather an agnostic atheist.
Let me apply your fallacious logic to something like a sexual orientation;
A straight male likes women.
Lesbian woman likes women.
Hence, per your unsound definition, a straight male is a lesbian. This is simple logic. Deal with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've said my piece. If you are so dead set on wanting agnosticism be something it really, really isn't, to a point where you will ignore simple logic, then there's nothing further I can do or say. The agnostic is an atheist, because an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god. End of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nothing but pure ad hominem because you have no real way to counter logic with personal inclinations. Also pot calling the kettle black, you've ignored most of my points in order to cram your personal opinion you've painted over as "fact". You have internet, check the definitions before you mindlessly get into semantics because you want an established definition to mean something to cater to your own viewpoint.
"The agnostic is an atheist, because an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god. End of."
Sums your logic perfectly.
Red is blue, because blue is a color just like red. End of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>