Not agnostic, not an atheist just an unbeliever

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by phantomb

A more accurate analogy would involve a person going around denying useful labels that are currently used by everyone. For example, that person could say the following:

"I'm not rich, I just have a lot of money."

"Don't call me Human, I'm just a member of the species Homo sapiens."

"Not socialist, just a believer and supporter of socialism."

It's one thing to start a thread to discuss a label (what it means, where it came from, whether we still need it, what using it might imply) but quite another to declare that the label does not apply to you merely because you wouldn't use it yourself.

The point you bring up here needs closer examination. The idea these labels are useful requires we look at just who the labels are useful to and who they are not useful to.

Within past social movements for women's rights and the civil rights movement, it became apparent how much influence word choice has on the society using them. Some people found it stupid to change male gendered vocabulary but it was in reality, very significant. Postman, policeman, and so on did imply these were men's roles. I know what the word, actress means. But men and women both refer to themselves as actors now. Calling a black man, 'boy', was intended to belittle, but also to imply a power structure.

The point is, paying attention to the messages contained within the choice of labels we use is tremendously important. There is an entire industry now that sells the service of "branding" people's products and businesses. Politicians spend millions on focus groups just to test how different words are perceived.

The need to apply the terms atheist and agnostic to god beliefs, whether you care or not, has an impact. It says some god beliefs are not the same as "myths and legends" when they are the same. It says, "you can't prove my god belief is wrong" when in reality, since there is no evidence to support that god belief in the first place, there is no need to even discuss proving that particular mythical god doesn't exist.

If what I am saying is not true, then why are there no words equivalent to atheist and agnostic that apply to other scientific theories, facts, or non-god woo beliefs? Do we need these special words because god beliefs are different than god myths and woo beliefs? Or do we just follow the leader and think we need the terms, atheist and agnostic, because of argumentum ad populum?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by D'rok

It's a distinction without a difference. An unbeliever is an atheist no matter what you think of the sociological baggage that accompanies that term.

Originally Posted by D'rok later

If you are an unbeliever, by definition, you are an atheist. It's as simple as that.

I am going to play with this a bit.

A Muslim with a somewhat old fashioned set of sensiblities about infidels looks at me and shrieks "Unbeliever!"

This he does after I show him my cross.

My unbelief is related (among other things) to his Prophet's role vis a vis God. But unbeliever I am, in his eyes, in a sense of the word word that has profound implication in some parts of this world.

This (in that circumstance) "unbeliever" is not an atheist, and never was. Was an agnostic for a very long time, however.

While Alda may have been a bit semantical here, I completely empathize with his position. It is his position, and he wishes to describe it using language that makes the most sense to him. That others with to enforce their semantic label on him, given that his position is correct enough for the variations in usage here and there, seems to me their problem, not his.

Originally Posted by truethat

This is why I said God is a broad definition.

Ah, so God is a woman, as you see it?

DR

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Or do we just follow the leader and think we need the terms, atheist and agnostic, because of argumentum ad populum?

I don't think argumentum ad populum means what you think it does.

Or perhaps I just don't understand exactly what claim you are trying to apply it to.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

It does address the problem if you don't cherry pick through my answers.

Just as TrueThat fits the definition of atheist yet doesn't feel the need for the label, the same applies to the emphasis unnecessarily put upon being unable to prove there are no gods. So what, I can't prove there are no invisible pink unicorns either. What's the word for agIPUicism?

Funny, the word atheist and agnostic only apply to god beliefs. Doesn't the scientific principles of absence of evidence apply to every single scientific theory and fact there ever was? Why is there no word for amytheist? Why does 'atheist' typically apply to current popular god myths when all the old discarded god beliefs are called myths as if those god beliefs are qualitatively different from 'real' god beliefs?

The application of the scientific principle that all facts and theories are tentative is misused to support the false assumption one needs to disprove that gods exist. Since we know the evidence tells us all gods are mythical beings, there is no default position of 'gods might exist'. Therefore, until some evidence of real gods is discovered, there are no gods one need disprove.

The default position is not "gods might exist". The default position is "gods don't exist, but I might be wrong about that". There's a difference.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I am going to play with this a bit.

An Muslim with a somewhat old fashioned set of sensiblities about infidels looks at me and shrieks "Unbeliever!"

This he does after I show him my cross. My unbelief is related to his Prophet's role vis a vis God. But unbeliever I am, in his eyes, in a sense of the word word that has profound implication in some parts of this world.

This (in that circumstance) "unbeliever" is not an atheist, and never was. Was an agnostic for a very long time, however.

While Alda may have been a bit semantical here, I completely empathize with his position. It is his position, and he wishes to describe it using language that makes the most sense to him. That others with to enforce their semantic label on him, given that his position is correct enough for the variations in usage here and there, seems to me their problem, not his.
DR

Gentlemen like yourself are the reason why I rarely venture into these debates - recent tendencies notwithstanding. Thanks for the reminder. I have no desire to have my atheism be an obstacle to communication or a badge of false superiority. That can be the result of some these "how many atheists can we fit on the head of a pin" circle-jerks. I would be much more inclined to drop the atheist label for reasons of common humanity and decency rather than any desire to ridicule or belittle others.

I won't scream anything at you if you show me your cross. As long as you don't have to unzip anything to do so.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Gentlemen like yourself are the reason why I rarely venture into these debates - recent tendencies notwithstanding. Thanks for the reminder. I have no desire to have my atheism be an obstacle to communication or a badge of false superiority. That can be the result of some these "how many atheists can we fit on the head of a pin" circle-jerks. I would be much more inclined to drop the atheist label for reasons of common humanity and decency rather than any desire to ridicule or belittle others.

I won't scream anything at you if you show me your cross. As long as you don't have to unzip anything to do so.

There is at least a modest laugh to be had here: I was messing with usage and semantics, which seems to me the heart of Alda's complaint in the snippet TT shared with us.

How important to any of us are the labels we use to describe ourselves? How accurate are they?

Inverse? How important is it to us what labels we apply to others and why? How accurate are they? (See the loads of fun in politics forum with labels such as apologist, zionist, right winger, liberal, libertarian, and so on. )

TT's OP has hit upon that behavioral habit and spawned a thread with a lot of great input and insight.

Thanks to all.

DR

[phantomb]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

If what I am saying is not true, then why are there no words equivalent to atheist and agnostic that apply to other scientific theories, facts, or non-god woo beliefs? Do we need these special words because god beliefs are different than god myths and woo beliefs? Or do we just follow the leader and think we need the terms, atheist and agnostic, because of argumentum ad populum?

How many times a week do you find it necessary to refer to someone who rejects, say, quantum field theory, only to be frustrated by the lack of a term to describe the group of people who do so? For the average person, I'm betting it's less than 1. The reason there are no words equivalent to atheist and agnostic that apply to other theories, facts, etc. is primarily that we don't need a term to describe the group of people in question. Looking at my example, not only are there few people in our daily lives who we could potentially identify with such a term, but the distinction between people who we would identify with it and those we wouldn't is practically meaningless to the average person. Now let's look at the term atheist. Atheists make up a significant percentage of the population in many areas, so there are many people in out daily lives who we can use the term atheist to describe, and the distinction between atheists and non-atheists (we have a term for this category too) is very important and meaningful to many people.

Now, all that said, I do agree with everything you wrote about the power structures that almost necessarily form when we start coming up with labels like we have for atheist, though I still disagree with the notion that merely using the word atheist directly implies that you believe gods are deserving of special treatment. Is the best solution to address this really to stop using the term atheist, substituting a new term or perhaps a short description instead?

On a slightly related note, Thunderf00t recently made a video rejecting the label atheist and coming up with his own, pearlist for Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSC...e=channel_page

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by phantomb

How many times a week do you find it necessary to refer to someone who rejects, say, quantum field theory, only to be frustrated by the lack of a term to describe the group of people who do so?

Never.

[SimpleIrony]

Originally Posted by phantomb

How many times a week do you find it necessary to refer to someone who rejects, say, quantum field theory, only to be frustrated by the lack of a term to describe the group of people who do so?

If you asked how many people I know that reject evolution that refuse to be called creationist, anti-science, or anti-evolution. I'd have actually said it was quite high.

Not arguing with the gist of your post, I'm just saying.

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Besides, "they" already have a label: Theists
So, by logical deduction, the opposite of that is A-theist
(Notice how one came as a consequence of the other?)

Yes, but I think truthats problem with this label is that it is a negative one. It is the same as 'non-catholic'. I don't want to be defined by something I'm not.

A blue car is not just a 'non-red' car. Calling a car a 'non-red' car implies that all cars should be red, and that the only important detail of your car is that it is not red, never mind what color it actually is.

Instead of calling ourselves atheists (non-theist) maybe we should call ourselves 'rational', or say 'I use the scientific method.' Something positive about what we are, not simply declaring what we are not.

[Dragonrock]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Yes, but I think truthats problem with this label is that it is a negative one. It is the same as 'non-catholic'. I don't want to be defined by something I'm not.

A blue car is not just a 'non-red' car. Calling a car a 'non-red' car implies that all cars should be red, and that the only important detail of your car is that it is not red, never mind what color it actually is.

Instead of calling ourselves atheists (non-theist) maybe we should call ourselves 'rational', or say 'I use the scientific method.' Something positive about what we are, not simply declaring what we are not.

You mean something like "Bright"?

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by Dragonrock

You mean something like "Bright"?

Yes, I have heard of the 'brights' and 'free-thinkers'. Something less pretentious sounding would be better though.

The above terms seem to say 'I'm more clever than you.' when really it doesn't take smarts, you just have to be rational, well adjusted, sane.

You don't need a label for rational, normal and sane people, you label the insane ones.

[wolfgirl]

It's just short-hand for saying where you stand on a subject that, whether we like it or not, is very central to our society and culture. Most people, I find, simply assume that you're a xian. To say you're an atheist is simply a way of telling people that you don't believe in their, or anyone else's, god or gods. A-theist...lack of belief in theism.

I, for one, wear the label proudly. And I think it's important to do so, so that people can see that we're not all monsters. Many people don't even know that they know an atheist. If asked, they would assume they didn't. When faced with the knowledge that the gal in the next cube that they share jokes with every day is "one of those," they are forced to confront some of the beliefs they may have held about atheists. I recognize that it may instead force them to rethink the beliefs they may have had about me ("she seemed so nice..."), but I can live with that.

Face it, everything is labeled. I'm white, blonde, female, full-figured, middle-aged, happy, married, employed, suburban, mid-western, American...and atheist. It's just a descriptor, why all the fuss?

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by wolfgirl

Face it, everything is labeled. I'm white, blonde, female, full-figured, middle-aged, happy, married, employed, suburban, mid-western, American...and atheist. It's just a descriptor, why all the fuss?

Right. But notice you don't call yourself: Non-black, non-brunette, non-male, non-beanpole, non-old, non-sad, non-single, etc.

You define yourself by what you are, not what you are not.

I am not opposed to the term atheist, but I hesitate to put it on myself.

[Dragonrock]

Originally Posted by wolfgirl

Face it, everything is labeled. I'm white, blonde, female, full-figured, middle-aged, happy, married, employed, suburban, mid-western, American...and atheist. It's just a descriptor, why all the fuss?

You're a blonde??

[Dragonrock]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Right. But notice you don't call yourself: Non-black, non-brunette, non-male, non-beanpole, non-old, non-sad, non-single, etc.

You define yourself by what you are, not what you are not.

I am not opposed to the term atheist, but I hesitate to put it on myself.

People may be all of those things and more but there is no reason to apply them. The vast majority of Americans believe in god. Use of the term "atheist" is simply in response to the all to common "What's your religion?" question. Should the question stop being asked then atheists would still exist, it just wouldn't be an oft used label.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Right. But notice you don't call yourself: Non-black, non-brunette, non-male, non-beanpole, non-old, non-sad, non-single, etc.

You define yourself by what you are, not what you are not.

There are times when what you are not is more easily understood than what you are. For example, on most Census forms there are check boxes for racial categories such as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. I am none of the above (mixed-race). It is only very recently that a multiple choice option has been available, so it was much easier to pick the "Other" category, which is basically an anti-label.

For me, atheist has always meant "None of the above" more than anything else, really. I am not saying that such a definition should or would apply to everyone, but it is the main reason I have no problem with the label as it stands.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The point you bring up here needs closer examination. The idea these labels are useful requires we look at just who the labels are useful to and who they are not useful to.

Within past social movements for women's rights and the civil rights movement, it became apparent how much influence word choice has on the society using them. Some people found it stupid to change male gendered vocabulary but it was in reality, very significant. Postman, policeman, and so on did imply these were men's roles. I know what the word, actress means. But men and women both refer to themselves as actors now. Calling a black man, 'boy', was intended to belittle, but also to imply a power structure.

The point is, paying attention to the messages contained within the choice of labels we use is tremendously important. There is an entire industry now that sells the service of "branding" people's products and businesses. Politicians spend millions on focus groups just to test how different words are perceived.

The need to apply the terms atheist and agnostic to god beliefs, whether you care or not, has an impact. It says some god beliefs are not the same as "myths and legends" when they are the same. It says, "you can't prove my god belief is wrong" when in reality, since there is no evidence to support that god belief in the first place, there is no need to even discuss proving that particular mythical god doesn't exist.If what I am saying is not true, then why are there no words equivalent to atheist and agnostic that apply to other scientific theories, facts, or non-god woo beliefs? Do we need these special words because god beliefs are different than god myths and woo beliefs? Or do we just follow the leader and think we need the terms, atheist and agnostic, because of argumentum ad populum?

Excellent excellent excellent. You get the whole nine yards. I find it odd that other atheists are defending the need to identify onesself as to how they relate to an imaginary invention.

It's quite amusing really.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Dragonrock

People may be all of those things and more but there is no reason to apply them. The vast majority of Americans believe in god. Use of the term "atheist" is simply in response to the all to common "What's your religion?" question. Should the question stop being asked then atheists would still exist, it just wouldn't be an oft used label.

If you answer "Atheist' then you have identified your "religion" as atheism. You are labeling a belief system with regard to god.

For me I'd rather say, I don't believe in religion than to say I don't believe in God as a religion.

Saying I don't subscribe to any belief when it comes to religion or God myths, is completely different than saying "I am an atheist."

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

At first I thought this was another one of those semantic atheist/agnostic debates, but now I understand what truthat and skeptigirl are talking about, as simpleirony has hammered the last nail.

I am not a Christian, but I do not want to be labled as a non-Christian.
I am not a Catholic, but I do not want to be labled as a non-Catholic.
I am not a Scientologist, but I do not want to be labled as a non-Scientologist.

It is true that we use the labels to identify people who are outside of the norm. We don't single out people who have not committed felonies as 'non-felons', but if nearly everyone had commited a felony, we probably would single them out this way.

What Truthat is proposing we do is stop acknowledging that we are a minority, we don't need a label, they do.

When someone asks you if you believe in god, you could say simply no, or, you could do what I think truthat is implying: Open your eyes wide and say "Really? You're a theist?!

This will put the pressure on them to explain why they have their beliefs instead of the other way around, which is how it always goes when you say "no, I'm an atheist." and they reply "Really? How can you say there is no god!?"

I think this will be a great tactic if it catches on.

This is EXACTLY what I am saying. I have stated from the beginning I'm trying to change the Paradigm. As I stated earlier, I don't believe that most Christians actually believe in God, this is because most Christians I have encountered have never read the bible from cover to cover. To me this belies reason to suggest you honestly think this book is God's word but haven't bothered to read it.

What I have realized over the years is that many atheists discuss and discuss with BELIEVERS and the debate is generally over God's existence.

Now what I have said time and time again is that I think this is a habit, knee jerk reaction, but the truth is, I think most times subconsciously the atheist KNOWS that the Believer doesn't believe a word they are saying.

I can bet that nearly every debate has a point where the atheist goes "This is a load of crap, they can't honestly believe this"

Take a look at the kathy Gospel thread.

These people believe in BELIEF they sure as hell don't believe in God in sincerity. Take a look around and it is obvious. It is just an old habit.


My aim has always been to change the dialogue and one way to change the dialogue is to refuse to validate God theory. Always start from the position that God does not exist. Don't start from the position that God might exist but you don't think so.

I am not an atheist. You are a theist and that's weird to me.

[backstab]

labels are ok

[Minarvia]

Originally Posted by truethat

I am not an atheist. You are a theist and that's weird to me.

Those are my 2 favourite sentences now!

[truethat]

Just realized you can slyly call someone a theist......get it a theist........atheist.....uh oh!

[Dysphemist]

Atheists arn't theists, and atheism isn't a religion. When you define yourself as an atheist in the census you put a tick in the "no religion" box.

People have made excellent arguments for why the label 'atheist' is useful. I'm not going to just ignore all religion, because that's what you need to do if you're going to try to ignore atheism.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by geneeee

Atheists arn't theists, and atheism isn't a religion. When you define yourself as an atheist in the census you put a tick in the "no religion" box.

People have made excellent arguments for why the label 'atheist' is useful. I'm not going to just ignore all religion, because that's what you need to do if you're going to try to ignore atheism.

I think I found a better way of putting it.


God is a character in a Myth. Why would I take a position in regard to a Character in a Myth? It is nonsensical.

This is why I use Harry Potter, Harry Potter is today's modern Myth.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by truethat

I think I found a better way of putting it.


God is a character in a Myth. Why would I take a position in regard to a Character in a Myth? It is nonsensical.

Theist and its counterpart are about a belief. What a theist believes in may not exist but to deny that their belief exists is to deny reality. It is entirely rational in our language community to have a label that is short for "No I do not share your belief in god".

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Theist and its counterpart are about a belief. What a theist believes in may not exist but to deny that their belief exists is to deny reality. It is entirely rational in our language community to have a label that is short for "No I do not share your belief in god".

I understand that Darat, and I don't expect you to agree with me. In my opinion that is just a bad habit that we need to stop. Because what happens is the debate goes round and round "Does God exist he does he doesn't he does he doesn't"

I believe it is time change the dialogue.

So if someone tells you they believe in God you don't take a counter position. You simply stay in reality.

It is a fine nuance.

I would prefer an answer like this:


"I believe in God what about you?"


"I've always found it curious that people throughout history have thought characters in mythologies are real. What makes you believe God is real?"


"Oh I just know in my heart, I know he is as real as my car or my wife. I can feel it."

"Really?"

Their belief is the strange thing, not your lack of belief.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by truethat

I think I found a better way of putting it.

God is a character in a Myth. Why would I take a position in regard to a Character in a Myth? It is nonsensical.

No more nonsensical than ignoring reality. The reality is that the majority of the world's population believes in a god myth of one type or another. Do you know of any other myths that are so widely held and have major effects even on people who don't believe it (such as laws based on a belief in what your god-myth wants)?

Originally Posted by truethat

This is why I use Harry Potter, Harry Potter is today's modern Myth.

No, Harry Potter is a fictional character. All frictional characters are not 'myths'. And an important (for this discussion) difference is that the number of people who believe that Harry Potter really exists is insignificant (and probably in the vicinity of less than 10).

[MetalPig]

Originally Posted by truethat

I find it odd that other atheists are defending the need to identify onesself as to how they relate to an imaginary invention.

Who said something about 'need'?
The word "atheist" exists, it has a clear meaning. Why not use it?

I don't believe that gods exist. I'm an atheist. Same thing.

[wolfgirl]

Originally Posted by truethat

If you answer "Atheist' then you have identified your "religion" as atheism.

That's why I'm very careful to answer that particular question (What religion are you?) with something along the lines of "None, I'm an atheist." Just saying "Atheist" in response plays into the whole "atheism is a religion" crap.

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by truethat

I found these quotes attributed to Alan Alda on his wiki site.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Alda


It was refreshing to see someone comment about lack of faith in a way that reflects my personal views.

I'm well versed in faith, I understand the religion pretty well, understand the philosophies and the differences of dogma in various religions and so I am an unbeliever.

This seems to cause a great deal of confusion. Some people act as though I fell off the faith wagon and that it is their job to get me back on. Some people argue about is there a "GOD" and try to corner me into an "I don't know" so they can label me an agnostic. Others want to cast me into the atheist oven (a leap I've often made myself with vigor) and treat me as though I've joined a group against God.

Nope not that either. I've been a Universist and a Bright which seemed to me a way of religiousizing lack of faith and all and all at the end of the day I just don't "believe" in any of it. That doesn't mean I don't see it.

Just like people see a man in a Santa Claus outfit and chime out "All I want for Christmas!" or feel some sort of nostalgia, doesn't mean that they really believe that Santa is a real person.

That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the sentiment of Santa and what he means to our society. It is only when people start trying to argue with me that Santa is real and here is Santa's naughty and nice list, does it get ugly.

Some of my friends have gotten upset with me and wanted me to explain if I thought they were delusional for believing in God, and I think, no not at all, little children believe in Sanata, I don't castigate them as fools or idiots, I don't treat them poorly for their faith. I don't even want to be patronizing to them. Would you? Would you want to go up to an excited little child who was waiting for Santa and say "Hey you stupid bozo, Santa isn't real you moron, you are holding them cookies like a fool!"

Of course not, it is only when a Child perhaps goes to school and starts making fun of Mohammed or Levi for not getting presents from Santa that you want to yank the kid aside and say "Listen fool.........."

And so that's how I feel about believers. One day you will find out that this God, the one in your book, isn't real. No more so than Zeus is real. And maybe one day there will be another version of God to prove us all wrong. But all I know is that this one doesn't exist, and the reason you can't see it, is you don't want to see it. God is an amazing sort of fantasy, who would want to give it up?

But I'm not an atheist, or an agnostic, I'm just a non believer, but if in passing I see a man dressed up in a God costume doing a random act of kindness I might thank him just the same.

Would you agree with

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...h_atheism.html

Technically, you are an atheist. I don't think you can deny that the definition fits you.

What you seem to say is that there shouldn't be a special word for it, like Sam Harris points that there is no word for people-that-do-not-believe-in-mermaids.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Yes, but I think truthats problem with this label is that it is a negative one. It is the same as 'non-catholic'. I don't want to be defined by something I'm not.

And that's where I think it's just a personal issue. I don't have any problem being defined by something I'm not

I have no problem being defined as a:

-Non catholic
-Non vegan
-Non smoker

etc etc.....

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

A blue car is not just a 'non-red' car. Calling a car a 'non-red' car implies that all cars should be red, and that the only important detail of your car is that it is not red, never mind what color it actually is.

This analogy doesn't quite convince me. There is a reason the word "Atheist" exists. It's because there's a category of people known as "Theists". In language, we always make distinctions for everything (See also "possible" vs "impossible" and so on), so to define people who are not theists, we call them "Atheists" or "Non theists".

The implication you're making is not within the word. That implication is a personal one.

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Instead of calling ourselves atheists (non-theist) maybe we should call ourselves 'rational', or say 'I use the scientific method.' Something positive about what we are, not simply declaring what we are not.

Nah. It's just language. You're not doing much by substituting one word by the other.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by truethat

I understand that Darat, and I don't expect you to agree with me. In my opinion that is just a bad habit that we need to stop. Because what happens is the debate goes round and round "Does God exist he does he doesn't he does he doesn't"

I don't think that kind of circular debate does happen every single time you tell someone you're an atheist, and substituting the word "atheist" for "unbeliever" wouldn't do much to stop that from happening anyway

[pacificflows]

I thought we were going to have a Chronicles of Thomas Covenant conversation here when I read the title of the thread.

I do not believe in any gods. I believe in a universal consciousness. I think that everyone has a little bit of the universes vast attention, and if they listen properly it will guide them to a happy and fruitful life. I think all religions have at least scraped the truth about this, so I take bits and pieces from almost all religious works I read and compile a "play list" of beliefs.

Consider this. I don't have a job. I want one. So I ride my bike around town looking for one. My personality doesn't make me a very employable person though. I'm stand-offish, short tempered and rude. I've gotten to a second interview on many jobs only to be turned down for (the only reason I can think of) my personality.

I applied at a movie theater not far from my house. Waited a week, and on a whim went to go check up on the application. There in front of the doorway, I find a ten dollar bill laying right on the ground. "SCORE!" I pick it up and am in a very good mood. I go to talk to a manager about the application, and am told he's too busy. The employee was very short with me, and normally that would have irritated me. I probably would have rolled my eyes, said "whatever, man." and stormed off. Leaving the employee to describe me as, "some ******* checking on an application." But the ten bucks had me in such a good mood that I was totally uncaring of the employee blowing me off. I just gave him a "cool, man. I'll come back later."

Next week I show up to check. ANOTHER ten bucks staring me right in the face. I pick that baby up and walk in as stoaked as I've been in a long time. I probably radiated this "hell yeah!" aura that people like to see. I got the job because of it, I am certain.

What's the logical way to look at this? I got very lucky twice in a row and wasn't an ******* to my potential employer because of it, which landed me the job.

How do I choose to look at it? The universe gave me 20 bucks, and a kick-ass job.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by pacificflows

I thought we were going to have a Chronicles of Thomas Covenant conversation here when I read the title of the thread.

I do not believe in any gods. I believe in a universal consciousness. I think that everyone has a little bit of the universes vast attention, and if they listen properly it will guide them to a happy and fruitful life. I think all religions have at least scraped the truth about this, so I take bits and pieces from almost all religious works I read and compile a "play list" of beliefs.

Consider this. I don't have a job. I want one. So I ride my bike around town looking for one. My personality doesn't make me a very employable person though. I'm stand-offish, short tempered and rude. I've gotten to a second interview on many jobs only to be turned down for (the only reason I can think of) my personality.

I applied at a movie theater not far from my house. Waited a week, and on a whim went to go check up on the application. There in front of the doorway, I find a ten dollar bill laying right on the ground. "SCORE!" I pick it up and am in a very good mood. I go to talk to a manager about the application, and am told he's too busy. The employee was very short with me, and normally that would have irritated me. I probably would have rolled my eyes, said "whatever, man." and stormed off. Leaving the employee to describe me as, "some ******* checking on an application." But the ten bucks had me in such a good mood that I was totally uncaring of the employee blowing me off. I just gave him a "cool, man. I'll come back later."

Next week I show up to check. ANOTHER ten bucks staring me right in the face. I pick that baby up and walk in as stoaked as I've been in a long time. I probably radiated this "hell yeah!" aura that people like to see. I got the job because of it, I am certain.

What's the logical way to look at this? I got very lucky twice in a row and wasn't an ******* to my potential employer because of it, which landed me the job.

How do I choose to look at it? The universe gave me 20 bucks, and a kick-ass job.

Someone has been reading "The Secret", haven't they?

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Someone has been reading "The Secret", haven't they?

And if they have?

Constructive criticism is welcome, cynicsm not.

[pacificflows]

Nooo no no. Someone I used to know tried to sell me on that "secret" a while back. It came off as a bunch of pseudo-wisdom from a bunch of wack jobs. Of course, the guy who was trying to get me to pay attention to it was addicted to meth, so my opinion might be a little bias.

Okay, yes. That's a little harsh. But you can't "happy thought" your way into a lot of things in life.

I believed in a universal consciousness before that stuff ever came about.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by JetLeg

And if they have?

Constructive criticism is welcome, cynicsm not.

.... and if they have, I may take their opinions a little bit less seriously than usual

Take it as constructive criticism or cynicism if you please. That's my opinion

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

No more nonsensical than ignoring reality. The reality is that the majority of the world's population believes in a god myth of one type or another. Do you know of any other myths that are so widely held and have major effects even on people who don't believe it (such as laws based on a belief in what your god-myth wants)?

Yes

Zeus, Apollo, Adonis, Hercules, Osiris, Caculhá Huracán, ChipiCaculhá, Raxa-Caculhá, Ah Puch,Frugifer, Louzera, Vishnu.......

Just not in this era. That's the point. It is the same issue just in the modern era.

Quote:

No, Harry Potter is a fictional character. All frictional characters are not 'myths'. And an important (for this discussion) difference is that the number of people who believe that Harry Potter really exists is insignificant (and probably in the vicinity of less than 10).

Of course, and so that's why I use it as an example. If I used a "GOD" we're back to square one. You are basically saying because I don't have another widely held delusion then my point is not significant.

I didn't say "ALL FICTIONAL CHARACTERS ARE MYTHS" I said, "all Gods in myths are fictional characters."

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by truethat

Quote:

The reality is that the majority of the world's population believes in a god myth of one type or another. Do you know of any other myths that are so widely held

Yes

Zeus, Apollo, Adonis, Hercules, Osiris, Caculhá Huracán, ChipiCaculhá, Raxa-Caculhá, Ah Puch,Frugifer, Louzera, Vishnu....

The key word in my question was "other" myths. That would mean "other" than god myths.

You answer 'yes' and give me a list of god myths. Thanks for reinforcing the point I was making. Especially since the term 'atheist' would apply equally to everything you listed.

Originally Posted by truethat

Quote:

Do you know of any other myths that are so widely held

Just not in this era. That's the point. It is the same issue just in the modern era.

We're talking about terms used in this era. That would be the point.

Originally Posted by truethat

Quote:

This is why I use Harry Potter, Harry Potter is today's modern Myth.

Quote:

No, Harry Potter is a fictional character. All frictional characters are not 'myths'.

I didn't say "ALL FICTIONAL CHARACTERS ARE MYTHS" I said, "all Gods in myths are fictional characters."

You said (or clearly implied) that Harry Potter is a 'myth'. He's not.

Originally Posted by truethat

You are basically saying because I don't have another widely held delusion then my point is not significant.

Part of your point is that we don't need a term that applies to the god-myth because we don't have comparable terms for other, comparable myths. But you can't name a comparable myth to support your point. So I'd say yes, that particular point is not siginificant.