There flat-out is no god.

[sowhatifit'sdark]

The first statement is just incorrect.

You are taking me too literally. I am being ironic. Certainly critical of atheists, but ironic.

The second statement is correct, but another field of enquiry entirely (that of Personal Identity, which is an epistemological project...), but more importantly, is entirely unrelated to the question of the existence of a deity.

Oh, I completely beg to differ. As a Buddhist. What you have is people proposing and assuming an entity that, from, for example, a materialist standpoint, is hard to defend. From a phenomenological perspective - which perhaps is a better one to choose thinking of Buddhists - you also have simply change. Where is this essence that is 'the same'. An atheist cannot simply go to sleep when other entities that are probably mythological get put on the table.

My point is the selective skepticism. Here we have too habits of belief in entities. It can be pointed out how these entities have emotional roots - you know that atheist line of argument - and are really mythological in nature. Atheists tend in forums like this to get worked up about theists who believe in entities that 'do not exist' and which they assume the theists believe in for emotional reasons. I find very few atheists willing to challenge their own sacred cows despite their implicit or explicit claims that they, unlike theists, can face their fears and live without hallucinated entities. Me, I just see people with different sacred cows. Of course, atheists, being defined in the negative, may have a variety of sacred cows. One common one is their sense of the self. Another is that people can be broken down into those who believe for emotional reasons and those who do or don't for rational ones. Talk about hindsight bias.

Incorret: "modern" means post 19th Century, while "contemporary" refers to thinkers of the past 2o years or so.

My God that's fussy. But you didn't get I was being ironic. I would say that those are some people's use of those two words.

mod·ern –adjective
1. of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.
2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.
3. of or pertaining to the historical period following the Middle Ages: modern European history.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of contemporary styles of art, literature, music, etc., that reject traditionally accepted or sanctioned forms and emphasize individual experimentation and sensibility.
5. (initial capital letter) new (def. 12).
6. Typography. noting or descriptive of a font of numerals in which the body aligns on the baseline, as 1234567890. Compare old style (def. 3).
–noun
7. a person of modern times.
8. a person whose views and tastes are modern.
9. Printing. a type style differentiated from old style by heavy vertical strokes and straight serifs.

My bolds.

Contemporary can mean someone from my time. Or, as I meant it in the previous post, someone who is alive. Thus it is easy to be contemporary at least for most participants of this forums so far as I know, but not so easy to be a person whose views and tastes are modern.

 

[glaucon]

You are taking me too literally. I am being ironic. Certainly critical of atheists, but ironic.

...

My God that's fussy. But you didn't get I was being ironic. I would say that those are some people's use of those two words.

You're right; I didn't realize you were being ironic.

And being fussy with words is exactly the business of philosophy.

...
From a phenomenological perspective - which perhaps is a better one to choose thinking of Buddhists - you also have simply change. Where is this essence that is 'the same'. An atheist cannot simply go to sleep when other entities that are probably mythological get put on the table.


Regardless of what kind of ontology one wishes to work with, the question of Personal Identity is not related to the question of a deity. And there is no Buddhist god.


My point is the selective skepticism. Here we have too habits of belief in entities. It can be pointed out how these entities have emotional roots - you know that atheist line of argument - and are really mythological in nature. ...

I agree with everything you say on this point. But realize that the eliminitivist operations that the Atheist makes do not necessarily have to be exclusive. It is fairly rational to eliminate an invisible sky-creature while being irrational to eliminate oneself. This doesn't make the self a 'sacred cow' necessarily. Pragmatically, the self is unavoidable. Whereas the god is simply unavailable.

In any case, from an epistemological position, it's difficult to see how the two concerns are related.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

You're right; I didn't realize you were being ironic.

And being fussy with words is exactly the business of philosophy.

I wonder if I can get away with saying I was being ironic when I referred to you as fussy. I guess not. But the underlying seditious feelings were the same. Oh, no, I remember now. I thought you were not correct in your fussiness. I was being more fussy by being aware of multiple uses.

I agree with everything you say on this point. But realize that the eliminitivist operations that the Atheist makes do not necessarily have to be exclusive. It is fairly rational to eliminate an invisible sky-creature while being irrational to eliminate oneself. This doesn't make the self a 'sacred cow' necessarily. Pragmatically, the self is unavoidable. Whereas the god is simply unavailable.

Oh, so many assumptions. God was unavoidable. Some people experience God as available. Eliminating a continuous 'I' would not be irrational if it were correct. Or to put this backwards this assumes that it is rational to believe in an 'I' the ways we do and there is a boatload of evidence that this is not the case. I again mention the hindsight bias problem with atheists self-assessment of the foundation of their beliefs and lack of. The whole conscious mind thinking it is making a decision when with little meters we can see that decisions are made before the conscious mind decides. Let alone determine should suck the air out of any atheist smugness. I mean if Q really believes in determinism it sure has never reached his attitude - to use a kind of shorthand. And it certainly can be argued that believing in a self is just habitual. Let's toss back the question at scientists around counter intuitive truths. Like thinking the Sun rises rather then the earth spins. Something to be grown out of.

Sky creature? Invisible? Oh, you're thinking of the icky monotheist God. Trascendant and bodysexworld denying.

A Buddhist might say 'pragmatically, notions of self should be avoided.' One person's pragmatism is another person's posited entity is another person's hallucination.

In any case, from an epistemological position, it's difficult to see how the two concerns are related.

I am not sure what an epistemological position would be - see I can be fussy too. There are many epistemological positions. But anyway...

You have claims about an entity that are not supported by the evidence. One entity is either invisible transcendant or immanent but seems to be a bunch of items that do not make up a conscious self
and the other
is a hallucinated entity all of whose material components change over time, all of whose memories - which are often used as a basis for identity - are records of CHANGES (which is an odd basis for continuity), etc.

We take complicated phenomenon and posit a unified self where none exists.

Each of these entities should be an epistemological nightmare to prove, especially in the wake of modern - and contemporary (see I'm flexible) - science.

And the God's honest truth is, I'll bet there is a rather hefty % of scientists who see this as another illusion that will fall.

I did some googling around identity self qualia neural illusion and came up with nothing quintessential. But you get the idea.

I mean I don't want to push this point too far. A more general one would be

there is little time for smugness, we all get fooled, we all have habits of mind and belief
and if we sit around an take pot shots at easy targets there's a good chance this is to avoid
learning a damn thing about ourselves.

It is a donning of the I am the rational mythbuster costume and finding a good dance partner.

So we can point and say
there
that's where the myths and illusions are...

and then

we went to Iraq because of oil and business and arms interests?
bullshit.

and then back to pointing at a group of baptists dunking each other in a pond.

I see a world being ravaged by both the 'it's just a complicated set of complicated machines we can tinker with group' and by the monotheists.

Poop on both.

From a pagan.

 

[glaucon]

... I was being more fussy by being aware of multiple uses.

Not fussy enough apparently.
There is a lot to be said for clarity with this context.

Oh, so many assumptions. God was unavoidable. ...

The concept of god is hardly unavoidable. It specifically and uniquely obtains once it is invoked, not otherwise.

I am not sure what an epistemological position would be - see I can be fussy too. There are many epistemological positions. But anyway...

You misunderstand me: the Personal Identity question is an epistemological problem whereas god is not.

You have claims about an entity that are not supported by the evidence. One entity is either invisible transcendant or immanent but seems to be a bunch of items that do not make up a conscious self

...

All applications of supposed properties of supposed entities are nothing but human creations, and therefore prone to error.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

The concept of god is hardly unavoidable. It specifically and uniquely obtains once it is invoked, not otherwise.

Others would claim otherwise. They would say it is apparent to them. They have been impacted by it. Mystics especially. Not the guys who refer to the books to find out who to hate.

You misunderstand me: the Personal Identity question is an epistemological problem whereas god is not.

They have both been epistemological problem for me.
But let's set that aside. I see a belief that people are used to: God. A belief people are used to: a self. Atheists tend to find theists 'clinging' to this belief childish or irrational. Their own sacred cows however are milked for all they're worth.

All applications of supposed properties of supposed entities are nothing but human creations, and therefore prone to error.

Fair enough.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ok. I give in.

Almost every theist here has argued that Atheism[sup]TM[/sup] is a religion. It has a belief system. We have an agenda of preaching and trying to convert others to our beliefs.

Ok. Fine. I want all of the same legal and financial protections afforded any other religion.

We believe that There Is No God[sup]®[/sup]

I want the same respect for our cause as any other religion. Even though we have as little to support our position as other religions have to support their god thingy.




Argue as a theist would. Let's see how it goes.

Lol super.

 

[superluminal]

A more general one would be
there is little time for smugness, we all get fooled, we all have habits of mind and belief
and if we sit around an take pot shots at easy targets there's a good chance this is to avoid
learning a damn thing about ourselves.

It is a donning of the I am the rational mythbuster costume and finding a good dance partner.

...

Poop on both.

From a pagan.

So, what is your overriding point here? That doing our best to minimize getting "fooled" is a form of arrogant smugness and essentially useless?

What do you, a pagan, propose as the alternative, since you find both theists and atheists reprehensible? How should we really proceed to come to deeper, fundamental truths about ourselves?

 

[cole grey]

Hmmm... we need an atheist prayer. Little help here?

Dear me, here on earth
________ is my name
My kingdom is my mind,
Please help me organize my ideas into something that is coherent and worth following.
Dear me,
please help me to do whatever it is i need to do today,
a - me!

 

[iceaura]

I would argue that the contemporary atheist believes in the primacy of the self.

Not the Western ones contemporary with me. Bunch of Zen folks in there - no self. Traces back to Alan Watts, a lot of it (not Dawkins).

There seems to be - if diaries and journals and so forth are any guide - a level of at which prayer and meditation merge at the loss of self, as experiences - the theistic way of enlightenment, possibly, dismissed by orthodoxy (by definition) as mysticism. The God goes away then too, of course - - - -

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

[Just realized I confused you with Glaucon. I got used to the back and forth with him and thought it was the next step.]

So, what is your overriding point here? That doing our best to minimize getting "fooled" is a form of arrogant smugness and essentially useless?

No, the smugness - which I don't really pick up in you - is the smugness. If I look through the dialogues in sciforums I do not see atheists simply 'doing their best to minimize getting fooled.' Now some of what they are doing they may feel is a reaction to how theists have treated them in discussions . "He started it, Mom." But my experience in the world has also been that a healthy % of atheist take a shot at me when they encounter a belief they consider supernatural. Even if it is not something I am selling. Trying to convince an atheist to believe is beyond a waste of time, apart from the rudeness. It is not something I do. Even overhearing a conversation with a third party or seeing a book on my shelf is enough to set them rolling. There seems to be, in addition, an implicit, I am able to live without these soothing fantasies, which does not hold up when I have broader discussions with them. 1) Often they seem rather cut off from their feelings. Up in their heads. 2) they seem quite gullible in their areas AND to have taken on many beliefs on faith or authority without noticing it.

In this thread I have been focusing on the selective ways I see this 'doing our best to minimize getting fooled' being applied by atheists. I used the notion of a 'self' as an example because I think this challenges most atheists comfort levels in ways that parallel how atheism challenges comfort levels in many theists.

But political naivte, sexism, racism and other myth believing seem to run along just peachy in atheist circles. They do not seem less immune to these things at least than the theists I know, admittedly perhaps a not so average group of theists.

What do you, a pagan, propose as the alternative, since you find both theists and atheists reprehensible? How should we really proceed to come to deeper, fundamental truths about ourselves?

Right here I am focusing on the smugness and the way in which theists are used by atheists as a projection screen. Understandibly given the history of monotheists, but nevertheless it strikes me as an avoidance, as I described above. Right here I am not focusing on alternatives. I am suggesting that atheists consider that perhaps they are not so rigorous when it comes to myths and beliefs they are fond of as they are asking theists to be about beliefs they are fond of. That rather than setting up a dynamic where the atheist sees himself as the banner holder of rationalism on the issue, it is probably vastly more useful to challenge themselves.

Of course they may be doing that also. You strike me as someone who would. My intuition is that the way the dynamics take place here and in my in-person contacts the dynamic a significant portion of atheists have in relation to theists is an ecological partner with avoiding self-challenge.

I understand that by the dictionary an atheist is simply someone who is unconvinced by what they see as a dearth or absence of evidence for God. Generally the latter. However in real life those who call themselves atheist tend to have certain qualities in common rather than simply an absence of a quality in common. I am reacting to these qualities.

 

[glaucon]

Not the Western ones contemporary with me. Bunch of Zen folks in there - no self. Traces back to Alan Watts, a lot of it (not Dawkins). ...

I'm not sure who you're reading then; almost all contemporary PI philosophers do grant primacy to the self.

Also, recognize that, even if once adopts an Eastern stance, the "no-self" is a goal; the object being to overcome the self. That being the case, that is an assertion to the existence of self.

 

[Gustav]

This Atheist's Lord's Prayer..

if original, kudos
an absolute hoot

 

[iceaura]

Also, recognize that, even if once adopts an Eastern stance, the "no-self" is a goal; the object being to overcome the self.

There are many ways of enlightenment, but adopting the overcoming of oneself as a goal is seldom recommended by the experienced - famous for leading the grasshopper astray.

I was jsut pointing out that Dawkins did not invent atheism, and there are other traditions of it, with quite different spokesmen, even in pop culture - Alan Watts being a famous example that came to mind.

 

[glaucon]

There are many ways of enlightenment, ...

I wasn't aware we were discussing enlightenment...

...
I was jsut pointing out that Dawkins did not invent atheism, and there are other traditions of it, with quite different spokesmen, even in pop culture - Alan Watts being a famous example that came to mind.

I'm wondering where you got the impression that someone thought Dawkins 'invented' atheism.

 

[Tnerb]

You misunderstand me: the Personal Identity question is an epistemological problem whereas god is not.

I wouldn't go that far glaucon

I'd say both of them are epistemological problems. God, being something of indifference, personal identity, post modernism.

There really isn't no such thing I'd say.

This refers back to my origonal post and thread I started out of this one (or before this one).

 

[glaucon]

I wouldn't go that far glaucon

I'd say both of them are epistemological problems. ...

Alas, it's not really a matter of opinion.

As an object of question, the ontological status of self is apparent. As to how one knows oneself and how well one knows oneself is a matter of investigation.

With respect to a god, first one must validly establish an assertive ontological status before one can analyze it epistemologically. Alas, the ontological status of 'god' is always undecidable.


In the end, the two objects of enquiry here are wholly different in nature. To say that both present a primarily epistemological problem is to make a Category Mistake.

...
God, being something of indifference, personal identity, post modernism.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Alas, it's not really a matter of opinion.

As an object of question, the ontological status of self is apparent.

A strong case could be made that the word self in that sentence is meaningless. That an arbritary portion of experience is being labeled self. This part of experience is self and these other 'things' are not. It may seem obvious that a self exists - just as to some mystics it seems obvious that a god exists and when asked will gesture around them - but this may not be the case.

Also just as the idea of God arose in history, so the idea of a self arose in history. At some point it gained an ontological status when a new habit of thinking started.

So it was with God or gods.

We are so used to the idea of self that it seems to have a positive ontological status and thus can be distinguished from God. Remember many mystics and other experience God. A god simply based on faith is a different case. It's ontological status is irrelevent, almost.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Also, recognize that, even if once adopts an Eastern stance, the "no-self" is a goal; the object being to overcome the self.

to overcome the illusion that there is a self. not having, but recognizing the 'no-self'. And it is not just easterners who put forward this idea. Philosophers who talk about the 'self qualia' are often not very supportive of the notion of a self. They often consider it a construct torn from experience. Just as we are not really in touch with the world and there is no 'red', for example, out there, so when we experience ourselves we are really deciding to label certain experiences that are not 'of' anything and label it 'me'.

I am only advocating this enough to get it on the table. I see trends amongst researchers in a number fields to think of the self as a construct and not a real thing, just as atheists see God as a construct. One difference is that quite a number of believers in God don't claim to have any experience of God. But there are a healthy number of others who do, to varying degrees. They see certain experiences as holy, of sense the presence, hand, voice of God. They see God in all things, whatever. Once you reach this level both theism and selfism are on a level playing field. Are these people experiencing something that has ontological status or are they constructing out of experiences an entity that does not really exist?

 

[glaucon]

A strong case could be made that the word self in that sentence is meaningless. That an arbritary portion of experience is being labeled self.
...

Also just as the idea of God arose in history, so the idea of a self arose in history. At some point it gained an ontological status when a new habit of thinking started.
...

We are so used to the idea of self that it seems to have a positive ontological status and thus can be distinguished from God....
...

It's ontological status is irrelevent, almost.

The case could be made, but it would be incorrect.

It is not a part of experience that is labeled as self, rather, self is the object of experience; the experiencer. Being the object of all experience, the self is not subject to experience, it is the locus thereof, and therefore anything but arbitrary.

We are used to the idea of self because it is unavoidable. A habit is a mental activity, and as such is the elective action of an agent. That agent is the self.

The self is a-historical, unlike god. A singular locus of experience is a necessity for any agent. Ontologically, the self is an a priori condition of sentience.

The conception of self is certain, whereas the concept of god is murky at best. Ultimately, regardless of how one chooses to define self, it is a conception that the individual cannot evade. The god notion is always differentiated from any human agent.

 

[glaucon]

... Philosophers who talk about the 'self qualia' are often not very supportive of the notion of a self. They often consider it a construct torn from experience. Just as we are not really in touch with the world and there is no 'red', for example, out there, so when we experience ourselves we are really deciding to label certain experiences that are not 'of' anything and label it 'me'.
...

One doesn't need to fall to the 'qualia' notion to disrupt the self concept.
And I wouldn't say a construct torn from experience, rather, one that experiences. I do indeed believe it to be a construct, but this hardly makes it arbitrary. A dynamic continuity is that which enables experience.

I would agree with the nominalist analysis, with the exception that in this case, there is no labeling. The word "self" merely exists in a linguistic functional sense. Without it, expressing the totality of your experience would be impossible.

Are these people experiencing something that has ontological status or are they constructing out of experiences an entity that does not really exist?

Neither.
The self cannot be experienced. Experience necessitates a self.