Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

[Age]

It is my view that they are subconsciously aware that faith and religion are inherently absurd. This results in the conscious tar-brushing of their opponents so as to bring them down to the same level of scared ignorance that evokes feelings of faith in themselves.

Why do you even put yourselves in positions of having 'opponents'.

If all of you did not, then there would not be these incessant bickering and never resolved disagreements and fighting among yourselves that all of you are creating between yourselves.

Since you declared and claimed that you are an 'atheist', in "some places", then what does being an 'atheist' actually entail and mean exactly?

It entails no belief.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that from your perspective and from your person definition an 'atheist' has NO belief AT ALL in regards to 'God'.

This is just another definition to add to the list.

Why are you incapable of understanding that?

Why were you not yet aware that people have and use different definitions, and, that until one asks "another" for clarification of what definition that they have and use, then one would not yet know that?

Why bring me down to your level?

What level is that? And what are you talking about in relation to exactly?

Do you believe that you are at some level where you already KNOW what definitions "others" have and use?

Or in other words, how do you define the word 'atheist'?

The absence of a belief in god, or gods.

Well this can be very different from having a belief that there is not a God, or gods, which is what some people define the word 'atheist'.

So, do you have an absence of any belief at all in relation to EVERY view about God? If yes, then from that definition, there is no religious aspect to being an 'atheist'.

There are a few ways to look at this, which needs to be completely sorted out to FULLY understand what I have been saying and meaning in this thread. That is; if any one is Truly interested in this?

Just to be absolutely CLEAR, are you OPEN to the fact that God could exist?

Well, to me, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are no better than each other. EVERY time 'you' put yourselves into some 'ist' catergory and/or into some 'ist' separated group, which follows some 'ism' ideology or belief, then you are being no better than "another one" who does that.

Again, you are not following the thread.[/quote]

But I have been following this thread. This is WHY I am asking each person to provide the definition that they have and use for the words 'atheist' and 'atheism'. That way WHERE THE CONFUSION IS will be clearly SEEN.

I would not be an atheist, if the mental virus theism did not exist.

I know that this is what you have been saying. I also KNOW that just because you say some thing that then does not make it absolutely True, Right, nor Correct.

I understand the 'atheist' probably would not exist if the 'theist' did exist. Or, more correctly, if the 'theist' KNEW how to explain what they believe in CORRECTLY, then the 'atheist' would not exist.

I also KNOW that 'you', the 'atheist' does NOT necessarily 'have to' exist, in other definitions of the word 'atheist', but would have to exist from your definition of the word 'atheist'. That is; if you hold True to your definition.

I also KNOW that 'you', the 'atheist', has the EXACT SAME 'mental virus' of the 'theist', from my definition of 'atheist'. That virus is your BELIEFS, which on both "sides" is as strong as the "other" and you will both fight for "your" "side" for as long as it takes, which, by the way, has been tediously going for some thousands upon thousands of very boring years now.

Oh, and by the way, 'theists' would NOT exist if they KNEW how to explain what they believe in CORRECTLY, from my perspective.

I'm someone who is not infected.

We will just wait and see just how Truly OPEN you really are first.

This is not rocket science.

No this is not.

Is it not true that the belief in God not existing can be just as strong as the belief in God existing?

weasel words. Atheism does not involve a belief.

That is what you say. But we will just wait till you clarifying a few more questions first.

What a strangled phrase of word salad you have to say to try and attribute me with a belief!! LOL
Belief is the problem.

I KNOW this. But you seem to be unaware that the very reason WHY people say another says "word salad" is because they are not yet aware of the other definitions other people use for the exact same words.

Until this is FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN, only then one can unscramble the apparent "word salad" and SEE it for what it really IS.

My view is that things taken as true should not be related to choices. How stupid would I appear if I simply CHOSE to belief in a thing ,as if that were true. I want to belief in unicorns - so they exist. I want to belief in god so he exists.

Are you even yet aware that some people want to believe God does not exit, so God does not exist, to them?

Only a moron would go down that route.

So, again, just to clarify are 'you', "sculptur1", OPEN to the fact that God could exist?

From my perspective, none of 'you' are any better than "another". To me, you are ALL the same.

That is a problem you have.

But this is NOT a "problem" at all. This works very well, well for me anyway.

your failure to draw a distinction is not a very good working strategy for life.

I draw a distinction only AFTER I ask clarifying questions first, and only those questions are answered. Unlike you I do NOT draw a distinction BEFORE I yet KNOW what the answer is, for sure.

But I do tend to look at and see things very differently, then most people do.

Oh, any by the way, what does you "not believing in God" actually mean?

I don't know, depends on what you are defining as god today.

How I am defining the word 'God' is, in the physically seen sense, as the Universe, Itself, and, in the spiritual non physically seen sense, as the Mind, Itself.

And that is exactly why it does not involve me in a specific or definable belief.

And 'what' EXACTLY is why 'it' does not involve me in a specific or definable belief?

It appears you asked my a clarifying question, and then jumped to some conclusion, based on some assumption of yours here.

See how that works?

What I SEE is you making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, which also appear to be so far from anything that I have been saying and meaning that it appears bringing this back on track will take some time.

Do YOU believe in a god? yes or no please

Are you serious? Have you NEVER once see me write: I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing at all?

If you have not, then this obviously includes absolutely anything at all in regards to God as well. So, now you KNOW.

I already KNOW that you "do not believe in a God, or gods". But, do you believe God, and gods, do not exist?

Oh, any by the way, what does you "not believing in God" actually mean?
You say that this is what you do, so this should be a relatively very simple thing for you to explain, logically and reasonably, correct?

See above.

But I am still unclear what your actual view is here, unless you have answered all of my clarifying questions in this post Honestly.

I am still unclear, as of now, if you have absolutely NO beliefs in God at all, either way. Or, if you just believe God, and gods, do not exist?

Your Honest answer now, and always, would be much appreciated.

[Lacewing]

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

Are you just going to keep chanting the same thing over and over as if willing it to be some great truth?

I responded to it 5 pages ago (inserted below). Why don't you answer my questions? You're projecting your false notions onto atheists, which I also responded to below. Apply your logic to yourself. Is there anything you lack a belief in? Is that an ideology for you? How is the ABSENCE of a particular ideology for you, an ideology for you? Would the absence of believing in a flying spaghetti monster guide your behaviors and actions? If there are people who have a flying spaghetti monster church, does that have anything at all to do with you and your absence of belief in it?

Seriously, be truthful and stop spewing skewed nonsense. Apply what you say to yourself in the same context.

Unanswered questions from earlier:

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion

How is the ABSENCE of a particular ideology, an ideology for those who don't have it? Seriously.

Is there anything you lack a belief in? Is that an ideology for you?

Atheism (for the vast majority) is not something people do to maintain, it's simply that ideas of gods don't exist for them. Can you see that?

since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion.

Why are you trying to suggest that atheists are a group with shared ideologies, when they are not? They are simply humans with a vast range of ideologies that do not include theism, wouldn't you agree? What ideas, behaviors, and actions do atheists have in common, that are not simply because they're HUMANS?

That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

If there are atheist churches, it is because humankind has a little bit of everything distributed throughout it... and yes, people do like making religions. Such things do not define the reality of/for all.

[Dontaskme]

…

I was making a point that people who do not understand that their theist trip is not a Universal truth or reality for all, are really not intelligent enough to discuss it truthfully on a philosophy forum. Discussing religion is fun... but this isn't a church... and it would seem that people truly interested in philosophy (as compared to just preaching their beliefs to insist that everyone else believe the glory of their supreme view) would be focused INSTEAD on questioning ALL beliefs/views, including their own. If they're not able to be that open-minded and logical and honest, then they're really too intoxicated to reasonably discuss philosophy.

I think we're all on a trip of our own understanding according to our personal belief structure that we have adhered to through our own capacity to be able to think for ourselves as we are gifted with that mental mechanism, which is to be aware we are aware, and can make up our own minds about what we want to believe according to what we personally experience and know.

But I agree we should never force another to accept our beliefs as absolute truth. My point is no one is forced to believe anything they read, but can reject or resonate what they seek according to what is coherent and of value to them. I think as inquirers and philosophers who like to ponder the deeper issues of what constitutes reality, that is all that we are doing here anyway.

I support everyone to believe and practice whatever works for them. That's different from spreading toxic mental viruses to humankind, which is what I think closed-minded religion does (and what we were talking about, which I was responding to). If we are aware enough to be our own gatekeepers... as opposed to pawns/soldiers of conditioned thinking and agendas and religions... then we can offer more clarity and intelligence for the good of all humankind, rather than more insane muck to wade through and fight over.

Ok yeah I can see your point, that's fair enough, so thanks for making that clear.

If you mean by toxic thoughts being spread to other people can be a problem, yes it can be a problem, but it's only a problem if that toxicity is allowed to seep into the mind of another. What I mean is, I myself have never been infected by another persons toxic religious belief, I've always mangaged to sway more towards the light of truth that feels good and easy and peaceful.

.. But I can understand that other people may be more influenced or easily led by their cultural conditioning and by how they are indoctrinated or enculturated to believe certain truths as being the only truth from birth.
However, those people can still break free from the herd mentality of anything that feels toxic and untrue for them, they can if they have the courage and the will to do so, even though the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, as the saying goes, sometimes it's just easier to be led than be your own leader.

.

[Sculptor]

This is just another definition to add to the list.

Why are you incapable of understanding that?

How are you so stupid to not realise that this definition is both the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement? ALL atheists have to follow this definition, and NO other definition is needed to add to that.
Try it to offer me another!
I challenge you.
If any atheist fails this definition they are simply not atheists at all.

Why were you not yet aware that people have and use different definitions, and, that until one asks "another" for clarification of what definition that they have and use, then one would not yet know that?

There is no other definition.

.

Are you serious? Have you NEVER once see me write: I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing at all?

If you have not, then this obviously includes absolutely anything at all in regards to God as well. So, now you KNOW.

Great, as long as you are telling the truth, I know you are an atheist too.

Your Honest answer now, and always, would be much appreciated.

Everything I need to say is above in BOLD.
All the rest is just empty accretion.
If you disagree say why!

[Age]

This is just another definition to add to the list.

Why are you incapable of understanding that?

How are you so stupid to not realise that this definition is both the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement?

But your personal definition here is NOT the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement, in my perspective. To me, that definition is just YOUR definition.

The reason I am "so stupid", from your definition of the word 'stupid', is because I do NOT yet see nor know absolutely EVERY thing 'you', human beings, individually think and see. From your given definition of the word 'stupid' I have not yet realized just EXACTLY what EVERY person's definitions are of absolutely EVERY word they know of and use, and neither have I yet worked out which of those countless numbers of absolutely varying and different definitions each and every person sees as being "the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement" ones, for each and every word they use.

By the way, "other people's" definition for the 'atheist' word is; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods. This is among other definitions that other different and varying people have and use.

So, from their perspective, these "other people" would consider they actually have and use 'the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement' definition, they may also be wondering if 'you', as an atheist, disbelieve in the existence of God or gods, or, if you just lack the belief in the existence of God or gods?

If it is the latter, then are you OPEN to God or gods existing?

To say that 'to be an atheist' entails no belief, then does that mean absolutely NO belief at all in regards to absolutely any and EVERY thing at all?

If so, then, from your perspective, I am an 'atheist', correct?

ALL atheists have to follow this definition, and NO other definition is needed to add to that.

Well this sounds like a BELIEF. Why do ALL so called "atheists" supposedly 'have to' follow YOUR definition, and NO other definition in needed to add to that?

What happens if a person has absolutely NO belief at all regarding if God exists or not, but BELIEVES ALL 'atheists' 'have to' follow some particular way, or believes absolutely any thing else, excluding any thing 'theist' related? Would that person be a so called "atheist", or are they not an 'atheist', from your perspective?

Also, who gave you the power to decide what definitions go for what words, and which ALL human beings should be expected to know, and follow?

Try it to offer me another!
I challenge you.
If any atheist fails this definition they are simply not atheists at all.

If you are challenging me to offer you another definition than the one you gave me, then okay.

'Atheist'; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods.

I have already asked some clarifying questions in regards to your "to be an 'atheist'; "entails no belief" "definition, and comment. This definition is obviously NOT directed solely to being in regards to theology, God, nor religion, which sort of counters the appearance of what the word 'atheist' looks like as being in direct opposition to the 'theist' word.

Do you see what I am saying and meaning?

Why were you not yet aware that people have and use different definitions, and, that until one asks "another" for clarification of what definition that they have and use, then one would not yet know that?

There is no other definition.

LOL

You have got to be joking here right? Or, do you seriously BELIEVE that you are thee holder of thee ONE and ONLY definition?

This, believing that one has the one and only so called "true or proper definition", is my friends, as I have been saying for quite some time now, is WHY human beings are still so confused, still looking for answers, and still have NOT YET resolved the very simple and very easy philosophical topics and questions yet, in the days of when this is being written.

Until it is completely and utterly FULLY UNDERSTOOD that the ONLY real reason WHY human beings disagree, dispute, bicker, argue, are in constant conflict, fight, and/or kill each other is the very simple reason that they are using different definitions for the exact same words that they are using in discussions and conversations with each other, then they will continue to disagree, bicker, argue, remain in constant conflict, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Being confused, not understanding each other, and continually in conflict with each other can be CLEARLY SEEN here in this thread, here in this WHOLE forum, and here in this One and ONLY human Existence, here on earth.

The EVIDENCE and PROOF of this is in just about absolutely EVERY discussion and conversation whenever there is just about any sort of disagreement at all.

ALL disagreements can be very quickly resolved by just clarifying with the "other" what they actually mean, which is far more easily done by just finding out what are the actual definitions are that they are using and have for the words that they are using.

.

Are you serious? Have you NEVER once seen me write: I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing at all?

If you have not, then this obviously includes absolutely anything at all in regards to God as well. So, now you KNOW.

Great, as long as you are telling the truth, I know you are an atheist too.

Okay, so NOW I KNOW exactly how YOU are defining the word 'atheist'.

But please refrain from ever calling me an 'atheist' ever again. Thank you in advance.

I may well be an 'atheist' from your perspective of things, from your definition of the word 'atheist', but I am certainly NOT an 'atheist, from my perspective of things, nor from my definition of the word 'atheist'.

Your Honest answer now, and always, would be much appreciated.

Everything I need to say is above in BOLD.
All the rest is just empty accretion.
If you disagree say why!

I do not recall ever disagreeing with you here. I have just been trying to gain your perspective and your definition of words here.

I KNOW people have and use different definitions for the exact same words. I usually just try to ascertain what that is, so that I can then better know how to communicate with them more succinctly later on, in the future.

In case you were unaware I am here in this forum to learn how to better communicate with human beings. I am not here in this forum to necessarily argue for one thing or another, nor to agree nor disagree with any one here. I am just using this site as a platform to show and reveal things later on.

By the way I NEVER disagree with "another's" version of their definition for a word. I understand that that is THEIR version, and so I OBVIOUSLY could not logically disagree with THEIR version. I already Truly understand HOW and WHY they have their version. I just need to clarify with them what that version is, otherwise I would just be making assumptions, which I Honestly do not like to do.

[Lacewing]

I think we're all on a trip...

Agreed.

But I agree we should never force another to accept our beliefs as absolute truth. My point is no one is forced to believe anything they read

Of course. However, leaving it all up to recipients to reject... is an imbalance of responsibility.

people can still break free from the herd mentality of anything that feels toxic and untrue for them, they can if they have the courage and the will to do so, even though the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, as the saying goes, sometimes it's just easier to be led than be your own leader.

Then can people just as easily break free from their mentality that spews toxic and untrue noise? Can THEY have the courage and the will to do so? It seems to me that chronic spewers are rather resistant to stopping their onslaught of relentless, self-serving noise. They often babble regardless of anyone/all else, rather than actually communicating with, and expanding through, others. Can they BE THEIR OWN LEADER rather than BEING LED by their ideas of the moment? Can THEY be present in the moment, and open to the potential of more than what they are saying?

Imagine if religion stopped preaching archaic and mindless stories, and instead focused on repairing all the damage that has been done to humankind by allowing such a virus to go on for thousands of years? Why are they not strong enough to "break free" and lead themselves out of madness and into broader love and clarity?

[Sculptor]

This is just another definition to add to the list.

Why are you incapable of understanding that?

How are you so stupid to not realise that this definition is both the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement?

But your personal definition here is NOT the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement, in my perspective. To me, that definition is just YOUR definition.

Wrong.
It is exactly what atheism means.
No one can all themselves an atheist if this is not the case.
AND
If it does not apply to you then you cannot call yourself an atheist.

[Sculptor]

By the way I NEVER disagree with "another's" version of their definition for a word. I understand that that is THEIR version, and so I OBVIOUSLY could not logically disagree with THEIR version. I already Truly understand HOW and WHY they have their version. I just need to clarify with them what that version is, otherwise I would just be making assumptions, which I Honestly do not like to do.

If you don't like my definition then give me another one and we can talk about it.
Until then there is nothing else to talk about.

i.e. put up or shut up.

[Age]

How are you so stupid to not realise that this definition is both the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement?

But your personal definition here is NOT the most comprehensive AND the minimum requirement, in my perspective. To me, that definition is just YOUR definition.

Wrong.

LOL So I tell what IS, from my perspective, and you tell me that is "Wrong".

Can you see and understand WHY I am laughing?

If no, then because if I say, IN MY PERSPECTIVE or TO ME, then that means I am NOT saying it is Right. I am just expressing MY VIEWS, which will ALWAYS be OPEN.

It is exactly what atheism means.

If you actually BELIEVE that 'you' KNOW what a 'word', which by the way the process known as 'evolution' is changing all the time, then that means you have a BELIEF in your own 'self' that is just about as strong as any thing could be. Oh, and which by the way, goes AGAINST the very thing that you are 'trying to' argue for here. That is; If you BELIEVE that you are an 'atheist' and the definition of an 'atheist' is a person with NO beliefs at all, but you, yourself BELIEVE wholeheartedly and without absolutely any doubt at all that you KNOW what the ONE and ONLY definition is of the word 'atheism' is, then that means you are NOT an 'atheist' at all.

No one can all themselves an atheist if this is not the case.
AND
If it does not apply to you then you cannot call yourself an atheist.

Do you remember I asked you politely to NEVER call me an 'atheist' again?

I said this because it is people like you when you have and hold an astonishing BELIEF like you do here, which coincidentally completely and utterly contradicts the very BELIEF itself, then I do NOT want to be associated in anyway whatsoever with this kind of mentality.

[Age]

By the way I NEVER disagree with "another's" version of their definition for a word. I understand that that is THEIR version, and so I OBVIOUSLY could not logically disagree with THEIR version. I already Truly understand HOW and WHY they have their version. I just need to clarify with them what that version is, otherwise I would just be making assumptions, which I Honestly do not like to do.

If you don't like my definition then give me another one and we can talk about it.

It is not that I do not like YOUR definition. I just do not see how it fits in perfectly with being a 'a/theist'.

Until then there is nothing else to talk about.

i.e. put up or shut up.

Did you really NOT see WHERE I wrote ANOTHER definition, TWICE BEFORE, in the same post?

I would also like to note that you have NOT answered my clarifying questions in my other posts. But this might be because you did NOT see where I wrote them also. But anyway, the definition I supplied twice before was in the post you are actually replying to here, which was:

'atheist'; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods.

Even though I do not totally agree with this definition. I use it so that I will not get accused of making up my own definitions. Also, I would like to see your response to this definition before I moved onto delving into this deeper and further.

Also, I even put that definition in italics BOTH TIMES that I wrote it previously. I even wrote it directly under YOUR CHALLENGE that you gave me in that post. I am somewhat surprised how you could have MISSED IT. Unless I bold it, underlined it, capitalized it, and/or put it in much bigger writing then I do not know what else to make my writings more CLEARER for you.

You gave me a challenge. I accepted it. I then wrote my response directly under your challenge. Maybe you could provide me with another way I could make my writings more clearer for you?

[Sculptor]

Maybe you could provide me with another way I could make my writings more clearer for you?

I already have.
If you don't like my definition then give me another one and we can talk about it.
Until then there is nothing else to talk about.

i.e. put up or shut up.

[Age]

Maybe you could provide me with another way I could make my writings more clearer for you?

I already have.
If you don't like my definition then give me another one and we can talk about it.
Until then there is nothing else to talk about.

i.e. put up or shut up.

This will be the FOURTH TIME I have "put up" a definition. Seriously what is going on here?

'atheist'; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods.

Now tell me you can not see this THIS TIME.

Now do you want to talk about 'it'?

Or, maybe your "convenient" BLINDNESS is just another diversionary tactic of yours from not answering my other clarifying questions posed to you?

[Dontaskme]

Then can people just as easily break free from their mentality that spews toxic and untrue noise? Can THEY have the courage and the will to do so? It seems to me that chronic spewers are rather resistant to stopping their onslaught of relentless, self-serving noise. They often babble regardless of anyone/all else, rather than actually communicating with, and expanding through, others. Can they BE THEIR OWN LEADER rather than BEING LED by their ideas of the moment? Can THEY be present in the moment, and open to the potential of more than what they are saying?

Imagine if religion stopped preaching archaic and mindless stories, and instead focused on repairing all the damage that has been done to humankind by allowing such a virus to go on for thousands of years? Why are they not strong enough to "break free" and lead themselves out of madness and into broader love and clarity?

The word RELIGION can be interpreted many different ways...according to personal individual or mulitple consensus belief structures in what the word actually means by association. But, many people are just too busy getting on with their daily life of living and don't ever bother to get into the philosophical questions about whether life has any purpose or reason to be. Most people just don't care about the questionable deepities of where it all comes from and why.

So why has the word RELIGION even entered into our vocabulary at all? Maybe because humans seem to be the only creatures that are fully self aware of their seemingly separate existence, they are aware they are aware, and so have the capacity to be able to seek to know who or what is this thing that is aware of itself.

And so, in that quest, they form self bias belief structures concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of their place in the universe, and that seems to be the most common aspect of why humans practice the action of self inquiry. It's an option available to the self aware entity to question it's reality and existence. Whereas it's not seen as a practice in any other living sentient creature like dogs and cats for example.. So here we have a situation where life begins to question it's origin and purpose or something else.

My opinion on this is that when two people or more are having this man-made concept called a religious discussion with each other, then obviously each person is going to hold dear to their own self bias opinion according to their own direct experience. Then what happens is they want to share their beliefs formed from their own experiences. All we are doing is sharing experiences. Experiences that cannot be known by any other agent other than the one having the experience itself. Which means we can only judge other peoples experiences in relationship to what we have ALSO experienced as first hand knowledge in ourselves first. As consciousness we are the only reliable witness here.. or put another way, it is only as and through our own personal conscience can we know and be truth.. KNOW THYSELF!

So in reality we can only put our own house in order. We cannot fix others, so it is only when we have ALL put our own house in order is when each AND EVERY ONE of us can understand every emotion, feeling and experience, whether they be good or evil, wrong or right. The true real moral compass always lies within the BEHOLDER the individual self first and foremost. Judge not else you be judged so to speak..

From my personal perspective there is absolutely nothing wrong with our personal mental activity because we each live in our own reality bubble or ego tunnel, which is our birth right. . . Now, when sharing ones own world self bias views with others, things can get a bit muddy obviously...why? because each and every one of us can only see from the lens of our own unique perception. If what feels right for one person is seen as toxic to another ...then maybe we should all just keep our thoughts to ourselves...in reality as long as we are not physically hurting or injuring and causing another person or animal their physical demise from their personal world, then there is no problem as I personally see it.

However, when the invitation is offered to discuss our own personal ideas and thoughts with other people as we are doing here on this forum, then obviously there are going to be all sorts of frictions arising as to what is truth or not, and so all sorts of differences will inevitably collide as they all bubble forth into one massive heaving big foam, each bubble trying to compete with all the others, as each voice demands to be heard.

And so, the READER which is just another word for CONSCIOUSNESS, which incidently is the same reader in all of us...ALL it can do is to decipher each message according to what rings true to their own personal conscience. The key is to be able to discern by making up their own mind about what the message is reporting. As self aware beings we have the ability to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

The only responsibility here is in keeping ones own house in order, when nothing is bothering you internally, nothing can bother you from the external world outside...except what you allow in...because the world out there is only ever a reflection of the world in you.

.

[Lacewing]

...

Forgive me for not responding more directly to your points -- of course there are areas I have agreement, but I'm up briefly in the middle of the night and I'm tired. I just feel inspired to respond as follows...

I am suggesting that people have a responsibility for their own education, and clarity and scope of thinking, and for what they "teach" or impart on others. If we do not thoughtfully consider that, and respect other people's attention and time, then we are just blathering for our own self-absorption and ego. I'm suggesting purposeful engagement with others, as opposed to just talking at people. Philosophical discussions are a perfect place to practice and enhance that. People who only want to grandstand about their own ideas/opinions, aren't really exploring anything broader or new.

We're all doing different dances here. Rather than just a stage on which everyone does their individual bit, there's an opportunity for meaningful exploration that balances and broadens ideas. I can see agreement with things that a lot of people say here, but their egos are unapproachable and uncooperative -- and their rigid, well-rehearsed and protected scripts do not allow any other potential. It's like drowning in their babble... rather than taking a nice swim with them. So then maybe I feel compelled to splash them in the face. How can any single view be correct or representative for all -- and yet, so many people insist theirs must be? Why... who cares... and what difference does it make? We're alive for a short while amidst all of these stories (take-your-pick), and then we're gone. All that we thought... all of our judgments and ideas... (most likely) no longer exist/matter beyond the human brain and physical realm. So where is the real value to be found? If it's not about what we say and think, could it be in how much we connect to while we're able to? And... (bringing this full circle) in connection, isn't there responsibility? There's more than just individual expression.

[Sculptor]

Maybe you could provide me with another way I could make my writings more clearer for you?

I already have.
If you don't like my definition then give me another one and we can talk about it.
Until then there is nothing else to talk about.

i.e. put up or shut up.

This will be the FOURTH TIME I have "put up" a definition. Seriously what is going on here?

'atheist'; a person who disbelieves, or lacks belief, in the existence of God or gods.

Yet you criticise my definition, which you seem to have copied.