Printable View
1) Atheism is not a belief system. It is non-belief or an absence of belief in theism, hence a-theism.
2) Agnosticism is not in the same league as theism and atheism. Agnosticism talks about knowledge, whereas theism and atheism talk about belief.
3) An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. Maybe everyone is an agnostic, after all:
4) Theists are presumptuous to assume a knowledge of god, therefore theists are really at best agnostics.
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."
Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman, p. 438
Atheism for me is the disbelief in the god and goddesses of mankind. The very fact that such limited minds (as are all human minds) came up with the notion seems to me to point toward a problem with its veracity. Of course the fact that most divinities take on human shape also makes me question the epistemological validity of such systems.
On the other hand...the question of the existence of some non-corporeal entity with abilities far different than our corporeal human ones...not a concern of ours since we have enough trouble coming to grips with the exigencies of corporeal life.
Oh, precisely! And I do speculate at times that those who involve themselves with the mind-boggling intricacies of their gods & goddesses stories are doing that in preference to dealing with "the exigencies of corporeal life".Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryLupin
My favorite part of listening in to these discussions is the erroneous and sefl-aggrandizing attitude of atheists implied above that theists believe as they do by reason of some sort of dysfunctional way of dealing with life (a leftover of Dr. Freud's ridiculous assertions about religion). I'm fine with atheists believing as they do, but it gets tiresome to listen to some of them patronize believers as deluded, as in denial about reality, et al. Spare me, OK?
Choosing atheism over theism is a matter of personal choice - fine. But I don't recall ever psycholanalyzing atheists to explain why I think their choice is absurd.
General Mod Note to All: only because this is posted in the Philosophical section it will stay open for now, even though the OP has made comments on religion/theism.
If this becomes a religion(s) bashing/insulting/inflammatory my-way-is-better-than-your-way topic it will be treated as a religious topic and as per the recently updated Religious Texts forum rules it will be closed. http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410
.
.
.
As I think I suggested before, it might be more informative if we got into our personal reasons for the choices we have made. I know I have mine and am prepared to set them out if you are as well. I've bolded those parts of your latest posts that lead me to see that your argument is a personal rather than a purely philosophical/theological one:
You might wish to argue that to recognize, say, an oak tree as an oak tree is not a matter of choice. It is something apparent to all, but some (pantheists) see God in that oak tree. You, I assume, do not. And I take that as a matter of choice - or conditioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There are Atheist , Agnostic and Theist authors.Their personal assumtion of religion and human origin influence their work of course.Their vision to life,determinism, rational or divine order, human destiny ,Theleology....whatever.It is possible talk about Atheist or Theist , not defining them by their believes but including them into one or other groups.[/FONT]
Sartre is Atheist and Existencialist.Jaspers is Existencialist and Christian...Hegel is dialectic and theist ,Marx will be against any religion....mainly because religions attempt against the PRAXIS and protects the Statu Quo.
Descartes was rationalist but he believes in God and try to rationally proobe his existence.Most of Phylosophers believe something trascendental untill the Positivism treated Philosophy as Methaphisich as a second order Knowledge wich will be substitued by Science.
But big scientist believe God,Keppler, Copernico , Galileo , Descartes ,Pascal , Spinoza , Leibniz , Einstein ,The modest , human and intellectual gifted Wittgenstein....
So.Phylosophy is against doctrines.That is why we pay no such attemption to the Author beliefs.Enjoy so much to read your posting.
That intelligent men and women have believed one way or another about the existence of God is in the end irrelevant. We are talking about our relationship to the unknown and possibly unknowable. Therefore no man or woman is a more credible witness than you or I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludmila607
If someone came along with an iron-clad, reasonably irrefutable 'proof' as to the existence of 'God," I predict that not one atheist would become a believer.
Similarly If someone came along with an iron-clad, reasonably irrefutable 'proof' that God does not, did not and could not exist, I am reasonably confident that not one believer would abandon his or her present convictions.
What might be interesting or useful to any of us here is if each person spoke of his or her personal experience of God or of the probable non-existence of God, or that God if He or She exists must be different from any of the ways of describing Him or Her.
Damn good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Well, thank you for allowing me that choice, Red. ;)
I'm just teasing.
Anyway, I agree completely. About God - God is a hypothesis. Hehe, here's a stanza I found from a search on google; I read about this story in The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins:Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryLupin
Laplace, Marquis, did write some works on motions up in heaven.
He started work when but a lad of only ten and seven.
Napoleon said "I see no sign of God in this!"
Laplace replied "I have no need for that hypothesis."
That poem is here: http://math.bu.edu/people/jeffs/mathdrink.html
A mathematics book and Napoleon wanted to know why or how he could write it without mentioning God, and Laplace said "I have need for that hypothesis."
-Which basically gives rise to my reason for disbelief. We are living inside this God culture, and it is put on us so hard; I mean, there is pressure to believe, since all these other people do, but if you see that outside of this culture there is not that pressure, then you wonder about the hypothesis. Outside of the Christian culture, there are other religions, and outside of the human culture, there are no religions. In other galaxies where there is intelligent life, what kind of religions exist there? Certainly ones that have been revealed by another One and True God; but maybe something completely different! who knows?
I guess my guiding light has been the story of the parallel-yet-perfect dreamworld in "The Dream of A Ridiculous Man," by Dostoyevsky. In it everyone's happy, and they love each other, and they sing songs that praise each other; they don't know any other way to live; they don't lie, they don't cheat or hurt each other. They're happy and grateful for every day, and none of them has heard of any of our religions, or anything like that. They're happy, and they don't need any of the things that we do to make them happy. The premise is that such happiness is possible. He ends the story with, "If only everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once." I was amazed to come across this for the first time, because I used to be so fixated upon this as a child, as the cure-all for suffering. There are so many problems, and the only solution is a seeming paradox, is that everyone has to realize something, say compassion, all at once, and if everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once. I love that because there's no pessimism in it. Anyway, that's my guide, and it also fits with my ontology.
The thing is, for me it doesn't make sense. I mean I don't see the necessity of a relationship with God for me to be a good person, or for me to be a satisfied or happy person, or anything like that. And the arguments for God seem mostly to be either restating it, or having some reliance on the bible, which is sort of the source of the absurdity. Outside of the arguments for Chirstianity, there are higher things, like love for oneself and neighbour, and love and reverence of the Earth. Personally, if Christian meant Christian, and not Bible, Christian would be a lot more respectable.
Don't get me wrong, I have no disrespect for believers, I mean, I used to be one, right? As Nietzsche says, the surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to value more highly those that believe alike to him than those that believe different. And since my ontology tells me we're arguing over nothing, I don't think it's a big deal.
There's no need for words like delusion. Okay, it's understood, that's a position, but it's not one I'm taking. I do think my beliefs are based on first principles that are closer to reality, and therefore, more ontologically open, but when you say something like delusion, it's just derisive.
I don't think God spoke with anyone ever, other than being an idea, or speaking through others, who made it all up, and I don't think he's responsible for the things in the old testament, so that's my belief, but it's not important. I believe in Buddhist ontology, and logic; which, as I know since I've talked about it with a friend in a philosophical debate, excludes me from debates, since I believe contradictions may exist, and paradoxes may be reconciled, etc. If I say something may exist and not exist at the same time, or that we're all one, well, that just isn't accepted by other people, so I'm excluded, which is fine..I just happen to think that kind of ontology and logic is the best way of looking at things, and it helps to open my mind.
Oh, okay. So I guess that's my take on atheism, hehe. By the way, no one is atheist or deist, Catholic or Presbyterian, American or German, black or white, male or female, adult or infant; so there! :)
What is this silly solipsistic folderol? I have received emails from someone who purported to be "Nikolai1" and I (who have no doubt as to my existence) know also that but for some unfortunate materialistic misadventure these very words that I am typing are going to be read by that same Nikolai1.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
You may enjoy this sort of metaphysical macrame but I doubt you could make pancakes out of it whereas I (who have no doubt as to my existence) can make truly excellent pancakes out of a mix that I have here in my actual home in this actual city in this actual universe...
Well, gee, if you put it that way, I'm convinced. :)
Just kidding - I worded it around a little, I think it reads different now.
Tell me, what are you saying? I said self and other was illusion, I don't know what position you are taking in your response. As for self being seperate from other, what is this folderol? Where is the boundary? We're part of the world, from our bodies and from the air that we breathe. What's inside comes from the ouside, and vice-versa.
It's like the sun, where do measure it's boundary? It's kind of hard to. It's easy to say, I end at the skin, and it's fairly clear. It's less clear with the sun, though; it has no skin, and it's heat and energy and light extend very far. It's hard to say where the surface is. I think it's the same with us, we're just not taught to think that way.
Yes. I find it completely satisfying--intellectually, morally, emotionally and physically--just being a hominid. I have a wonderful time.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
A really lovely post.
Thank you very much, Mary. :) Yours too, always.