>nah i'm good. like i said, it wasn't relevant anyway.

Ofcourse it's relevant. If you are to be an Atheist, it should be clear what you are choosing *not* to believe in. It seems to me that you are not well versed with theological history and sweep everything that came from ancient times under one rug called "God", which you believe is a thinking, living, breathing, personality. That could not be further from the truth.

>
>
>>
>>Semantics. The basic diagram remains.
>>
>>"God" or spiritual being at the apex of the triangle, belief
>>and non belief at the opposing ends of the base.
>>
>
>why does it have to be a triangle? how about simplifying this
>'equation' even more by making it a straight line with two
>points marked "Belief" and "Non-Belief"? no need to
>overcomplicate this, chief.

Sure, which makes the LINE you drew representative of "God". Since that is what the belief and non-belief are entangled with, placed upon. You cannot separate it.

>
>to be fair though, i'm not really sure what you're getting at
>by bringing this up. all you're saying is that you can't have
>atheists without theists or atheism without theism. i guess on
>that i agree. but still, it's pretty fruitless arguing
>semantics like that.
>

Although that is true, I am simply stating that Atheism is not possible without god, and therein lies the hilarious irony.


>
>i know that every civilisation in the history of humankind has
>practised some sort of religious belief. there's no denying it
>at all. this would suggest that humans have an innate desire
>to believe in a creator or overseeing deity. but, it also
>suggests that we are a deeply curious and fearful species who
>may choose to make up answers to satisfy our anxieties about
>the universe.
>

I agree with that. I am simply stating that comparing god to a pink shiny elephant is fallacious as the idea of god is unique and objective to humanity.


>>
>
>i'm actually interested to hear what other ways there are to
>look through the prism. care to list a few of your preferred
>methods? seeing as you don't like the outdated scientific
>method too much.

Hehe. I love science. I take it for what it's worth but I am not a materialist, that is to say, someone that bases their views solely on the physical universe. There are many unseen forces which govern our lives, one being gravity, we don't really know what it is but we can experience and measure it. How about Dark Matter, and Dark Energy? Unseen forces govern our lives, and yet most materialists swear the only way to understand the universe is through physical reality. What an ironic conundrum, that science is so immersed in the physical reality, all while built on completely unseen forces.

Anyhoo, other vehicles of discovery include art, song, dance, music. Other forms include spirituality or the use of psycho active plants. Your own body is an instrument of trial and error, of discovery, and being.

Rhetoric and logic, thought and philosophy are another form of discovery. Many of our greatest achievements were dreamed up in the space of a limitless and immaterial thought process. Democracy, the republic, peace and justice, virtue, law and honor, these are not scientifically physical things we can put in a test beaker and study, they are immaterial forces which govern our best ideals, actions, and cooperation.

The interesting thing is, that these realities were inspired by nature itself, which ultimately, is our greatest tool of discovery. Indigenous people discovered that if they over fished the rivers, the people down the river would suffer, and so virtue was born. Where do you think our high ideals come from? They do not originate nowhere, they originate all around us, in our environment, our soul, our experience of being human.

Religion is another tool of discovery. I will assume that your perception of religion is governed by no more than the last 600 years. Do you know the origins of religion and the purpose for it? It was not to pray to unseen thinking and living gods that punish or reward us. It was a way for the indigenous man to give gratitude to the super physical forces of nature, which were identified as allegorical symbols. The original symbol of god was a simple stone, because it represents the alchemical transformation of unseen forces into physical matter. The pyramid of Gyza is a fantastic example of allegorical stone symbolism. The next symbols were animal symbols in the form of totem poles and animal spirits. Next came the symbol of hybrid gods, part animal, part man, and finally, we arrived at man himself. Gods were formed in the shape of a man to be easier for people to relate to, not because they were actually believed to be human. Man sought something he/she could relate to in the physical sense because the simple stone, and animal spirit has lost its charm and power.


>
>you get dickhead christians and dickhead atheists. i never
>said you didn't. again, we're in agreement.
>


Right, and both stand on the same ground with the same amount of proof. They are opposing sides of the same coin. They are opposing ends of the same line, and that line is "god".


>
>you can't have aTHEISM without THEISM. i get it.

Not just that. You can't have NOTHING without SOMETHING. There is a dual reality that governs all our thinking, however, specifically in the context of our conversation, you cannot be an atheist without evoking god into being, and I think that is ironic.

>
>keep that free spirit burning bright, tek

Thanks Mark!