The Way International - All individuals and systems are extensions of the MOG. Individuals are enmeshed. Boundaries are dissolved and thoughts are all the same. Totalitarian in nature. God is an extension of the (false) self. Individual identity is The Way and this isolates the person from society/State.
Christianity (in the West) - The individual is distinct from family units and groups. Individuals have relationships with defined boundaries within these units/groups. Gods are "homogenized" into one god. Individuals have a relationship with this construct. Christianity added layer beneath Greco-Roman societal/state structure in antiquity.
Atheism (in the West) - Individuals are central. Denial of submission/relationship to any gods, since they are not scientifically real, and therefore misleading and dangerous, perhaps intentionally. Reason can now be a more thoroughly sharpened skill which over time can build a better world. Social groups are primarily to be about shared interests and separate in relation to the State. Often associated/viewed as an "atomized-leaning society".
Here's a thread to parse out this idea. Hope it's not too political - tried to keep it general.
Did you write those definitions or did you quote someone else?
Lately a lot has been influenced by Vaknin. I came across him being influenced by professionals in the real world - after dealing with another human being the courts. I'm thinking back almost 20 years, asking the same question, why can't we look at other churches? Why do I vibrate when others tried to convert me?
I was recently kept from my youngest son because "I was raised in The Way" . . . belief . . . state . . . society . . . The Way International
Vaknin (I'm assuming) would call VPW as having a schizoid core. . . . The Way was set up around his psyche. . . . I don't think that is news.
The other structures outside The Way, real or not, come from minds - both the conscience and unconscience aspects of the psyche - and further a large collection of them.
The Way International - All individuals and systems are extensions of the MOG. Individuals are enmeshed. Boundaries are dissolved and thoughts are all the same. Totalitarian in nature. God is an extension of the (false) self. Individual identity is The Way and this isolates the person from society/State.
Christianity (in the West) - The individual is distinct from family units and groups. Individuals have relationships with defined boundaries within these units/groups. Gods are "homogenized" into one god. Individuals have a relationship with this construct. Christianity added layer beneath Greco-Roman societal/state structure in antiquity.
Atheism (in the West) - Individuals are central. Denial of submission/relationship to any gods, since they are not scientifically real, and therefore misleading and dangerous, perhaps intentionally. Reason can now be a more thoroughly sharpened skill which over time can build a better world. Social groups are primarily to be about shared interests and separate in relation to the State. Often associated/viewed as an "atomized-leaning society".
Here's a thread to parse out this idea. Hope it's not too political - tried to keep it general.
Atheism does not hold that individuals are "central." Central to what? If you answer that, I may have an answer that applies to myself, but I cannot say it applies to anyone else, and my answer would not necessarily flow from the fact that I do not believe in any god. Maybe I think family is central, or our social order is central. I don't know what you MEAN by central. And maybe it's not individuals. Maybe it's individuality that's central.
"Denial of submission/relationship to any gods since they are not scientifically real." I quibble with the wording here. We don't "deny submission to or a relationship" with any gods. Rather, we reject the argument that any particular gods exist, and therefore see no need to submit to them. I feel the same way about Yahweh that most Christians feel about the angel Moroni. Yeah, I'm sure SOME Christians believe Moroni was a devil spirit who deceived Joseph Smith, but I would venture to say that most think Smith just made the whole thing up. You wouldn't say most Christians deny submission to the authority of the Book of Mormon. That presumes the book has authority to be rejected.
So what would be more accurate? Try:
Atheism (in the West): A rejection of arguments for the existence of a God or gods, rendering their worship moot. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a belief that religions are misleading at best and divisive/dangerous/sinister at worst. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a humanistic approach to society, the belief that our problems, to the extent they can be solved, can only be solved by the fine tuning of a social contract that elevates reason/rationalism and empathy above individual advancement.
Since these are all brief summaries not intended to be comprehensive or explore every aspect of extrapolating from the implications of each worldview, I'll just stop there.
Atheism does not hold that individuals are "central." Central to what? If you answer that, I may have an answer that applies to myself, but I cannot say it applies to anyone else, and my answer would not necessarily flow from the fact that I do not believe in any god. Maybe I think family is central, or our social order is central. I don't know what you MEAN by central. And maybe it's not individuals. Maybe it's individuality that's central.
"Denial of submission/relationship to any gods since they are not scientifically real." I quibble with the wording here. We don't "deny submission to or a relationship" with any gods. Rather, we reject the argument that any particular gods exist, and therefore see no need to submit to them. I feel the same way about Yahweh that most Christians feel about the angel Moroni. Yeah, I'm sure SOME Christians believe Moroni was a devil spirit who deceived Joseph Smith, but I would venture to say that most think Smith just made the whole thing up. You wouldn't say most Christians deny submission to the authority of the Book of Mormon. That presumes the book has authority to be rejected.
So what would be more accurate? Try:
Atheism (in the West): A rejection of arguments for the existence of a God or gods, rendering their worship moot. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a belief that religions are misleading at best and divisive/dangerous/sinister at worst. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a humanistic approach to society, the belief that our problems, to the extent they can be solved, can only be solved by the fine tuning of a social contract that elevates reason/rationalism and empathy above individual advancement.
Since these are all brief summaries not intended to be comprehensive or explore every aspect of extrapolating from the implications of each worldview, I'll just stop there.
I do appreciate your response. Your definition seems great.
You reject the argument that gods exist . . . that's fine if that's better wording . . . which I would ask do you see there has been any function of the gods? It would make perfect sense one group rejects the other groups gods if they serve different purposes. They exist if others say they do: National boundaries technically do not exist. Sovereignty of a nation depends to large degree if others acknowledge it or not.
I intend to come back about individuality.
Edited by Bolshevik words mean what I tell them to
I don't want to go off on a tangent about what it means to exist unless it is relevant to your thread. So, since you brought it up, I'll err on the side of "it's relevant."
It is true that national boundaries do not exist. Neither do property lines. "Ownership" doesn't really exist. Why can't someone else just get in my car and drive off with it?
But ownership and property lines, and national boundaries, are part of a social contract (which also does not exist) that we recognize in order to maintain order. Humans are a social animal, and societies are governed by written and unwritten rules that have developed over millennia.
We recognize boundaries that do not exist in any objective sense because without those boundaries, the social contract starts to crumble. My house is mine. It's not my neighbor's.
Social contracts evolve over time as the population's knowledge evolves. The more we know about the world in which we live, and about the differences in society, the more we adapt our social contract. We don't ban polygamy because our scriptures do. Our scriptures ban polygamy because we do. When we permitted polygamy, so did our scriptures. Some of our scriptures still allow polygamy. Some say our scriptures do, too!
Religion, every religion, is an attempt to codify that social contract at a specific moment in time, with the goal of preserving it for all time. That's why you can have a Bible that takes slavery for granted and doesn't condemn it as an evil. Our society did not condemn slavery until many, many years (centuries) after the Christian scriptures were completed. Now we read freedom into scriptures that never condemn slavery.
Anyway, that's another tangent. My point is, I agree that national boundaries don't exist, but we bring them into existence by drawing and recognizing them. And we can erase them just as easily.
Gods are different in that regard because they have agency. You can't merely acknowledge them into existence by agreement anymore than you can acknowledge my third son into existence by agreement (I only have two sons. That I know of. Another tangent. That was a joke).
You and I can agree that there is a God, that his name is Yahweh, that He bans this and commands that. And by our agreement we can craft a society.
But anyone coming from the outside is under no obligation to acknowledge that God or his rules because he is not real.
Look at the Western Hemisphere. It had TONS of boundaries that were simply not recognized by the European settlers who came here. "But look! These are our boundaries! They exist!" Whatever, I claim this land for Spain, for England, for Holland, for Portugal. But what about the boundaries? The reality that they don't exist except by mutual agreement comes into sharp focus.
And when was the last time you watched a Star Trek series where they talked about the national boundaries of the planets they visited? I don't think the aliens of Independence Day gave a hoot about our national boundaries.
Or our gods.
Because they don't exist except by mutual agreement.
Edited by Raf Prematurely posted, added conclusion.
Social contracts evolve over time as the population's knowledge evolves. The more we know about the world in which we live, and about the differences in society, the more we adapt our social contract. We don't ban polygamy because our scriptures do. Our scriptures ban polygamy because we do. When we permitted polygamy, so did our scriptures. Some of our scriptures still allow polygamy. Some say our scriptures do, too!
Religion, every religion, is an attempt to codify that social contract at a specific moment in time, with the goal of preserving it for all time. That's why you can have a Bible that takes slavery for granted and doesn't condemn it as an evil. Our society did not condemn slavery until many, many years (centuries) after the Christian scriptures were completed. Now we read freedom into scriptures that never condemn slavery.
Anyway, that's another tangent. My point is, I agree that national boundaries don't exist, but we bring them into existence by drawing and recognizing them. And we can erase them just as easily.
Gods are different in that regard because they have agency. You can't merely acknowledge them into existence by agreement anymore than you can acknowledge my third son into existence by agreement (I only have two sons. That I know of. Another tangent. That was a joke).
. . .
I think you're distinction between social contract and agency are . . . important . . . certainly it's own topic.
I question the agency of the god of Victor Paul Wierwille. That god was/is held to a higher power, The Law Believing. (I think Juedes wrote that, I don't remember)
We're exploring what it means to exist, and our ability to bring things into existence by consensus.
You exist, as do I. You can choose not to believe in me, but that doesn't change the fact I exist.
Agency might not have been the best word choice on my part. A chair doesn't have agency, but its existence does not depend on whether I believe in it or acknowledge it.
Some things exist purely because we acknowledge them (a social contract, laws, national boundaries, property lines). Other things exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them (chairs, tables, rocks, rivers, anthropogenic climate change). And some things don't exist no matter how many people believe them, acknowledge them, etc (Santa Claus, the health benefits of superoxygenated water, voter fraud on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of a national election).
I believe God falls in the third category, not the first or second. If we were to insist on placing him in the first category, then He can affect laws and mores. He can establish societal norms. He can tell us what words we can and cannot say. He can tell us which day of the week is okay to pick up sticks. He can tell women how to dress and men whether they can marry another man or multiple women. But the moment you insist that he belongs in the second category, you will learn very quickly he belongs in the third.
We are not chairs - we have bodies. So do many of the dead, for a time. Agency is limited for a time or none at all.
Our existence I think is felt in how others do or do not acknowledge it. The social aspect is felt. There's an acknowledgement of oneself by oneself, too.
We're exploring what it means to exist, and our ability to bring things into existence by consensus.
You exist, as do I. You can choose not to believe in me, but that doesn't change the fact I exist.
Agency might not have been the best word choice on my part. A chair doesn't have agency, but its existence does not depend on whether I believe in it or acknowledge it.
Some things exist purely because we acknowledge them (a social contract, laws, national boundaries, property lines). Other things exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them (chairs, tables, rocks, rivers, anthropogenic climate change). And some things don't exist no matter how many people believe them, acknowledge them, etc (Santa Claus, the health benefits of superoxygenated water, voter fraud on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of a national election).
I believe God falls in the third category, not the first or second. If we were to insist on placing him in the first category, then He can affect laws and mores. He can establish societal norms. He can tell us what words we can and cannot say. He can tell us which day of the week is okay to pick up sticks. He can tell women how to dress and men whether they can marry another man or multiple women. But the moment you insist that he belongs in the second category, you will learn very quickly he belongs in the third.
I'm guessing the categories are:
1. Physical Objects . . . which is really energy . . . depends on perception . . . dark matter/energy fits here
2. Agreed between people socially/politically/legally
3. In one's own head
Humans participate in all 3? Limiting a god to one category certainly makes them . . . less useful. Can simply thought in and out of existence . . . am I close?
I think you're suggesting projection LINK. Is all experience just projection? There was another person I think noted that gods tend to appear and dress like their worshippers.
VPW's god was certainly about him, but again submissive to the Law of Believing, which he could control. Saint and sinner garble is just a way to get others to cosign on his little fantasy, and reflect the projection back to him. The role of the individual was to serve, narcissistic supply.
Atheism (in the West): A rejection of arguments for the existence of a God or gods, rendering their worship moot. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a belief that religions are misleading at best and divisive/dangerous/sinister at worst. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a humanistic approach to society, the belief that our problems, to the extent they can be solved, can only be solved by the fine tuning of a social contract that elevates reason/rationalism and empathy above individual advancement.
. . .
I think the last part of your(?) definition is most important. Individual advancement is secondary at least to . . . something. In The Way the individual had to jump through hoops (classes, programs, meetings) to get closer to the MOG(or god?), and therefore obtain value and purpose. Nowadays the individual can go on the internet and get likes. Vaknin argues at least 1-2 or more billion people have there psychology completely changed because of it (by conditioning . . . smashing the like button). That's greater power than the Nazi's had with radios. And you've got the echo chambers, thanks to the algorithm. . . . the functionality of gods is replaced? Yes?
Any one of the definitions you and I proposed can be explored in depth. None are adequate (nor do any pretend to be). To me, the most important words in my definition of atheism were "Often (but not by definition)..." Because we associate certain attributes with certain beliefs, even though they do not apply in every case.
But to further the discussion, the attributes I raised seem to be the constructive ones most relevant to the definitions you provided on the other categories.
Initial post leads with The Way International. Assumed purpose of discussions on this website. It has a "Matters of Faith" section - which a curse word in TWI. Amusing.
My definition associates atheism with an increasingly hermit like society - which is the global trend for many reasons. Your definition discusses a social contract.
TWI wanted two by two? A regulation of thoughts and actions via each other . . . a proposed function of a god.
I would strongly disagree with associating atheism with a hermit-like society, although again, we're reading more into "atheism" than the word itself requires.
Atheism means a person doesn't believe in God. That's it. Within that category of people, you will find hundreds of different ideologies and beiefs. An atheist who believes in astrology? Possible. Alchemy? Sure. How about an atheist who does not believe in evolution? Plenty. Flat-earthers? Yup, got them too. Nothing about atheism precludes a belief in anything else.
So when you associate atheism with an increasingly hermit-like society (which is quite probably accurate many times), you inadvertently disassociate atheism with a society in which communities are formed around something OTHER than religion. Theater. Art. Politics. Name that Flick. All sorts of human endeavors. And associating atheism with these various communities is also quite accurate, many times.
So I think, when embarking on this conversation, you need to approach it in an affirmative way.
The Way International is an affirmative set of beliefs and practices. Go ahead and sum them up.
Christianity in the West is challenging to summarize, given the variety within it, but you can make some broad generalizations.
But atheism, in this sense, isn't a thing. It's the absence of a thing. So let's try to sum up a thing instead, even if it means breaking atheism up into more than one category (which, I would argue, is the same approach we should use with Christianity in the West, but that's someone else's point to make.
Humanism is a thing. Sum it up.
Nihilism is a thing. Sum it up.
Both fall rather neatly under atheism, with exceptions.
Anti-socialism may fall under atheism, but I would submit it transcends religious belief.
One purpose of discussions is to make ideas more clear, another is to develop new ones.
The Way International has its own definition we all know. I am of the opinion we agree that we don't agree with its view of itself. (Freely avails himself. . . what? Not herself?). The Way has a hidden set of beliefs. They are liars. TWI is a result of a pathology that is not unique to TWI (IMO).
I will agree definitions are moving targets. I don't expect to have the same definitions for myself over time. Discussions help tune in to the changing times, hopefully in a connected way. Using those other (changing) definitions (of atheism and Christianity) might shine light on what TWI really is. I assume having an area to discuss belief on this website is to contrast it to TWI.
If the role of Christianity was say according to one theory, for the Roman Empire to pacify unrest in Judea, that god serves a role. The Empire wants unity? That god functioned to unite Rome . . . although Rome fell and fragmented . . . the church fragmented . . and carried on in other ways. If we caste off god, is unity less important? Or, if atomized societies are growing . . . atheism just fits better? Who has their own god they share with nobody? Here we need to grasp what gods do (whether or not they exist is not a primary concern - we are discussing them though). There's a role, a function, a meaningful purpose for gods.
TWI's god is to contrast it with, probably Christianity, from which it borrowed. That would be VPW's god's main role? It's function I think get's into his pathology. I think Juedes referred to TWI as atheistic in discussing that god's role/function in The Law of Believing. But there is a god involved? And spirits. Is it atheism? Is it theism? Is it both?
Recommended Posts
waysider
Any interesting links on the last 2 items?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Did you write those definitions or did you quote someone else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oh, are you asking if I plagiarized?
Lately a lot has been influenced by Vaknin. I came across him being influenced by professionals in the real world - after dealing with another human being the courts. I'm thinking back almost 20 years, asking the same question, why can't we look at other churches? Why do I vibrate when others tried to convert me?
I was recently kept from my youngest son because "I was raised in The Way" . . . belief . . . state . . . society . . . The Way International
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Vaknin (I'm assuming) would call VPW as having a schizoid core. . . . The Way was set up around his psyche. . . . I don't think that is news.
The other structures outside The Way, real or not, come from minds - both the conscience and unconscience aspects of the psyche - and further a large collection of them.
I don't think that is news.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Not really. I'm asking if what you stated was your impression or does it actually reflect what somebody else thinks about the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
A lot of what has been influenced by Vaknin?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Atheism does not hold that individuals are "central." Central to what? If you answer that, I may have an answer that applies to myself, but I cannot say it applies to anyone else, and my answer would not necessarily flow from the fact that I do not believe in any god. Maybe I think family is central, or our social order is central. I don't know what you MEAN by central. And maybe it's not individuals. Maybe it's individuality that's central.
"Denial of submission/relationship to any gods since they are not scientifically real." I quibble with the wording here. We don't "deny submission to or a relationship" with any gods. Rather, we reject the argument that any particular gods exist, and therefore see no need to submit to them. I feel the same way about Yahweh that most Christians feel about the angel Moroni. Yeah, I'm sure SOME Christians believe Moroni was a devil spirit who deceived Joseph Smith, but I would venture to say that most think Smith just made the whole thing up. You wouldn't say most Christians deny submission to the authority of the Book of Mormon. That presumes the book has authority to be rejected.
So what would be more accurate? Try:
Atheism (in the West): A rejection of arguments for the existence of a God or gods, rendering their worship moot. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a belief that religions are misleading at best and divisive/dangerous/sinister at worst. Often (but not by definition) accompanied by a humanistic approach to society, the belief that our problems, to the extent they can be solved, can only be solved by the fine tuning of a social contract that elevates reason/rationalism and empathy above individual advancement.
Since these are all brief summaries not intended to be comprehensive or explore every aspect of extrapolating from the implications of each worldview, I'll just stop there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I do appreciate your response. Your definition seems great.
You reject the argument that gods exist . . . that's fine if that's better wording . . . which I would ask do you see there has been any function of the gods? It would make perfect sense one group rejects the other groups gods if they serve different purposes. They exist if others say they do: National boundaries technically do not exist. Sovereignty of a nation depends to large degree if others acknowledge it or not.
I intend to come back about individuality.
Edited by Bolshevikwords mean what I tell them to
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Fiat currency might be a better example. The paper itself is worthless. Meaningless. A made up value. We still use it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How minds like VPWs perceive things. How others misinterpret people like him.
Sorry, I did not keep a running bibliography. It is my impression of many sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't want to go off on a tangent about what it means to exist unless it is relevant to your thread. So, since you brought it up, I'll err on the side of "it's relevant."
It is true that national boundaries do not exist. Neither do property lines. "Ownership" doesn't really exist. Why can't someone else just get in my car and drive off with it?
But ownership and property lines, and national boundaries, are part of a social contract (which also does not exist) that we recognize in order to maintain order. Humans are a social animal, and societies are governed by written and unwritten rules that have developed over millennia.
We recognize boundaries that do not exist in any objective sense because without those boundaries, the social contract starts to crumble. My house is mine. It's not my neighbor's.
Social contracts evolve over time as the population's knowledge evolves. The more we know about the world in which we live, and about the differences in society, the more we adapt our social contract. We don't ban polygamy because our scriptures do. Our scriptures ban polygamy because we do. When we permitted polygamy, so did our scriptures. Some of our scriptures still allow polygamy. Some say our scriptures do, too!
Religion, every religion, is an attempt to codify that social contract at a specific moment in time, with the goal of preserving it for all time. That's why you can have a Bible that takes slavery for granted and doesn't condemn it as an evil. Our society did not condemn slavery until many, many years (centuries) after the Christian scriptures were completed. Now we read freedom into scriptures that never condemn slavery.
Anyway, that's another tangent. My point is, I agree that national boundaries don't exist, but we bring them into existence by drawing and recognizing them. And we can erase them just as easily.
Gods are different in that regard because they have agency. You can't merely acknowledge them into existence by agreement anymore than you can acknowledge my third son into existence by agreement (I only have two sons. That I know of. Another tangent. That was a joke).
You and I can agree that there is a God, that his name is Yahweh, that He bans this and commands that. And by our agreement we can craft a society.
But anyone coming from the outside is under no obligation to acknowledge that God or his rules because he is not real.
Look at the Western Hemisphere. It had TONS of boundaries that were simply not recognized by the European settlers who came here. "But look! These are our boundaries! They exist!" Whatever, I claim this land for Spain, for England, for Holland, for Portugal. But what about the boundaries? The reality that they don't exist except by mutual agreement comes into sharp focus.
And when was the last time you watched a Star Trek series where they talked about the national boundaries of the planets they visited? I don't think the aliens of Independence Day gave a hoot about our national boundaries.
Or our gods.
Because they don't exist except by mutual agreement.
Edited by RafPrematurely posted, added conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think you're distinction between social contract and agency are . . . important . . . certainly it's own topic.
I question the agency of the god of Victor Paul Wierwille. That god was/is held to a higher power, The Law Believing. (I think Juedes wrote that, I don't remember)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We're exploring what it means to exist, and our ability to bring things into existence by consensus.
You exist, as do I. You can choose not to believe in me, but that doesn't change the fact I exist.
Agency might not have been the best word choice on my part. A chair doesn't have agency, but its existence does not depend on whether I believe in it or acknowledge it.
Some things exist purely because we acknowledge them (a social contract, laws, national boundaries, property lines). Other things exist regardless of whether we acknowledge them (chairs, tables, rocks, rivers, anthropogenic climate change). And some things don't exist no matter how many people believe them, acknowledge them, etc (Santa Claus, the health benefits of superoxygenated water, voter fraud on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of a national election).
I believe God falls in the third category, not the first or second. If we were to insist on placing him in the first category, then He can affect laws and mores. He can establish societal norms. He can tell us what words we can and cannot say. He can tell us which day of the week is okay to pick up sticks. He can tell women how to dress and men whether they can marry another man or multiple women. But the moment you insist that he belongs in the second category, you will learn very quickly he belongs in the third.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We are not chairs - we have bodies. So do many of the dead, for a time. Agency is limited for a time or none at all.
Our existence I think is felt in how others do or do not acknowledge it. The social aspect is felt. There's an acknowledgement of oneself by oneself, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm guessing the categories are:
1. Physical Objects . . . which is really energy . . . depends on perception . . . dark matter/energy fits here
2. Agreed between people socially/politically/legally
3. In one's own head
Humans participate in all 3? Limiting a god to one category certainly makes them . . . less useful. Can simply thought in and out of existence . . . am I close?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think you're suggesting projection LINK. Is all experience just projection? There was another person I think noted that gods tend to appear and dress like their worshippers.
VPW's god was certainly about him, but again submissive to the Law of Believing, which he could control. Saint and sinner garble is just a way to get others to cosign on his little fantasy, and reflect the projection back to him. The role of the individual was to serve, narcissistic supply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think the last part of your(?) definition is most important. Individual advancement is secondary at least to . . . something. In The Way the individual had to jump through hoops (classes, programs, meetings) to get closer to the MOG(or god?), and therefore obtain value and purpose. Nowadays the individual can go on the internet and get likes. Vaknin argues at least 1-2 or more billion people have there psychology completely changed because of it (by conditioning . . . smashing the like button). That's greater power than the Nazi's had with radios. And you've got the echo chambers, thanks to the algorithm. . . . the functionality of gods is replaced? Yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Any one of the definitions you and I proposed can be explored in depth. None are adequate (nor do any pretend to be). To me, the most important words in my definition of atheism were "Often (but not by definition)..." Because we associate certain attributes with certain beliefs, even though they do not apply in every case.
But to further the discussion, the attributes I raised seem to be the constructive ones most relevant to the definitions you provided on the other categories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Initial post leads with The Way International. Assumed purpose of discussions on this website. It has a "Matters of Faith" section - which a curse word in TWI. Amusing.
My definition associates atheism with an increasingly hermit like society - which is the global trend for many reasons. Your definition discusses a social contract.
TWI wanted two by two? A regulation of thoughts and actions via each other . . . a proposed function of a god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I would strongly disagree with associating atheism with a hermit-like society, although again, we're reading more into "atheism" than the word itself requires.
Atheism means a person doesn't believe in God. That's it. Within that category of people, you will find hundreds of different ideologies and beiefs. An atheist who believes in astrology? Possible. Alchemy? Sure. How about an atheist who does not believe in evolution? Plenty. Flat-earthers? Yup, got them too. Nothing about atheism precludes a belief in anything else.
So when you associate atheism with an increasingly hermit-like society (which is quite probably accurate many times), you inadvertently disassociate atheism with a society in which communities are formed around something OTHER than religion. Theater. Art. Politics. Name that Flick. All sorts of human endeavors. And associating atheism with these various communities is also quite accurate, many times.
So I think, when embarking on this conversation, you need to approach it in an affirmative way.
The Way International is an affirmative set of beliefs and practices. Go ahead and sum them up.
Christianity in the West is challenging to summarize, given the variety within it, but you can make some broad generalizations.
But atheism, in this sense, isn't a thing. It's the absence of a thing. So let's try to sum up a thing instead, even if it means breaking atheism up into more than one category (which, I would argue, is the same approach we should use with Christianity in the West, but that's someone else's point to make.
Humanism is a thing. Sum it up.
Nihilism is a thing. Sum it up.
Both fall rather neatly under atheism, with exceptions.
Anti-socialism may fall under atheism, but I would submit it transcends religious belief.
What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One purpose of discussions is to make ideas more clear, another is to develop new ones.
The Way International has its own definition we all know. I am of the opinion we agree that we don't agree with its view of itself. (Freely avails himself. . . what? Not herself?). The Way has a hidden set of beliefs. They are liars. TWI is a result of a pathology that is not unique to TWI (IMO).
I will agree definitions are moving targets. I don't expect to have the same definitions for myself over time. Discussions help tune in to the changing times, hopefully in a connected way. Using those other (changing) definitions (of atheism and Christianity) might shine light on what TWI really is. I assume having an area to discuss belief on this website is to contrast it to TWI.
If the role of Christianity was say according to one theory, for the Roman Empire to pacify unrest in Judea, that god serves a role. The Empire wants unity? That god functioned to unite Rome . . . although Rome fell and fragmented . . . the church fragmented . . and carried on in other ways. If we caste off god, is unity less important? Or, if atomized societies are growing . . . atheism just fits better? Who has their own god they share with nobody? Here we need to grasp what gods do (whether or not they exist is not a primary concern - we are discussing them though). There's a role, a function, a meaningful purpose for gods.
TWI's god is to contrast it with, probably Christianity, from which it borrowed. That would be VPW's god's main role? It's function I think get's into his pathology. I think Juedes referred to TWI as atheistic in discussing that god's role/function in The Law of Believing. But there is a god involved? And spirits. Is it atheism? Is it theism? Is it both?
I will try to clarify further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you're suggestion using "idea" in place of god?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If this were true, leaving The Way would simply involve changing your beliefs and practices.
One would have to know what they are, too.
Jesus Christ is Not God
The Dead are Not Alive
Isn't that like saying saying I don't believe in something and calling it a belief?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Green Card was just a list of empty promises?
There was lists of benefits of SIT, which were hard to grasp. I remember a folder or something might have had a list of beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.