Thread: I converted

You didn't really convert him. He is clueless. Beliefs are just beliefs and this proves the point. A theist is the same as an atheist. An atheist is a theist standing on his head. One believes, the other disbelieves but neither know. Beliefs are counterfeit knowledge. Believing or not believing is pretending you know.
Instead of asserting your beliefs or disbeliefs, try to know by first knowing yourself.

The reason people don't like questioning their beliefs is because it threatens their inner security. People have a habit of looking for what only comforts them.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Instead of asserting your beliefs or disbeliefs, try to know by first knowing yourself.

I'm not a deist, but I agree with you.

The reason people don't like questioning their beliefs is because it threatens their inner security. People have a habit of looking for what only comforts them.

This.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

The reason people don't like questioning their beliefs is because it threatens their inner security. People have a habit of looking for what only comforts them.

I know!!! Whether or not one believes or disbelieves it is about comfort! The theist is afraid of hell and afraid of the God he was conditioned to believe in (who is not the creator but a parasitic predator IB) while the nonbeliever finds security in rationality and the intellect.

Question your beliefs and disbeliefs. Better yet, throw them out!!! Let the Universe be a profound mystery! Be in wonder of it! Open your eyes to the wonderfilled universe instead of looking through a veil of disbeliefs and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Beliefs are counterfeit knowledge. Believing or not believing is pretending you know.

That's not right. Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism negate that.

You talk about belief and disbelief, but you MUST have one or the other. It's like whether or not you have arms. You either have arms or you don't.

Great, you've labelled a star a 'deity'. That doesn't stop it from being a souless ball of hydrogen. In fact it doesn't change anything at all. The universe is still just as devoid of meaning no matter how many labels you put on random objects.

I don't see how he is not an atheist. What God does he believe in exactly? A star is not a God. It is not omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, it is not eternal, it is not incorporeal, it is not a source of morality or a personal being, it is not overseer or creator of the universe, and it is not conscious. Hence it satisfies not a single criterium for being a God.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

That's not right. Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism negate that.

You talk about belief and disbelief, but you MUST have one or the other. It's like whether or not you have arms. You either have arms or you don't.

You know if you have arms or not, you don't believe you don't have arms but really do, or visa-versa.

Agnosticism just means you don't know and you accept that instead of the ego game pretending that you do know.

I heard of agnosticism but not coupled with theism or atheism. What is agnostic-theism, I don't know whether there is a god or not but I'll pretend (believe) that there is? Isn't that what theists are? An Agnostic-atheist is 'I don't know if there is a God or not but I'll pretend (believe) that there isn't", isn't that what an atheist is?

Too bad organized religion persecuted the gnostics because they didn't want anyone around who actually knew the truth to blow their cover.

But you don't have to choose between belief and disbelief. Look at me. I didn't. I argue with both theists and atheists!!!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You know if you have arms or not, you don't believe you don't have arms but really do, or visa-versa.

Agnosticism just means you don't know and you accept that instead of the ego game pretending that you do know.

I heard of agnosticism but not coupled with theism or atheism. What is agnostic-theism, I don't know whether there is a god or not but I'll pretend (believe) that there is? Isn't that what theists are? An Agnostic-atheist is 'I don't know if there is a God or not but I'll pretend (believe) that there isn't", isn't that what an atheist is?

Too bad organized religion persecuted the gnostics because they didn't want anyone around who actually knew the truth to blow their cover.

But you don't have to choose between belief and disbelief. Look at me. I didn't. I argue with both theists and atheists!!!

Agnosticism is contending you can't ever know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Theism is believing in a deity, Atheism is denying there is a deity or believing no deity exists. You can still believe something but be humble enough to realize you cannot know for certain. I can believe there is no God, but be comfortable with the fact that there is a chance that I'm wrong in my beliefs, even if that chance may be 0.0000001%.

I can believe my girlfriend isn't cheating on me and screwing another dude when shes thousands of kilometers away, but I won't ever know that for a fact. I have reason to believe she isn't, my faith in her is justified, and the chances that she are is non-existent, but I can't truly know.

Agnostic Theism and Atheism are the same. A non Agnostic Atheist would say "There is no God, and nothing can convince me otherwise." A non Agnostic Theist would say "There is a God, and nothing can convince me otherwise."

You'll find that most Atheists, are Agnostic as well. Demanding evidence and are would be willing to cast away their beliefs if God somehow revealed himself. You'll find that Theists tend to be the opposite.

There do exist militant Atheists who refuse to see logic, reason and rationale. Who are so based in their beliefs that it might as well be a religion to them. Just as their are those who are heavily religious, who are willing to cast aside their beliefs if enough reason is given. These people are few and far between in both cases, but they exist.

Belief is not knowledge. Saying "I do not believe in god" is not equal to "I know there is no god."

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

The reason people don't like questioning their beliefs is because it threatens their inner security. People have a habit of looking for what only comforts them.

In our world, aren't you really forced to question your beliefs if you're to become an atheist? Most people grow up with some religion.

This is the predicament I'm in:
I am pretty sure that there is no personality that created this Universe. Pretty damn sure. However, I am certain from my own experience and intuition that the universe is made of consciousness stepped down into all the dimensions. This universe can be compared to a dream in which we are all dream characters of each other but we are all dreaming. This is a metaphor.
To me, there is no contradiction between logic and rationality versus intuition and mysticism, just like there is no contradiction between the right and left hemispheres of the brain. We need both.
We all dream our experience of life by interpreting everything we percieve through our senses and all the ideas we are exposed to and digest. Our minds make sense of all the electrical data coming in through our senses.
So I cannot become converted because I understand the two poles of intuition and rationality. It is the rationalization of intuition or the intuiting of rationality that ends up in taking myths literally or taking rationality as faith that result in narrow mindedness. These people can be converted because they cannot accept the whole truth of their experience, they have to reject half to accept the other half. And this divides their psyche. It creates a believer who suppresses his doubt and projects it onto others so he can persecute them.
I think the rise in atheism and agnosticism is a remedy to superstition and dogma and therefore is a good thing. But be careful that the atheist movement doesn't become guilty of the same thing. It shouldn't suppress intuition. Intuition is a treasure we should not throw out. Most scientific breakthroughs are made by a scientist trying to prove what he knows intuitively.
If half the people are superstitious and blind believers the other half should be doubters, rationalists in order to balance the collective mind of our species and planet. Much better would be to aknowledge and balance these essential elements within ourselves. Each tempers the other and creates checks and balances.
The Buddha was an atheist who encouraged doubt and not to believe anything becasue it is written in books, uttered by wise men , or because he the Buddha has said it, or if it is ancient knowledge or secret doctrines, but only accept it if you try it and it agrees with your own perception and experience.
Since metaphorically this Universe is a collective dream who am I to tell someone else that their dream is wrong and try to convert them?
The beauty of lucid dreams is that it is conscious dreaming. Normal human dreaming is subconscious dreaming while animals have unconscious dreams. The more conscious dreaming there is the further our influence on this realm of matter will be, the better our science and technology will develope, not to mention our arts and music. Many great scientific discoveries and inventions were revealed in dreams as well as art and music.

This doesn't sound too much like a predicament to me. Sounds like you found
a decent understanding how to balance these 'sides'.

If half the people are superstitious and blind believers the other half should be doubters, rationalists in order to balance the collective mind of our species and planet.

So, in your area - do you feel the need to be on the rational or the spiritual
side to balance this out? I find this particularly intersting, because I agree.

From my standpoint I feel as if there is a lack of anything beyond rationalism.
So I tend to argue for a more open minded thinking in a spiritual sense. But
if I am confronted by more people arguing for the exact same thing, I tend
to argue against it to maintain the rational side.

I have been wondering about the surrounding influences of the people debating
here about either one (or the other or the other) for a while. To me it seems, the
more persistant an argument is, of either side, the more one-sided the 'community'
thinks or believes in either one direction. edit: still unsure.

Originally Posted by dajo

This doesn't sound too much like a predicament to me. Sounds like you found
a decent understanding how to balance these 'sides'.



So, in your area - do you feel the need to be on the rational or the spiritual
side to balance this out? I find this particularly intersting, because I agree.

Well, I am a rational person! However, rationality doesn't equal scientific proof or the status quo beliefs to me. For example, there may be no scientific proof for aliens but rationally it makes sense. Also I believe there are limits to rationality. The Universe is not totally rational, and never will be. Things like love, music, art, likes, dislikes, etc. are irrational. You can try to break it down rationally but then you lose the soul of it. You can say that love is just pheremones and brain chemistry but that is just the physical dimension of love. I don't believe you can limit everything to the physical dimension or material.

Also, my worldview is totally rational but is not proven by science yet. But I believe that the Universe is made of consciousness. That is my Grand Unified Theory. And it is totally rational. However, I find that many hard atheists who claim to be rational are very irrational. I find that agnostics and gnostics are more rational than atheists or theists.

So I don't try to take either side more than the other in my general worldview, it depends on who I am talking to. For example here on these forums I tend to take a more mystical stand. But at my job I work with this Flaky New Ager and she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. She is what the atheists think of when they think of a stupid New Ager who will just believe in anything that makes her feel better. But if she kept quiet that would be cool, but she doesn't. She is always preaching nothing bullshit foofy stuff, and I test her and she doesn't pass. She is like talking to a spoon. Almost as annoying as talking to a Christian.