The Thinking Atheist

ShaSha1
Who are neither theist nor atheist? Drishtantoism is a Philosophy that is neither for Theism nor for Atheism. That means, the philosophy doesn’t advocate for traditional Beliefs those are of both theistic and atheistic. It says for such type of religion that admits the acting according to the rules and regulations of the nature. As atheist Aksay Kumar Datta, opposing religious belief Shobuj Taposh did not take the equation: work= crops, worship + work = crops, therefore worship = 0. So Drishtantoist religion is different from both theistic and atheistic religions. What is the Drishtantoist religion? According to the philosophy, a man’s natural and biological behaviour is his religion. Here faith is avoided. Shobuj Taposh claimed: if a man is devoted to his body and nature, he needs no faith. Nature means a man’s surroundings. Homeland is mainly considerable. The philosophy avoids faith, as it loves man. But faith is contempt to a man. Because of remaining the matter of ‘slavery’ and ‘mastery’ here, the philosophy doesn’t receive it cordially. Besides, being near at belief, faith is to a great extent God-based. But because of being neither for theist nor for atheist, the philosophy avoids God. It loudly claims that for presenting explanation of the origin of the Universe, there is no need to know the existence of God. And it also claims that for doing good work, a man must not have theistic or atheistic view. To Shobuj Taposh, if a man is devoted to his body and nature, he must be sympathetic to the world, must neglect
Adenosis
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ShaSha1 Wrote: So Drishtantoist religion is different from both theistic and atheistic religions. Atheism is not a religion; religions are not formed based on the lack of belief in a god. In regards to the Philosophy... Good for them? They are agnostic in regards to a god. What's the point?
Dark Light
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? "I only quote awesome people." - Dark Light
Logisch
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? I had to google it, but only found a site that dishonestly misquotes and misconstrued the word of professor hawking in an intellectually dishonest manner. Obviously, they hadn't read his books... And why the hell do we need a philosophy to tell us we can be good without a belief in god? Pretty much any atheist or agnostic knows this, it's innate in us being human beings. Sounds like a lot of fancy foot work and word play alternative of humanism, but with a lot of stuff that isn't needed attached to it.
ClydeLee
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? It's neither atheism or theism because it's a personnel philosophy. It's a completely different distinction. You could call the persons "belief" apatheistic. . . yet even in the default system clarification, the person is an atheist. Having no thought upon a God is describable as being atheist. It also could be considered Huxley agnostic, since it's a matter of thinking it doesn't matter or is unknowable to know of God's existence.
ShaSha1
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ClydeLee Wrote:  It's neither atheism or theism because it's a personnel philosophy. It's a completely different distinction. All philosophies or religions have become developed personally.
ClydeLee
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ClydeLee Wrote:  It's neither atheism or theism because it's a personnel philosophy. It's a completely different distinction. ShaSha1 Wrote:   All philosophies or religions have become developed personally. True, that was a redundant word on my point. There is also a difference between a philosophy and a religion. None of this qualifies to what I would declare a religion, so to say it doesn't fit into religious/non-religious labels seems a moot point.
ideasonscribe
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Logisch Wrote:  And why the hell do we need a philosophy to tell us we can be good without a belief in god? Pretty much any atheist or agnostic knows this, it's innate in us being human beings. The vast popularity of religion in the world seems to show otherwise. I believe that if every single religious person died right this instant, religion would come back and eventually be just as strong again.
Dark Light
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ShaSha1 Wrote:  All philosophies or religions have become developed personally. ClydeLee Wrote: True, that was a redundant word on my point. There is also a difference between a philosophy and a religion. None of this qualifies to what I would declare a religion, so to say it doesn't fit into religious/non-religious labels seems a moot point. O'Reilly may disagree http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4s7IUZ-CCo4 Anyhow, yes, all people have personal philosophies (whether they are well thought out or not) as well as some stance on religion, whether is be indifference, or otherwise. The OP was confusing Religion with Theology and Philosophy. They are not unrelated, but they are also distinct, and are conceptually distinct idea's that are not necessarily mutually exclusive or inclusive (That is to say that one isn't necessarily predicated on the other.) I realized that looks messy is is difficult to understand, but I nlame that on the OP as well.
ClydeLee
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Logisch Wrote:  And why the hell do we need a philosophy to tell us we can be good without a belief in god? Pretty much any atheist or agnostic knows this, it's innate in us being human beings. ideasonscribe Wrote: The vast popularity of religion in the world seems to show otherwise. I believe that if every single religious person died right this instant, religion would come back and eventually be just as strong again. I agree with you.. I think many would agree with you but probably not for the reasons you believe. Humans have a desire to understand and know things with our conscious minds; religion is a quick fix for that because it gives a presumably grand knowing answer. As long as the early educational resources are limited, the ability to go for easy answers will be strong.
Aseptic Skeptic
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Quick answer: none. Long answer: You are a theist if you accept that a particular religion is valid. You are an atheist if you don't. Easy peasy. Philosophies are irrelevant. Natural and biological behavior is irrelevant. Avoiding faith because you love man seems relevant and consistent with atheism. Explaining the origin of the universe is irrelevant. Doing good work is irrelevant. Philanthropy is irrelevant (yes, that seems pretty redundant). I'm not trying to belittle this philosophy. I know almost nothing about it; just the one paragraph of information presented here. It might be a perfectly wonderful philosophy. It is also atheistic regardless of claims to the contrary, unless more can be presented to disprove its atheism (in which case it would be theistic - either way, it doesn't satisfy question asked in the thread's title).
Logisch
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Quick answer: none. Long answer: You are a theist if you accept that a particular religion is valid. You are an atheist if you don't. Easy peasy. Philosophies are irrelevant. Natural and biological behavior is irrelevant. Avoiding faith because you love man seems relevant and consistent with atheism. Explaining the origin of the universe is irrelevant. Doing good work is irrelevant. Philanthropy is irrelevant (yes, that seems pretty redundant). I'm not trying to belittle this philosophy. I know almost nothing about it; just the one paragraph of information presented here. It might be a perfectly wonderful philosophy. It is also atheistic regardless of claims to the contrary, unless more can be presented to disprove its atheism (in which case it would be theistic - either way, it doesn't satisfy question asked in the thread's title). Perhaps I am shutting it out because what I was able to find already presented some stuff that just smelled of dishonest representation. I see nothing wrong with philosophy... and I agree that avoiding faith is a good thing if it benefits other people. Although he is correct that people personalize their beliefs anyway.
Aseptic Skeptic
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Sure, I didn't say he got anything wrong; how would I know? And I didn't say there's anything wrong with philosophy; I love philosophy. I was merely answering the question posed in the title of the thread.
Logisch
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Sure, I didn't say he got anything wrong; how would I know? And I didn't say there's anything wrong with philosophy; I love philosophy. I was merely answering the question posed in the title of the thread. It's all gravy. Is gravy atheistic nor theistic?
ClydeLee
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Sure, I didn't say he got anything wrong; how would I know? And I didn't say there's anything wrong with philosophy; I love philosophy. I was merely answering the question posed in the title of the thread. Logisch Wrote:   It's all gravy. Is gravy atheistic nor theistic?
ShaSha1
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? The persons who are neither theist nor atheist but religious, are Drishtantoist. Their scripture is Mangolbarta.
ClydeLee
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ShaSha1 Wrote:  The persons who are neither theist nor atheist but religious, are Drishtantoist. Their scripture is Mangolbarta. After reading that, I'm still not sure how you define that as "religious." It seems the very same pattern that Buddhism follows, and many Buddhists are those you could describe in your way as not active theists but not atheist as you seem. All that so called scripture is, is a set of rules or guidelines to live by. If by religious, you mean a set of moral standards and doctrines, then it's making more sense, but still religious implies more. A set of guidelines is merely a philosophy until it adds a "spiritual" or "deity concept" to the mix. This feels like equivalent to saying Zen Buddhism is neither theist nor atheist because it teaches to be in the moment and not to focus on non essentialist questions such as if God exists or not.
ShaSha1
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ShaSha1 Wrote:  The persons who are neither theist nor atheist but religious, are Drishtantoist. Their scripture is Mangolbarta. ClydeLee Wrote:  After reading that, I'm still not sure how you define that as "religious." It seems the very same pattern that Buddhism follows, and many Buddhists are those you could describe in your way as not active theists but not atheist as you seem. All that so called scripture is, is a set of rules or guidelines to live by. If by religious, you mean a set of moral standards and doctrines, then it's making more sense, but still religious implies more. A set of guidelines is merely a philosophy until it adds a "spiritual" or "deity concept" to the mix. This feels like equivalent to saying Zen Buddhism is neither theist nor atheist because it teaches to be in the moment and not to focus on non essentialist questions such as if God exists or not. Drishtantoism is an ultramodern Lokayata philosophy of Indian Sub-continent, is founded from Bangladesh by Bengali poet Shobuj Taposh from the beginning of 21st century. The philosophy has stood on some eastern and western philosophical theories like Lokayata (Charvaka), Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Baulism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, Individualism etc. and on the literary and artistic theories like Surrealism, Dadaism, Imagism, Futurism, Symbolism etc.
Free Thought
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ClydeLee Wrote: After reading that, I'm still not sure how you define that as "religious." It seems the very same pattern that Buddhism follows, and many Buddhists are those you could describe in your way as not active theists but not atheist as you seem. All that so called scripture is, is a set of rules or guidelines to live by. If by religious, you mean a set of moral standards and doctrines, then it's making more sense, but still religious implies more. A set of guidelines is merely a philosophy until it adds a "spiritual" or "deity concept" to the mix. This feels like equivalent to saying Zen Buddhism is neither theist nor atheist because it teaches to be in the moment and not to focus on non essentialist questions such as if God exists or not. ShaSha1 Wrote:  Drishtantoism is an ultramodern Lokayata philosophy of Indian Sub-continent, is founded from Bangladesh by Bengali poet Shobuj Taposh from the beginning of 21st century. The philosophy has stood on some eastern and western philosophical theories like Lokayata (Charvaka), Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Baulism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, Individualism etc. and on the literary and artistic theories like Surrealism, Dadaism, Imagism, Futurism, Symbolism etc. It's all philoso-bull anyway.
Reltzik
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Quick answer: none. Try ignostics like myself. (Don't necessarily say the notion of "God" is utter gibberish, but do say that the multitude of definitions in use makes it impossible to answer the existence question without some clarification of which "God" concept is being referred to with the word.) Back to the OP, how is this new, ultramodern philosophy distinct from secular humanism?
Rahn127
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? When it comes to theism and atheism, everyone falls into one camp or the other whether they realize it or not. You are A or you are not A. There is no other choice. My only conclusion that I could come to after trying to read that mess is that you don't know what atheism is. I would also argue that coherent thoughts are a mystery to you.
EvolutionKills
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Rahn127 Wrote:  When it comes to theism and atheism, everyone falls into one camp or the other whether they realize it or not. You are A or you are not A. There is no other choice. Everyone is an atheists, some just don't know it. Some theists claim A is true, and all other letters are false. Some claim B is true, and all other letters are false. Others claim C is true, or D, or E, and so on. Atheists have no reason to believe in any of the alphabet of beliefs, and everyone that professes a belief in just one letter, still doesn't believe all the others as well. We're all atheists, de-facto atheists just take it one step further...
Hamata k
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? Okay people. Enough with the fancy words. We are all impressed with how smart you are. As is philosophy isn't already hard enough to follow.
kim
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? (11-01-2013 02:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I believe that if every single religious person died right this instant, religion would come back and eventually be just as strong again. Bet you're glad there's no god to pull one of his "mysterious ways" jokes on you... it's kinda his style.
ideasonscribe
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist? ideasonscribe Wrote:  I believe that if every single religious person died right this instant, religion would come back and eventually be just as strong again. kim Wrote:  Bet you're glad there's no god to pull one of his "mysterious ways" jokes on you... it's kinda his style. I'm not sure what you mean.