What made you find faith, or what turn against it?

[pixies+]

But you have to have an ontological faith of some sort, as an organism incapable of not having intellectual thought. I don't buy the idea that a person hasn't made up their mind, in the same way a person may claim to not have decided on a particular sexual orientation; whether they want to admit it or not, they swing closer to one explanation than another.

Not looking for an argument, honestly. Just pointing out that it doesn’t matter what you think someone should think. Because it’s not a debate. That’s all.

 

[paltatomate]

Belief is a choice. It's an act of creativity.

Interesting.

 

[-=SS=-]

Not looking for an argument, honestly. Just pointing out that it doesn’t matter what you think someone should think. Because it’s not a debate. That’s all.

The point remains, it is not possible for a person to not have any thoughts about the answer to the question of their own existence. You (we) are all here, now. You can't just dismiss that primacy of experience.

Whatever the explanation is, the particulars do not matter.. whether it be God, big bang, or something else. What I wanted to know from the two people who disagreed with my original statement is, what is it that they actually believe then about their own existence as atheists. They said they didn't believe in the neuronal activity or even the big bang theory, I was curious as to what their concept structure of existence actually is then.

 

[pixies+]

The point remains, it is not possible for a person to not have any thoughts about the answer to the question of their own existence. You (we) are all here, now. You can't just dismiss that primacy of experience.

Whatever the explanation is, the particulars do not matter.. whether it be God, big bang, or something else. What I wanted to know from the two people who disagreed with my original statement is, what is it that they actually believe then about their own existence as atheists. They said they didn't believe in the neuronal activity or even the big bang theory, I was curious as to what their concept structure of existence actually is then.

I apologize.
I see where you’re coming from

I was going to leave it at that..
But maybe it is possible?
I don’t know how other people think.

 

[paltatomate]

What I wanted to know from the two people who disagreed with my original statement is, what is it that they actually believe then about their own existence as atheists. They said they didn't believe in the neuronal activity or even the big bang theory, I was curious as to what their concept structure of existence actually is then.

As I identify as one of the people who mentioned both neuronal activity and big bang in one comment, I will gladly answer to your question. Just give me a day.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

When I originally responded to you I was referring to your assertions that non-believers believe in the haphazard or random. We do not. I'm not saying you're particularly religious but it IS a familiar approach used by Christians: "WE believe we have answers so you must too! You MUST" No, I don't. That's projecting.

What is your explanation for where/what the Universe is? And what is your explanation for how we construct the worldview we see?

Explanation... hmm. That's an interesting word. I'll say it again: This conversation hits so many dead ends because people can't even agree on certain foundational contexts, meanings, etc. Further evidence of this is the fact you think it's important that I or other atheists cannot "explain" what or where the universe is. If you're right that people can't have the absence of an ontological construct, you would also agree that that doesn't vindicate any particular religion or theory right?

Way earlier in this thread I lamented my view that humans have this unfortunate habit of letting the unknown drive them fucking crazy. We fill that void with a litany of bullshit. Forget religion for a second. Think about how this is the case in all walks of life. Way earlier I gave an example of the violent ocean and how locals completely pulled a tall-tale out of their asses to explain it. We'd prefer to make up BS "explanations" like that rather than simply say "I don't know". Not me. No matter how much someone insists I must believe in something because they do. Or no matter how much someone thinks I won't answer questions like "what happens when we die" or "where did the universe come from". It's not that I won't answer these questions. I can't.

You have to have considered an explanation for them.

I think this is a good time to reset. But when I say I'm an atheist I'm talking about the rejection of man-made bullshit. That includes specific doctrine, and specific orangized religions. I'll take the Bible, for example. I view God to be a violent, jealous, angry mass-murderer. If a PERSON behaved that way we'd all agree it's evil. Asparagus_Prince says: Fuck that shit. Even if I intellectually believed in an invisible God outside time and space, I would morally turn my back on that god.

I'm curious: With your beliefs are you referring to a particular, well-known god? Do you believe in Christianity and/or that Jesus was the son of God, for example? Or some other well-known religion?

Wondering about the universe's origins or how we came to be is a loose theological question that anyone from any religion, any era, any culture, could ask. Of course I could sit on the side of a mountain with you, look at the stars, and wax poetic about universal mysteries. It's fine to ask questions like that, I suppose, but too many people project and assume the questions are important for others because they're important to them.

Again, I don't want to speak for all atheists but most of us don't say "I do not exist" or "I know we came from nothing". I and many others simply say "I don't know and you don't either". I personally extend that a little further and try to live my life very much in touch with what I consider to be reality and the knowable. Even if there's an answer to how the universe came to be, you would agree that it might be unknowable due to our human cognitive limits, right? I suspect there's an intensely high likelihood of that. So I'm going to life my life, focus on what's in front of me, and not waste my time with distracting, impossible questions or believing in vindictive gods.

 

[-=SS=-]

I'm not saying you're particularly religious but it IS a familiar approach used by Christians.. I'm curious: When you refer to God are you referring to a particular, well-known god? Do you believe in the Christian God and/or believe Jesus was the son of God, for example? Or are you referring to something far more vague?

I wasn't really coming at this from a Christian angle at all - I'm not, never have or will be Christian, or any religious denomination.. I don't require any middleman between myself and the Truth, and I always try to encourage others to recognize that in themselves too.

Like I said to Pixies, it's not really about the particulars of anyone's beliefs I was getting at here, but more the point that I do not believe anyone can have an absence of some sort of an explanation for why they are. Besides the drive and curiosity for sex, humans have always held another curiosity, for the ineffable. It's what makes us humans and a step up in consciousness from the rest of the animal kingdom. The degree of self-reflection we possess. And like looking into a mirror of your own reflection, it isn't possible to not feel one way or another about what you see.

This is why I asked what you guys believed, as atheists. I just find it fascinating that anyone can be self-aware and not have any sort of feelings about it one way or the other, whether that be belief in the big bang or some other explanation for why any of this is.

As I said earlier in the thread, this is why I feel atheism generally takes far more faith than any religious belief. Essentially what it amounts to is trying to hold back the insane mystery of our own existence with one hand, while playing the (pointless) cultural game with the other, until death finally comes and forces you to make up your mind in what you actually believe. That takes a tremendous amount of faith to my mind.

Even if there's an answer to how the universe came to be, you would agree that it might be unknowable due to our human cognitive limits, right? I suspect there's an intensely high likelihood of that. So I'm going to life my life, focus on what's in front of me, and not waste my time with distracting, impossible questions or believing in vindictive gods.

From a purely materialistic scientific standpoint, perhaps. But that's the assumption we make in our current era, that these things have to be approached strictly through the intellect applying itself only to the material domain. The answer to such questions might not come through that door at all.

Say for instance, that science one day discovers some new information that shatters the big bang theory, that the Universe actually seems to be spatially and therefore also temporally infinite - the Steady State theory proposed this - what then? Science and purely intellectual reasoning will come to a dead end on the matter. However;

Thomas Aquinas said something along the lines of the finite mind will never perceive the infinite. Logically this is true. But, perhaps if there were say some infinite quality in ourselves (consciousness?) then there is the possibility of examining the question from through that door instead.

 

[paltatomate]

This is why I asked what you guys believed, as atheists. I just find it fascinating that anyone can be self-aware and not have any sort of feelings about it one way or the other, whether that be belief in the big bang or some other explanation for why any of this is.

I guess most people are too involved in mundane stuff all the time to really notice their feelings about things that don't shout out "special attention here, please!" If asked right away about what they believe in, they will come up with simple answers because they never really tried to find an answer for that question.

Some others had a point in their lives where they did ponder about God, or how our world came to be. It's a tricky questions that many gifted minds are still disputing over. So either one of those ideas resonates with you, then you become a believer in it. Or none does, and then you end up believing in nothing. Sometimes it's a mixture. People take parts of different belief systems and go with that.

I consider myself animistic, and like the Taoist ideas (the ancient, pre-Buddhidm ones). Esoterics and occultists would say I follow the left-hand path (breaking taboos rather than following social norms). And I'm a logical person who needs to rationalize things, and who has a very limited emotional range (I don't subjectively understand feelings like guilt, remorse, jealousy, or lust for revenge for example. Hate and anger are a waste of energy to me etc. )

All that means that I ended up with a very individual explanation of "why any of this is" and how it came to be. And I'm not done yet defining it.

 

[-=SS=-]

All that means that I ended up with a very individual explanation in why "any of this is" and how it came to be. And I'm not done yet defining it.

This to me is logical. It's the disinterest in attempting to even begin defining it that I just don't understand.

I don't know if what I've said is translating well. What Asparagus_Prince said, feeling that perhaps I was Christian and coming from that angle. It's seems difficult to dialogue on this stuff without giving the impression of attempting to ruffle feathers. I'm not on a mission to convert anyone.

I guess most people are too involved in mundane stuff all the time to really notice their feelings about things that don't shout out "special attention here, please!"

This is what I don't understand. The immediacy of your own subjective experience is the first thing about you, how can you not possibly have considered any explanation for it? Whether that be God, Taoist ideas, the modern scientific belief (it's all in the brain), or what have you. Like, I wouldn't expect a dog to have an explanation.. but as human beings, to be blunt, if you haven't then you're just half dead already lol. To find the mundane worthy of all your time, that you can't spend even a second on the question? I don't know.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

It's seems difficult to dialogue on this stuff without giving the impression of attempting to ruffle feathers. I'm not on a mission to convert anyone.

I agree wholeheartedly. I personally appreciate everyone who makes an attempt at genuine discussion.

 

[paltatomate]

To find the mundane worthy of all your time, that you can't spend even a second on the question? I don't know.

Unfortunately, not all are equipped or motivated enough to come up with those questions. Most people, though they might get some moments where they do ask them these kind of questions, feel overwhelmed by them. They are happy to follow someone else's ideas, or just go with the flow.

I know a lot of people who say they are Christian, and know all the basics about the bible, but never actually thought about it. They know when to kneel in church, when to say which prayer, but they do it because that's what they learned to do and that's all they need.

Should the question about how it all came to be arise, they will just rely on pre made answers they heard or read somewhere.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

I know a lot of people who say they are Christian, and know all the basics about the bible, but never actually thought about it. They know when to kneel in church, when to say which prayer, but they do it because that's what they learned to do and that's all they need.

They belong to a religion; but lack actual faith. I have personally met many, many like this.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

I wasn't really coming at this from a Christian angle at all - I'm not, never have or will be Christian, or any religious denomination.. I don't require any middleman between myself and the Truth, and I always try to encourage others to recognize that in themselves too.

You didn't answer my question about you. I didn't ask about a denomination or "middleman". I asked if you believe in a particular, well-known god or if Jesus is the son of god? It's not a trap. It's ok, you can trust me.

You're still asking about the absence of an explanation as though I didn't address this! It's like you didn't even read my post which is going to cause me to cry myself to sleep tonight. Do you not realize how much love I put into it? Talk about ghosted! lol.

But seriously, do you really think I didn't address this? Re-read my last paragraph in that post again. I'm happy to speak about my views but I'm wondering if your questions are preconceived and perhaps intended for the atheism community as a whole? I'm guessing you don't like to be lumped in with other people either. Which is possibly evidenced by you bringing up the "denomination" thing.

This can be such a semantic mud-wrestling match sometimes. Faith, believing... these words keep getting thrown around but probably mean different things to different people. But for you can we focus on the word "explanation" for a moment? I mean, do you mean definitively? Is "theory" close enough? Or could the term "any casual thought" be used interchangeably with explanation? And you asked "why" we are here, but could I suggest that feels a bit presumptuous and that "how" we are here might be more apt.

You might think "I don't know" is a bullshit response or assume that means I haven't thought about a certain something. But I'm all about "I don't know" when we don't know. You've kinda got to meet people where they're at, SS. Besides, I think the word "answer" works better than "explanation". Because my answer is "I don't know". That IS an answer whether you accept it or not. Asking me for an explanation is like asking a Christian for proof. Many of them will tell you it's a BS question because it's not about proof. It's about faith or a feeling, as someone said earlier in this thread.

And it almost seems like you're equating the absence of self-reflection with the absence of an explanation. Surely you're not because that'd be absurd and you seem intelligent enough. I suppose. But I'm curious if it's just me or if it feels that way to others, too. It almost seems like you're saying: "SURELY you've thought about this but you're pretending you haven't. You HAVE an explanation but you're withholding". If I'm way off the mark then dumb it down for me. But you're the one that doesn't "buy" the idea that a person hasn't made up their mind. Really? So... we're faking it to prove a point?

And I'm not sure why you brought up the thing about the Big Bang theory to me, either. Is there something I've said that makes you think I put a great deal of faith in astrophysics or cosmology? Atheists are often more likely on the side of the science, but many of us don't do a very good job of accusing critics for conflating the two too much. I personally am relatively disinterested in scientific discoveries regarding our origins and I said so earlier in this thread.

I can't speak for every atheist or every anecdotal theory that comes from some a scientist or atheist author. This is not a religion and they are not my leaders. But what I'm trying to tell you is that, for me, atheism is about not having to explain things. If you understand that then perhaps subsequently you'll understand why it doesn't take "tremendous amounts of faith" to hold it up, either. It takes zero faith for me. You can suppose and imagine all you want, but that's largely why I am where I am: It's easy. I expend virtually zero energy on atheism and rarely think about it anymore, despite what it might seem like in this thread (lol). I suppose I'd be ok with canceling the word atheism itself and referring to my views as the "easy-going way".

 

[-=SS=-]

You didn't answer my question about you; I asked if you believe in a particular, well-known god or if Jesus is the son of god?

I did say I'm not a Christian; I think Jesus and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. I think the story of Jesus, as a person who developed some peculiar occult ability and/or illumination, is actually real but he may have gone under another name (and possibly another time too), and that Rome/RC Church co-opted it for its own benefit. As for my concept of God.. not in the sense of any of the major religions, but it would be most closely aligned to the Hindu concept of the Atman-Brahman.. an impersonal Absolute that we as individuals are a direct part of.

And I'm not sure why you brought up the thing about the Big Bang theory to me, either. Is there something I've said that makes you think I put a great deal of faith in astrophysics or cosmology?

Well typically, as you say, atheists accept the main tenets of 20th century science, such as the big bang, and it forms the cornerstone of their (non) beliefs about the Universe.. despite it and the other tenets like evolution still only being theory and not fact. I only bought up that theory, and the neural activity of the brain, again in relation to the point about ontology and how a self-aware human being must have considered, must lean, towards a certain explanation or other for his own existence and that of space.

I just do not accept the notion that one can't. And to be more explicit, I think they are in denial for one reason or another - see next point;

But what I'm trying to tell you is that, for me, atheism is about not having to explain things. If you understand that then perhaps subsequently you'll understand why it doesn't take "tremendous amounts of faith" to hold it up, either.

I could have outlined this earlier on but didn't want to leap to it, but now I do have state it. That is, the impression all atheists give off to me is that of deferring explanation, and the reason I believe that is so is because it forms part of a rationalization for behaviour. Not being beholden to any ideas regarding ontological explanations at all, renders one complete intellectual and moral freedom.. but not freedom from their own psychology. Particularly when it comes to pleasure, and the subsequent rationalizations formed around maintaining the conditions for it.

Also, I disagree. I think it takes a tremendous amount of faith to hold your position. To be aware, self-reflective, to apparently see a world before you of incredible complexity and brilliance, and to not have any kind of feeling towards it one way or another in regards to its ontology. To be somewhat indifferent towards even attempting to think through an explanation for it.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

Also, I disagree. I think it takes a tremendous amount of faith to hold your position.

Hey, I first want to say I've enjoyed the talk and I hope you don't think I'm considering this contentious or whatever. You said something about "ruffling feathers" earlier and it's not easy to ruffle my feathers. I know you weren't necessarily referring to me. But I try to have fun on message boards like this one. I've had a lot of experience on MBs over the years and I've learned to not take them too seriously and have a little fun.

However, (lol) you have me banging my head against the wall with repeated assumptions like the one I quoted above. And that's because you continually insist on defining other people's positions your way. I and many others say "I don't know" and your response seems to be "Not possible. You've made up your mind." What?!?! Over a matter as complicated as this? That's not only arrogantly presumptuous, it is ridiculous and surely you know that. I think you're the one that's in denial.

I'm sure you've concluded "I don't know" about thousands of matters in your life. Seems you think it's off-limits for this particular subject though. I would argue it should be an expected answer for especially this subject. It doesn't mean people haven't wondered or given it thought. But that's not good enough for you. An explanation about the unknowable must ensue.

 

[-=SS=-]

I'm sure you've concluded "I don't know" about thousands of matters in your life. Seems you think it's off-limits for this particular subject though. I would argue it should be an expected answer for especially this subject. It doesn't mean people haven't wondered or given it thought. But that's not good enough for you. An explanation about the unknowable must ensue.

Just because something is unknowable in an intellectual sense doesn't preclude one from having feelings, intuitions, about the matter though. My point is that at an inherently fundamental level, as a human beings, it is just not possible to not swing slightly in one direction or another on this particular subject matter. I don't buy the protestations from those who say they don't, because it is a peculiar feature of this level of self-awareness that we possess as human beings. Besides the drive for sex, the drive for the approaching the unknowable is arguably the most common trait of humanity going back as far as we know. There isn't a single culture devoid of it, and for most it is the nexus that defines and binds it together.

It's not a demand for a fully fledged explanation. I mean if I asked someone to accurately define what 'love' is who could accomplish that, from a purely rational intellectual standpoint? Yet we all feel it has some quality, a reality to it, and we at least acknowledge its existence. You could argue there may be unfortunate souls who have lived such a tragic tortured life that they never have felt love in any respect, but for the subjective experience of our own immediate subjective experience itself.. by definition if you are here then you know it, it is inescapable.

You said something about "ruffling feathers" earlier and it's not easy to ruffle my feathers... However, (lol) you have me banging my head against the wall with repeated assumptions like the one I quoted above. And that's because you continually insist on defining other people's positions your way.

But what have I actually insisted? I haven't demanded conformity to the particulars of any explanation for any particular area, whether that be one must believe in the big bang, a God with three eyes, or what have you.

Let me pose a question to you. Given the above statement, that my position is more about asserting that there is a question you (atheists generally) refuse to confront, do you not think that the irritation I have caused is precisely because I have exposed this chink in the intellectual armour and put a finger on that spot in your mind? That spot, some part of you, that knows exactly what I'm referring to (and perhaps even agrees)?

Hey, I first want to say I've enjoyed the talk and I hope you don't think I'm considering this contentious or whatever.

It's an open discussion. We're not forcing obedience or denigrating each other. Just two minds asserting what they feel as best they can

 

[Nas47]

Yes-miracles...i had it in my life not once,things beyond logic and reason....and i am a very grounded man,test eveything and talk only about personal experience.....The Enemy brings me to Faith....Faith is no static.....i loose it very often.i doubt....like everyone else...but in the end faith remains...what else?

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

. Given the above statement, that my position is more about asserting that there is a question you (atheists generally) refuse to confront, do you not think that the irritation I have caused is precisely because I have exposed this chink in the intellectual armour and put a finger on that spot in your mind?

No, and it's because of statements like this and using the word "refuse" presumptuously. I and many others have thought about it, or "confront" it as you say. And that has brought us to a conclusion of "I don't know". Not "I don't know because I avoid thinking about it or I'm incapable of thinking about it".

 

[-=SS=-]

Well look, I'm not going to say what I perhaps feel like saying at this point because it would serve no productive purpose. All I will say in closing on our dialogue is, look back at what you wrote in regards to Christianity (where you guessed that was perhaps what I was), the passion behind it, and the blind nature of that assertion. It's not exactly original thinking; I've seen that same sentiment expressed a hundred times before by others, and it betrays what atheism is really.. and the ultimately hollow nature of it.

Atheism is a temporary destination. It takes faith to stay there.

 

[Foreigner]

I come from the nondual school on this one. Real/unreal, true/untrue, dual/nondual and all binaries are mental constructs, really convincing ones. The mind can't actually know the truth of reality because the mind itself is a construct that comes and goes. You see it readily if you practice meditation. Everything being argued about in this thread simply dissolves into pure consciousness. Stripped of the activities of mind, there is still consciousness. What's that about?

So I don't particularly care about whether God is real or not... I care about who is asking the question. What's the point of playing these mind games when the mind that thinks it knows is constantly changing. You fall asleep at night and this "philosopher" version of you is completely gone, into seeming oblivion, only for a dream-world to project where you are concerned about other seemingly-real things like flying, fighting imaginary enemies, or walking through dreamscapes as somebody other than "yourself." Then sleep ends, you open these eyes, and this world manifests... with this apparent you who has a mind, and oh... I have a name, gender, physical form, and I believe XYZ.

Part of my existential despair is that I see humans going from one story to another, clinging endlessly to narratives, while not realizing that the narratives are all fabrications. Every single one of them. Even the words I'm using to write this are kind of bullshit.

Watching two egos debate over whether God is real or not is as trivial to me as watching two characters on a movie screen fight about their fictitious relationship. Suddenly the movie is over, the projector is turned off, the lights turn up, and oh... we're back "here" again. That's why rationalists on the one hand amuse me but on the other bore me. Using the intervention of mind to get at the truth is like trying to bail water out of the ocean. It's like those movie screen characters fighting with all their might to be real, until they are silenced by the power switch.

Eventually AI is going to be complex enough to perfectly mimic these human arguments. They will get really convincing. I wonder if bystanders will put two and two together by then? Probably not.

At the very least everyone should learn to meditate, at least for a few months of their lives. Learn to 1) observe the activities of mind 2) shut off the mind completely to experience emptiness/pure consciousness.

That is the truth and it's so simple.