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

[Nile577]

Somewhat related: I love Schopenhauer's thought in regards to Death & The Afterlife.

"If, in everyday life, you are asked about continued existence after death by one of those people who would like to know everything but refuse to learn anything, the most appropriate and approximately correct reply is: 'After your death, you will be what you were before your birth.'"

 

[Nile577]

"Let us have the courage for the direct word... Being is the trembling of Godding" -M.H.

Excellent quote.

Generally thinking about this: In some ways, man discloses the poetic infinite (God?) so, in the context of Heidegger's thought, you could argue that man himself shows God. Heh, contrary to the psalm, he is 'GOD's' shepherd!

I don't know if you're familiar with it, but his in his later thought, the 'Four-Fold' (das Geviert) of Mortals, Earth, Divinities and Sky always interests me. I haven't studied it at much length though. There's a quote he gives I managed to find in another book:

'Recall that human being consists in dwelling - in the sense of the stay of mortals on the earth. But 'on the earth' already means under the SKY. Both of these also mean 'remaining before the divinities.' By a primal oneness, the four - earth and sky, divinities and mortals - belong together in one'

I read this as man, through the window of his finitude, ontologically disclosing the cosmic divinity across the process of his life in a divine 'circuit'. When we have liberated ourselves from the paradigm of reason, we will experience the 'godding' of the poetic infinite.

I know there are many different ways of interpreting Heidegger and religion. If you get time, I'd love to hear your thoughts. There's a very interesting article on Heidegger and theology here, for anyone interested:

 

[OldScratch]

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.

Nile - Thank you for the clarification and there is certainly no apology needed. Perhaps I misunderstood some of your earlier posts regarding this topic, but somehow I came to believe you were saying something else entirely - which left me flummoxed, as your last post seemed in fact to say what you just confirmed it to say(in terms of the literal existance of religious gods, etc). Guess I had presumed too much earlier on...hence the confusion. To a degree, I suppose it's a wonder this doesn't happen more given the somewhat challenging format we use to discuss decidedly complex issues.
Also, thanks for the Heidegger link. I am drawn to his work, but admittedly much is still well beyond me. But in time...
**Edit - I cannot seem to get the link to work - anyone else having trouble?

 

[Cythraul]

to create arguements with the sole intention of persuading oneself of the existence of God, is to encourage an artificial state of self-confidence only. It will look solid and perfect to you and you'll accept it, but it will always be short of the truth.

What makes you think this is the case? A huge part of what we believe about the world is theoretical. We give arguments and reasons for why we believe such things. This is not an artificial state of confidence; it is the only thing we have to go on. And what makes you think that any argument in favor of the existence of God will be short of the truth? There is a fact of the matter here, and there is the possibility of a theory tracking that fact of the matter.

In otherwords, if this were an honest, unbiased and unemotionally driven attempt from the start, you would have dealt with all the logical contradictions and implications of a Theistic God in the first place ..and perhaps you should.

Just because this is a controversial issue, and just because a view with regards to this issue may have problems, that doesn't mean that one can't have good reasons for preferring it to the alternatives.

 

[Cythraul]

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.

The notion of something existing is entirely consistent with the nonexistence of human consciousness. Furthermore, the following is a logical truth: Either God exists or God doesn't exist. This dichotomy is exhaustive.

Things would not exist. They would not not exist either.

That is a contradiction.

They would be utterly impossible. The concept of the word 'impossible' would also be impossible - it would be utterly inexpressible in human language.

This does not follow. It's not that it would be inexpressible. It's just that it wouldn't be expressed, but that's trivially true. Anyway, I just don't see how the existence of things would be rendered impossible on this account. The notion of things existing is entirely consistent with the nonexistence of human consciousness, hence the notion of the possibility of things existing is entirely consistent with it as well.

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.

What is it for existence to have a meaning? I know what it is for the word, "existence", to have a meaning, but that other notion seems rather obscure to me.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It would be more sensible to argue about whether "God" could do/have done things attributed to His actions or whether "God" could be expected to have certain features such as regards His dimensions, his ability to read everyone's minds simultaneiously and be actually interested in doing so, what God really wants,etc. Just talking about whether "God" exists with no definition of exactly what one is referring to is no more helpful than arguing whether "quantity X" exists.

Quantity X exists - and if you don't believe it you will live your life all wrong and quantity X will dissolve you painfully for all eternity after you are dead. You all had better just beliveve in quantity X now, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Seditious]

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.

hmm, so how do you account for consciousness on your model? I mean if consciousness is an 'essence' which precedes the existence of the neurons, how do you explain the relation between mind states and brain states? I'm not sure how you can say consciousness can exist from which to affirm concepts of tres and falling and the like, but the consciousness had nowhere in which to exist because existence is dependend on consciousness. Am I right to follow that logic and imagine you make consciousness the necessary being/thing in existence to which all things are contingent on? (certainly an interesting elaboration on spiritual ideas, though I still side with Occam's Razor on that matter)

 

[Seditious]

Their actions are not 'what is true' themselves. They arise FROM what is true.
(And, in your thought, seemingly, are then ranked by some objective morality of good/bad)

I'm not judging the act at all, I'm not sure where I allude to that. I merely suggest 'that you think an apple is food is why you eat it' it isn't that believing an apple is food is a lie we comfort ourselves with and eat it in spite of that, no, it's only in accepting the idea as truth that we act on it---religion is accountable for its 'Truth' claims, not just to be treated as a pushy philosophy.

I'm not saying war, or not eating roast pork fried rice is 'bad' or 'good', just that the behavior (or lack of) is determined importantly by believed claims about it seen as truth.

 

[Seditious]

It would be more sensible to argue about whether "God" could do/have done things attributed to His actions or whether "God" could be expected to have certain features such as regards His dimensions.

personally I keep that to the utter minimum in my argument for Atheism (nothing of which have I revealed in discussion here, lol I'm cautious like that-I'll welcome scrutiny the moment I can be assured of no plagiarism) because there is always the chance religion has been defiled by the powers that were throughout history, so we can't attribute too much to It---like for example, I don't want to say 'God can't exist-because evil exists' because it's always possible our interpretation of evil is wrong (and Socrates was right), or that there is evil, but that's ok, God does some evil or maybe evil is just from our free will (which is why I think the theodicy problem is rubbish not worth any argument at all). so there are a lot of traits -religions- need to argue for to prove God, which we, to argue philosophically against God have no burden of.

 

[Seditious]

Things would not exist. They would not not exist either.

That is a contradiction.

I actually wrote my explanation of existence just the other week and was working on the matter at a deeper level earlier this evening. (I'm not sure how much this relates exactly to the point he was making but it seems an important foundation to address nonetheless)

non-existence is a contrast to existence, a dichotomy reliant on its positive counterpart. Non-existence can only exist as a property of existence. Existence can't exist within non-existence because non-existence is not a thing in which things can exist thus non-existence can only exist within existence. It's a contradiction to say anything exists outside everything that exists, thus non-existence can only be a non-thing which is a property in relation to its opposite, it can only exist within non-existence. or, if it's more clear how I originally wrote it, "Existence is such that the concept of a dichotomy between existence and non-existence only exists within existence since the dichotomy of existence can't exist in non-existence by its very definition."

thus, 'things would not exist', but if there is no existence in which for essences to have the quality of non-existence then there is no dichotomy of existence from which to be considered non-existent in regards---non-existence only as a property of non-being regarding being thus does not exist where existence itself does not.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There are an infinite number of vague concepts that one could randomly make up and debate the possible existence of. God is just one of them.

In medieval times there were serious deliberations over how many angels could stand on the point of a pin.

The question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is associated with medieval theology of the Scholastic school.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/1509.html

 

[Justin S.]

Excellent quote.

Generally thinking about this: In some ways, man discloses the poetic infinite (God?) so, in the context of Heidegger's thought, you could argue that man himself shows God. Heh, contrary to the psalm, he is 'GOD's' shepherd!

I don't know if you're familiar with it, but his in his later thought, the 'Four-Fold' (das Geviert) of Mortals, Earth, Divinities and Sky always interests me. I haven't studied it at much length though. There's a quote he gives I managed to find in another book:

'Recall that human being consists in dwelling - in the sense of the stay of mortals on the earth. But 'on the earth' already means under the SKY. Both of these also mean 'remaining before the divinities.' By a primal oneness, the four - earth and sky, divinities and mortals - belong together in one'

I read this as man, through the window of his finitude, ontologically disclosing the cosmic divinity across the process of his life in a divine 'circuit'. When we have liberated ourselves from the paradigm of reason, we will experience the 'godding' of the poetic infinite.

I know there are many different ways of interpreting Heidegger and religion. If you get time, I'd love to hear your thoughts. There's a very interesting article on Heidegger and theology here, for anyone interested:

In that speculative account (the quote I posted) of a (for lack of a better word) originary "spiritual" happening, the entire nature of that power ("God") is almost unrecognizable to traditional conceptions (which are entirely anthropomorphic in contrast, almost ridiculously so). In Heidegger's statement we are presented with something truly mystical and beyond our "grasp", the enabling of the horizon of thought itself.

Although I have not studied this extensively, it seems that the nature of this "Godding" is hidden (we experience the trembling which strikes us in the most profound way), as it is the enabling of the realm in which we dwell and can reflect upon (our world). Whether it is Daseinic or not seems like an inappropriate question to ask, as it enables Dasein.

I dont know if one could say "man is God's shepherd", but Dasien as "the shepherd of Being", could be the herald of Godding. By disclosing Being, Dasein reveals and proclaims the originary happening. (my purely cursory, and speculative take).

Also, youre going to have a hard time (as you well know) getting around the logical/theoretical framework that holds sway here. Its not simply a lack of understanding, its hostility.

 

[Soilworker]

i'm a muslim

 

[Seditious]

i'm a muslim

*glances at thread title*


You believe in God, yes? ...then why?


we're here to discuss not just collect statistics

 

[Soilworker]

no I have decided i am an atheist again, sry about the confusion

 

[fah-q]

Ah, the trolls...

 

[zoidberg]

i am a proud Athiest

i use to be a Christian, but i decided that it is all impossible, and that there is no God, there is only the church, and the church ran my life, and the lives of my family. what i guess im trying to say is that people place thier faith in the church and then they call that God, and i feel that the church needs us a hell of a lot more than we need them. i dont know if that makes sense, ill shut up.

 

[speed]

and i feel that the church needs us a hell of a lot more than we need them. i dont know if that makes sense, ill shut up.

No, that makes perfect sense actually.

 

[derek]

I was going to say the same thing last night, infact.

Nobody has really mentioned that they are an Atheist because the faith in God as been replaced by faith in The Church and they find that saddening.

For me, however, I would not immediately turn to Atheism. I'd just conclude that Christianity lost its way a long, long time ago.

 

[Seditious]

I was going to say the same thing last night, infact.

Nobody has really mentioned that they are an Atheist because the faith in God as been replaced by faith in The Church and they find that saddening.

For me, however, I would not immediately turn to Atheism. I'd just conclude that Christianity lost its way a long, long time ago.

yea exactly. I figured that was simply because modern distortions of scriptures don't mean those scriptures weren't true, or that even if no religion was true that there is no God, so it simply doesn't warrant anything but Agnosticism.