Are you a universist?

udcdeist · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:34 pm Post subject: Are you a universist?

universist.org ...interesting concept that fits me and I would think most atheists and agnostics too.

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Quote:
* There is no absolute Truth that applies to all people; ultimate knowledge of the nature of existence cannot be communicated, it can only be experienced personally. The natural state of most individuals is uncertainty, motivating curiosity, openmindedness and appreciation for the experiences and thought of other beings.

I think this statement is a potenially dangerous untruth. As Pinker points out, without absolute truth, it is very difficult... impossible... to explain why rape is wrong.

And atheism is not a "religous position".

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

Kostya · Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Are you a universist?

Hell no!

I do agree with Jeremy that quoted statement is at least questionable.

All things aside, I do not understand why someone who is an atheist or an agnostic would want to join yet another religion? What is the point? Is it just to be a part of something? Why not join booktalk.org instead?

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Kostya

Quote:
Why not join booktalk.org instead?

I Like It!

udcdeist · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

I don't know if Pinker is interested in Universism, but he thanked me for bringing it to his attention, for whatever that's worth.
He certainly wouldn't disagree with it for the reason you state. Rape is wrong if the victim thinks it was wrong, just like anything else, and that cosmic wrongness has nothing to do with laws, which are a practical matter. Read the FAQ if you are confused: universist.org/faq.htm

FYI, many atheists consider atheism their religious view, and derive inspiration from the universe itself. Hence the name, universism. Hence the popularity of the idea.

Edited by: udcdeist at: 9/4/03 4:27 pm

LanDroid · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Bright.
Universist.

Sounds like freethinkers are currently trying hard to come up with a positive sounding term in lieu of atheist or agnostic. I have doubts that either Bright or Universist will catch on as a meme. I think something a little catchier is needed, "Galactarian" perhaps, or something a little mysterious like "The Evolved".

Heh, I dunno, maybe "Freethinker" is best afterall, nothing negative 'bout that is there? Or do some folks mistake "Freethinker" for orgiastic Satanist? :eek

Kostya · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

I have once tried to refer to atheists as freethinkers. As luck would have it some believer got extremely upset with me. No matter how much I’ve tried I could not get it thru to her that by using the word “freethinker” I am not denying her ability to think freely. As the result I was labeled an arrogant atheistic zealot. :)

I just call myself an atheist because that is what I am. Atheism is not my “religious view” as udcdeist suggested many atheists think - it is my view on religious beliefs and that is not quite the same thing.

Edited by: Kostya at: 9/6/03 6:30 pm

udcdeist · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Kostya, I would agree... there are at least two major genres of atheists... those who are anti religion in all its forms, and those who still accept some sort of benign respect and awe for the universe a la sagan's "billions and billions!"

LanDroid, you're right - universism is in a major sense trying to do the same thing as Bright. The main difference is that Bright says naturalists are godless, whereas Universism says whether you believe in a "god" or not is irrelevant - what's important is that you apply reason to metaphysical questions. I think Universism also has another thing going for it - it's not implicity pretentious, and it says on its grammatical face exactly what it is, an "ism", a way of thought or worldview, centered on reality itself - the universe.

Edited by: udcdeist at: 9/6/03 10:49 pm

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2003 1:16 am Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

udcdeist

Quote:
there are at least two major genres of atheists... those who are anti religion in all its forms, and those who still accept some sort of benign respect and awe for the universe a la sagan's "billions and billions!"

Carl Sagan would never support Universism. If you think he would why not contact Ann Druyan and ask her opinion? She will tell you that Carl would never endorse Universism and would not want his picture and quotes being used as they are on that site (in the fashion of the "argument from authority" fallacy) to misrepresent Carl as endorsing the Universist worldview. Sagan was not a pantheist or deist and he certainly didn't view atheism as a religion. Atheism is not a belief - it is a lack of belief. All religions are about beliefs.

And Richard Dawkins, like most scientists I know (and most BookTalk members), is both anti-religious AND has deep respect and awe for the universe. So I don't buy into your classification system.

Quote:
LanDroid, you're right - universism is in a major sense trying to do the same thing as Bright. The main difference is that Bright says naturalists are godless, whereas Universism says whether you believe in a "god" or not is irrelevant - what's important is that you apply reason to metaphysical questions.

How could whether you believe in a God or not be irrelevant? You are holding "reason" up on a pedestal, yet you don't seem to have a means for determining whether or not one has learned how to reason effectively. Change the word God to a 300lb. levitating flatulating multilingual bow-legged gerbil and you SHOULD see my point.

If I were a Universist and I claimed to believe in 300lb. levitating flatulating multilingual bow-legged gerbils would you challenge my reasoning skills? Would I be welcome in the Universist religion? Why not? And please don't say, "Well, if you had a personal experience with a 300lb. levitating flatulating multilingual bow-legged gerbil and used your ability to reason and conclude that 300lb. levitating flatulating multilingual bow-legged gerbils do indeed exist, then you would be welcome as a Universist" Aren't some beliefs, even though they are supposedly founded on subjective experience, absolutely bonkers?

It seems like the loophole in your new religion is where you allow for "personal" reasoning. I say that reason and logic, while conducted in SUBJECTIVE environments (one persons brain), are typically examining elements of OBJECTIVE reality. When a person misapplies reason and comes to a conclusion about objective reality that cannot stand scrutiny and examination I do NOT think it is ok to say, "Oh, well everyone is entitled to their beliefs."

Yes, we are all entitled to our beliefs, but some beliefs are NOT supported by sufficient evidence and do NOT deserve even one iota of respect. I respect ones right to believe in 300lb. levitating flatulating multilingual bow-legged gerbils, but I do NOT respect the actual belief, nor the person (unless they have a super excuse for being so dense). And I certainly would NEVER want to be associated with people that think its acceptable to believe in whatever you want as long as you claim to have used reason to establish that belief. Some people use unreasonable reasoning.

Pantheism and deism are unreasonable.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2003 1:25 am Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Check this site out...

deistnet.com

Dishonesty turns my stomach. Sagan is found on this list...but Sagan wasn't a deist. Simple mistake? I doubt.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Kostya · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2003 2:30 am Post subject: Re: Are you a universist?

Quote:
there are at least two major genres of atheists... those who are anti religion in all its forms, and those who still accept some sort of benign respect and awe for the universe a la sagan's "billions and billions!"

I have to agree with Chris that your classification of atheists is unreasonable. I think that majority of the atheists and probably majority of the people on the planet would say that they do have deepest respect and feelings of awe before the nature and the universe. This is hardly a trait that could be used to classify atheists into separate groups. On the other hand, deepest disrespect for religion can be found among most of the atheists and some of the believers as well. It is my feeling (and I have no data other than my personal experiences to support this) therefore that most of the atheists will not support universism.

Quote:

Check this site out...
deistnet.com
Dishonesty turns my stomach. Sagan is found on this list...but Sagan wasn't a deist. Simple mistake? I doubt.

Chris

Isn’t it amazing how most religions no matter how “open” they claim to be start with building of their pantheon? Unfortunately, some atheists are not very different www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html I know that these lists are fun to look thru sometimes, but some of the people on these lists clearly have no business being there.

Edited by: Kostya at: 9/7/03 3:32 am

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:31 am Post subject: Re: Causality

Now that it is apparent I am talking to just myself in this thread I will comment on my last post.

I said, "But "atheism" is the exact opposite of "theism."

This is incorrect. I blundered. Atheism is NOT the opposite of theism.

Theism is the affirmative claim that a god or gods exists.

Atheism is NOT an affirmative claim that a god or gods does not exist. What I should have said is that strong atheism is the opposite of theism. Both are beliefs, while weak atheism, the umbrella defintion of atheism, is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheism, or weak atheism, is mans default position. All humans were born as implicit weak atheists. It is "implied" that we are born without the belief in a god or gods, simply because we have not been exposed to the concept and therefore cannot believe yet. Once we are exposed, and subsequently reject the belief, we then become explicit atheists. We "explicitly" reject the belief.

Since I have been exposed to the concept and reject it I am an explicit atheist. Since I don't claim knowledge of whether or not a deity exist, I am agnostic. But I do not believe, so I am an explicit weak atheist.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

seanf 2003 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:46 pm Post subject: All hail the giant gerbil

Udcdeist - if you haven't been scared off, I'd like to say that i'm probably the only person on this site who supports you. It's difficult arguing with people this vehement, but it's worth doing. As for universism, while it doesn't match exactly with my ideas, it is one of the closest I've found so far. Chris - I'm very sorry that you can't repsect someone who believes in the giant gerbil. The idea that such a belief is bonkers seems pretty subjective to me. One of my myriad beliefs is that common sense is useless when trying to think reasonably. However, it's helpful for living.

Dom · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:12 pm Post subject: My 2c

Quote: (& no, I can't get those buttons to work)

[]... fortunately there are people willing to experiment to figure out what that safe religion of the future might be.

There is no such thing as a safe religion.
They're very territorial.

udcdeist · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: Causality

Man this is really driving you up the wall. Oh well. I've temporarily I think lost interest in this thread due to the focus on the worth of Deism. I don't really care about that debate, I've done it before - and it does kind of hit a brick wall with some people... I can go further in this discussion with you but I'm tuckered out right now.

I may dredge this topic up days or weeks or months from now when I feel like discussing the intricacies of deist thought, past and present.

But for now, in closing.
Deists are not theists... Deists are rationalists. Rational religion is what we call it. The God we believe in is totally different from the theistic God... the Deist God is a first cause and we know nothing more about it because we rely on reason, and there is no evidence for anything else.

I know that's like screetching my fingernails on a chalkboard to you. Sorry.

seanf 2003, glad to hear it. Sign up at
universist.meetup.com
and pass the link on... eventually there will be enough folks in your area to get together and work on the future of rational religion.

Edited by: udcdeist at: 9/9/03 6:03 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT