Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)

[Nile577]

We must be careful when we talk about Neitzsche and 'truth,' if we mean by that a notion of objective truth. In Nietzsche's thought, if truth is negative for life, one should be wise enough to know that he does not want to know it.

I am wary of atheism because I feel it severs man from a sense of meaning in his life. All too often it seems to follow that, in the LaVeyan tradition, because there is no God (and therefore no 'laws') hedonism, self-centred acquisition and the devaluing or blatant disregard of posterity are acceptable or desirable responses. Atheism can lead to the meaninglessness of gesture.

Atheism often takes no stock of man's perspective in the universe unless it bristles with the disguised scientific asceticism of 'we are irrelevant.' In my view, a correct contextualisation of atheism leads to pantheism (the belief that the universe is - for all purposes - God). I class myself a pantheist in that I recognise that the universe determines the values inherent to my existence - my temporal window, my genetics, my location – and, within this window of potential, it is my 'duty,' as part of the universe, to achieve as much as I am able. A pantheist celebrates the wider processes of life as beautiful in themselves and considers the holistic existence of the Earth as being 'sacred' for the fact that it IS. It is false to say that man is irrelevant. We have exactly as much relevance in the universe as the universe dictates.

 

[Øjeblikket]

We must be careful when we talk about Neitzsche and 'truth,' if we mean by that a notion of objective truth. In Nietzsche's thought, if truth is negative for life, one should be wise enough to know that he does not want to know it.

I am wary of atheism because I feel it severs man from a sense of meaning in his life. All too often it seems to follow that, in the LaVeyan tradition, because there is no God (and therefore no 'laws') hedonism, self-centred acquisition and the devaluing or blatant disregard of posterity are acceptable or desirable responses. Atheism can lead to the meaninglessness of gesture.

Atheism often takes no stock of man's perspective in the universe unless it bristles with the disguised scientific asceticism of 'we are irrelevant.' In my view, a correct contextualisation of atheism leads to pantheism (the belief that the universe is - for all purposes - God). I class myself a pantheist in that I recognise that the universe determines the values inherent to my existence - my temporal window, my genetics, my location – and, within this window of potential, it is my 'duty,' as part of the universe, to achieve as much as I am able. A pantheist celebrates the wider processes of life as beautiful in themselves and considers the holistic existence of the Earth as being 'sacred' for the fact that it IS. It is false to say that man is irrelevant. We have exactly as much relevance in the universe as the universe dictates.

so, how do we determine what is self-centered acquisition and what is achieving as much as one is able? In what way can we determine that (alleged) distinction has been made without baiting the athiest's regurgitation instincts by inundating the lyric with the championing of Godliness or "divine intervention"? We should keep our heads at all costs.

 

[Nile577]

so, how do we determine what is self-centered acquisition and what is achieving as much as one is able? In what way can we determine that (alleged) distinction has been made without baiting the athiest's regurgitation instincts by inundating the lyric with the championing of Godliness or "divine intervention"? We should keep our heads at all costs.

Good questions.

If it is allowed that there are two kinds of love - 1 - love of object, person or self; 2 - love of the wider processes of life, independent of self-fortune - self-centred acquisition would be an example of the first, whereas by 'achieving as much as one is able (qualitatively)' I implied the second.

That is, I think behaviour should be modified by a recognition of its universal context. Self-centred acquisition for its own sake is an example of the will-to-will. It is my belief that the best path in life is to reconcile self-need with the wider processes of life so that the mixed fortunes of existence are seen as (dionysiacally) beautiful and, as far as possible, the health and posterity of the planet champions over individual needs, 'rights' or qualms.

I think the 'divinity' of the universe and the questionability of that term to an atheist is a semantic game. Nature is 'God' of the disclosing consciousness in that we awaken into life and arrange our Being as Being-towards-death. Nature suggests a protocol for life. On a simple level: live 'badly' (poor food, poor health, poor exercise, low intelligence, low wisdom) and you are more likely to be 'punished' by death/illness/inability; continue to pollute and it is likely that global warming (a process of the universe) will render the planet inhospitable to humans.

If you will forgive a little repetition, I will quote my post from a thread on 'selfishness,' since it better articulates my point.

Selfishness might be defined as having a self-interest in ego-gratification. If this is the underlying motive for all behaviour, fine, but that does not mean that all actions resulting from it are of equal worth. Those which focus on LaVeyan indulgence - i.e. 'fuck posterity, I need to have sex, eat and pleasure myself here and now' - are parasitic and would be removed from any sane society. They lack philosophical, evolutionary (reciprocal altruism can be accounted for by viewing evolutionary processes on a gene-based level - see Richard Dawkin's ‘The Selfish Gene&#8217 and cultural consideration. I think it is essential to reconcile one's self interest to the larger inherent, universal conditions of existence and live a life in which both self and the eternal are valued. In this way, the locus of the ego is not the vapid transience of hedonism but the eternal idealism of Nietzsche, Evola, Heidegger and Blake. When honourable acts are conducted as a result of Romantic, cosmic 'love', in which the wider processes of life are revered independently of personal fortune, the gratification is not simply for the ego but, at a far deeper level, the process of being alive in itself.

Beethoven, Newton & Da Vinci lived lives in which the seat of indulgence was eternal, not carnal. Their achievements eclipse anything accomplished in bed or at table and their concomitant ‘ego-gratification’ sang, if you'll excuse a little flowery prose, with the hymns of the universe, not the venal sighs of an AIDS ridden whore.

 

[jojoNZ]

I don't believe in any Gods now, and my family are all Buddhists so i grew up with those kinds of beliefs. I try not to talk about religion a lot, because i have both Bhuddism and Atheism ideas.

To me, i don't see the point in it. You can pray as much as you want for something, like for someone who is terminally ill to get better, but their life isn't in the hands of 'God', more like the treatment they get from medicines and doctors.

 

[Norsemaiden]

from www.abrupt.com

 

[Øjeblikket]

Nature suggests a protocol for life
.

Survival is Nature's protocol. Consider that bad, natural things happen to people living "good" lives. The Universal context is that survival dictates an obligation only to skirt death. Survival lays no precedence on feeding poorer countries.

 

[OldScratch]

Good questions.

If it is allowed that there are two kinds of love - 1 - love of object, person or self; 2 - love of the wider processes of life, independent of self-fortune - self-centred acquisition would be an example of the first, whereas by 'achieving as much as one is able (qualitatively)' I implied the second.

That is, I think behaviour should be modified by a recognition of its universal context. Self-centred acquisition for its own sake is an example of the will-to-will. It is my belief that the best path in life is to reconcile self-need with the wider processes of life so that the mixed fortunes of existence are seen as (dionysiacally) beautiful and, as far as possible, the health and posterity of the planet champions over individual needs, 'rights' or qualms.

I think the 'divinity' of the universe and the questionability of that term to an atheist is a semantic game. Nature is 'God' of the disclosing consciousness in that we awaken into life and arrange our Being as Being-towards-death. Nature suggests a protocol for life. On a simple level: live 'badly' (poor food, poor health, poor exercise, low intelligence, low wisdom) and you are more likely to be 'punished' by death/illness/inability; continue to pollute and it is likely that global warming (a process of the universe) will render the planet inhospitable to humans.

If you will forgive a little repetition, I will quote my post from a thread on 'selfishness,' since it better articulates my point.

It would seem you are playing the very semantic game you mention(unless I have misread your intent). If the universe and nature is "God" then count me among the 'faithful.' But surely theism or atheism for that matter, in the context of this(or similar) discussion, is a belief(or lack thereof) in mystical, higher beings, powers and the like who lord over mankind, intercede in life's 'trials and tribulations' and pass judgement upon the wicked, etc.
Holding a reverence for or communion with Nature, as the life-giver(creator), and an irresistible force that will "punish" you for your foibles and follies(as noted above) is not a religious or theistic worldview, but reasoned, realistic one that requires the acknowledgement of no 'Divinity.'

 

[judas69]

Survival is Nature's protocol. Consider that bad, natural things happen to people living "good" lives. The Universal context is that survival dictates an obligation only to skirt death. Survival lays no precedence on feeding poorer countries.

Nature neither favours survival, nor rejects it. Survival is not the goal of nature or evolution.

 

[Seditious]

I will quote my post from a thread on 'selfishness,' since it better articulates my point.

good read brother!

 

[Seditious]

It would seem you are playing the very semantic game you mention
If the universe and nature is "God" then count me among the 'faithful.' But surely theism or atheism for that matter, in the context of this(or similar) discussion, is a belief(or lack thereof) in mystical, higher beings, powers and the like who lord over mankind, intercede in life's 'trials and tribulations' and pass judgement upon the wicked, etc.

right on the button dude. I had earlier decided not to bother reply to anything of that nature (not related to the philosophy of religion).


writing earlier on today I touched on that point about dissociating the word from its meaning-- 'If I call the slice of toast in my hand God, nobody is going to debate about the existence of God with me.'

 

[Horus]

Atheists identified as America's most distrusted minority

 

[Nile577]

Survival is Nature's protocol. Consider that bad, natural things happen to people living "good" lives. The Universal context is that survival dictates an obligation only to skirt death. Survival lays no precedence on feeding poorer countries.

I think nature affords the potential for more than survival. I'm with Bergson - evolution can happen in aesthetic as well as biological realms. We possess developed cognitive ability, allowing us to not only survive but CREATE. As Nietzsche recognised: 'only as an aesthetic phenomenon is the world justified.'

 

[Nile577]

Yes, I believe in the divinity of the universe and its ability to influence mortal lives and I meditate, 'pray' to and worship nature daily.

I think reasoned atheism is an insufficient paradigm through which to understand existence. I am sceptical of Dawkins because I do not think he understands the full implications of his postulations. Some form of spiritual relationship with the infinite - in the tradition of Emerson, Heidegger, Vedic thought etc - is, in my view, essential and is a howling lacuna in his thought.

The reasons it is essential?

1 - Humans experience existence through the filter of consciousness and hence attach emotional judgements to entropic processes (e.g. if the molecules of a loved one are splattered by a truck, one is rather upset). Life struggles against increasing entropy and ultimately loses. In this regard, we are a universal anomaly. Mystical/aesthetic accounts of this process make life bearable and even worth living; atheistic thought without context conceals veiled asceticism whereby truth is embraced even if it is catastrophic to life (e.g. God is dead).

Life > scientific 'truth.'

2 - Consciousness - even if epiphenomenalistic - exists (even Ek-sists). It is Daseinic: reason understands ontically; poetic mysticism ontologically. The nuances of Being cannot be explained by reason. Reason doesn't even recognise the being/Being question.

3 - Atheism leads to the death of myth. I like Benjamin's thought in this area. Myth tethers man's existence to wisdom through the process of tradition. In the ancient past, stories were told. Those that were wise were remembered; they passed into tradition. Those that stayed in tradition and were passed down from father to son became myth. Myth prevented apathy. From myth, God arose (see Freud's Totem & Taboo) and the wisdom of myth became divine (Over time: Truth --> Wisdom --> Divinity). Look around, modern society is apathetic. Myth bonded man to the Earth; poets were sacerdotal! Myth has now ended; we speak in isolation. Oral tradition is dead. The novel howls forth its own truth in isolation.

To Sum: As Wittengenstein realised after reading both Tolstoy's shorter gospel and Nietzsche's Anti-Christ, the literal truth of religion does not matter. All that matters is the state of man's breast when he believes. By such thought, I believe that an absolute faith in scientific positivism has retarded the course of human culture and bankrupted any sense of noble context man had to his existence. Atheism is the scaffold upon which we have violated not only our jailers but also our own hope.

 

[speed]

I think nature affords the potential for more than survival. I'm with Bergson - evolution can happen in aesthetic as well as biological realms. We possess developed cognitive ability, allowing us to not only survive but CREATE. As Nietzsche recognised: 'only as an aesthetic phenomenon is the world justified.'

Ah, the Creative Evolution. I've yet to read it. I really should. I do somewhat disagree with him on he very idea of stream of consciousness. Before we even hit the language distortion and concepts phase as Bergson goes on about, I think first of all we think in pictures and images, not words.

As an aside, Bergson considered anything with an "utility" as valueless, erroneous. Of course, any pragamatist, analytical, or English-tradition philosopher claimed Bergson was full of shit, and all wrong. Just a plug of my other utility based thread. Something maybe I should've added.

 

[speed]

Yes, I believe in the divinity of the universe and its ability to influence mortal lives and I meditate, 'pray' to and worship nature daily.

I think reasoned atheism is an insufficient paradigm through which to understand existence. I am sceptical of Dawkins because I do not think he understands the full implications of his postulations. Some form of spiritual relationship with the infinite - in the tradition of Emerson, Heidegger, Vedic thought etc - is, in my view, essential and is a howling lucunae in his thought.

The reasons it is essential?

1 - Humans experience existence through the filter of consciousness and hence attach emotional judgements to entropic processes (e.g. if the molecules of a loved one are splattered by a truck, one is rather upset). Life struggles against increasing entropy and ultimately loses. In this regard, we are a universal anomaly. Mystical/aesthetic accounts of this process make life bearable and even worth living; atheistic thought without context conceals veiled asceticism whereby truth is embraced even if it is catastrophic to life (e.g. God is dead).

Life > scientific 'truth.'

2 - Consciousness - even if epiphenomenalistic - exists (even Ek-sists). It is Daseinic: reason understands ontically; poetic mysticism ontologically. The nuances of Being cannot be explained by reason. Reason doesn't even recognise the being/Being question.

3 - Atheism leads to the death of myth. I like Benjamin's thought in this area. Myth tethers man's existence to wisdom through the process of tradition. In the ancient past, stories were told. Those that were wise were remembered; they passed into tradition. Those that stayed in tradition and were passed down from father to son became myth. Myth prevented apathy. From myth, God arose (see Freud's Totem & Taboo) and the wisdom of myth became divine (Over time: Truth --> Wisdom --> Divinity). Look around, modern society is apathetic. Myth bonded man to the Earth; poets were sacerdotal! Myth has now ended; we speak in isolation. Oral tradition is dead. The novel howls forth its own truth in isolation.

To Sum: As Wittengenstein realised after reading both Tolstoy's shorter gospel and Nietzsche's Anti-Christ; the literal truth of religion does not matter, all that matters is the state of man's breast when he believes. By such thought, I believe that an absolute faith in scientific positivism has retarded the course of human culture and bankrupted any sense of noble context man had to his existence. Atheism is the scaffold upon which we have violated not only our jailers but also our own hope.

Brilliant post. Since literal truth does not sway belief, and since myth has been rendered useless by modern society, where do we go from here? New myths? How does one create a new myth in today's world? As you've stated, novels have become isolated and unread; philosophy has retreated to obscure shadowy corners of campuses; creative thought is shackled, perhaps even feared unless related to technology; and religious belief has been turned into a cult-like literal or business-like venture. How shall man regenerate himself?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Judaism has proven itself to be a religion with a track record of ensuring the advancement of its adherents. I am sure that the only possible chance for non-Jewish caucasians to survive longterm is to adopt a religion based on the same basic recipe. This is happening whether one likes it or not - the alternative is extinction.

Where the Jews have the Old Testament - a history of their people that they identify with and are proud of (often quite irrespective of its accuracy in the face of archeological research) we will have the history of our people, eg "The March of the Titans".

In place of the Talmud, we will have the books of the Creativity movement, based upon the eternal laws of Nature, experience of history, logic and common sense. (It would be as pointless to drag up all the "racist" aspects of this as it would be to do the same for the "racism" in the Talmud and the anti-Jewish passages from the Koran.)

In place of the Kabbalah, we have our own mysticism - Paganism (all that is derived from the Indo European pantheon of gods).

We will call ourselves Creators - and the fact that this word sounds like another word for God is no cooincidence. It is chosen because it was Nietzsche's advice that we should "become creators".

Effectively "God" is a collective word for the Jews in their faith - and we can copy that. Does considering your own people to be "God" qualify as atheism? I would say not.

Here is the "myth" that we seek and here is how man can "regenerate himself".

That's just an idea I am suggesting - mostly just to present an argument for how myth and religion and science can all come together into a futuristic credo
So that is the context in which to consider this hypothetical idea.

 

[OldScratch]

Yes, I believe in the divinity of the universe and its ability to influence mortal lives and I meditate, 'pray' to and worship nature daily.

I think reasoned atheism is an insufficient paradigm through which to understand existence. I am sceptical of Dawkins because I do not think he understands the full implications of his postulations. Some form of spiritual relationship with the infinite - in the tradition of Emerson, Heidegger, Vedic thought etc - is, in my view, essential and is a howling lacuna in his thought.

The reasons it is essential?

1 - Humans experience existence through the filter of consciousness and hence attach emotional judgements to entropic processes (e.g. if the molecules of a loved one are splattered by a truck, one is rather upset). Life struggles against increasing entropy and ultimately loses. In this regard, we are a universal anomaly. Mystical/aesthetic accounts of this process make life bearable and even worth living; atheistic thought without context conceals veiled asceticism whereby truth is embraced even if it is catastrophic to life (e.g. God is dead).

Life > scientific 'truth.'

2 - Consciousness - even if epiphenomenalistic - exists (even Ek-sists). It is Daseinic: reason understands ontically; poetic mysticism ontologically. The nuances of Being cannot be explained by reason. Reason doesn't even recognise the being/Being question.

3 - Atheism leads to the death of myth. I like Benjamin's thought in this area. Myth tethers man's existence to wisdom through the process of tradition. In the ancient past, stories were told. Those that were wise were remembered; they passed into tradition. Those that stayed in tradition and were passed down from father to son became myth. Myth prevented apathy. From myth, God arose (see Freud's Totem & Taboo) and the wisdom of myth became divine (Over time: Truth --> Wisdom --> Divinity). Look around, modern society is apathetic. Myth bonded man to the Earth; poets were sacerdotal! Myth has now ended; we speak in isolation. Oral tradition is dead. The novel howls forth its own truth in isolation.

To Sum: As Wittengenstein realised after reading both Tolstoy's shorter gospel and Nietzsche's Anti-Christ, the literal truth of religion does not matter. All that matters is the state of man's breast when he believes. By such thought, I believe that an absolute faith in scientific positivism has retarded the course of human culture and bankrupted any sense of noble context man had to his existence. Atheism is the scaffold upon which we have violated not only our jailers but also our own hope.

In America more than 90% of the population professes to 'believe' in some Divinity or the other. Does this not run counter to the argument presented above, given the advanced state of cultural decay? We have lost all these once critical and noble cultural and artistic attributes not as a result of atheism or a lack of belief, but apparently in spite of it.

 

[speed]

In America more than 90% of the population professes to 'believe' in some Divinity or the other. Does this not run counter to the argument presented above, given the advanced state of cultural decay? We have lost all these once critical and noble cultural and artistic attributes not as a result of atheism or a lack of belief, but apparently in spite of it.

To answer, religion and belief does not matter to America. American Christianity long ago accepted a Capitalist creed. Money and materialism are our Gods, and we believe in them with the utmost faith.

 

[OldScratch]

To answer, religion and belief does not matter to America. American Christianity long ago accepted a Capitalist creed. Money and materialism are our Gods, and we believe in them with the utmost faith.

You will get no argument from me on those points, with regard to the bulk of the population, thus I concede the point. I was thinking more of the 'Bible-belt' South or the Evangelical set, but even therein, their belief most likely takes a back-seat to their materialistic, consumer driven life-code...to which all Americans adhere devoutly as you stated.
I was thrown by the assertion in Nile's summation along the lines of the "literal truth" of the religion being essentially unimportant so long as the act of belief itself is intact. I think I see the broader intended meaning, but I'm struggling with that idea still...my first reaction was that it implied, so long as one believes in "something" then they are ripe for cultural creativity, etc. when compared to the vacuous non-believer. But I doubt that is the point.
I've read that final paragraph a dozen times and I just can't fully absorb it...

 

[speed]

You will get no argument from me on those points, with regard to the bulk of the population, thus I concede the point. I was thinking more of the 'Bible-belt' South or the Evangelical set, but even therein, their belief most likely takes a back-seat to their materialistic, consumer driven life-code...to which all Americans adhere devoutly as you stated.
I was thrown by the assertion in Nile's summation along the lines of the "literal truth" of the religion being essentially unimportant so long as the act of belief itself is intact. I think I see the broader intended meaning, but I'm struggling with that idea still...my first reaction was that it implied, so long as one believes in "something" then they are ripe for cultural creativity, etc. when compared to the vacuous non-believer. But I doubt that is the point.
I've read that final paragraph a dozen times and I just can't fully absorb it...

Just an interesting aside I cannot resist: the christian concept of free will and the rational economic man or the basic tenets of American-style capitalism have almost merged into one, creating the guiding dogma or theological belief of American Christianity.

Im sorry all for my anti-money/materialism rants. It just seems Im surrounded by greedy materialists these days. Moved to a new city and all. Its just amazing how many totally oblivious and materialistic people Ive met. My god the Mormon I work with seems almost like the only sane non-greed crazed person Ive come across. And Ive read parts of that Mormon bible, and whew, I dont know how a religion was spawned from such fairy tales.