Hey Lina, great questions!
Originally posted by Lina
Ok, Satori, you know my feelings on religion -- that religion and the idea of god is so laughable and impossible that it's really just a litmus test for people's intelligence. So we're basically on the same side.
I'm not sure if we are on the same side in all ways. My stance isn't one of sharply defined logic but kinda foggy and allowing for multiple interpretations of the same idea to be (ultmately) equally valid. To use an analogy from physics: is it a particle? ..or is it a wave. Yes.
I'm anti-religion not only because I think (in my admittedly speculative and inherently biased/flawed interpretation) that it's so obviously just a political tool to structure hierarchial societies, but also cuz it causes much untold psychological suffering. As you probably suspect I have a whole set of ideas on how/why it causes suffering but I won't get into this now.. so suffice to say I have adopted the stance that it does (which is just my opinion and nothing more).
But you keep saying quotes like the one above that really contradict what you seem to otherwise mean. athiests by and large DON'T believe that truth and reality are subjective.
Before we get lost in the dualistic and discrimitive nature of the english language itself I'd like to point out a few things to clairfy some definitions and preconceptions.
I'm not at all concerned that my point of view that 'reality is subjective' is self-defeating and I actually think this is the coolest thing about it cuz it takes the emphasis off people going about talking about "truth" as if it were something external/attainable (which I obviously feel it is not). I feel we can babble about our interpretations till the cows come home but once the discussion goes from interpretation to notions of "truth" (above and beyond interpretation) then for me the conversation completely loses ground because the flexibility for multiple and contradictory ideas to exist simultaneously (ie. particle/wave) is lost. Then the individuals aren't discussing why their particular 'interpretation' is more grounded/logical, they are suggesting that their interpretion is the only correct one and I find that just too ridiculous for comment.
This notion of truth above interpretation is (I think) the real weak point of the religion and the thing which causes the most problems in individuals and societies. When you have people attempting to adhere themselves to someone else's version of reality, it's rarely a good thing (imo, from my experiences with myself and others).
If truth is subjective, then there is no argument against the (supposed) logic of religion -- basically what everyone wants to believe is fact as long as they believe it.
Exactly. If they believe it is fact then it becomes fact (but only to THEM - an idea which eludes them of course as they feel reality is objective/external). It goes deeper than that, there is no "fact" at all, only interpretation. We can provide our speculations about events that have occured, but we must be (I think) careful not lose sight that they are just interpretations which are neither right or wrong, they simply are.
This kind of thinking is what athiests despise (at least this athiest). athiests seem to have characteristics that match "left-brain" personalities -- very fact-driven, believe there is an absolute truth for nearly everything.
I agree, I've noted most athiests think this way, I guess this is one way in which I am quite different. I prefer the term existentialist when describing myself, but I don't limit myself to just that and I don't feel the two definitions contradict each other so much as compliment one another. I also described myself as a spiritual atheist, which is a bit of a pardox as well. Reality is dualistic in nature and so are we. What it comes down to is how you interpret the dualism. While you would probably feel that dualism denotes mutual exclusion I feel that it indicates a co-dependence with each extreme entirely dependent on it's opposite for it's own definition (relativity). So instead of 2 things (ie. atheism/existentialism) being forever opposed, I feel they are like 2 sides of the same coin (like up/down, black/white, good/evil, etc).
So to the question: what is true? the sharply defined "truth" of atheism or the fuzzy and self-defeating "interpretation is everything" of existentialism? I'll answer this question with another question: particle or wave? It depends on who you are and how you look.
By saying that truth is subjective, you're shooting yourself in the foot -- the obvious rebuttal is, then why do you think you're right?
hehe, I don't think that
I fully understand that my opinions on things are just opinions. I can try to explain why I feel my opinions are more logical or more beneficial but when it comes right down to it it's all just speculative bullshit like everything ultimately is. But before you think I am saying everything is bullshit, keep in mind that this is also bullshit, and also a self-defeating statement. It is and it isn't (kinda like the fabric and existence of the universe itself).
I feel we should never lose sight of the idea that all we have are our subjective opinions, which I feel the need to point out when someone suggests their particular interpretation is the only truthful/factual one (like "defenders of Truth" seem to love to do, muhahah).
I'm an athiest because facts, proof, and logic back me up, not just because it's what i WANT to believe.
If you are seeking facts and proof to back you up it seems to me like you are thinking that reality is something external which you can objectively examine and adhere yourself to (which is, imo, the folly of religion, it's just that religion just goes way way further out on a limb with unlikely assertions). I don't think like that however, it doesn't make either of us right or wrong, we just view things differently and that's cool. I feel that it is quite impossible to be truly objective about anything because we are all so incredibly biased. We humans tend to chop and divide reality into mutually exclusive counterparts. I feel that before their were organisms to interpret the dualism (just like colour or sound or whatever), it simply didn't exist, things simply "were".
So at the core it comes down to this: Do we see reality or do we see only our interpretations of reality? I feel the latter, and to then interpret our 'interpretation' as truth/real is to me simply placing too much faith in one's own *opinion*.
I fully realize this sort of meta-philosophy is self-defeating, which I think is the real difference between it and all other ways of thinking. I take no credit for these ideas, they aren't my own, I just happen to think they are pretty cool and fit me well. The ideas here also have much in common with modern quantum physics as well, which is (imo only) more than just a strange coincidence. cheers,
Satori
PS: This statement is false. hheheh
