derek said:
reminds me of a quote, you only truly understand something once you've argued both sides. (can't for the life of me find the exact quote though)
Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)
- Thread starter Seditious
- Start date
- Status
reminds me of a quote, you only truly understand something once you've argued both sides. (can't for the life of me find the exact quote though)
Travis
Bassist
I would consider myself an Atheist if it were not for the beliefs of "Strong Atheism." This really is a topic that I could probably go on about for hours, but I think to sum up all my thoughts...
I am not religious at all, though I am not against any religion. I simply believe in accepting the fact that I will never know in this life - never know if there is a god or an afterlife. I simply believe in "crossing that bridge when I get to it."
-Travis
I am not religious at all, though I am not against any religion. I simply believe in accepting the fact that I will never know in this life - never know if there is a god or an afterlife. I simply believe in "crossing that bridge when I get to it."
-Travis
Travis said:
What if there's no bridge to cross? What if you die and that's it? Consciousness simply ceases?
That's why I don't even think it's prudent to even leave room for the possibility of a deity. What I mean is this: I've never experienced any reason to believe one exists. I've never experienced any reason to assume a square circle exists either, so what's the point in saying that a "square circle might exist but I simply can't know in this life"?
I'm not breaking your balls....just explaining my view.
I think too many of us leave the door open to a possible deity simply because 95% of humans believe in one (or more) and every facet of our culture is surrounded by the presumed existence of a god and we can't escape it.
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
In my view, because Being precedes cognition, we are unable to account for the root of our existence through thought. We awaken into being. The resulting bewilderment - 'why am I here?' - is in itself the existential definition of 'man'. That is, the term 'human' is defined as the attempt, through thought, to understand the nature of our Being and our continuance.
All religions are responses to this condition. Their objective validity is irrelevant (it does not exist). They are ideological suggestions for life. If they are to be ‘judged’, they should be judged on this ground.
All religions are responses to this condition. Their objective validity is irrelevant (it does not exist). They are ideological suggestions for life. If they are to be ‘judged’, they should be judged on this ground.
judas69 said:
That's not how I interpreted his post. Let's see what he comes back with.
As I read it, he leaves the door open for a possible deity. I see no reason to.
Travis
Bassist
No no no, SoundMaster, I'm not leaving a door open to a diety. I'm leaving a door open to whatever comes afterwards.
What I was trying to say is that while not against any religion, I simply don't belive in anything concerning religion. That includes dieties, afterlives, karma, reincarnation, or a lack of any of those. There may be an afterlife, there may not be. There may be dieties, there may not be. Honestly I can't say I've really experianced anything that screams at me "dieties exist!" either, but at the same time, does that really prove they don't? I don't think I'll ever know in this life, so why worry about it? I'm not trying to defend the belief in dieties, I'm just trying to state that believing in anything, including your agnostic views, are in my opinion almost a waste of time, as there is no proof of any religion and we will never know what really happens after death until we are indeed dead. As judas69 said, in a way that's kind of what I myself was getting at.
And if death proves to be agnostic as you mentioned, where all thoughts and conciousness cease in a pre-birth manner, well - my door is open to that also. Which is kind of my point. Agnosticism is another possibility that I've pondered often, which is one of the reasons I do not belive in any god or religion.
In this post I'm just trying to mainly to clarify that by not beliving in anything or following any religion, I'm not leaving my door open for specifially a diety, I'm simply leaving it open for whatever there is out there, which constitutes a diety as well as the lack of one.
And by "Crossing the bridge when I get there," In my eyes, the bridge symbolises death. So yes, there is a bridge to cross, and everyone crosses it someday. Whatever is on the other side of that bridge...well, you'll find out when you cross it.
EDIT::
What I was trying to say is that while not against any religion, I simply don't belive in anything concerning religion. That includes dieties, afterlives, karma, reincarnation, or a lack of any of those. There may be an afterlife, there may not be. There may be dieties, there may not be. Honestly I can't say I've really experianced anything that screams at me "dieties exist!" either, but at the same time, does that really prove they don't? I don't think I'll ever know in this life, so why worry about it? I'm not trying to defend the belief in dieties, I'm just trying to state that believing in anything, including your agnostic views, are in my opinion almost a waste of time, as there is no proof of any religion and we will never know what really happens after death until we are indeed dead. As judas69 said, in a way that's kind of what I myself was getting at.
And if death proves to be agnostic as you mentioned, where all thoughts and conciousness cease in a pre-birth manner, well - my door is open to that also. Which is kind of my point. Agnosticism is another possibility that I've pondered often, which is one of the reasons I do not belive in any god or religion.
In this post I'm just trying to mainly to clarify that by not beliving in anything or following any religion, I'm not leaving my door open for specifially a diety, I'm simply leaving it open for whatever there is out there, which constitutes a diety as well as the lack of one.
And by "Crossing the bridge when I get there," In my eyes, the bridge symbolises death. So yes, there is a bridge to cross, and everyone crosses it someday. Whatever is on the other side of that bridge...well, you'll find out when you cross it.
EDIT::
EXACTLY.judas69 said:
[To SoundMaster]
So, you're saying that because you haven't personally experienced God (like the square circle) he therefore lacks all possibility of existing? If this is infact your position, it follows that at some age you would have had to have decided you've been exposed to everything there is to experience and all things remaining not only should be denied but more strongly, can't possibly exist.
Travis, on the other hand is at least sure of one fact, that he does not and cannot know everything, knowing better then to assert a negative when lacking knowledge of the positive.
So, you're saying that because you haven't personally experienced God (like the square circle) he therefore lacks all possibility of existing? If this is infact your position, it follows that at some age you would have had to have decided you've been exposed to everything there is to experience and all things remaining not only should be denied but more strongly, can't possibly exist.
Travis, on the other hand is at least sure of one fact, that he does not and cannot know everything, knowing better then to assert a negative when lacking knowledge of the positive.
judas69 said:
I don't believe I explained my own position thoroughly enough.
I'm not taking the so-called 'strong atheist' position and asserting, without a doubt that no god(s) exist. Rather, what I hoped to get across was that, as I see it, the 'god' question doesn't even beg a 'strong answer', IMO,. As I've never seen/read/felt/ experienced anything which would lead me to believe that one does, or has, existed. While its existence my be possible, I've never seen of felt a reason to think this possibility is likely. At the end of the day, I guess I'd be classified as an agnostic (through default).
After re-reading this, I dont think I've shed any more light on my OP.
Nile577 said:
they deserve to be judged exactly on the grounds of that which they say is true and people so firmly believe is true as to cause wars and get themselves killed (Christian Knights, Muslim martyrs...)
sure, once they accept 'we're all wrong' then we can say 'now lets talk about whos wrong system has better ethics' I agree, but until we reach that stage I can't.
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
Seditious said:
Hmm, I can't agree. You associate 'causing war' and 'getting oneself killed' as events that are motivated by a posited truth, but they are not themselves the truth. Indeed, you aver that war and death are seemingly objectively undesirable, independent of the 'truth' that motivates them. Therefore, it is not the reality of the truth that you hold contestable, but merely the behavioural conduct of those who believe. Which is my point.
Secondly, the objective validity (whatever that means) of supernatural religious theory is in my view discredited (proved 'false,' if you like) when it is considered that man is the agent that invests 'meaning' in being (through the paradigm of human thought and language). The concept of God and our understanding of Divinity are disclosed in human consciousness (along with an awareness of our own existential state). Suppose human consciousness was collectively annihilated. Existence, meaning, Being and God would all become impossible. Things would not exist. They would not not exist either. They would be utterly impossible. The concept of the word 'impossible' would also be impossible - it would be utterly inexpressible in human language.
Consciousness is the vector through which meaning is instilled upon existence (including the term 'existence' itself). Eliminating it not only removes meaning from existence but makes existence impossible itself. If God is impossible without man (his concept would have no meaning), a supernatural understanding of a literal God is unsupportable.
All that could be 'God' is the inexpressible, impossible, not existing, not not-existing, unthinkable, utterly unknowable infinity of the 'collective all.' That is: the pantheistic 'universe.'
Nile577 said:
At the risk of exposing my own apparent hopeless ignorance - is it possible to translate this into more colloquial speech? It just seems to me that we continue this debate along the lines of "anything is possible" and here is why(in rather advanced philosophical terms for us neophytes). But how does any of this legitimately support the actual existance of a God(s)? Let alone one that is readily identified via religion.
We could posit that in(philosophical)theory virtually anything can 'be' or 'exist'. But why would we even suspect that the unknowable or rationally impossible would be or exist in the first place were the suggestion not originally postulated by man at some point? It seems to me this debate continues throughout time only because the idea was raised in the first place - not because there is or even was any tangible reason to believe it so.
Sorry if I am just too simple to grasp the bigger picture or something. But the topic is worthwhile enough to me to ask the question.
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
Oldscratch: Sure. No problem. Thanks for asking. I'm genuinely not trying to obfuscate my meaning here and I apologise if that seems the case. I'm actually not arguing for the literal existence of religious gods at all. The opposite, even. Very basically: I think human consciousness instils 'meaning' in things. Without human consciousness to instil meaning, there is no meaning. Therefore, without consciousness, God has no meaning. He cannot exist as a meaningful concept. Therefore, all traditional supernaturalist religions are not literally true. God needs man to exist.
What might be termed ‘God:’
If we were to utterly remove humankind from the universe, the entire understanding of human consciousness - all its content, all its ways of looking at things, the very concept of what a 'thing' is - would be eradicated. It would be impossible to articulate what would be left, since every single notion that you can think of would be redundant. If there is to be God, this unknowable ‘vacuum’ would be it. God cannot be articulated in human language or thought, it can only be 'shown'. It is what man awakens into when he comes into existence. It is what man gives meaning to through consciousness. It is what defines the potential of what man may be. 'God' is the universe.
What might be termed ‘God:’
If we were to utterly remove humankind from the universe, the entire understanding of human consciousness - all its content, all its ways of looking at things, the very concept of what a 'thing' is - would be eradicated. It would be impossible to articulate what would be left, since every single notion that you can think of would be redundant. If there is to be God, this unknowable ‘vacuum’ would be it. God cannot be articulated in human language or thought, it can only be 'shown'. It is what man awakens into when he comes into existence. It is what man gives meaning to through consciousness. It is what defines the potential of what man may be. 'God' is the universe.
Nile577 said:
I gotta go in a sec but I'll read the rest later, I just wanted to reply quick
I don't oppose the behavior, at all. I just said they do these things because they think what they believe is true---not just a comfortable delusion which is equally as false as the toothfairy, but is worth believing over the tooth fairy idea because it has other benefits like a moral code, as you suggested it should be let off the hook as nothing more than.
Justin S.
Member
hmmm. 'would a tree exist in the woods if no one went there'Nile577 said:
personally I'm one to say if the lonely tree fell 'it would make a sound' since sound exists for audio activated microphones n all, whether or not we are there to experience the sensory data we call sound, just as infra-red light exists in light even without anything able to observe it sensorally. so, so too I would imagine existence itself, from which motion able to be detected by senses even if there are no sense, must exist independently of the experiencer also. (I agree on the lack of intrinsic 'value' thing though)
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
Here is a model:
UNIVERSE/'God' -----------------> Consciousness --------------------> Meaning
(Mystical Unknown)
(Note: I do not think the relationship between consciousness and meaning is so linear. Consciousness can disclose the meaning of individual parts of the universe (specified by attention in consciousness) in many, many different and beautiful, poetic ways. Example:
For an item commonly disclosed as a coke can:
'X' Unknowable ------------> Consciousness ------------------> Drink can
'Matter'.................................................--------------->Paper weight
...........................................................---------->Aluminum cylinder
...........................................................---->Sugar carrier
............................................................------->Sharp edge, cutting lip
..........................................................--->Measuring beaker
...........................................................--> Thing to hurl at querulous
.................................................................quadruped
...........................................................-->Metaphor for love (sugary)
...........................................................--> etc, etc, etc
UNIVERSE/'God' -----------------> Consciousness --------------------> Meaning
(Mystical Unknown)
(Note: I do not think the relationship between consciousness and meaning is so linear. Consciousness can disclose the meaning of individual parts of the universe (specified by attention in consciousness) in many, many different and beautiful, poetic ways. Example:
For an item commonly disclosed as a coke can:
'X' Unknowable ------------> Consciousness ------------------> Drink can
'Matter'.................................................--------------->Paper weight
...........................................................---------->Aluminum cylinder
...........................................................---->Sugar carrier
............................................................------->Sharp edge, cutting lip
..........................................................--->Measuring beaker
...........................................................--> Thing to hurl at querulous
.................................................................quadruped
...........................................................-->Metaphor for love (sugary)
...........................................................--> etc, etc, etc
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
Seditious said:
I think, to use your example of the tree, it wouldn't just be related to sound. The concept of a 'tree' wouldn't exist. Nor would falling. Nor would a ground on which to fall. Nor would any single word, or the meaning implied by any word. Nor would any thought process. Nor would any distinctness of an object against everything. Nor would anything exist. Nor would it not exist. It would simply be impossible. And it wouldn't even be that, because impossibility would be impossible. It is utterly inexpressible.
All of human understanding and everything our brain uses to map the meaning of existence (including defining the term 'existence' in itself) would have never been. It's quite a startling concept, at least to me. It is impossible, as Wittgenstein recognised in a similar(ish) vein, to express what is unthinkable in human thought.
- Status
Similar threads
