Why I chose Atheism.

[aaqucnaona]

I already recounted the how of my atheism here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111277

But this post induced me to create a thread explaining the why:

aaqucnaona,I read your journey; however, it's not clear why you chose atheism over theism. Can you add some details on that?

And the answer is:

I chose it because its the only position sustainable with a mindset of scientism,scientific sceptism, absurdism, naturalism, empiricism, sophisticism and xenomorphism [the last two of which will be explained in a new thread soon].

This is a mindset that naturally follows from that journey and its a mindset which I consider to be worth having, its something I prefer over a mystical, wishful, supernatural, illogical, irrational, anthropocentric worldview which, if not necessarily comes with theism, atleast is the mental niche in which theism can exist. That is, even if a person belongs to the first worldview [which I mentioned in the first para], his theism can only exist under a veil of the second worldview.

So you see, it was not a simple choice of a belief - it was a choice between two massive paradigms.

Ps. This post is from this discussion [#46]:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2883633&posted=1#post2883633

PPS. My views on sophisticism and xenomorphism:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111813

Any thoughts?

 

[aaqucnaona]

My further conversation:

Why does that sustainability matter to you?

It does because in its absence, the main [if not the only] alternative is the second view I described, which I dont prefer.

What's driving that preference for you?

The practicality and utlitarianism of my prefered view is the primary reason.
Think about it [View 2 in Italics, View 1 in Bold]:

Mystical - Its mysterious, not understood, often useless. On the other hand,
Scientism - Strange and hard to understand, maybe, but it can be understood and helps understand the world. It has real uses, it can get us to the moon, mystics can only tell us the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking.

Wishful thinking - dangerous and harmful at worst, useless and wasteful most of the time at the least.
Scientific Scepticism - difficult, saddening at times, but extremely useful, prevents the harms of wishful thinking, provides a good filter for facts.

Supernatural - No reason to believe it except that it may help us if true. I sometimes combine it with wishful thinking.
Absurdism, Naturalism - Builds on Scientism and scepticism, paves the way for empiricism, forms the core of this paradigm.

Illogical, Irrational thinking - Pretty much in the same line as wishful thinking, but it may help as being soothing, comforting, etc. Its a helpful placebo and isnt entirely rejected.
Empiricism - Central insistence on reality is extremely helpful, though sometimes difficult. The Scientism of this view ensures it is constanly bombarded with [and survives] scepticism, which is a good indicator of its worth.

Anthropocentric worldview - Useful personally but totally inapproriate on a grand scale. Colors and baises a large amount of our decisions and causes a lot of mystical, wishful, illogical and irrational thinking. It is the larger cocoon in which the rest of the paradigm resides.
Sophisticism and Xenomorphism - Its a good alternative, forms the groundwork for the rest of its paradigm.

So you see, the preference is due to a consideration of its constituent ideologies, rejecting or accepting them on the basis of how much practical use they have.

Anyone, any thoughts?

 

[wynn]

Do you find my choice to be proper ?

Anyone, any thoughts?

Whom are you talking to?
Who do you think your audience is?


I ask because what we think often has to do with whom we are trying to present ourselves and our ideas to, even if that audience is only implied in our mind.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Whom are you talking to?
Who do you think your audience is?


I ask because what we think often has to do with whom we are trying to present ourselves and our ideas to, even if that audience is only implied in our mind.

Its you and jan and schez and fraggle and aqueous plus all the rest of the sciforumers - I want an opinion of everyone that reads this post.
Btw, I mentioned those people because they are the ones with whom I have conversed the most.

 

[scheherazade]

For what it may be worth, I have arrived at my current level of cynicism by means of elimination. (Cynic - "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision.")

I entertain all notions as having some potential until they prove themselves to be in error, preferably more than once, to eliminate perception bias.

Hence, I do not believe in 'magic', although I have enjoyed through experience the sensation of 'magical'.

The constructs of our minds on occasion become integrated with those constructs which are external to ourselves and from such experiences much confusion arises when we attempt to communicate and compare the world as each of us perceives it.

We experience life. We also perceive ourselves experiencing life and it then only follows that we conjecture beyond the event horizon of life.

 

[wynn]

Its you and jan and schez and fraggle and aqueous plus all the rest of the sciforumers - I want an opinion of everyone that reads this post.
Btw, I mentioned those people because they are the ones with whom I have conversed the most.

Then you'll be rather confused by their opinions, as the people you mention, and others who post here, hold rather different stances.

What do you hope to accomplish by other people providing you their views of your choice of atheism?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Then you'll be rather confused by their opinions, as the people you mention, and others who post here, hold rather different stances.

I hope you realise what a massive blow you have just dealt to your own credibility regarding your objectivity and open mindedness.
So, people with different ideas that yours are confusing, not potentially enriching? If someone holds a different stance, should you not try and understand it and take in the helpful or good parts of their thinking? Come on wynn, dont advocate protectionism of ideas. Ideas must to exposed to the harsh reality of sceptism and cynism of others and only those who survive should be accepted. Otherwise you would belive in the tooth fairy and santa claus.

What do you hope to accomplish by other people providing you their views of your choice of atheism?

I hope to get and understand other people's thoughts on things I hold to be central to my mindset. I hope to examine and test those things and see if they are worth of the importance I bestow them.

 

[aaqucnaona]

For what it may be worth, I have arrived at my current level of cynicism by means of elimination. (Cynic - "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision.")

I do share your scepticism, but if you are using cynicism in the usual [A cynic is someone who looks for a coffin when she smells roses] sense [which you are not], I would disagree. I hold my post glass smashing view to be optimistic scepticism. [The enemy might have only arrows. I might be protected by god. They may be asleep. My scepticism says no to each of those, so just in case, I take a tank with me].

I entertain all notions as having some potential until they prove themselves to be in error, preferably more than once, to eliminate perception bias.

Words worth their bytes in gold.

The constructs of our minds on occasion become integrated with those constructs which are external to ourselves and from such experiences much confusion arises when we attempt to communicate and compare the world as each of us perceives it.

Can you please elaborate this [and explain your cynicism]?

We experience life. We also perceive ourselves experiencing life and it then only follows that we conjecture beyond the event horizon of life.

Agreed. If only people would realise that conjectures dont become true just because we may want them to be so.

 

[wynn]

I hope you realise what a massive blow you have just dealt to your own credibility regarding your objectivity and open mindedness.

Lol. In your mind.

So, people with different ideas that yours are confusing, not potentially enriching?

If one relies on other people for one's own sense of credibility, objectivity and open-mindedness, then one will likely be confused, yes.

If someone holds a different stance, should you not try and understand it and take in the helpful or good parts of their thinking?

Come on wynn, dont advocate protectionism of ideas. Ideas must to exposed to the harsh reality of sceptism and cynism of others and only those who survive should be accepted. Otherwise you would belive in the tooth fairy and santa claus.

I think there is a lot more to "exposing one's ideas to the criticism of others" than you mention here. Namely -

I hope to get and understand other people's thoughts on things I hold to be central to my mindset. I hope to examine and test those things and see if they are worth of the importance I bestow them.

IOW, you already operate with an internal set of standards of what is true or acceptable.

You might as well directly clarify that set of standards, and not have to spend time on figuring it out implicitly via discussion with others.


Other people's skepticism or cynicism about one's ideas do not necessarily mean anything about the validity of those ideas.
One can face enormous opposition, but that still doesn't mean that the opposition is right.

One's ideas that survive other people's negativity are precisely those one has managed to protect against said negativity.
But the means of protecting them may not always be skillful. For example, if one protects one's ideas against other people's negativity by contempt for other people, this will, eventually, backfire.

 

[wynn]

I entertain all notions as having some potential until they prove themselves to be in error, preferably more than once, to eliminate perception bias.

How do notions "prove themselves to be in error"?

Is it not you yourself who considers them to be in error?


IOW, you are externalizing verification, as if you yourself and your values and beliefs would play no role in it.

 

[aaqucnaona]

If one relies on other people for one's own sense of credibility, objectivity and open-mindedness, then one will likely be confused, yes.

No one exists in a vacuum, wynn. We all need to rely on other people. In my case the reliance is only in that other people are a source of new ideas and thoughts. These thoughts are not what I think, they are what I consider whether or not to incorporate in my thoughts.

I think there is a lot more to "exposing one's ideas to the criticism of others" than you mention here. Namely -




IOW, you already operate with an internal set of standards of what is true or acceptable.

You might as well directly clarify that set of standards, and not have to spend time on figuring it out implicitly via discussion with others.


Other people's skepticism or cynicism about one's ideas do not necessarily mean anything about the validity of those ideas.
One can face enormous opposition, but that still doesn't mean that the opposition is right.

One's ideas that survive other people's negativity are precisely those one has managed to protect against said negativity.
But the means of protecting them may not always be skillful. For example, if one protects one's ideas against other people's negativity by contempt for other people, this will, eventually, backfire.

So your point is?

 

[wynn]

We'll see how things work out for you.

 

[Jack1941]

Listen for that soft and subtle voice

Your statement is so informative I don’t know where to start a response. So I will begin by introducing myself, along with a declaration of my value system. I am Jack, For a period of time I thought that I was an agnostic. But in looking back I can see that I was just being lazy, and trying to avoid an in depth inquiry into my value system. I had grown up in the realm of Catholicism. Both my parents and educators were part of the system. Educated in the Catholic school system, I was versed on the teachings of the Bible and associated books. Even though I had read the Bible, I understood very little of it. But I could puke it out on command. Being quite content in my agnostic prison I existed through the years. But never lived. One day I was sitting on my deck and two young missionary’s stoped by and asked if they could join me. I am not sure why, but I said yes and opened my heart by actually paying attention to what they had to say. We discussed several issues, and then the Holy Ghost popped up. I mentioned that I was familiar with the Holy Trinity, but I never understood the Holy Ghost, and asked them to explain it to me. I was shocked by their answer: “Why don’t you ask him to explain himself”? So I did. Then I really received a shock. The Holy Ghost answered. I have maintained a close relationship with the Holy Ghost, and I have been guided by him in so many ways that I can’t relate them all to you. I was Baptized within three months, and within a year I held the keys of High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. I know that our Heavenly Father is the one and only God, and I wish I could show you all of the blessings that he can bestow upon you. I hope that someday you too will listen to the Holy Ghost.

 

[Jack1941]

My further conversation:



It does because in its absence, the main [if not the only] alternative is the second view I described, which I dont prefer.



The practicality and utlitarianism of my prefered view is the primary reason.
Think about it [View 2 in Italics, View 1 in Bold]:

Mystical - Its mysterious, not understood, often useless. On the other hand,
Scientism - Strange and hard to understand, maybe, but it can be understood and helps understand the world. It has real uses, it can get us to the moon, mystics can only tell us the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking.

Wishful thinking - dangerous and harmful at worst, useless and wasteful most of the time at the least.
Scientific Scepticism - difficult, saddening at times, but extremely useful, prevents the harms of wishful thinking, provides a good filter for facts.

Supernatural - No reason to believe it except that it may help us if true. I sometimes combine it with wishful thinking.
Absurdism, Naturalism - Builds on Scientism and scepticism, paves the way for empiricism, forms the core of this paradigm.

Illogical, Irrational thinking - Pretty much in the same line as wishful thinking, but it may help as being soothing, comforting, etc. Its a helpful placebo and isnt entirely rejected.
Empiricism - Central insistence on reality is extremely helpful, though sometimes difficult. The Scientism of this view ensures it is constanly bombarded with [and survives] scepticism, which is a good indicator of its worth.

Anthropocentric worldview - Useful personally but totally inapproriate on a grand scale. Colors and baises a large amount of our decisions and causes a lot of mystical, wishful, illogical and irrational thinking. It is the larger cocoon in which the rest of the paradigm resides.
Sophisticism and Xenomorphism - Its a good alternative, forms the groundwork for the rest of its paradigm.

So you see, the preference is due to a consideration of its constituent ideologies, rejecting or accepting them on the basis of how much practical use they have.

Anyone, any thoughts?

When your heart flushes with warm contentment you know you are listening to the Holy Ghost. Good luck, you need only to ask him, he can answer any question from any subject. Your heart will tell you it is true.

 

[Jack1941]

Whom are you talking to?
Who do you think your audience is?


I ask because what we think often has to do with whom we are trying to present ourselves and our ideas to, even if that audience is only implied in our mind.

aaqucnaona is asking her soul to light her path and open the window of understanding.

 

[Jack1941]

open

For what it may be worth, I have arrived at my current level of cynicism by means of elimination. (Cynic - "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision.")

I entertain all notions as having some potential until they prove themselves to be in error, preferably more than once, to eliminate perception bias.

Hence, I do not believe in 'magic', although I have enjoyed through experience the sensation of 'magical'.

The constructs of our minds on occasion become integrated with those constructs which are external to ourselves and from such experiences much confusion arises when we attempt to communicate and compare the world as each of us perceives it.

We experience life. We also perceive ourselves experiencing life and it then only follows that we conjecture beyond the event horizon of life.

Open you heart, your mind will follow.

 

[Jack1941]

open your heart

How do notions "prove themselves to be in error"?

Is it not you yourself who considers them to be in error?


IOW, you are externalizing verification, as if you yourself and your values and beliefs would play no role in it.

If you open your heart instead of your mouth your mind receives the benefits

 

[arauca]

I already recounted the how of my atheism here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111277

But this post induced me to create a thread explaining the why:


And the answer is:

I chose it because its the only position sustainable with a mindset of scientism,scientific sceptism, absurdism, naturalism, empiricism, sophisticism and xenomorphism [the last two of which will be explained in a new thread soon].

This is a mindset that naturally follows from that journey and its a mindset which I consider to be worth having, its something I prefer over a mystical, wishful, supernatural, illogical, irrational, anthropocentric worldview which, if not necessarily comes with theism, atleast is the mental niche in which theism can exist. That is, even if a person belongs to the first worldview [which I mentioned in the first para], his theism can only exist under a veil of the second worldview.

So you see, it was not a simple choice of a belief - it was a choice between two massive paradigms.

Ps. This post is from this discussion [#46]:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2883633&posted=1#post2883633

PPS. My views on sophisticism and xenomorphism:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111813

Any thoughts?

Why are you preaching your religion, I particularly don;t give a bull manure , that us your business

 

[spidergoat]

When your heart flushes with warm contentment you know you are listening to the Holy Ghost. Good luck, you need only to ask him, he can answer any question from any subject. Your heart will tell you it is true.

What if you have that feeling and it's not theistic?
Are you a Mormon then?

 

[gmilam]

When your heart flushes with warm contentment you know you are listening to the Holy Ghost.

Listening to Pink Floyd usually does it for me. Especially the 71 - 77 era.