The March of the Atheist Movement

If I accept your spectrum definition of Atheism then Agnostics are at one end and Nihilists are at the other since Nihilism IS the extreme form of Atheism.

I completely agree that everything must be questioned INCLUDING atheism but not everyone does since the problem as I keep stating is that it is dogma and fundamentalism which can apply to any belief or non-belief.

It is not just between the faith in mythic gods and magical thinking, it is also between rigid conceptions of purely sense data while ignoring all other evidence.

So that atheism is not the answer by itself since it can fall prey to the same extremeism as the outdated attitudes of the fundamentalists.

It is an open questioning attitude that relies on more to prove itself valid. As Robert Anton Wilson put it "model agnostism" to not fall into the trap of any one belief system until there are enough facts to support them.

Occam's Razor didn't say JUST the "simplest explanation is usually the correct one" it maintained "The simplest explanation that also FIT the evidence was usually the correct one" by atheism only disproving what the fundamentalists claim it leaves out a whole of other evidence so it is imcomplete a position.

If you want to take that spectrum view that seems OK with me, but there is definitely a difference between atheism and nihilism- I guess all nihilists are atheists, not all atheists are nihilists? I don't see a lot of information regarding religion and nihilism specifically, and there seems to be a variety of nihilistic forms out there. So, I guess it's up to the atheist to decide whether or not they'd consider themselves nihilists.

I don't think I ever promoted atheism as "the answer" to anything. You don't have to be an atheist to participate in open discussions of religion and society. Nor do I consider atheism my "belief system" in anyway- as I said before, I consider not believing in god being an atheist. All the other philosophical ideology one might align one's self with is a different matter.

As far as evidence and proof and such, I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately disproving crazy ideas is part of what will help society. All atheists are faced with the "prove god DOESN'T exist" argument and we all know it's not possible. This goes back to a "burden of proof" conversation which runs around in circles, but when people are saying things like the earth is only 6000 years old, that homosexuality isn't natural, that the bible is scientifically sound, etc, those ideas need to be dismissed in order for society to progress.

A lot of those questions are falling into the trap of falsely framing the definitions.

Yes it has been shown by enough evidence that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years so that one can be dismissed.

As for homosexuality being natural in the biological definition it can be shown to be not the case since it is contra-survival of the species because it doesn't help with reproduction, but in terms of sociology it is since it has appeared all through history so it depends on the definition.

As for the bible being scientifically sound it depends on what science, since anthropology is one of them but I wouldn't take it for any physical information.

So again it depends on your definition of god also since the mythical and magical concepts of god can't be proven and atheists don't have that burden of proof to show that those do exist.

The trouble is that it doesn't end there since just because you can't prove a negative doesn't also mean that there can't be positive ways to prove a better definition than provided by outdated fundamentalist dogma.

Hopefully by now you've had more time to absorb what was in the introduction to ILP.

As it says in the introduction "Instead of unquestioning
belief or skeptical disbelief, a post-metaphysical approach requires an open, inquisitive attitude. In a sense, post-metaphysics is an expression of the scientific impulse—that is, of empirical experimentation
and experiential validation—but expanded to all levels and dimensions of our being, instead of only the material plane. Old-fashioned metaphysics assumes that reality is just given to awareness, unmediated by the contexts, actions, and perceptions of a person. A post-metaphysical, Integral approach claims that you must actually do an Integral practice to experience an Integral reality. Nothing presented in
this book should be taken merely as a proclamation of truth. In all cases,you have to follow the practice injunction to determine for yourself whether or not what someone calls the “truth” is really true. What “post-metaphysical” means here is that no perspective
on reality is merely given to consciousness. Every perspective is enacted. In other words, you have to do something to see something. You have to look to know that it’s raining. You have to use a microscope to observe an amoeba. If you want to know if the moons of Jupiter really exist, you must actually
learn some of the principles of astronomy and then look through a telescope. Likewise, if you want to know whether the Zen state of satori, or enlightenment, really exists, you must learn something about Zen"

In the scientific method experiements depend of what YOU find out by performing the injunction and examining the data THEN confirmation of the data the I'VE gathered to check on it comes after that for a different perspective.

That is the difference between the dogma of faith, the purely skeptical disbelief of most atheists and a system like ILP that it depends on getting evidence to show how the system works and instead of preaching to the crowd to convert them to their perspective it offers methods to find out for yourself.

If people didn't "need bells and whistles" then there would be no advertising or marketing of any kind. ILP has a lot less than most practices as it says "The principles of ILP are remarkably clear and simple, putting practice within the reach of almost anyone. It provides an organizing framework for a lifetime of learning and transformation. By illuminating the big picture of consciousness, life, growth, and awakening, and distilling the essentials of practice, it helps you drop any unnecessary baggage and focus on the potent, juicy heart of the matter while giving you room to do so in your own style, in your own unique way."

"As for homosexuality being natural in the biological definition it can be shown to be not the case since it is contra-survival of the species because it doesn't help with reproduction, but in terms of sociology it is since it has appeared all through history so it depends on the definition." Actually I'm not just talking about society and humans, homosexuality appears in MANY species of animals- I can give you some links, but a simple googling will provide you with everything. Perhaps there is some evolutionary benefit we are yet unaware of? I couldn't say for sure, but lots of animals in nature are gay!

As for ILP, trust me I am not saying it's all bullshit. I understand the benefits of rituals and practices to make your life better- but many people already have that, or perceive to have that, in their lives. It's great to say "Gee, if everyone would just chant a little and figure themselves out they would realize that hatred is bad and we can all live in peace" but what is the practicality of that? I think that continued progress and education will eventually lead the majority into a more global perspective and higher mentality as well- but in the meantime there is certainly something to be said for "getting the job done." That's what governments are for (sometimes), and in the absence of mass understanding or tolerance it rests on the government to do what's right- and when they don't, it rests on activists to get on their asses about it. Call that fundamentalism if you want to, but I don't!

...nasty atheists? enviromentalist? like you really want to live in a pig farm right? and I've never heard an antheist ranting and yelling at passersby in the street that they are going to be tortured and burned forever.

read a book... or is that too liberal for you?

"respecting the rights of others to believe what they like" Right, but what happens when people take 'what the believe' to the next level? In a broad sense I "repsect the rights" of people who believe homosexuality is a sin, but I don't respect that viewpoint nor it's place in our society. Or like you mentioned; people might have the "right to believe" that non-Islamic people should be killed, but that belief quickly turns into actions that hurt the world. It's a balance act to say the least.

Answer some other questions then how is politcally motivated action going to make any faster changes if any at all?

Isn't that coming up with excuses based on very scant evidence? You can do that without trying it seems

Also jumping to a lot of conclusions based on false impressions from past conditioning

Why don't you read some of what is offered already before you dismiss it out of hand?

http://integral-life-practice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/ilp_preview_chs1_2....

If it is already written then why do I have to spoon feed it to you?

I can tell you some of the rest when you have some careful consideration of the introduction and are able to base your conclusions on better evidence.

Well, politically motivated action may be able to change the face of gay rights, for example- tearing down the old belief systems that rally against homosexuality which are MOSTLY religious will certainly help that. Moving to get laws that discriminate against atheists (http://current.com/items/89829467/atheist_outrage_in_arkansas.htm) stricken from the books is another important move. Pushing for a secular government is not just the selfish dream of evangelical atheists, it is beneficial for the tolerance and acceptance of everyone.

You don't have to "spoon feed" it to me- what I was actually hoping for was something written from your personal experience, not more links to their webpage.

Yes, I'm absolutely going to have some "conclusions based on false impressions from past conditioning" because there are about a million books out there that attempt to do exactly what this book is doing and they all put it to you the same way: Want to change your life for the better? We can show you how! Buy our book! Ca-Ching! I belong to a book club called OneSpirit and I've read and continue to get recommendations for a million books who claim the EXACT same thing and even use some of the same terminology- the whole point of me asking YOU why this is different is because you are recommending it- I mean, the sample "practice modules" include things like chanting, praying, "being vulnerable" and vision quests. Are these things you practice personally?

Isn't the whole point that those laws won't get changed until enough people change their perspective? From the example of the Bush administration those laws regressed to more discrimination because of the regression of the attitudes. Hopefully since Obama has shown to be more progressive in his perspective that similarly more progress will be made on those laws.

Trying to do one before the other is putting the cart before the horse

Skepticism can be healthy since I have seen a lot of those same books and a lot of them miss the mark by going too far into pluralism and fall for the pre/trans fallacy but it can also go overboard into being dismissive without having the facts so it helps to have an informed opinion not just jump to conclusions because you have been burned before.

That is the key to have more evidence to base your opinion on. That is why I was waiting until you had at least an full introduction to be able to use the concepts in it to communicate what it means more effectively

Just like doing an experiment that requires comparing microscopic slides, first you have to stain the samples and examine the slides before you can compare what you find out with someone else that has also taken the same steps.

Any description of some of the practices I've done wouldn't have the impact without any foundation.

"Isn't the whole point that those laws won't get changed until enough people change their perspective?" NO! Interracial marriage was illegal in most states! The majority would have advocated slavery, they advocate against gay marriage right NOW in our society! Should we wait around for people to change their perspective before we change the law? Hell no- that's where politics come in!

"That is the key to have more evidence to base your opinion on." Bingo, that's why I'm asking YOU for information, to get another perspective of it!

"Any description of some of the practices I've done wouldn't have the impact without any foundation." "The" impact of what? I'm friends with people who have done a lot of crazy things, believe a lot of crazy things, etc. Right in the first few pages it references "dream work" and whatnot.

I'm not saying I don't see the value in psychological self analysis, healthy and fun rituals, improving your life. It just doesn't need to be sold to me with bells and chants and my "spiritual fulfillment".

Hopefully by now you've had more time to absorb what was in the introduction to ILP.

As it says in the introduction "Instead of unquestioning
belief or skeptical disbelief, a post-metaphysical approach requires an open, inquisitive attitude. In a sense, post-metaphysics is an expression of the scientific impulse—that is, of empirical experimentation
and experiential validation—but expanded to all levels and dimensions of our being, instead of only the material plane. Old-fashioned metaphysics assumes that reality is just given to awareness, unmediated by the contexts, actions, and perceptions of a person. A post-metaphysical, Integral approach claims that you must actually do an Integral practice to experience an Integral reality. Nothing presented in
this book should be taken merely as a proclamation of truth. In all cases,you have to follow the practice injunction to determine for yourself whether or not what someone calls the “truth” is really true. What “post-metaphysical” means here is that no perspective
on reality is merely given to consciousness. Every perspective is enacted. In other words, you have to do something to see something. You have to look to know that it’s raining. You have to use a microscope to observe an amoeba. If you want to know if the moons of Jupiter really exist, you must actually
learn some of the principles of astronomy and then look through a telescope. Likewise, if you want to know whether the Zen state of satori, or enlightenment, really exists, you must learn something about Zen"

In the scientific method experiements depend of what YOU find out by performing the injunction and examining the data THEN confirmation of the data the I'VE gathered to check on it comes after that for a different perspective.

That is the difference between the dogma of faith, the purely skeptical disbelief of most atheists and a system like ILP that it depends on getting evidence to show how the system works and instead of preaching to the crowd to convert them to their perspective it offers methods to find out for yourself.

If people didn't "need bells and whistles" then there would be no advertising or marketing of any kind. ILP has a lot less than most practices as it says "The principles of ILP are remarkably clear and simple, putting practice within the reach of almost anyone. It provides an organizing framework for a lifetime of learning and transformation. By illuminating the big picture of consciousness, life, growth, and awakening, and distilling the essentials of practice, it helps you drop any unnecessary baggage and focus on the potent, juicy heart of the matter while giving you room to do so in your own style, in your own unique way."

You may dismiss "dream work" but even Freud called them "The royal road to the subconscious" and used them as a method to uncover neuroses to help heal the scars of repression.

Chanting also has benefits to help tune the frequency of the many rhythms of the body like the circadian and balance them to a heathier harmony.

If we ever expect people to rise above seflish motives that only perpetuate prejudice and discrimination in public policies then they have to change their perspectives to heal the damage by seperating into fragments by duality, repression and projection.

Thirty years is nothing in a grand scheme of things. I don't know how you could think that thirty years is an exorbitantly long time when compared to hundreds of years of oppression and injustice.

That was part of the point I was trying to make that the period of the civil rights movement was a drop in the bucket compared to what had gone on before.

Society had to evolve to the point where the majority of the population disproved of slavery, even then discrimination still continued until a majority disproved of that and spoke out against it, until enough of the population had evolved to let Obama achieve what he did.

Even though the political process had some part in it, it was small compared to other factors like the evolution of society, economic factors and moral development.

When I think of extreme fundamentalists I think of people who kill themselves, others, bomb abortion clinics, etc in the name of their religion. I don't think atheism will get to that point of extremeness and I don't want it to; that's why it angers me when people insist on saying atheists are "just as bad" as religious extremists- NO WAY! No one is waging wars in the name of atheism. If the "worst" of evangelical atheism is a bunch of passionate ranting, that's still several notches less fanatical than what religion has produced! It seems like a pretty mild extreme!

Stands up and Claps hands.

very nice delia

Delia, what states have laws against atheisim, as you claim. I assume that freedom of worship or non-worship is guaranteed under the Constitution.

You would think that, but take a look at this article: http://current.com/items/89829467/atheist_outrage_in_arkansas.htm

That is because as you have already shown that you are more interested in distraction and argument than in understanding and progress.

It is not just me that has noticed it since you did the same thing to librelover and tried to mask your shortcomings in your ideas with all manner of fallacies and distractions

As the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that refuse to open their eyes" and learn something new instead of stubbornly sticking to the same old methods that have already failed.

why don't you respond? are you a cultural relativist? Is everyone right unless they say someone else is wrong?

your personal attacks, while flattering, are tired and worn.

I already answered that when Delia asked that but you aren't interested in the answer enough to pay attention since you are too focused on personal attacks to cover up your lack of valid ideas and your understanding is shallow

Argon, that is her/his way. Skates around questions, changes the subject, even said I was "jealous" of her! That was about the worse statement anyone could say about my character. As far as "wanting to recruit Atheists"....Why??? Peoples beliefs / faith are usually solid. Guess Unimatrix thinks she has some kind of power to brainwash people. I don't understand what part of FREE Country she does not understand. If most religions have not changed in over 2000 years, I doubt her powers of persuasion are quite limited to say the least.

Name the religions involved currently in criminal behavior.

I am still waiting.

Well, if you take a look at current events you will see Israel engaging in criminal acts, Islamic fundamentalists engaging in criminal acts, the United States engaging in criminal acts (under George Bush, who made it clear that he was acting on his "Christian principals"), the controversy in Burma is getting so out of hand you have Buddhists vowing to pick up arms... there are more than enough examples to go around.

"Ask unimatrix0 where that line is drawn and I guarantee it is not where you would draw it but it is a lot closer to where the religious right would since fanaticism doesn't depend on the type of belief."

I see you say this all the time, but I really doubt it. So far the only thing I've seen Uni do is say things on the internet. I might not agree with everything they say but I certainly understand where they are coming from; continuing to compare outspoken atheists to religious fanatics is becoming tiresome. I haven't seen anyone kill anyone, themselves, try to deny other people their freedoms, wage war, go door to door etc etc in the name of atheism. I don't think that ranting on Current is "fanaticism" especially when you look at what that means, as you mentioned, in a global perspective.

Would you like me to send you some of the deranged messages I've gotten from unimatrix0? They are much worse than the comments so I wouldn't give as much benefit of the doubt as you would.

I made that point myself about the difference bewteen the hatred of the fanatics towards others besides atheists was a lot worse since the amount of hate crimes against atheists are less than 1% compared to over 50% against homosexuals but still unimatrix0 wouldn't recognize that and continued to insist that atheists were the most hated and discriminated against minority.

So since it is only a matter of degree it wouldn't take much to push it that far for hate crimes to rise among the fanatics on both sides.

Just like in that South Park episode it doesn't matter what the cause for going to war, killing, denying freedoms or going door to door is, what counts is the fanaticism to the cause and it can happen just as easily with atheism as anything else.

For everyone that is like unimatrix0 tetering on the brink there are more that are farther over the edge of that line.

The point being that 200 years ago the amount of the population at the egocentric stage was 30% at the ethnocentric was 50% and at the worldcentric was less than 2% so there is evolultion and progress going on

Why backslide on it by advocating outdated practices when evolution toward more inclusive stages is a much better method?

Including the ignorance of extremist views that only perpetuate the problem with insistence of "I'm right and you're wrong"

But certainly there is a place for "I'm right, you're wrong?" Like when it comes to the age of the earth, "sin", the existence of supernatural entities, etc? Some things are either true or false, right?

In the cases of where facts can show that there is correct and there is inaccurate that is different than the forcing the view of "My way is the only truth there is"

hi brendan,

no I do not think the analogy is perfect. Atheists/agnostics have been hiding out since they nailed jesus to the cross. However, it is very easy to hide one's atheism, just keep your mouth shut. Obviously, African Americans did not have the luxury of hiding their skin color.

However, the formal and informal discrimination against atheists is a matter of civil rights.

As long as I use the pen/key board I think that king, ghandi, and albert would be sympathetic to my methods, if not my message.

The bombs I throw are rhetorical.

When I was a little boy some things I was told did not make sense to me. I knew something was seriously wrong with the story of Santa Clause and his flying reindeer. As I got a little older I was told that God had his only son hung on a cross and tortured and killed, not for anything he did but for what other people had done and might do in the future. On the cross Jesus looked up and said " Father, why has thou forsaken me?" I thought that was a very good question. I also thought a father who would do such an inhumane thing to his son had to be extremely cruel, gory and /or insane. I don't think I have to go on with my thoughts about how I noticed most Bible stories are impossible, ridiculous and contradictory and what I thought about a God who drowned everyone on earth because he got mad at them for being the kind of people he made them to be. I thought if there is a God who gave me a brain to think with how could he expect me to believe all these things religion was throwing at me. To make it short, when it comes to comparing science to religion don't try to tell me religion makes any kind of sense because even as a little boy I wasn't stupid enough to buy into it and I'm sure not stupid enough now. I will keep my thoughts on the subject and you I'm sure, will keep yours. That's what I tell them.

but atheism shouldn't be questioned? You seem very hypocritical.

Atheism should absolutely be questioned! When did I say it shouldn't?

atheism is always questioned, which is the most ridiculous thing ever. It reminds me of one December when my dad put my mom in the hospital. He was thrown in jail and she didn't get out of the hospital until the middle of January. So needless to say I didn't get any xmas presents that year. I told the kids at school that my doubts about santa were even stronger now and I was mocked. I was told that sometimes the greatest present santa can bring is no present at all. I was also told that if there were no santa all the kids wouldn't have a reason to be good all year and there would be chaos in the streets, bed times would be ignored, and swimming would commence well before the 30 minute waiting period after a meal.

My pastor learned of my disbelief in santa and thought it was a marvelous thing. He taught me the true meaning of xmas which sounded even more like a blatant lie than the story of santa, but he told it so well I just let him finish.

The funny thing is that there's a word for not believing in god. Think about it. Is an asexual someone who doesn't believe people have sex? no. Do we call kids who don't believe in santa "asantaclaust?" no. Astronomy, alchemy, magic, divining rods, numerology, and 9/11 are all things that have people whose non-belief goes untitled.

It's silly to give it a name because a title implies a set of beliefs and isn't the lack of belief the reason you came up with the title in the first place? Seems like some crazy circular logic to me. Like saying, "if you don't believe my imaginary friend is real then what do you believe in?"

So like any good adult who is faced with a child who has an imaginary friend, I play along. But unlike a child who would be crushed to find out that I don't really believe the imaginary friend is there, you would think that adults wouldn't have the same reaction when you tell them that you'd rather have a nacho supreme over a supreme being any day, but they do. Their hearts are broken and it's as if they don't even know you any more.