Serendipity

[All Else Failed]

Have a nice day.

 

[Minor Axis]

I know this. However, to me, all of the evidence points to there being no god.

Maybe not the traditional God as described by our religions, but some control, some system that might account for the concept of a soul. But there is nothing that proves this either.

 

[Minor Axis]

TWith all respect, I think you are wrong to an extent. Atheism is one belief of many beliefs, trying to convince others of your belief is feeding your ego, which is the thinking error of one with low self-esteem seeking validation through control, which is instant and irrefutable proof of non-self-actualization. Openly advertising atheism and arguing its validity is symptom of an anti-social. You can call me a hypocrite, although I feel I have different motives. I am here to further sharpen my critical thinking skills in my recreational time for my future career.

Even though I am not an Athiest, I disagree with your conclusion. "Non-self-actualization"? If anything Athiesm relies on self. The way you describe your religion, reliance on God gives you strength. IMO that would be non-self actualization when you attribute self characteristics to an external source.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe AEF is any more anti-social because of his Atheistic beliefs than you would be due to your Godly beliefs.

So what it comes down to is simply what do you want to believe in.

Then that is how you should argue it. There is no proof for any belief system, just a lot of faith. Regardless, typically religious oriented people come in and start debating the issue like it's a fact.

I chose Christianity because those churches are fun. I get a feeling of belonging and amusement when I relate on Christianity with others, comparable to those relating on a sport like football.

That sounds like joining a social club...

I will defend your right to have your belief and our right to have ours. When others say that we are mis-informed, I believe that is not only closed minded, but anti-social and just causing unnecessary drama. Because we all know deep down that no one is going to say "oh wow, you really know what you are talking about, I am dropping my belief because you are so insightful". And deep down that is what the attackers want to hear, they want to be appreciated for their intelligence in that certain field.

I would never say you are mis-informed. I would say you are making assumptions. You could argue I make assumptions, but I freely admit, my views are based on possibilities, or just wishful thinking and they are very broad in concept with a dash of philosophy because I really don't know. However, the hardcore devote members are in here arguing specifics like they have a bag full of facts to put forth. It's easy to argue with them because they don't have any, especially when they argue bible events as facts.

So I choose my belief through an educated guess. Not will-fully ignorant, not closed-mindedly, and not just because I was born into it. But because it brings me happiness and a wealthful life-style that works for me.

No offense but I'd call it a totally un-educated guess. It's a bit humerous when you say you picked your religious belief primarily based on "fun". How about some evaluation based on possible truth or philosophy? Instead I'd call it wishing and hoping, faith if you prefer, which is really no more than I do. The difference is that I push the position of Agnostic because I don't see any proof that would allow anyone to argue any more specific than that.

 

[DoctorDisco]

Even though I am not an Athiest, I disagree with your conclusion. "Non-self-actualization"? If anything Athiesm relies on self. The way you describe your religion, reliance on God gives you strength. IMO that would be non-self actualization when you attribute self characteristics to an external source.

The life-style of a church goer is a lot more social than most anti-social life-styles of an independent humanist. Christians do not attribute their strength to god, we are individuals that find motivation from sources that are not directly in front of us. You are mis-interpreting what we mean by finding strength in god.

Then that is how you should argue it. There is no proof for any belief system, just a lot of faith. Regardless, typically religious oriented people come in and start debating the issue like it's a fact.

What is fact to them is not fact to you. If it offends you, that is your problem.

That sounds like joining a social club...

It is uniting under one commonality to do what we were meant to do since we were born. Love. Love is the master key, that opens the gates to happiness.

I would never say you are mis-informed. I would say you are making assumptions. You could argue I make assumptions, but I freely admit, my views are based on possibilities, or just wishful thinking and they are very broad in concept with a dash of philosophy because I really don't know. However, the hardcore devote members are in here arguing specifics like they have a bag full of facts to put forth. It's easy to argue with them because they don't have any, especially when they argue bible events as facts.

I am using information based off of studies from a University. 2 years of volunteer at a youth treatment center, half a year at a hospital and 1 year at an Alzheimer treatment facility. I am well versed in philosophy and regularly attend alcoholics anonymous for enlightenment purposes. I am a psychology major.

No offense but I'd call it a totally un-educated guess. It's a bit humerous when you say you picked your religious belief primarily based on "fun". How about some evaluation based on possible truth or philosophy? Instead I'd call it wishing and hoping, faith if you prefer, which is really no more than I do. The difference is that I push the position of Agnostic because I don't see any proof that would allow anyone to argue any more specific than that.

If you are truly understanding the life-style of a healthy humanist then you understand that taking life too seriously is a thinking error.
I feel like you are taking life too seriously by saying that life isn't about "fun"

You saying it is humorous is nothing but an attempt to belittle me, your "no offense" insertion is a attempt to cover your deliberate aggression. You also put in 2 smiley faces as if it will some how null out how insulting you are being. Perhaps you and I should continue when we have mutual respect and understanding.

 

[Minor Axis]

I am not offended, nor mad, just having a conversation.

If you are truly understanding the life-style of a healthy humanist then you understand that taking life too seriously is a thinking error.
I feel like you are taking life too seriously by saying that life isn't about "fun"

The issue here picking a system of belief. If "fun" is your primary requisite then so be it. Nothing is wrong with fun, it just does not carry much weight if the search is for truth.

You saying it is humorous is nothing but an attempt to belittle me, your "no offense" insertion is a attempt to cover your deliberate aggression. You also put in 2 smiley faces as if it will some how null out how insulting you are being. Perhaps you and I should continue when we have mutual respect and understanding.

Sorry you feel that way and I apologize if I hurt your feelings. All I can tell you that I ment no offense, and because I suspected you would take offense and I tried to mitigate that in advance but I failed. What you feel is educated, appears to me to be an un-educated emotion-filled guess, if "education" has some basis in logic or fact. Insults usually have something to do with the intent of the person giving one and that was not my intent. Maybe you are too sensitive when it comes to these discussions. And to reconfirm, I am not angery with you or people who have made a commitment to a system of belief, but as you know, I do question it with the best of intentions. <- not ment as another insult.

 

[DoctorDisco]

I am not offended, nor mad, just having a conversation.



The issue here picking a system of belief. If "fun" is your primary requisite then so be it. Nothing is wrong with fun, it just does not carry much weight if the search is for truth.

Sorry you feel that way and I apologize if I hurt your feelings. All I can tell you that I ment no offense, and because I suspected you would take offense and I tried to mitigate that in advance but I failed. What you feel is educated, appears to me to be an un-educated emotion-filled guess, if "education" has some basis in logic or fact. Insults usually have something to do with the intent of the person giving one and that was not my intent. Maybe you are too sensitive when it comes to these discussions. And to reconfirm, I am not angery with you or people who have made a commitment to a system of belief, but as you know, I do question it with the best of intentions. <- not ment as another insult.

Let me try and understand your side. You apologized which I am grateful for, it warms my heart and shows you are a mature individual. You are saying that we should search for truth because religion is an albatross. You believe that my argument has no backing and that it could be dictated by emotion.

You are right in that I could have been more tactful with the way I spoke, and that there was emotion in my posts, I will work on that. While you say that I am making an un-educated, that is what you think, and you can have your opinion.

Truth is over-rated in my mind. There is no way to find the truth. It is why people still have this debate, because neither side has fact in hand.

If you are going to talk to me out of a private setting I am going to call you out on your shit. As far as you claiming not to be angry, I don't believe it, I think you are trying to bottle it through denial. But I also believe you when you say you are in best of intentions. Deep down, you are a good guy, but good guys do get carried away when ego is at stake. I am telling you as someone who is interacting with you, you have a problem with passive-aggression and de-valuing others when annoyed(aka feeling threatened). That is a red flag for being closed minded. And I don't feel like going around in circles. spitting out arguments at each other that aren't going to go anywhere. So this will be my final response.

 

[Minor Axis]

If you are going to talk to me out of a private setting I am going to call you out on your shit. As far as you claiming not to be angry, I don't believe it, I think you are trying to bottle it through denial. But I also believe you when you say you are in best of intentions. Deep down, you are a good guy, but good guys do get carried away when ego is at stake. I am telling you as someone who is interacting with you, you have a problem with passive-aggression and de-valuing others when annoyed(aka feeling threatened). That is a red flag for being closed minded. And I don't feel like going around in circles. spitting out arguments at each other that aren't going to go anywhere. So this will be my final response.

Well, ok but you are completely wrong in your evaluation of my temperament, my ego, my open mindedness, my handing out of insults (as percieved by you), and especially my aggression. Just because I disagree with you only means I'm disagreeing with your conclusions. If it is your faith, fine. If you are selling your religion, I think I can disagree without being accused of having anger issues.

No hard feelings and no response is requested.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I'm like between aethiest and agnostic. Everyone I know thinks I am Mormon though, cuz I don't swear or anything. It happens when your grow up in a city of Mormons all your life hehe

 

[All Else Failed]

The life-style of a church goer is a lot more social than most anti-social life-styles of an independent humanist. Christians do not attribute their strength to god, we are individuals that find motivation from sources that are not directly in front of us. You are mis-interpreting what we mean by finding strength in god.

What is fact to them is not fact to you. If it offends you, that is your problem.



It is uniting under one commonality to do what we were meant to do since we were born. Love. Love is the master key, that opens the gates to happiness.



I am using information based off of studies from a University. 2 years of volunteer at a youth treatment center, half a year at a hospital and 1 year at an Alzheimer treatment facility. I am well versed in philosophy and regularly attend alcoholics anonymous for enlightenment purposes. I am a psychology major.




If you are truly understanding the life-style of a healthy humanist then you understand that taking life too seriously is a thinking error.
I feel like you are taking life too seriously by saying that life isn't about "fun"

You saying it is humorous is nothing but an attempt to belittle me, your "no offense" insertion is a attempt to cover your deliberate aggression. You also put in 2 smiley faces as if it will some how null out how insulting you are being. Perhaps you and I should continue when we have mutual respect and understanding.

lol what? Humanists are not "anti-social". Humanism is concerning bettering other humans. I'd say there are other philosophies out there which are better though, such as the concept of the Overman.

you say not to take life too seriously but you sound so over involved with it, in my mind.

 

[JanieDough]

how is this serendipity?

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm like between aethiest and agnostic. Everyone I know thinks I am Mormon though, cuz I don't swear or anything. It happens when your grow up in a city of Mormons all your life hehe

I'd say that makes you agnostic.

"is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove."

 

[DoctorDisco]

how is this serendipity?

Dictionary it. "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident."

Now read the original entry.

This shouldn't even have been moved to religion. We just turned it into a religious debate after it was moved here.

 

[DoctorDisco]

lol what? Humanists are not "anti-social". Humanism is concerning bettering other humans. I'd say there are other philosophies out there which are better though, such as the concept of the Overman.

you say not to take life too seriously but you sound so over involved with it, in my mind.

You aren't comprehending it as I wrote it. That is twisting my words.

 

[Crackers]

The issue here picking a system of belief. If "fun" is your primary requisite then so be it. Nothing is wrong with fun, it just does not carry much weight if the search is for truth.

Here is an interesting read: Nietzsche, Truth, and Untruth: Evaluating whether Truth is Better than Untruth

I'll copy some of it out,

[...] indicates omissions from the original source (above):

The advantages of truth over untruth, reality over falsehood, appear so obvious that it seems inconceivable that anyone would even draw it into question, much less suggest the opposite — that untruth may in fact be preferable to truth. But that is just what German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche did — and so perhaps the advantages of truth are not as clear-cut as we normally assume.

[...]

Nietzsche’s goal was to better understand the development of “facts” (moral, cultural, social, etc.) taken for granted in modern society and thereby achieve a better understanding of those facts in the process.

In his investigation of the history of truth, he poses a central question which he believes that philosophers have unjustifiably ignored: what is the value of truth?

[...]

“Indeed we came to a long halt at the question about the cause of this will — until we finally came to a complete stop before a still more basic question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?”

What Nietzsche is pointing out here is that philosophers’ (and scientists’) desire for truth, certainty, and knowledge instead of untruth, uncertainty, and ignorance are basic, unquestioned premises. However, just because they are unquestioned does not mean that they are unquestionable. For Nietzsche, the starting point of such questioning is in the genealogy of our “will to truth” itself.

[...]

As he writes in Genealogy of Morals, III, 25:

“That which constrains idealists of knowledge, this unconditional will to truth, is faith in the ascetic ideal itself even if as an unconscious imperative — don’t be deceived about that — it is faith in a metaphysical value, the absolute value of truth, sanctioned and guaranteed by this ideal alone (it stands or falls with this ideal).”

Nietzsche thus argues that truth, like the God of Plato and traditional Christianity, is the highest and most perfect being imaginable: “we men of knowledge of today, we godless men and anti-metaphysicians, we, too, still derive our flame from the fire ignited by a faith millennia old, the Christian faith, which was also Plato’s, that God is truth, that truth is divine.” (Gay Science, 344)

Now, this might not be such a problem except that Nietzsche was a staunch opponent of anything which turned human valuation away from this life and towards some other-worldly and unattainable realm. For him, this sort of move necessarily diminished humanity and human life, and thus he found this apotheoisis of truth to be unbearable. He also seems to have become annoyed at the circularity of the entire project — after all, by placing truth at the apex of all that was good and making it the standard against which all must be measured, this quite naturally ensured that the value of truth itself would always be assured and never be questioned.

[...]

Nietzsche was especially critical of those skeptics and atheists who prided themselves on having abandoned the “ascetic ideal” in other subjects but not in this one:

“These nay-sayers and outsiders of today who are unconditional on one point -- their insistence on intellectual cleanliness; these hard, severe, abstinent, heroic spirits who constitute the honor of our age; all these pale atheists, anti-Christians, immoralists, nihilists, these skeptics, ephectics, hectics of spirit, ... these last idealists of knowledge, within whom alone intellectual conscience is today alive and well, — they certainly believe they are as completely liberated from the ascetic ideal as possible, these “free, very free spirits”; and yet they themselves embody it today and perhaps they alone. [...] They are far from being free spirits: for they still have faith in truth. (Genealogy of Morals III:24)

[...]

The falseness of a judgement is not necessarily an objection to a judgment: it is here that our new language perhaps sounds strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding; and our fundamental tendency is to assert that the falsest judgements (to which synthetic judgments a priori belong ) are the most indispensable to us, that without granting as true the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a continual falsification of the world by means of numbers, mankind could not live — that to renounce false judgements would be to renounce life, would be to deny life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life: that, to be sure, means to resist customary value-sentiments in a dangerous fashion; and a philosophy which ventures to do so places itself , by that act alone, beyond good and evil.” (Beyond Good and Evil, 333)

So if Nietzsche’s approach to philosophical questions is based not upon distinguishing what is true from what is false, but rather what is life-enhancing from what is life-destroying, doesn’t that mean that he is a relativist when it comes to truth? He did seem to argue that what people in society usually call “truth” has more to do with social conventions than reality:

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions — they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins. (“On Truth and Lies in an Extramoral Sense” 84)

[...]

Nietzsche accepted the existence of things that are “true” and appears to have adopted some form of the Correspondence Theory of truth, thus placing him well outside the camp of relativists. Where he differs from many other philosophers, however, is that he abandoned any blind faith in the value and need for truth at all times and in all occasions. He did not deny the existence or value of truth, but he did deny that truth must always be valuable or that it is easy to obtain.

Sometimes it is better to be ignorant of the brutal truth, and sometimes it is easier to live with a falsehood. Whatever the case may be, it always come down to a value judgment: preferring to have truth over untruth or vice-versa in any particular instance is a statement about what you value, and that always makes it very personal — not cold and objective, as some try to portray it.

There is a point in the text I don't agree with: "Sometimes it is better to be ignorant of the brutal truth, and sometimes it is easier to live with a falsehood."

Nietzsche would disagree with this, I think. The point he raises is not that it might be easier to live with falsehood, but that it may be worthwhile to live with a falsehood.

The problem is I think that, from Nietzsche's point of view, what makes your life "easier" is not what is good for you. Nietzsche was actually strongly opposed to living an easy life and encouraged adversity.

This is a falsehood that I think Nietzsche would encourage, for example:
Imagine that you believed that in order to survive you had to constantly be thinking of ways to improve yourself; an obvious delusion as self-improvement is not required in order to survive in most cases. But with this delusional you would actually benefit. So this would be an example of when an untruth is more valuable than a truth.

edit:

My entire life I've done what I could to try and convince myself that god is real because when I was about 10 I started hearing everyone talk down on those that didn't believe in god so I told everyone that I did... After a while I realized that it wasn't working out and I needed to just be honest to myself and don't bullshit everyone to just come out and let everyone know I didn't believe in their god...

"The Mysterious Stranger" is a (great) book by Mark Twain. It's set in the times when many women were accused of being "witches" and were executed for it.

There's a part in the story when a suspected witch is being stoned to death. There's about 60 people who are all throwing stones at her. The main character in the story, a young boy, knows that he doesn't really want to stone the woman but he does so anyway so as to avoid the suspicions of the other people around him who expect him to behave the same way they are.

"Satan", another character in the story, reads the boys mind and laughs. He tells the boy that of the 60 people who are throwing the stones only about 4 of them actually mean it, while the rest are simply doing it so they don't draw attention to themselves.

Point being: people don't always appear as they are. Just because everyone else is saying they believe in God doesn't mean they actually do. Others might have been going through the very same thing you did.

edit 2:

Read Thus spoke Zarathustra. its filled with ways to live life bravely and love everything in it all the while being an atheist.

In fact it presents a much more life-affirming way to live than christianity does. It also lays down a very convincing case as to why christianity (and other such religions) are actually opposed to life and devalue it.

I wouldn't call it "The Bible of the atheist" simply because it holds proper philosophy unlike that of the Bible. However, an atheist can make as much use of this book as a christian can from the Bible.

 

[JanieDough]

Dictionary it. "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident."

Now read the original entry.

This shouldn't even have been moved to religion. We just turned it into a religious debate after it was moved here.

i guess i am confused as to why it is an accident that you walked into the church or is it an accident that some one with your experiences got to share them?

 

[Crackers]

i guess i am confused as to why it is an accident that you walked into the church or is it an accident that some one with your experiences got to share them?

Just that he enjoyed it (which he didn't expect).

 

[Minor Axis]

This shouldn't even have been moved to religion. We just turned it into a religious debate after it was moved here.

Your first post completely qualifies for the religious forum- Church, God, I used to be an Atheist, case closed.

 

[Minor Axis]

Here is an interesting read: Nietzsche, Truth, and Untruth: Evaluating whether Truth is Better than Untruth

I'll copy some of it out...

Thanks for the perspective. I did read through your post.

My perspective is this: if you are a realist, then only the truth matters. If you want to deceive yourself then untruth works perfectly. Until there is evidence to the contrary most religions and their followers fall into the latter category imo. However if they say it is their faith, I can accept that. When is comes to death, faith is all any of us have.

 

[DoctorDisco]

Here is an interesting read: Nietzsche, Truth, and Untruth: Evaluating whether Truth is Better than Untruth

I'll copy some of it out,

[...] indicates omissions from the original source (above):


There is a point in the text I don't agree with: "Sometimes it is better to be ignorant of the brutal truth, and sometimes it is easier to live with a falsehood."

Nietzsche would disagree with this, I think. The point he raises is not that it might be easier to live with falsehood, but that it may be worthwhile to live with a falsehood.

The problem is I think that, from Nietzsche's point of view, what makes your life "easier" is not what is good for you. Nietzsche was actually strongly opposed to living an easy life and encouraged adversity.

This is a falsehood that I think Nietzsche would encourage, for example:
Imagine that you believed that in order to survive you had to constantly be thinking of ways to improve yourself; an obvious delusion as self-improvement is not required in order to survive in most cases. But with this delusional you would actually benefit. So this would be an example of when an untruth is more valuable than a truth.

edit:



"The Mysterious Stranger" is a (great) book by Mark Twain. It's set in the times when many women were accused of being "witches" and were executed for it.

There's a part in the story when a suspected witch is being stoned to death. There's about 60 people who are all throwing stones at her. The main character in the story, a young boy, knows that he doesn't really want to stone the woman but he does so anyway so as to avoid the suspicions of the other people around him who expect him to behave the same way they are.

"Satan", another character in the story, reads the boys mind and laughs. He tells the boy that of the 60 people who are throwing the stones only about 4 of them actually mean it, while the rest are simply doing it so they don't draw attention to themselves.

Point being: people don't always appear as they are. Just because everyone else is saying they believe in God doesn't mean they actually do. Others might have been going through the very same thing you did.

edit 2:



In fact it presents a much more life-affirming way to live than christianity does. It also lays down a very convincing case as to why christianity (and other such religions) are actually opposed to life and devalue it.

I wouldn't call it "The Bible of the atheist" simply because it holds proper philosophy unlike that of the Bible. However, an atheist can make as much use of this book as a christian can from the Bible.

Bravo. Profound and well worded. I am inspired.