Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

[superluminal]

Yeah, thats an example of one of those things we take for granted, cos they don't need any explanation.

They don't? Why not? I only ever said I have no idea why they were the way they were. But looking for further explanations is always valid. And fun. Take the higgs boson. If discovered, it would explain why matter has mass. That's pretty fuckin' cool in my opinion.

 

[S.A.M.]

They don't? Why not? I only ever said I have no idea why they were the way they were. But looking for further explanations is always valid. And fun. Take the higgs boson. If discovered, it would explain why matter has mass. That's pretty fuckin' cool in my opinion.

Sure it is.

I mean you don't need any explanation for why there is an organisation that exists, as it does, in a meaningful way at all levels.

 

[superluminal]

Sure it is.

I mean you don't need any explanation for why there is an organisation that exists, as it does, in a meaningful way at all levels.

I have to agree. Although it's interesting to contemplate the backtrack of causality and origin.

If the higgs gives matter mass, than what gives the higgs its properties, etc?

Sort of like "If god exists, what (or who) created god?"

I tend to think that there is a fundamental context that just always was and that it's just hard for us humans to concieve of something without a beginning or end that has no precursor or deeper source.

Unless you're a theist maybe?

 

[S.A.M.]

I tend to think that there is a fundamental context that just always was and that it's just hard for us humans to concieve of something without a beginning or end that has no precursor or deeper source.

Unless you're a theist maybe?

So I guess you won't be looking for any precursors or deeper explanations for fundamental contexts anytime soon. Seeing as you're not a theist. :shrug:

 

[superluminal]

So I guess you won't be looking for any precursors or deeper explanations for fundamental contexts anytime soon. Seeing as you're not a theist. :shrug:

Let's just say I won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Let's just say I won't be losing any sleep over it.

argument from insomnia.

Thats a good one.

 

[superluminal]

argument from insomnia.

Thats a good one.

Would that be argumentum ad insomnium ?

:bravo:

 

[iceaura]

If you have some other kind of God to propose, we can take a look. The "magical being with empirical consequences of its existence" description seems to cover the lot so far.
”
So what would you consider evidence for/of God?

So are you definitely agreeing with that description of your God and the others at issue here - that's the kind of God you're talking about, all agreed ? (because otherwise you would be trolling) Then the question is answerable: Any empirical consequences of the existence of a magical being identified as a God by anybody. Fossils of rabbit skeletons in Precambrian rock, is I think the standard example for the Muslim or Christian Creationist'[s God. Spontaneous generation of an amoeba subsequent to prayer, would be another example good for other Christian or Muslim god concepts. There are many possibilities for empirical consequences of a magical being, varying somewhat with the exact style of magic and being proposed, and for each of them an example of those consequences would suffice.

I can't have a lack of belief in something I don't know.

I should first recognise a concept before I accept or deny it.

How about a category of beliefs - dismissed on rational grounds as a member of a category of beliefs ? Like perpetual motion machines. There's a lot of different kinds, all bogus for various reasons - or so I think. I'm aperpetuistic, in my philosophy of machinery.

It's pretty clear to me that both historical and current common usage imply that atheism means an active belief that there is no God.

In a society full of agressive theists, that is so by circumstance. But as you continue:

It might also be necessary to distinguish between a faithful certainty and a rational belief. I believe that there are no faerie folk, but if they all came out of hiding tomorrow I would change my mind without feeling upset that I was wrong. That's not how people feel about faith-based beliefs.

So now you are attributing a real caring, a necessarily deep commitment in faith, to the proposition that there is no God. That is not how I feel in the matter, and I'm sure there are many others like me.

If there were no dramatically and intrusively important theistic religions in my immediate neighborhood and involved in my concerns, the postulate of a Deity would just be an entertaining shorcut or heuristic for dealing with certain complex features of the world - like the attribution of personality to a sailboat. And when I claimed to not really believe in the actual personhood of sailboats, despite the fact that I use and follow and appreciate the idea, there would be the question of what evidence I have that sailboats have no personhood - or, as here, what kind of evidence would convince me that some sailboat somewhere owned by somebody genuinely had a personality. And I would reply: what boat, where, what kind of "personality", etc.

It just seems odd to me that people who believe in a universe without reason, seek a meaningful life

Some people do not require a coordination of the whole universe, to supply meaning for their lives. Some even believe that they, themselves, bring reasoning aspects and other human attributes to the universe - a powerful support for the attribution of meaning to a life, no?

So I guess you won't be looking for any precursors or deeper explanations for fundamental contexts anytime soon. Seeing as you're not a theist

In point of fact, most of the people who have found such things have had to defy and reject their local theism in the process - so common this pattern, that an initial rejection of the local theism has become a famously common attribute of the curious and exploratory, in the realm of fundamental contexts and deeper explanations.

Any idea why that pattern has held, now, for hundreds of years ?

 

[LiveInFaith]

Someone who was really into math and circles thought up this notion that we could think of the world and everything in it in terms of systems.

Sure it can be mathematically modelled, derived into formula, be used to predict extraplolated events. A work of observing the world system. And we human then simulate or adopt the system into our life supporting equipment / technology. Are we then, designing our life support system, by adopting from some "big coincidence", which was not designed?

 

[S.A.M.]

In point of fact, most of the people who have found such things have had to defy and reject their local theism in the process - so common this pattern, that an initial rejection of the local theism has become a famously common attribute of the curious and exploratory, in the realm of fundamental contexts and deeper explanations.

Any idea why that pattern has held, now, for hundreds of years ?

Perhaps you're confusing all of us as being from the same patterns. :shrug:

So are you definitely agreeing with that description of your God and the others at issue here - that's the kind of God you're talking about, all agreed ? (because otherwise you would be trolling)

I don't recall anyone asking me about my description of God before they decided they were atheist.

 

[Imperfectionist]

My left hemisphere believes in God, my right hemisphere is atheist.

 

[greenberg]

Sure it can be mathematically modelled, derived into formula, be used to predict extraplolated events. A work of observing the world system. And we human then simulate or adopt the system into our life supporting equipment / technology.

Are we then, designing our life support system, by adopting from some "big coincidence", which was not designed?

This is possible. A simple way to describe this is that a "self-fulfilling prophecy" is taking place.

 

[LiveInFaith]

This is possible. A simple way to describe this is that a "self-fulfilling prophecy" is taking place.

Doesn't a "self-fulfilling prophecy", at the end of the road, direct us toward "God"? (God in either terms, as in "natural law / coincidence", or Creator).

 

[greenberg]

you can also use lotus leaves as plates - in India the production of lotus leaf plates is an industry

Didn't know that.

What is the soul like, what characteristics does it have?

thinking, willing and feeling in the medium of eternity

BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

Or alternatively sat (eternity) cit (knowledge) ananda (bliss)

Thinking, willing and feeling - because it is conscious?

If one is pursuing the notion of ceasing to exist as the goal of liberation, issues arise

That would be annihilationism, identifying with the aggregates and beliving there is nothing but the aggregates. In Buddhism, this is wrong view.

whoever may be right, I think the answer lies in philosophical analysis - needless to say "sitting down and having a good think" doesn't seem helpful in surmounting one's conditioned nature, since the root of conditioned nature is the (conditioned) mind

Agreed with the part in bold.
This is one of the main reasons why I have always been put off by the requests Christians make - because even going by the most idealistic calculation, I suppose it would take me at least a few lifteimes of most intense and professionally supervised and supported study and practice to answer the questions and requests they put to me - yet they wanted answers within a week or so. Even to just retrain the habit of brushing my teeth in a new way (not so firmly) has been taking months with little success. To say nothing of retraining mental habits.

the point is that for the soul, there are no activities of renunciation in regards to matter since it bears no connection to matter (even though such issues may be important initially) - it kind of helps distinguish perfectional from practical spiritual life ....

meaning to say that spiritual life is eternal does not entail issues of eternal renunciation

No? My first reaction was to think that renunciation would be forever - hence my repulsion toward it.

One of the first images of heaven that I can remember appearing in my mind was that somewhere up in the clouds, a man is kneeling on one knee (not both), bowing his head, and God chides him. And so for all eternity. The kneeling on one knee instead of both suggests that the man wasn't completely subdued, was still considered of some worth. Those in eternal hell of course kneel on both knees - while God chides them.

even agnostically , it can remain a mental concept

It seems to me that agnosticism is about things never going past being mere mental concepts. This is one of the reasons why the agnostic stance (however it arose) is so troublesome.

my point is that the realization arises from practice, and that is precisely what is lacking in a person on the mental platform (ie immersed thoroughly in the notion of ideas only)

I can only take this on faith, of course. I don't have a relization to match it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

“
What is the soul like, what characteristics does it have?
”
thinking, willing and feeling in the medium of eternity

BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

Or alternatively sat (eternity) cit (knowledge) ananda (bliss)
”
Thinking, willing and feeling - because it is conscious?

it might be easier to understand it as being consciousness and at the moment our consciousness is identifying with matter - hence we eperience life not as sat cit ananda but as temporary, full of ignorance and subject to misery

“
If one is pursuing the notion of ceasing to exist as the goal of liberation, issues arise
”
That would be annihilationism, identifying with the aggregates and beliving there is nothing but the aggregates. In Buddhism, this is wrong view.

Even though what goes down in buddhism is quite varied these days, I would have thought that the self is seen as the final stumbling block of illusion in buddhism?

“

whoever may be right, I think the answer lies in philosophical analysis - needless to say "sitting down and having a good think" doesn't seem helpful in surmounting one's conditioned nature, since the root of conditioned nature is the (conditioned) mind
”
Agreed with the part in bold.
This is one of the main reasons why I have always been put off by the requests Christians make - because even going by the most idealistic calculation, I suppose it would take me at least a few lifteimes of most intense and professionally supervised and supported study and practice to answer the questions and requests they put to me - yet they wanted answers within a week or so. Even to just retrain the habit of brushing my teeth in a new way (not so firmly) has been taking months with little success. To say nothing of retraining mental habits.

lol

“
the point is that for the soul, there are no activities of renunciation in regards to matter since it bears no connection to matter (even though such issues may be important initially) - it kind of helps distinguish perfectional from practical spiritual life ....

meaning to say that spiritual life is eternal does not entail issues of eternal renunciation
”
No? My first reaction was to think that renunciation would be forever - hence my repulsion toward it.

there may be certain things one does not do eternally in unconditioned existence, but one doesn't do them due to experiencing a higher taste.

BG 2.59 The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

In other words material life is characterized by issues of renunciation (because we are habitually attracted to the wrong things) and spiritual life is characterized by attraction (because we are spontaneously attracted to what is actually beneficial) .... and of course being mixed up somewhere between the two means one has to be especially careful

One of the first images of heaven that I can remember appearing in my mind was that somewhere up in the clouds, a man is kneeling on one knee (not both), bowing his head, and God chides him. And so for all eternity. The kneeling on one knee instead of both suggests that the man wasn't completely subdued, was still considered of some worth. Those in eternal hell of course kneel on both knees - while God chides them.

I must admit, that is a strange notion of eternal life - in short, chastisement is what we face in the material world

“
even agnostically , it can remain a mental concept
”
It seems to me that agnosticism is about things never going past being mere mental concepts. This is one of the reasons why the agnostic stance (however it arose) is so troublesome.

I agree
in fact I think modern education cultivates in one the capacity to entertain several contrary views without ever coming to the platform of practical application

“
my point is that the realization arises from practice, and that is precisely what is lacking in a person on the mental platform (ie immersed thoroughly in the notion of ideas only)
”
I can only take this on faith, of course. I don't have a relization to match it.

thats natural - theory without practice remains theory

 

[S.A.M.]

This is supposed to be a thread on athiest beliefs!

These guys:

 

[superluminal]

This is supposed to be a thread on athiest beliefs!

These guys:

Yay! Excellent!

 

[greenberg]

What is the soul like, what characteristics does it have?

thinking, willing and feeling in the medium of eternity

BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

Or alternatively sat (eternity) cit (knowledge) ananda (bliss)
...
it might be easier to understand it as being consciousness and at the moment our consciousness is identifying with matter - hence we eperience life not as sat cit ananda but as temporary, full of ignorance and subject to misery

One thing that strikes me as strange about the Buddha is that even after Enlightenment, he would think, feel and will. Now, as far as Buddhism goes and the teachings on the aggregates, how could that be ...

Even though what goes down in buddhism is quite varied these days, I would have thought that the self is seen as the final stumbling block of illusion in buddhism?

The issue of self is a stumbling block between Buddhist traditions, for starters.
Classical Theravada holds that there is no self ever in anything, no such thing as "soul" (I admit I forgot how they defend against charges of annihilationism).
Then some Mahayana and Vajrayana schools speak of "Buddha nature" which might be an equivalent to the notion of "soul" to some extent (in that it is eternal, uncreated, independent).
And then there is Early Theravada keeping to the Suttas of the Pali Canon that holds that the Buddha never said whether there is a self or whether there is no self per se, only that he specified some instances that are not the self even though we commonly think they are (on identifying with the aggregates). Personally, I think this variant of Buddhism navigates around the issue of self best, in a very practical and doable manner.
There is an undercurrent interest in Early Theravada, but you won't find many of those people on the internet. Apparently, they know to have better things to do, or more efficiently than to post much in online forums.

To me, Buddhism (the Early Theravada) is a kind of desperate solution to a desperate situation, an answer for what to do when nothing else seems to do. This is why it doesn't have much a top-down approach, much over-arching and in-depth philosophy, but is something that a scattered and confused mind can do without feeling too overwhelmed and too out of its own depth. Breathing meditation, metta meditation, practising the Four Sublime Attitudes ... - little things that help bring some calm and clarity but which don't overwhelm one with things one doesn't understand or committments one isn't ready or willing to make.

lol

Well, it's true.

BG 2.59 The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

There is something similar in Buddhism -

290. If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.21.budd.html

in fact I think modern education cultivates in one the capacity to entertain several contrary views without ever coming to the platform of practical application

I think so too. I think such "open-mindedness" is pernicious; additionally, to make it all worse, they suggest that one come to one's own "opinions" - how this is tobe done, is taboo, in my experience. Normally, we were told to "think". This is too general, of course.

 

[greenberg]

This is supposed to be a thread on athiest beliefs!

In effect, I am an atheist.

 

[superluminal]

...without ever coming to the platform of practical application

That's fairly disengenuous of you. You know full well what the implication of "practical application" means for any subject. And it doesen't apply to the subjective (and fuck you if you say one more word about the definition of that word - ) which is what your "practical" application results in.