Atheism as a religion

[iain]

it doesnt have to be the poet per se, could be the quantum physicist, the artist, the philosopher, the psycologist, neurologist, etc but from any area one great thinker can come along and upset the status quo

and a new way emerge.

but in ancient greece i think the poet was onto it first. and this idea arise in sufi thought as elsewhere , i mentioned previous, da vinci tells us to closely study the ancients rather than the modern.

 

कवि kavi in Sanskrit, it has interesting connotations, meaning Poet, but also; Enlightened, Venus, Singer Sage; pick your meaning. To what was being referred and how has our understanding possibly change from the original intention of the author? I changed "Writer" to "Author" after the thought, intentionally as my understanding of that period is effected by my understanding of now, so I correct for that. We might well consider that higher knowledge is both transient and transcendental. Not junk knowledge which is attached to material things; lasting only short period of time, like for instance; knowledge of a typewriter ...

Edited October 24, 2014 by iain

[iain]

Not sure where they come from, but as I understand, they are like the Japanese "dō".

Is this perhaps similar to bhāvana?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavana

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Interestingly enough, the recently found "Higgs Boson" is proof of Ākāśa tattva . . .

 

The interesting thing about the Higgs Boson, other than its reflections at certain power amplitudes, implying the existence of deeper pattern or reflection.

The parallel with Akash tattva is in its nature, in certain ancient tantra (doctrine), the universe is said to emanate from the simple sound vibration that is akash vibrating; it is the fabric which binds everything together. The Higgs boson is said to have been in particle form at the time of the big bang and is now the underlying fabric upon which material nature is bound; A Striking similarity …

 

These suggestive “parallels”, as interesting as they are, fall short of a proof. What would be required of a proof would be an exact mathematization of the concept of the Akasha Tattwa and a demonstration that this mathematical model was related to quantum mechanics in general and the higgs boson in particular. I myself model akasha as four dimensional substance, but I have not worked that out to any great precision, it is more of a conceptual investigation.

 

What can be inferred from Quantum Physics relative to materialism is a reductio ad absurdum disproof of both mechanism and atomism as conceived of by science from the time that it was “grandfathered” in to the “Scientific Revolution” at the end of the the Seventeenth Century to 1900. This model was derived from the revival of Epicureanism circa 1600 by the efforts of Pierre Gassendi, and which, for reasons that have more to do with the religious controversies of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries than with any newly awakened spirit of "objective" investigation, became an unexamined and later unquestionable proposition at the base of the “Scientific Revolution”. It was never directly subjected to scientific scrutiny itself, but rather simply assumed to be the truth. Quantum Physics is its formal and experimental refutation.

 

I am not familiar with Aristotle, I must do some more reading, formal cause sounds similar to the idea of karma . . .

 

I don't think formal causes would be like karma as I understand it, formal causes are one of Aristotle's four causes, a set of ideas that have been very useful to me in my studies, you can read a fair introduction to them on Wikipedia here:

 

Aristotle's doctrine of the Four Causes

 

Also related to formal causes and very useful is Aristotle's doctrine of Potentiality and Actuality, again Wikipedia is satisfactory:

 

Aristotle's doctrine of Potentiality and Acuality

 

and of course Hylomorphism:

 

Aristotle's doctrine of form and “matter”

 

These are some of the useful ideas that Aristotle has, but I don't think that it is very useful to get too caught up in him. What is important is how these ideas were integrated into a Platonic framework by the Middle Platonists, finally reaching a well formed synthesis in the work of Plotinus and further developed by his successors.

 

Best that I do not start a tangent about the damage caused by the calculated mistranslations of vedic works by Max Muller; All of course funded by the ancient occidental establishment of traditional scholars.

Apparently it has been cited by the BBC that this was intentionally done, but I have not personally read the article; so I won't mention that here.

 

F. Max Muller wrote from a generally Protestant and specifically Lutheran perspective. This is a man who left the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches out of his "history" of Christianity. He is hardly a representative of an “occidental establishment of traditional scholars”, much less an “ancient” one. Regrettably, since he was one of the founders of modern Sanskrit and Indian studies, his eccentric point of view colored subsequent inquiry longer than it should have.

[iain]

 

These suggestive “parallels”, as interesting as they are, fall short of a proof. What would be required of a proof would be an exact mathematization of the concept of the Akasha Tattwa and a demonstration that this mathematical model was related to quantum mechanics in general and the higgs boson in particular. I myself model akasha as four dimensional substance, but I have not worked that out to any great precision, it is more of a conceptual investigation.

Jyotisa is that. I have seen enough to be convinced; also direct experience of that in the form of śaktipāta; I have already expressed why I believe the scientific axioms fall short if we want to measure a relative world.

 

 

What can be inferred from Quantum Physics relative to materialism is a reductio ad absurdum disproof of both mechanism and atomism as conceived of by science from the time that it was “grandfathered” in to the “Scientific Revolution” at the end of the the Seventeenth Century to 1900. This model was derived from the revival of Epicureanism circa 1600 by the efforts of Pierre Gassendi, and which, for reasons that have more to do with the religious controversies of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries than with any newly awakened spirit of "objective" investigation, became an unexamined and later unquestionable proposition at the base of the “Scientific Revolution”. It was never directly subjected to scientific scrutiny itself, but rather simply assumed to be the truth. Quantum Physics is its formal and experimental refutation.

A pleasure and experience to read you as you are clearly highly learned in these matters. The Higgs Boson was a mathematical glue the existence of which was stipulated so as to balance the particles in the standard model; It is not a particle neither are any of the particles particles; there is a problem in the inherent assumption of the linearity of time.

 

 

I don't think formal causes would be like karma as I understand it, formal causes are one of Aristotle's four causes, a set of ideas that have been very useful to me in my studies, you can read a fair introduction to them on Wikipedia here:

 

Aristotle's doctrine of the Four Causes

 

Also related to formal causes and very useful is Aristotle's doctrine of Potentiality and Actuality, again Wikipedia is satisfactory:

 

Aristotle's doctrine of Potentiality and Acuality

 

and of course Hylomorphism:

 

Aristotle's doctrine of form and “matter”

 

These are some of the useful ideas that Aristotle has, but I don't think that it is very useful to get too caught up in him. What is important is how these ideas were integrated into a Platonic framework by the Middle Platonists, finally reaching a well formed synthesis in the work of Plotinus and further developed by his successors.

Thank you for the links, You are quite right this is not similar to Karma at all; I just had a thought though, karma is rather like a Feynman diagram. Plotinus looks interesting and at least refers to the importance put on astrology at that time, our current history books seem to be rather forgetful of this fact. Indian philosophy, to me, seem to be far more advanced; though the lack of importance that they put on linear history, make it difficult to explain to what extent. Sanskrit its self, is a non linear language, containing many mathematical elements within the text. Rather, in the sutra.

The upaniṣadaḥ are indicative of an understanding of the nature of reality as demonstrated in the quantum slit experiment, showing just how different our styles of thought are. The upaniṣadaḥ or upanishads as proses predate any of these philosophies and being accompanied by a verbal tradition of knowledge that runs much deeper. The different style of living and thought is exactly why we are still struggling today in the Occident to accept the reality of the quantum physical world. As I have previously mentioned, there is already a fully working mathematical model which demonstrates how the quantum world interacts with the relative world and our experience of it. But the Western world seems to be to self obsessed to investigate it. Thus my suggestion that the Higgs boson is Akasha tattva, I am currently studying a fully functioning predictive model that clearly shows the importance of Akask tattva in our daily lives and have no need to prove that it fits with the Occidental model.

 

I keep hearing "World this and that" world health, world bank; but to my mind it is all occidental cerebral projection. That is the fundamental nature of our ancient boards of scholars, and why I have made that reference in a previous post.

 

F. Max Muller wrote from a generally Protestant and specifically Lutheran perspective. This is a man who left the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches out of his "history" of Christianity. He is hardly a representative of an “occidental establishment of traditional scholars”, much less an “ancient” one. Regrettably, since he was one of the founders of modern Sanskrit and Indian studies, his eccentric point of view colored subsequent inquiry longer than it should have.

I am very ignorant of the different branches of the Christian faith and the first to admit that. I have heard it suggested that these translations were shoehorned into the prevailing occidental world view, with the same aggression as that of the world colonizations of that time. That it was was a planned perversion, the tantra of later years of Indian thought had already been percieved as devil worship and those who practiced it in the Occident were killed as heretics, the fabrication of Aryan theory is fundamentally the cause of the Nazi movement and those responsible to my mind are also practicing these tantra "in the family" as it were. This will appear radical to one who has not studied Jyotiṣa.

 

It is a pleasure to communicate with someone so knowledgeable in Occidental philosophy studying Indian philosophy myself, it is enlightening to see and try to understand a little more of another perspective.

 

Kind regards.

Edited October 25, 2014 by iain

[zerostao]

ya'll heard that steven hawking now has a facebook page

his opening post

"I have always wondered what makes the universe exist. Time and space may forever be a mystery, but that has not stopped my pursuit. Our connections to one another have grown infinitely and now that I have the chance, I’m eager to share this journey with you. Be curious, I know I will forever be."

some of hawking's curiosity is found in this short article

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244

[runner11]

I absolutely think atheism is a religion. I know most people would disagree with me, but I've given it alot of thought. First of all, its true that most religions try to explain why we're here. Granted, atheism doesn't try to come up with an explanation for this, it just goes to the default, which is that we're here by chance; this all just randomly happened for no particular reason or purpose. Fair enough.

 

However, the other issue religion tries to explain is how we got here. This is something that atheism does dip its feet into heavily, and I have a hard time with a group doing this and then saying they're not a religion. I know what you're thinking. "But that's different! Its science! It's based on actual evidence!" The thing is though, its not. The big bang is a pretty far fetched idea. It doesn't exactly have a wealth of evidence supporting it.

 

If there was a group who had no opinion on the matter, no feeling or intuition, they just based their beliefs about the existence of deities and the creation of the world on evidence, then that would not be a religion. And guess what, we have that group. Its called scientists. Science is not a religion for this reason. Atheism is the belief that no deities exist. When you form a group whose sole purpose is the repudiation of the idea of a God or Gods, something that science cannot prove or disprove, I would consider that a religion.

 

Its a religion that has the belief that God doesn't exist, which is unusual as far as religions go, but a religion nonetheless. If atheism was based on science they would have no opinion on the matter, or maybe go so far as to say there's no evidence for a God, but certainly not say that God does not exist. That's not based on science.

[Rara]

The relevance to the conversation is very simple.

 

The scientific axioms of today's economic/science paradigm can only see one band of light and is trying to look deeper and deeper into that band. without realizing the fundamental flaw in basing perception of reality on the result of the physical senses rather than the senses them selves, or at the very least their distortion; A kin to the ego being the photon detector.

 

 

Ok, so we appear to be going around in circles here. I established this days ago, I thought you were trying to get at something else...

 

I will leave it at that.

[Rara]

We are looking out at the universe through giant telescopes in a very linear single silted way, and 80% of the universe is apparently missing.

 

I chose to name the missing part the flying spaghetti monster ... I know that it is there because I can feel it in my gut.

 

So is this your main point for the thread? I'm just trying to get some sort of answer...by "we" are you just talking about the majority of the world? If talking about atheism explicitly, is this a closed-minded type of religion for you?

[iain]

So is this your main point for the thread? I'm just trying to get some sort of answer...by "we" are you just talking about the majority of the world? If talking about atheism explicitly, is this a closed-minded type of religion for you?

 

I feel from your tone Rara, that you are a little irate.

 

That the universe is 75-80% dark mater, dark energy and unknowable; this was in year one of my Jyotiṣa course; it is fundamental to sanātana dharma and very old news.

 

I don't make points and write lists, I am a non linear thinker; answers have to be heard. By "we", I am talking about the the most domineering percentage of the human population; the aggressive ones with the technology that is allowing them to destroy the planets beautifully balanced ecosystem. I am talking about an sub group of humans, with a particularly aggressive psychological phenotype, the ones that know no doubt and who certainly do not need God to encourage them when in doubt, due to their distinctive lack of self doubt.

 

Atheism, to my mind : there are two types of Atheist; those who have realized the highest aspect of reality in consciousness and have discarded the sheath that is God, and those who have no feelings at all, who can not understand why any might need a God in the first place. To my mind, those that lack the empathy to perceive why one might need a God, are often the cause of the more sensitives empathetic angst in the first place; denominating them selves as God and then enslaving others.

In response to your question; "is this a closed-minded type of religion for you?" ...

 

I will reply that; it is ignorance.

 

Edited October 26, 2014 by iain

[iain]

ya'll heard that steven hawking now has a facebook page

his opening post

"I have always wondered what makes the universe exist. Time and space may forever be a mystery, but that has not stopped my pursuit. Our connections to one another have grown infinitely and now that I have the chance, I’m eager to share this journey with you. Be curious, I know I will forever be."

some of hawking's curiosity is found in this short article

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244

 

He is describing exactly that which I worship as a Jyotisa, curious to read.

Though in the line "Time and space may forever be a mystery," I am drawn to think of the statement made, I believe, by Lord Kelvin just before relativity was realized by the Occident. "That all of science is now known, all that remains is to fill in a few gaps.", something to that effect.

Though a great man, he is a bit of a media Junkie ... Many in the field refute his beliefs.

Edited October 26, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

So you wanted to get me involved in this discussion again, did you?

I absolutely think atheism is a religion. I know most people would disagree with me, but I've given it alot of thought. First of all, its true that most religions try to explain why we're here. Granted, atheism doesn't try to come up with an explanation for this, it just goes to the default, which is that we're here by chance; this all just randomly happened for no particular reason or purpose. Fair enough.

I don't know about most people but "this" person disagrees with you.

 

However, I have no particular disagreement with this paragraph.

 

However, the other issue religion tries to explain is how we got here. This is something that atheism does dip its feet into heavily, and I have a hard time with a group doing this and then saying they're not a religion. I know what you're thinking. "But that's different! Its science! It's based on actual evidence!" The thing is though, its not. The big bang is a pretty far fetched idea. It doesn't exactly have a wealth of evidence supporting it.

Yes, most Atheists accept the fact of evolution. Yes, it is a fact. Why deny facts that have been proven over and over again? Religions do this. Atheists do not.

 

The Big Bang is not a proven fact. I will agree with that. However, there is enough supporting evidence to prove that the theory is valid. Can any religion claim that?

 

If there was a group who had no opinion on the matter, no feeling or intuition, they just based their beliefs about the existence of deities and the creation of the world on evidence, then that would not be a religion. And guess what, we have that group. Its called scientists. Science is not a religion for this reason. Atheism is the belief that no deities exist. When you form a group whose sole purpose is the repudiation of the idea of a God or Gods, something that science cannot prove or disprove, I would consider that a religion.

Those with no opinion are called Agnostics. They don't know and they don't care.

 

And to suggest that Atheists are a group is an error. There are many different reasons why a person is an Atheist. There is no dogma defining the beliefs or disbeliefs of an Atheist.

 

Many, if not most, scientists are religious of one sort or another. Being a scientist does not make one an Atheist and being an Atheist does not make one a scientist.

 

No, Atheism is not the disbelief in gods. It is simply the non-acceptance of any validity for the existence of any gods. There simply is no evidence to suggest that there are gods. Only in the mind of man do these thoughts exist. These thoughts are called illusions and delusions.

 

And again, "Atheist" is not a group. Sure, there are some who have formed an Atheist Church. These people have a need that is satisfied by being a part of a larger organism, that is all.

 

And most Atheists do not try to prove the non-existence of gods. They simply do not accept the thought that gods exist.

 

Its a religion that has the belief that God doesn't exist, which is unusual as far as religions go, but a religion nonetheless. If atheism was based on science they would have no opinion on the matter, or maybe go so far as to say there's no evidence for a God, but certainly not say that God does not exist. That's not based on science.

No, again, it is not a belief. It is a non-acceptance of illusions and delusions. It really has nothing to do with "belief". And as I stated somewhere above in a different post, even science come up with some really weird thoughts that even Atheists would not accept. Scientists are individuals too. Some are Christians, some Taoists, some Buddhists, some Muslims, and on and on. And yes, they have their opinions and those opinions are rooted in their religious beliefs.

 

But yes, an Atheist states that gods do not exist. But still, some knock on wood for good luck. (That's based is superstition just as religion is.)

 

I am still waiting for anyone to present just one piece of verifiable evidence that gods exist. To this day I have seen none. Not one single bit of evidence.

 

Why would anyone spend time considering anything that has no supporting evidence? It would be no different than believing that one could fly simply by waving their arms.

[Marblehead]

Atheism, to my mind : there are two types of Atheist; those who have realized the highest aspect of reality in consciousness and have discarded the sheath that is God, and those who have no feelings at all, who can not understand why any might need a God in the first place. To my mind, those that lack the empathy to perceive why one might need a God, are often the cause of the more sensitives empathetic angst in the first place; denominating them selves as God and then enslaving others.

 

Very interesting concept there. I don't like putting people in baskets even though I do that on occasion myself but it is easier to define differences and commonalities by doing it.

 

And, your use of the word "empathy" is well served.

[Marblehead]

Ok, so we appear to be going around in circles here.

Yes, I did notice that and it was one of the reasons I did not join in.

[Marblehead]

 

That the universe is 75-80% dark mater, dark energy and unknowable ...

 

I have spoken to this before. Actually, only 4 percent of what is thought to be the totality of the universe is presently knowable and there is still a lot we need to learn about that. The rest, thought to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy is presently unknowable.

 

Chuang Tzu warned us of this 2400 years ago.

[Rara]

 

I feel from your tone Rara, that you are a little irate.

 

That the universe is 75-80% dark mater, dark energy and unknowable; this was in year one of my Jyotiṣa course; it is fundamental to sanātana dharma and very old news.

 

I don't make points and write lists, I am a non linear thinker; answers have to be heard. By "we", I am talking about the the most domineering percentage of the human population; the aggressive ones with the technology that is allowing them to destroy the planets beautifully balanced ecosystem. I am talking about an sub group of humans, with a particularly aggressive psychological phenotype, the ones that know no doubt and who certainly do not need God to encourage them when in doubt, due to their distinctive lack of self doubt.

 

Atheism, to my mind : there are two types of Atheist; those who have realized the highest aspect of reality in consciousness and have discarded the sheath that is God, and those who have no feelings at all, who can not understand why any might need a God in the first place. To my mind, those that lack the empathy to perceive why one might need a God, are often the cause of the more sensitives empathetic angst in the first place; denominating them selves as God and then enslaving others.

In response to your question; "is this a closed-minded type of religion for you?" ...

 

I will reply that; it is ignorance.

 

Sure, but by having a title in a thread, having some sort of coherence is useful...especially if I'm left "not understanding" your quantum slit analogy, then we have a little chat about it, and then I realise that I made it clear nearly a week ago that I knew where you were coming from.

 

Yes, the dominating majority, definitely. But let's not forget a huge percentage of these are religious (in their mind)

 

Fair play to your last statement, and that certain divide indicates to me that atheism is not a religion, because we cannot put everybody under the same roof in this way. Likewise, you could argue this with any religion, due to the fact that they all have schisms.

 

I don't feel the need for a label, because it pigeon-holes the belief system that one "belongs to". Despite my love for Lao Tzu's philosophy, or Chuang Tzu's, Buddha's, Einstein's, Sam Harris' - if I say I'm a Taoist, I'm lying. If I say I'm a Buddhist, I'm lying. If I say I'm an atheist, I'm lying.

 

Atheism can be followed like a religion. Then how do we define religion? How does that differ from cult?

 

Then what about the individuals? The "atheists" that have explored the spirituality? Are they equally as spiritually liberated as those that have the same comfort in claiming to have found enlightenment?

 

So many variables here...

 

Atheism sure can be likened to a religion if you string enough similarities together.

 

My real question then, is...who really cares?

[Rara]

I have spoken to this before. Actually, only 4 percent of what is thought to be the totality of the universe is presently knowable and there is still a lot we need to learn about that. The rest, thought to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy is presently unknowable.

 

Chuang Tzu warned us of this 2400 years ago.

But even man has his limitations. The Tao is bigger than us, and knows what it should. And we will only ever know what is available to us

[Rara]

 

 

Its a religion that has the belief that God doesn't exist, which is unusual as far as religions go, but a religion nonetheless.

Buddhism? A religion without God...just throwing that one out there.

[iain]

I have spoken to this before. Actually, only 4 percent of what is thought to be the totality of the universe is presently knowable and there is still a lot we need to learn about that. The rest, thought to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy is presently unknowable.

 

Chuang Tzu warned us of this 2400 years ago.

 

What did Chuang Tzu have to say on the subject?

 

 

[iain]

Sure, but by having a title in a thread, having some sort of coherence is useful...especially if I'm left "not understanding" your quantum slit analogy, then we have a little chat about it, and then I realise that I made it clear nearly a week ago that I knew where you were coming from.

 

Yes, the dominating majority, definitely. But let's not forget a huge percentage of these are religious (in their mind)

 

Fair play to your last statement, and that certain divide indicates to me that atheism is not a religion, because we cannot put everybody under the same roof in this way. Likewise, you could argue this with any religion, due to the fact that they all have schisms.

 

I don't feel the need for a label, because it pigeon-holes the belief system that one "belongs to". Despite my love for Lao Tzu's philosophy, or Chuang Tzu's, Buddha's, Einstein's, Sam Harris' - if I say I'm a Taoist, I'm lying. If I say I'm a Buddhist, I'm lying. If I say I'm an atheist, I'm lying.

 

Atheism can be followed like a religion. Then how do we define religion? How does that differ from cult?

 

Then what about the individuals? The "atheists" that have explored the spirituality? Are they equally as spiritually liberated as those that have the same comfort in claiming to have found enlightenment?

 

So many variables here...

 

Atheism sure can be likened to a religion if you string enough similarities together.

 

My real question then, is...who really cares?

 

Who really cares?

 

Most care, but usually only for the pack solely for self defense and procreation; but there are a rare few jem's who elevate them selves from this state of consciousness, to think of others and consider the bigger picture. Mostly it depends on birth circumstances, relating to the past and possible futures.

 

Theology is an out growth of this same dark energy; the deva are our emotions, they were there before we could label and pigeon hole them into any polytheistic doctrine.

[Owledge]

Buddhism? A religion without God...just throwing that one out there.

They do believe in gods though ... and demons and stuff. At least that's religious canon.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Owledge

[Marblehead]

 

What did Chuang Tzu have to say on the subject?

 

 

He was talking about the continued search for knowledge and he stated that the universe is infinite but the mind is limited. To seek the knowledge of the infinite with a limited mind causes exhaustion and that is not the Way of Tao.

 

(Crudely paraphrased.)

[Marblehead]

They do believe in gods though ... and demons and stuff. At least that's religious canon.

Yeah, I think this is likely a carry-over from the Hindu religion. I doubt the Buddha talked much about gods.

[iain]

He was talking about the continued search for knowledge and he stated that the universe is infinite but the mind is limited. To seek the knowledge of the infinite with a limited mind causes exhaustion and that is not the Way of Tao.

 

(Crudely paraphrased.)

 

Thank you; sounds like he knew his Yo from his Wu ...

[iain]

Yeah, I think this is likely a carry-over from the Hindu religion. I doubt the Buddha talked much about gods.

Gautama Buddha is considered to have been an avatar and thus an incarnation of Vishnu by some Hindus; other Hindus are Atheists but are still Hindus; All very colorful.

 

[idiot_stimpy]

Maybe the best thing to do when someone asks you what religion you're is to just remain silent.