Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Sarkus]

But this is a really hopeless, and useless position; one might as well do away wit the notion of "reality" altogether and say we're in illusion and forever stuck in it.

For all we know we might be.
All it means is that one needs to be careful about what one means when they use the term, and be sure others understand your usage.
And it means that we accept that we operate on a practical level rather than one of intellect, theory, philosophy etc. While philosophical discussions are good, and they can inform the practical level, it is the practical that ultimately wins, as it is the practical that interacts with reality.
"Reality", whatever it is, is the ultimate arbiter.

Which begs the question of why one would be interested in whether another person is realized or not.

Curiosity, ego, fear of being left out... call it what you will. Perhaps we shouldn't be interested, but we are.
So how do they know this?

The stuff people do for the sake of ego aren't to be underestimated. People generally seem to derive great satisfaction from feeding their ego. There my be a lot more to this.

Sure, it is a motivating factor, and can be very strong as such.
But the strength of motivation speaks nothing of the truth, merely of conviction/desire/motivation.

While this agnostic position seems sensible, I'm not so sure it is tenable or stable.

Why, do you consider me unstable?
It is unstable only in as much as it can change through revelation. So really no more unstable than anything else, and possibly more stable than most - since it relies on so little: just that single self-evident thing.

 

[wynn]

What do you want me to say?

That you acknowledge that much theism is a game of one-upmanship, a gladiator arena, a dogfight to the death - and maybe this is all there is to it anyway.

I'm not discussing ''religious belief'', that is an entirely different subject.

To-mah-to - to-may-to.

I think you'll have a difficult job surprising me.

No. But there are some ugly things that I know you don't know, and I don't want to be the one to tell them to you.

Does this mean I don't believe in God? The subject matter.

I'm not going to point fingers at you.

Why? Do we know better than God? Or even one eighth as much?
If we actually believe in God, isn't part of that belief understanding that God is Great, and Absolute..

If you have a passing knowledge and fondness of engineering, are you going to talk to an expert engineer, about engineering, on his level. Or are you going to take the oppotunity to advance?

Your analogy doesn't apply.

If I have a "have a passing knowledge and fondness of engineering", I will probably be enough for me to recognize an engineering expert and will also give some ideas on how to talk to him.

But when it comes to God, I have no knowledge for which I could claim it is indeed about God. I have no starting point.

Your analogy only applies IF WE ARE TO TAKE FOR GRANTED that anyone or any book who even just mentions the word "God" is in fact talking about God, IN FACT KNOWS ABOUT GOD.
That includes believing that Richard Dawkins has first-hand knowledge of God and that, say, satanistic writings are indeed about God.
And this is absurd.

I don't recall saying that it does.

Your suggestion to presume we know nothing about God does imply such a dismissal, though.

What do you mean by ''right''?

Are telling the truth, are morally superior, etc.

Nevertheless, we have this human form of life, and we can reason and discuss God. If to be more than human was the requirement to becoming God conscious, then we as humans would have no interst in the matter.

That would be nice, yes. Yet so many theists are eager to tell us that even though we may have human bodies, we have no chance to know the truth about God, given that we're karmis and such.

I don't really work with any. The Qur'an is alot clearer, as is vedic literature. I find genesis quite clear, and the teaching of Jesus.

If you read any scriptures, you are working with translations, interpretations and commentaries.
But maybe you aren't aware of that?

Why are you asking me?

Because you told a person to "clear your mind of noise". I would think you know how that is to be done, if you are telling someone to do it.

If they say they have realized it, then they have realized it. Where have I put my own spin on it?

You said it, so you put your spin on it.

Oh, and please - really?? You believe that everyone who claims to be realized, in fact is realized? Really? No, I don't think you're that gullible.

I am in the same position as so many other people are. I'm here aren't I?

Not everyone enjoys then benefits of male black pride!

 

[wynn]

For all we know we might be.

Please, no, not that on a Friday night!
I have to go now, I'll come back later.

 

[wegs]

wynn/Sarkus/all;

In talking with a friend who has held an atheist view all of her life, she considers agnosticism to be "sitting on the fence." I disagree with her stance. When I think of atheism, I find myself in the same position I was when trying to defend religion or the existence of God. I can't say with certainty that God exists or doesn't, I explained to her. She doesn't care for the concept.

She feels quite "certain" that God does not exist. This sort of begs the question...what determines "certainty" when it comes to one's spiritual beliefs? How should we define certainty in this context? Is it inappropriate to decide for another, such a definition?

 

[gmilam]

wynn/Sarkus/all;

In talking with a friend who has held an atheist view all of her life, she considers agnosticism to be "sitting on the fence." I disagree with her stance. When I think of atheism, I find myself in the same position I was when trying to defend religion or the existence of God. I can't say with certainty that God exists or doesn't, I explained to her. She doesn't care for the concept.

She feels quite "certain" that God does not exist. This sort of begs the question...what determines "certainty" when it comes to one's spiritual beliefs? How should we define certainty in this context? Is it inappropriate to decide for another, such a definition?

My understanding of the words is as follows:

An atheist does not believe God exists. This could include belief that God does not exist. (Some people seem unable to grasp the difference between these two statements.)
An agnostic believes the truth is unknowable. As such it is quite possible to be an agnostic atheist, or even an agnostic theist. (I personally find the latter to be more unlikely, but what do I know?)

 

[Seattle]

What a mess! Mazulu blows himself up yet again, someone related my post about a dating site to thinking it's a description of Jan? , someone else brings up "black male pride" (?) regarding Jan. Jan relates reality to what someone thinks (if everyone believes in Zeus then Zeus exists) rather than if everyone believes Zeus exists then such thoughts exist.

Regarding labels. I find them to be arrogant. Some one who believes in God has a label for anyone who doesn't believe in God. That's little different than people coming up with racial slurs for another group.

You are either a "theist" or you are not. The reasons for not believing in theism can be many. Who cares what the many reasons are for not being a golfer?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

It's not a puzzle, it's a question that I have answered.
Are you suggesting that if we can think of something then it must exist? Or if we believe in something that it must exist?
Under the atheist worldview you describe, not everything we can think of exists, other than as a thought in our heads.

Atheist do not believe in a transcendental/spiritual realm. They claim there is no evidence to support. But they believe in the material, because they can see evidence of it. Right?
So you live your life in a world where everything is entirely natural (as far as you can see). Right?
Is that any clearer?

So my point is not that ''if we can think of something it must exist'', it is that everything that exists is natural. It is nothing but an expression of the sum total of nature. Clear?

In that way, you (being nothing but nature) are stating that another aspect of nature doesn't exist (as in God) on a day to day basis (until evidence of God arises, you live as though God does not exist). But another aspect of nature believes that God does exist, and live their lives as though God exists. This is also nature (from your real time pov).
So how can nature, deem that nature doesn't exist?

It's not that I believe in God, then come to a conclusion. I come to the conclusion that I am not this body.
One doesn't need to believe in God to arrive at that conclusion. One only need look at the atheist religions (buddhism...) to work that one out.
It is what follows from this realisation that leads me to understand that I am part and parcel of God. Hence the big philosophical questions.

And yet you infer you have no concept of this god, not even as first cause, creator, sum of all etc?
Your words do not offer any consistency of thought in this matter, Jan.

I'm sure I've used as part of my definition of God, ''The Cause of All Causes'' so I'm not sure how you arrive at that point.

Sure, but it's your concept of God that you believe in, the one you've formed through what you understand.

Why would there be a need to form a concept of God?
I understand that connection to be God, not that I had some understanding, then decided to create a being to fit.
That's not how theist's think.

Skilled musicians know how to evoke feeling and emotions through the mixing notes together. They understand how it's done. Not that they understand what it is they want to achieve, then create a concept that is different to the norm.

I believe God exists, because I believe I exist. My belief in God is based on the understanding of my own existence. If I'm not this body, then what am I. Where did I come from? What is the purpose of life? These are pertinent questions when one comes to the realization that one is not the body.

t

And thus your concept of God is borne. Great.

Oh, so my existence is also a concept?
I am not my body, is my concept also?

But heck, why not skip over all the criticism you've thrown around of people only believing in their concept of god rather than god, when you are not even aware that that is what you are also guilty of.

Terribly sorry. You believed in God, now God doesn't exist for you unless He comes to see you personally. What was I thinking? You were a true blue theist.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Memory can be a tricky thing - there's hindsight bias.

It's possible that based on this hindsight bias, you've come up - probably unconsciously - with a palatable explanation for how you've come to hold as true what you hold as true; and this explanation is such that it protects and feeds your self-image.

I suppose it could be possible, but it is highly probable that you are talking about yourself.

People keep finding holes in this explanation of yours, though, which could mean that said explanation is a product of the workings of defense mechanisms.

But it's more likely that haven't explained it properly, and the wierd defensive mechanism shit, is you talking about yourself again. It has been known to happen.

jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn/Sarkus/all;

In talking with a friend who has held an atheist view all of her life, she considers agnosticism to be "sitting on the fence." I disagree with her stance. When I think of atheism, I find myself in the same position I was when trying to defend religion or the existence of God. I can't say with certainty that God exists or doesn't, I explained to her. She doesn't care for the concept.

She feels quite "certain" that God does not exist. This sort of begs the question...what determines "certainty" when it comes to one's spiritual beliefs? How should we define certainty in this context? Is it inappropriate to decide for another, such a definition?

As you are reading this. Does God exist, or does God not exist?

If you find that kinda difficult to just answer straight out, then try this.
Do you live your life as though God exists, or not?
You decide what such a life is.

jan

 

[Seattle]

So my point is not that ''if we can think of something it must exist'', it is that everything that exists is natural. It is nothing but an expression of the sum total of nature. Clear?

In that way, you (being nothing but nature) are stating that another aspect of nature doesn't exist (as in God) on a day to day basis (until evidence of God arises, you live as though God does not exist). But another aspect of nature believes that God does exist, and live their lives as though God exists. This is also nature (from your real time pov).
So how can nature, deem that nature doesn't exist?

A theist believes in God. An atheists doesn't but God exists because both the theist and the atheist are part of nature including the actions of the theist. The theist acts as it God exists so God exists?

How contorted does one's logic have to become to allow them to believe in God? The answer, apparently is...pretty contorted.

 

[Sarkus]

Atheist do not believe in a transcendental/spiritual realm. They claim there is no evidence to support. But they believe in the material, because they can see evidence of it. Right?
So you live your life in a world where everything is entirely natural (as far as you can see). Right?
Is that any clearer?

Some atheists do believe in a transcendental/spiritual realm... they just do not believe in God.

So my point is not that ''if we can think of something it must exist'', it is that everything that exists is natural. It is nothing but an expression of the sum total of nature. Clear?

In that way, you (being nothing but nature) are stating that another aspect of nature doesn't exist (as in God) on a day to day basis (until evidence of God arises, you live as though God does not exist). But another aspect of nature believes that God does exist, and live their lives as though God exists. This is also nature (from your real time pov).
So how can nature, deem that nature doesn't exist?

Nature does not deem that nature does not exist... they deem that a specific claim of what nature includes or is (depending on one's concept of God) does not exist.
If one wishes to merely say "God is nature" or "God is the universe" without adding any clothing for that God to wear, then none will quibble with your claim, other than ask why you would want to call it God rather than one of the words we already have for it.
It is when "God" is given clothing to wear that one enters the realm of claims of what nature is (or includes) - if one is suggesting that nature is God / God is nature - and at that point atheists do not "deem that nature doesn't exist" but they perhaps deem that those aspects of nature do not exist that you claim does exist.
Nature is nature regardless of what we claim about it.

I'm sure I've used as part of my definition of God, ''The Cause of All Causes'' so I'm not sure how you arrive at that point.

So you have a concept of God. QED. Your attempt to wave away belief that atheists used to have as mere belief in a concept is thus, by your own admission here, hypocritical.
And if you continue to argue that there is a meaningful difference it will be nothing but hypocritical dishonesty.

Why would there be a need to form a concept of God?

One can not believe in God without forming some concept. Even you have a concept - as you have acknowledged above.

I understand that connection to be God, not that I had some understanding, then decided to create a being to fit.
That's not how theist's think.

So when you concluded on God, you now claim to have had no concept of what you were concluding on, despite your admission not a few sentences before?
As said, Jan, you are running round in circles here.

Skilled musicians know how to evoke feeling and emotions through the mixing notes together. They understand how it's done. Not that they understand what it is they want to achieve, then create a concept that is different to the norm.

Skilled musicians learn that from all the practice they have put in to the instrument. They do not come to that state without it... they have a concept of music, of the instrument etc.
Your analogy is thus woeful.

Oh, so my existence is also a concept?
I am not my body, is my concept also?

I have not said that. But to reach such a conclusion you must have a concept of what your existence is, what your body is etc.
One simply can not form a thought without some concept behind the words being used.

Terribly sorry. You believed in God, now God doesn't exist for you unless He comes to see you personally. What was I thinking? You were a true blue theist.

I was, yes, despite your incredulity.
That initial belief may have been built on shaky ground and easily tumbled, but it was still belief in God.
Yours may be a less shaky belief, and thus you perhaps can not understand how others had a more fragile structure to theirs. But whatever structure we both had, we were both looking at the same view.
My belief collapsed. I am now of the opinion that the view is not what you claim it to be of, or that I used to claim it to be of.
For some reason you see belief as the structure and reasoning, which for you must be, by default, unshakable.
For me belief is not the reasoning for reaching that point, or the structure, but the view once you are there - however you got there.

 

[Sarkus]

A theist believes in God. An atheists doesn't but God exists because both the theist and the atheist are part of nature including the actions of the theist. The theist acts as it God exists so God exists?

How contorted does one's logic have to become to allow them to believe in God? The answer, apparently is...pretty contorted.

I think Jan considers God to be nature... at least that is the only way I can see to make sense of the position.
As such Jan sees it as one part of nature deciding that nature (God) does not exist, rather than seeing it as atheists merely not believing the claim that theists make (that nature is God).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

A theist believes in God.

Yes.

An atheists doesn't

Yes.

but God exists because both the theist and the atheist are part of nature including the actions of the theist. The theist acts as it God exists so God exists?

Not quite. Both positions from your perspective are nothing more than manifestations of nature.
Nature is all there is.
So nature (everything including you) states that nature doesn't exist (God, which is also part of nature).

The same principle rears it's head in the moral landscape. If everything is nothing but nature, then there is no right or wrong. Thereforse an atheist Has no real sense of what good action and what is bad action. But if you claim to have morals, then where in nature does morals manifest. Survival?
If that is the case, then it can be said that murder, rape, eating someone elses babies can be said to be good, moral action by someone who percieves it that way. Who is to say that person is wrong if his nature sees fit to act that way?
My point is, there is another principle that transcends nature, and it's nature is different to the purposeless material nature.

How contorted does one's logic have to become to allow them to believe in God? The answer, apparently is...pretty contorted.

In this particular instance, belief in God is not the issue. God does not exist, is.
This resemble your contorted logic, not mine.

jan.

 

[Seattle]

I feel like I'm trying to talk to John Lennon. "What is nature" "The real question should be nature what is" OK, great.

Everything is nothing but nature. We get our morals from our culture. If you think you are getting it from God you are still just pulling it out of your head. Our morals have changed over time...therefore it's obvious it isn't coming from God.

Nature is all there is but God isn't part of nature because there is no evidence for God.

 

[wynn]

I think Jan considers God to be nature... at least that is the only way I can see to make sense of the position.
As such Jan sees it as one part of nature deciding that nature (God) does not exist, rather than seeing it as atheists merely not believing the claim that theists make (that nature is God).

Have you read the Bhagavad-gita? That would help you understand Jan's position better.

 

[wynn]

Atheist do not believe in a transcendental/spiritual realm.

Some do, some don't.

They claim there is no evidence to support. But they believe in the material, because they can see evidence of it. Right?

Again, some do, some don't.

So you live your life in a world where everything is entirely natural (as far as you can see). Right?
Is that any clearer?

No.

So my point is not that ''if we can think of something it must exist'', it is that everything that exists is natural. It is nothing but an expression of the sum total of nature. Clear?

In that way, you (being nothing but nature) are stating that another aspect of nature doesn't exist (as in God) on a day to day basis (until evidence of God arises, you live as though God does not exist). But another aspect of nature believes that God does exist, and live their lives as though God exists. This is also nature (from your real time pov).
So how can nature, deem that nature doesn't exist?

Your understanding of atheism is limited and biased. Because you are working out of your own particular concept of what it means to be an atheist - as opposed to actually inquring from people who identify themselves as atheists what to them it means to be an atheist.

Why would there be a need to form a concept of God?

It's not that there's a "need to form a concept of God." It's that for many people, witnessing variety within theistic religions and not being able to make sense of this variety, leads them to conclude that while there may indeed be one God, different people have different ideas/concepts/notions/images of who or what God is.

Oh, so my existence is also a concept?
I am not my body, is my concept also?

From one perspective, yes.

 

[wynn]

I suppose it could be possible, but it is highly probable that you are talking about yourself.

But it's more likely that haven't explained it properly, and the wierd defensive mechanism shit, is you talking about yourself again. It has been known to happen.

That's right, yeah, you just blame me, you haughty wannabe hindu.

 

[wynn]

In talking with a friend who has held an atheist view all of her life, she considers agnosticism to be "sitting on the fence."

Yes, this is a frequent charge against weak agnosticism.

I disagree with her stance. When I think of atheism, I find myself in the same position I was when trying to defend religion or the existence of God. I can't say with certainty that God exists or doesn't, I explained to her. She doesn't care for the concept.

And for many practical intents and purposes, she's probably better off than weak agnostics, and strong agnostics too.

She feels quite "certain" that God does not exist. This sort of begs the question...what determines "certainty" when it comes to one's spiritual beliefs? How should we define certainty in this context?

We can't see into another's mind. Maybe her declarations of certainty are a power trip.

I've actually read in an American self-help book on communication that using "I think", "Maybe," "In my opinion," and other such qualifiers that in our culture convey absence of total certainty or relativize what one is saying, is generally perceived as a weakness, a character flaw, a sign that one is vulnerable and exploitable - which is why it is better to state only strong positions, whatever they may be, and not use qualifiers.

This also works the other way around: people who subscribe to this outlook, seem to be deaf to qualifiers such as "I think", "Maybe," "In my opinion," and in my experience, esp. to "Some".

This is almost verbatim from memory from a conversation I had with someone:
I: "Some modern Zen Buddhists are very angry people who don't care about the Pali Canon."
The other person: "You have a very skewed idea of Zen Buddhists."

I had to repeat myself several times before the other person actually heard the qualifiers "Some" and "modern." And this was in an online forum, where everything is in writing - one would think people would notice what is written on the page the first time around. But no.

So if you're dealing with such a "strong" person and you're using qualifiers, chances are they won't hear them and will instead understand that you mean what you say in an absolute sense.

Is it inappropriate to decide for another, such a definition?

Is it appropriate to simply go with someone else's definition?


This is why I suggested Goldberg's book to you, because it is written with those dichotomies and paradoxes in mind, and some suggestions as to how to resolve them.

 

[wynn]

For all we know we might be.

And you feel all happy and energetic and enthusiastic about life when you think like that, eh?

And it means that we accept that we operate on a practical level rather than one of intellect, theory, philosophy etc. While philosophical discussions are good, and they can inform the practical level, it is the practical that ultimately wins, as it is the practical that interacts with reality.
"Reality", whatever it is, is the ultimate arbiter.

The intellect, theory, philosophy are part of reality, are thus also reality.

Curiosity, ego, fear of being left out... call it what you will. Perhaps we shouldn't be interested, but we are.

Right.

So how do they know this?

Why do we care?

I've quoted that sutta on the unconjecturables many times. Speculating about the attainment of another person is considered something that will drive one crazy.
It is sometimes said that it takes a Buddha to know a Buddha. If one isn't enlightened, one won't be able to tell whether another person is enlightened or not.

I think those Buddhist instructions and ideas are actually pointing at the necessity for developing a kind of self-reliance: a kind of self-reliance where one is willing to learn from others and also learns from others, but all along also maintains self-reliance.

I think that we in the West also had that kind of outlook and practice, esp. in the past where apprenticeship was very common. But the general trend seems to be to think there are only two options: either you're self-made, totally self-reliant; or you're an echo, a poor copy of someone else, a slave.
I think that as a culture, we in the West generally don't know how to relate to our teachers and mentors wisely. While we have vast amounts of materials on study skills, learning approaches etc., I find there is very little about how to have a sane relationship with one's teachers and mentors, with people one learns from. Obviously, there's a lot said on respecting one's teachers, being polite, being grateful and all that, but the culture of having a teacher and yet thinking for yourself - this seems rare and underdeveloped. And this becomes esp. glaringly obvious and painful when it comes to religon/spirituality.

Sure, it is a motivating factor, and can be very strong as such.
But the strength of motivation speaks nothing of the truth, merely of conviction/desire/motivation.

Conviction/desire/motivation are part of reality, they aren't somehow alien to this universe. Which is why they do speak of the truth. Which is why I said that there my be a lot more to this.

Why, do you consider me unstable?

Eh, sometimes I think you're only nominally an agnostic.

It is unstable only in as much as it can change through revelation.

Not just through revelation, but through anything.

So really no more unstable than anything else, and possibly more stable than most - since it relies on so little: just that single self-evident thing.

Then it's not real agnosticism. Real agnosticism would allow for the change of any premise.

 

[wynn]

Granted, it may be similar in that respect, but I do consider there to be a category difference between tastes and belief that makes your example inadequate,

I think it is adequate: a person starts out with believing (!) coffee to be distasteful, but later on, they believe it tastes just fine.
I think beliefs are involved in what we find - ie. believe - to be tasty or not.

with only revelation (or interpreting something as a revelation) being sufficient to drag one in to the circle.
And in your example I would consider that person to have had such an interpretation of revelation.

I think that people "begin to believe" for basically two categories of reasons:
1. they have an already existing inner urge to believe particular propositions (personal revelation is also in this category),
or
2. there are social, economic or other* pressures involved that push the person into apparent belief.

(*I knew a born-again Christian who said that he used to be full of doubt, indecision, and that at some point, he was just so sick and tired of being so full of doubt and indecision, that he picked a religious tradition that seemed in roundabout right and committed to it. The deciding factor for him was this internal disappointment over being indecisive, doubtful as such.)

If someone doesn't have such an inner urge, nor are there any sufficient pressures of the second kind, such a person will indeed conclude that in order to believe X, one already needs to believe X, hence the whole problem of circularity, self-referentiality and self-fulfilling prophecy for such a person. Note: for such a person. Not for a belief or proposition.

Or, to refer to William James' heuristics: for such a person, belief in X has never been a genuine option to begin with, as they have never experienced belief in X to be living, forced and momentuous.

One problem I see with your approach is that you are trying to think about beliefs in a way that would entirely avoid whatever personal there may be about holding a belief. But since belief takes place within a person, it is necessarily personal!

I don't believe either way with regard solipsism, or brain in a vat. They are all concepts that have a point to make, especially when comparing one unknown with another.
Do you think I believe they are to be taken seriously as worldviews???

No, like I said later, it seems you believe they are to be considered seriously in the sense that unintended but absurd consequences of some lines of reasoning - and we don't want to end up in absurd consequences with our reasoning.

Okay, but since I have not used their argument, I am not sure why you would bother making the statement.
All I have done is start from the same premise: that "I exist" is the only self-evident thing. Such a premise does not an argument make.

Simply seeing the name "Descartes" and "I exist" are red flags for me, hence I wanted to clarify.

I see solipsism as a good stake in the ground for considering things unknowable.
We can not know if solipsism is accurate/true etc. So if reasoning ends with a conclusion of solipsism then, to me, it merely means you have introduced an unknowable into your argument without realising.
And if someone tries to suggest they "know" how things are then one can always offer solipsism as a means of showing that they probably can not, at least without highlighting some otherwise unmentioned assumptions.

But solipsism itself adds nothing to practical experience... it just adds a further unknowable layer between perception/experience and any objective reality that might be out there.
But then that opens the can of worms regarding the nature of reality etc.

Or, like kindergarden kids, we might make an idle gesture with the hand and say "It doesn't interest me." And we'd actually be telling the truth ...