Did you make the statement that EVERYTHING in reality is MATERIAL? If you made that statement, then tell us what you mean by "material". You said you answered the question, but you didn't, at least not here. If you have an answer, then just tell us what you mean by "material".
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Did you make the statement that EVERYTHING in reality is MATERIAL? If you made that statement, then tell us what you mean by "material". You said you answered the question, but you didn't, at least not here. If you have an answer, then just tell us what you mean by "material".
Reality is nothing more than the world or state of things as they really exist. The spirit world, "God," etc...doesn't really exist in terms of objective reality. To some who are religious or spiritual like yourself, you feel God is a reality. You just feel it, but it isn't reality in terms of existing for others to see. You believing in something alone, doesn't make it a reality.
Just my pennies worth.
wegs,
At least you have the courage to address my question. Baleron is still avoiding my question.
Anyway, I am not sure that reality, as cosmologists understand it, is complete. There are certainly many missing pieces. So while I understand your POV, I'm not sure I agree with it.
What science discovers ...becomes reality. Scientists who are spiritual could come to some consensus that there is a higher power behind the creation of the universe, but that still wouldn't be considered reality.
What you need to accept Mazulu is that if you wish to follow a faith...that your own belief needs to be enough for you.
Your faith in a god is relevant to you and your life. Your frustration may have more to do with the fact that at some point, a spiritual person has to accept that what he/she believes can't be proven.
The scientist in you ...is frustrated by this fact, me thinks.
I'm not playing these games with you, Mazulu. I do all the answering, and you do all the ducking. My answer is here, and in another thread, along with similar answers from other posters who agree with me. You're not fooling anyone when you pretend not to know.
Now go ahead and define your terms. What is spacetime to you? What are wave-functions? What is dark matter to you? Dark energy? All of these things you claim to be immaterial, let's hear what you actually think they are, what the words themselves mean.
The scientist in you ...is frustrated by this fact, me thinks.
There is no scientist in him. He's a crank with no education.
I wonder why you so adamantly insist in your Christian outlook, even though you said you've left it behind ...
I'm getting the impression though that you and Magical Realist want to solve your problems with religion within your current knowledge base, refusing to go beyond it.
The problems that you bring up are standard theological problems that have been formalized and addressed by many people before, there is a large body of literature on them, I've already linked to some of it. I would think the easiest and quickest way to deal with those problems is to read up on that literature.
But you seem to prefer to stay within your current knowledge, your current thoughts and your current emotions, and try to find some closure that way.
Not sure how well that's working ...
If you don't want to feel taught, educate yourself first.
Apparently, you don't read my posts here.
:shrug:
What difference would you expect?
Wouldn't you assign any difference that you would see, as being within the religious practice to begin with, so that outside of it, people would still seem very much the same?
That will depend on what you think you have at stake for believing or disbelieving a person.
Like I said, it depends on what you think you have at stake for believing or disbelieving a person.
Earlier, Bells was giving some silly examples of this problem that even kindergarden kids can resolve.
Bah. I'm saying that for someone on the outside, things look different than for those on the inside.
For example, at some point in your life, you were a member of a religious congregation, and you were convinced you believe in God. These are two experiences that I don't have and I have no idea what it is like to have them or what implications they have.
No. I just noted what my heuristics is for vexing questions.
And as I noted earlier, even though we may be vexed by the same questions, as an outsider, I probably have different motivations for pursuing those questions than someone who was an insider at some point.
Not an issue, as I am merely experimenting: set something as a criterion, and see what happens next.
The analogy I'm making is that there are different levels of expertise when in comes to car repair.
Only if we are to believe that a child's belief in God is no different than that of a mature believer.
It makes them social. You were asking about the social component of religious belief.
I've already explained what I mean by "objective" here.
Sure, not everyone shares my view on this. So?
Just like they'll dismiss me.
Hence I used the term "social discourse."
Can you understand or recognize something entirely idiosyncratic, unique?
IOW, all actions are embedded, but without being fluent in the social discourse into which they are embedded, one will either not notice them, or will misinterpret them.
Last edited:
If "this life is the only life" is something to be accepted, then there have to be some instructions, step-by-step, as to how this acceptance can be accomplished.
What are these steps?
By looking at first principles, not adding anything, and applying Occam's razor. This will at least lead to conclusions.
Whether one accepts the conclusions, however... I am not aware of instructions, although I do know that hypnotism can work on some, and that it is possible to manipulate people into accepting things they might not otherwise want to (just google Derren Brown).
But other than that... Nope.
If it was that easy, though...
There are three levels or types of "reality" - personal, social, objective. P,S,& O.
P reality is what you are conscious of/ what you experience/ and not understood as illusion. P reality is very incomplete, lacking parts of S reality, especially when not within the culture you know well, AND the vast majoriy of O Reality. For example, you are not conscious or experiencing the 1000s of radio/ TV waves passing thru your body (or actual low interaction cross section particles doing the same)
P reality tendency to be in conflict with both S & O reality - especially O reality and when the conflict is recognized, we call that illusion. When the conflict is with S reality, we tend to cally that poor manors, / lack or education / or ignorance.
S reality is often codified in laws, not always written ones, but the more important and possible largest forms of S reality are shared beliefs. Like once a "flat earth" with dangerous edges was a S reality. Most societies have at least one belief about some form of "life" after death as that idea provides comfort to still living who loved the deceased. Love itself is always a form of P reality, but can have S reality aspects too. S reality can take almost any form, especially in small groups, but over time larger groups discover rules that are beneficial (don't steal, sleep with your sister, etc.)
O reality, like the name implies, is: Truths of nature that all can confirm and then agree are true. Things like at atmospheric pressure, pure H2O is a gas IFF its temperate is >100C or solid lead is denser than solid iron. Thus the existence of God(s) is not O reality but often is S reality and if believed is always P reality. Many of the facts of nature, (accepted P reality) are not directly confirmed by all who accept them as P reality. For example that the Earth goes around the sun, instead of the more appearate converse, or that all electrons have the same mass and charge. We trust the common agreements of experts on matter too complex for us to directly confirm.*
It might be useful in this thread is people were more specific about what type of reality they were claiming.
* As I have quickly traveled by airplane 20 or more times when moon was far from full, with a latitude change of about 60 degrees, I have personally confirmed the Earth is round, and that up/ down plus left and right when viewing the half moon switch. The ancient Greeks knew this both by the shape of the shadow on the moon during a partial eclipse and even by the overhead angle of the noon sun. (I. e. by measuring the noon sun angle at a due north location on a day when it was known to be 90 degrees at a point closer to the equator with known distance separation, they got a quite accurate value for the Earth's radius. Precisely at noon, twice each year, at the more southern point the sunlight would shine down into a deep well, fully illuminating the water surface briefly. At the due North location, "precisely noon" was when the shadow of a vertical shaft was shortest. They did not have clocks accurate enough back then, but where there is a will and intelligence, there is a way)
P reality is what you are conscious of/ what you experience/ and not understood as illusion. P reality is very incomplete, lacking parts of S reality, especially when not within the culture you know well, AND the vast majoriy of O Reality. For example, you are not conscious or experiencing the 1000s of radio/ TV waves passing thru your body (or actual low interaction cross section particles doing the same)
P reality tendency to be in conflict with both S & O reality - especially O reality and when the conflict is recognized, we call that illusion. When the conflict is with S reality, we tend to cally that poor manors, / lack or education / or ignorance.
S reality is often codified in laws, not always written ones, but the more important and possible largest forms of S reality are shared beliefs. Like once a "flat earth" with dangerous edges was a S reality. Most societies have at least one belief about some form of "life" after death as that idea provides comfort to still living who loved the deceased. Love itself is always a form of P reality, but can have S reality aspects too. S reality can take almost any form, especially in small groups, but over time larger groups discover rules that are beneficial (don't steal, sleep with your sister, etc.)
O reality, like the name implies, is: Truths of nature that all can confirm and then agree are true. Things like at atmospheric pressure, pure H2O is a gas IFF its temperate is >100C or solid lead is denser than solid iron. Thus the existence of God(s) is not O reality but often is S reality and if believed is always P reality. Many of the facts of nature, (accepted P reality) are not directly confirmed by all who accept them as P reality. For example that the Earth goes around the sun, instead of the more appearate converse, or that all electrons have the same mass and charge. We trust the common agreements of experts on matter too complex for us to directly confirm.*
It might be useful in this thread is people were more specific about what type of reality they were claiming.
* As I have quickly traveled by airplane 20 or more times when moon was far from full, with a latitude change of about 60 degrees, I have personally confirmed the Earth is round, and that up/ down plus left and right when viewing the half moon switch. The ancient Greeks knew this both by the shape of the shadow on the moon during a partial eclipse and even by the overhead angle of the noon sun. (I. e. by measuring the noon sun angle at a due north location on a day when it was known to be 90 degrees at a point closer to the equator with known distance separation, they got a quite accurate value for the Earth's radius. Precisely at noon, twice each year, at the more southern point the sunlight would shine down into a deep well, fully illuminating the water surface briefly. At the due North location, "precisely noon" was when the shadow of a vertical shaft was shortest. They did not have clocks accurate enough back then, but where there is a will and intelligence, there is a way)
Last edited by a moderator:
Some differences, sure. But not all. If their explanation of the difference was "it is part of my religion" then yes, but otherwise no.
But mostly it is only the overt religious ceremonial aspects that I see as different, in my experience.
Religious people are not kinder or nastier, they are not more generous or any less generous, they are not any better or worse educated. They aren't anymore polite or rude.
And I'm talking about religious people as in the wider population that consider themselves religious, I.e. my atheist/religious friends while I was growing up religious etc.
Knowledge does not come from the size of the stake.
The size of the stake can only lead to a practical acceptance, but here I would distinguish that from belief: I can accept something as true without either necessarily believing it to be true or knowing it to be so.
And the practical acceptance is, as we have discussed, part of the risk/reward assessment.
If you apply it to belief then you are merely invoking Pascal's wager.
Ah, okay. Me bad.
Undoubtedly the motives maybe different, but the methodology for establishing may be the same.
But I can't honestly say I can recall in any great detail what my motives were at the time. I just remember questioning.
And when nothing happens that is indistinguishable from the scenario in which god does not exist?
Who is to say they are not the same, or that the child's is not a purer, unconditional belief?
Matthew 18:3 "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Surely it is just intellectual arrogance that would put the nature of our belief above that of a child?
If we share them. There is no obligation to, and thus any social element is not of the belief but of the individual holding the belief.
And my point is that there is not necessarily a social element to the belief, as you claim, but rather merely to the individual. I contest that the belief itself has no social aspect... It is the individual that provides that aspect, not the belief.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There's not a thing you can teach me about religion that I don't already know about it firsthand. So don't flatter yourself.
I've read enough of them to know you don't talk from your experience. You only belittle other's experiences based on your own much-touted book knowledge. That's what you do, which is why most people don't put up with more than a few of your condescending posts to them.
Sarkus,
It's not that ''I'' see it as puny. It's puny in comparison to the dissemination of knowledge from God (if you believe in Him).
If you come to the point where you believe in God, then that question shouldn't be an issue.
The question is to big to contemplate. Do I trust the decisions I make? Not all the time.
Plus, when you say ''self'' are we talking about the essential you (the observer), or we talking about our minds?
That assumption is bound up in your worldview. You say there is no evidence for God (I can only assume by ''evidence'' you mean scientifc evidence), yet so many people believe in God.
Why isn't that evidence for you?
Is everyone who believes in God delusional?
What is the basis of this analasys?
So God must have been real to you. I don't mean ''I thought it was real at the time'' kind of real, but actual. And you believed in Him. Now you're an agnostic-atheist. Why exactly?
It may seem cylical to you, but the nature, as defined in scriptures (i suppose that's what you mean by clothes) as One, so everything is within God, yet God is separate and aloof. So trying to answer questions about God to someone who doesn't see it like that, can sometime come across as illogical. Which is why it is important to have an open mind about these subjects.
If God is real, why would you need to have a sharp intellect etc, to realise Him?
Do you think only these traits bring one to know God, or do you think they are only necessary for you??
If you think these traits are necessary to know God, then aren't you making a priori assumption?
If you think they are only necessary for you, why don't you understand that for other people who know God, one doesn't necessarily need them?
Other people realise it, strengthening their belief in God.
On what basis did you believe it?
In this quote here is where all the juicy gem-like details exist.
What do you mean by ''clothes''?
You say ''assuming scriptures can be trusted''. Do you think there will ever come a time when you will know whether or not scriptures can be trusted? I ask that, because therein lies information.
If you are of the positive in this, what do you think the reason(s) will be for you actually trusting them?
So you believe that God exists as ''the first cause'' but you don't know what that ''first cause'' is?
And to believe in that ''first cause'' is just another layer of clothing, so you don't believe in It/Him?
I'm just trying to get a picture.
Sorry, but I find you situation quite complex. I don't mean to put you into a box.
jan.
It's not that ''I'' see it as puny. It's puny in comparison to the dissemination of knowledge from God (if you believe in Him).
If you come to the point where you believe in God, then that question shouldn't be an issue.
The question is to big to contemplate. Do I trust the decisions I make? Not all the time.
Plus, when you say ''self'' are we talking about the essential you (the observer), or we talking about our minds?
That assumption is bound up in your worldview. You say there is no evidence for God (I can only assume by ''evidence'' you mean scientifc evidence), yet so many people believe in God.
Why isn't that evidence for you?
Is everyone who believes in God delusional?
What is the basis of this analasys?
So God must have been real to you. I don't mean ''I thought it was real at the time'' kind of real, but actual. And you believed in Him. Now you're an agnostic-atheist. Why exactly?
It may seem cylical to you, but the nature, as defined in scriptures (i suppose that's what you mean by clothes) as One, so everything is within God, yet God is separate and aloof. So trying to answer questions about God to someone who doesn't see it like that, can sometime come across as illogical. Which is why it is important to have an open mind about these subjects.
If God is real, why would you need to have a sharp intellect etc, to realise Him?
Do you think only these traits bring one to know God, or do you think they are only necessary for you??
If you think these traits are necessary to know God, then aren't you making a priori assumption?
If you think they are only necessary for you, why don't you understand that for other people who know God, one doesn't necessarily need them?
Other people realise it, strengthening their belief in God.
On what basis did you believe it?
In this quote here is where all the juicy gem-like details exist.
What do you mean by ''clothes''?
You say ''assuming scriptures can be trusted''. Do you think there will ever come a time when you will know whether or not scriptures can be trusted? I ask that, because therein lies information.
If you are of the positive in this, what do you think the reason(s) will be for you actually trusting them?
So you believe that God exists as ''the first cause'' but you don't know what that ''first cause'' is?
And to believe in that ''first cause'' is just another layer of clothing, so you don't believe in It/Him?
I'm just trying to get a picture.
Sorry, but I find you situation quite complex. I don't mean to put you into a box.
jan.
Last edited:
Seconded.
How so? If one can not reason to arrive at knowledge then one is left in the sole realm of revelation - and since I have not received any from God, should He exist...
Grand cycle of "believe to believe": "You will believe if you believe, and in order to believe you have to believe..."
Once you are out of that circle you see it for the circle it is, and how it is self-perpetuating with no actual substance beyond what one wants to give it for themselves.
Too big to contemplate, yet you provide an answer.
You may not trust that your answer is necessarily the best (we can not see the future) but you surely trust that you have made the best decision you can, given your circumstances and the effort you put into the reasoning, surely?Difference?
It is evidence, just not that I can rationally attribute to the existence of God.
And do I mean only scientific evidence? No. But I can not honestly answer what other might suffice until it is presented.
I do not claim that everyone is delusional. To be delusional the belief must be demonstrably false. I am agnostic... I do not consider God, if He exists, knowable - and thus it is not delusional to believe.
However, I do consider that it would be irrational for me to hold belief in something that I consider unknowable.
Because I now consider God unknowable, and thus no longer hold the belief that God exists.
Further, if God does not exist then God could not have been actual regardless of whether I believed in Him or not.
My belief in God does not alter the reality.
Therefore it is meaningless to say that "God must have been actual" without it also meaning "I thought it was real at the time".
Interpretation of scripture would be the main clothing, and religious ceremony another etc.
I.e. believe it, and you'll believe it.
Not to realise: if God is real then He exists irrespective of interrogation or investigation. But unless one is capable of identifying fallacies or inconsistencies in what one is told, one will be ignorant of the truth but forever merely abide by what one is told.
I can only say that in the absence of revelation from God, it helped me identify issues with what I was being told.
I couldn't say if they are necessary to know God or not. I can only speak for myself.
Because I do not know that God exists. If God exists then perhaps others don't need those traits, but in the absence of revelation it would help me. If God does not exist then nothing will help to know God.
That is their belief (that they have realised it). Whether they have realised it or not I consider intrinsically tied to the unknowability of God.
Because it fitted into my worldview at the time. Because I had no reason to question what I had been told (I lacked the faculty to question it). Whether my worldview fuelled my belief, or vice versa, I can not say.
Anything you dress your God up with: properties, personalities, requirement for rituals, etc.
Perhaps if I receive revelation. But otherwise I consider them, from a practical point of view, not to be trusted as they relate to something I consider unknowable.
Direct revelation from God. Otherwise I can't think of anything... but that is not to say I can even think of every possibility to be able to discount them, but those I can think of... can't see it happening.
No, I believed God exists as "the first cause". I don't now.
Not any more, but if God does exist then "first cause" is an apt a way to describe Him as any other.
It's more Dali than Monet.I'm just trying to get a picture.
It's not that complex: I believed... then I questioned my religion... and dropped that... that led me to question my belief in God... and I dropped that.
It only gets complex if you insist that anyone who subsequently drops their belief in God never actually had belief in God, as you're trying then to fit a square peg into a round hole... but since I don't insist on it, it is relatively simple - and certainly not unique.
I don't think you or baleron have any education.