Faith/Religion/Spirituality - Self-Denial? And Philosophy
- Thread starter Mr Silver
- Start date
My body will be alive as long as my consciousness will exist, so in my perspective, it is functionally eternal. My soul, on the other hand, dies every time I see people discussing the most recent Star Trek movie.
Some people fear being forgotten by those who live after them; they would not like your functional eternity. I sort of do.
beamMe is correct, atheism is not belief, it is the lack of belief, though it is understandable that people easily confuse it. But think of it this way: I don't play golf...but no one considers not playing golf a sport. I don't believe in god. Not believing in god is not a belief.
PUPPIES!
Now that I've got everyone's attention, can we please put the "what is atheism" hamster-wheeling to rest? Because it's really quite simple, and there's just no excuse for anyone not to be clear on it anymore. Ahem:
Now that I've got everyone's attention, can we please put the "what is atheism" hamster-wheeling to rest? Because it's really quite simple, and there's just no excuse for anyone not to be clear on it anymore. Ahem:
There are two separate, equally valid branches of atheism, one of which is an active belief that could be termed "antitheism", and one which is not a belief, and is more or less synonymous with agnosticism. Wikipedia lays it out rather clearly:
... And now you know.
I disagree with the idea of explicit and implicit atheism. Not believing that something is true and (for lack of a better word) believing that something is false is the exact same thing. There is no difference.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. There is no such thing as strong/weak or implicit/explicit atheism. I also have a problem with the agnostic label, but that's an argument for another day.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. There is no such thing as strong/weak or implicit/explicit atheism. I also have a problem with the agnostic label, but that's an argument for another day.
Firstly, some musings on the poll options:
Agnosticism in relation to theism isn't mutually exclusive with any of the other options, and nor (as far as I can tell) are Buddhism or general spirituality. On that basis I think that a multiple-choice or multiple-question poll would have been better.
I'm a non-theist, as are my shoes. But unlike my shoes, I've developed a view that the major theisms are all baloney, so I'm an unbeliever when it comes to them. I don't know that I'd call myself a gnostic atheist, as (I can kid myself that) there may in principle be a creator of some kind who intervenes directly with the Universe in some fashion.
Deism has its attractions and is perfectly consistent (in my opinion) with at least two of the given options, being atheism and general spirituality.
I also have to claim to be a thanatist, a word that probably doesn't get bandied about as much as it should, given that I've only just discovered that it's the word for a person who believes that there's no life after death. (To me, gnostic athanatism would be wishful thinking or at least disingenuous in the extreme.)
Anyway, I'm taking the atheist option as (aside oerhaps from general spirituality) it's the one that best describes my thoughts.
Certainly some options do relate to the having of a particular stance on self-denial. However, regardless of how the concept of self-denial was introduced to the human race, I think that a healthy level of self-denial is nowadays largely fixed in place by societal structure and secular authority rather than religious doctrine. IMO self-denial should be goal-orientated and a policy born of sensible reasons rather than an end in itself. If none of us had any self-imposed behavioural harness then we'd live in a much uglier and more violent society, and no-one wants that.
Agnosticism in relation to theism isn't mutually exclusive with any of the other options, and nor (as far as I can tell) are Buddhism or general spirituality. On that basis I think that a multiple-choice or multiple-question poll would have been better.
I'm a non-theist, as are my shoes. But unlike my shoes, I've developed a view that the major theisms are all baloney, so I'm an unbeliever when it comes to them. I don't know that I'd call myself a gnostic atheist, as (I can kid myself that) there may in principle be a creator of some kind who intervenes directly with the Universe in some fashion.
Deism has its attractions and is perfectly consistent (in my opinion) with at least two of the given options, being atheism and general spirituality.
I also have to claim to be a thanatist, a word that probably doesn't get bandied about as much as it should, given that I've only just discovered that it's the word for a person who believes that there's no life after death. (To me, gnostic athanatism would be wishful thinking or at least disingenuous in the extreme.)
Anyway, I'm taking the atheist option as (aside oerhaps from general spirituality) it's the one that best describes my thoughts.
Certainly some options do relate to the having of a particular stance on self-denial. However, regardless of how the concept of self-denial was introduced to the human race, I think that a healthy level of self-denial is nowadays largely fixed in place by societal structure and secular authority rather than religious doctrine. IMO self-denial should be goal-orientated and a policy born of sensible reasons rather than an end in itself. If none of us had any self-imposed behavioural harness then we'd live in a much uglier and more violent society, and no-one wants that.
No, that would be pretty rare; in fact, getting up this morning may have been a mistake, but I've only myself to blame for that.
I do find, however, that knowing why a word is spelled a certain way can be useful (and not solely for purposes of spelling it correctly.)
I'm an Atheist. This is because I don't believe in the supernatural and I do believe in reality, so take your pick whether to consider it a belief or not. 
And, yes, religion very much involves denial. That's the basic concept of faith-- believing in something despite lack of evidence or negative evidence.
And, yes, religion very much involves denial. That's the basic concept of faith-- believing in something despite lack of evidence or negative evidence.
I too disagree with what Gaith posted, for the same reason as you, Kelthaz. I don't know what your ideas on agnosticism are, but, although I consider myself atheist, if I get really technical about it I have to call myself agnostic, and here's why: depending on how god is defined, god can be an unfalsifiable claim. Unfalsifiable claims are beyond the realm of science. Though all reason and logic tell me there is no god, I cannot with certitude say there is no god. It's a real technicality, though.
In principle, though, you can falsify a hypothesis that a specific god exists, and for a believer this would generally amount to the same thing (ie the same issue).
Come now. There may be a bicycle in the dorm room above mine. I don't know; I've never seen the room's interior. A neighbor told me that he thinks there is a bicycle in that room, but he hasn't seen it either, so I'm not sure he speaks with any credibility.
Do you really not see the difference between my not believing my neighbor's claim that there is a bicycle in the room upstairs, and my actively believing that there is none? Both share a lack of positive belief in the bicycle, but they are self-evidently non-identical thoughts.
I am a Christian. Why, you may ask? I was taught about Christ back in the day, and I continue to believe in Him. I know there's no proof for this. But as has been pointed out, there's no proof AGAINST it either. That's why it's not even close to the 'imaginary friend' angle. In that case, a child creates a character that he/she KNOWS is false. The same is not the case here. The very essence of faith is the belief in things not seen. I realize that's not enough for some people. I'd be lying if I said I was happy with that, but don't worry, I won't go waving it in anyone's face or anything like that.
Some people ask me why I accept the Bible, and my Christian faith, while there are so many others out there. I admit I don't have an answer for this. It just happens to be how I was raised, and even though I use my brain in my life, I still accept it. But that reminds me - part of my personal identity as a Christian is that I'm not afraid to admit I don't have all the answers, and that I'm not expected to. You want me to tell you why I believe in God even though there's so much evil in the world? I can't explain that discrepancy. I don't know why evil exists. But I will be sure to ask God about that when I meet Him.
Some people ask me why I accept the Bible, and my Christian faith, while there are so many others out there. I admit I don't have an answer for this. It just happens to be how I was raised, and even though I use my brain in my life, I still accept it. But that reminds me - part of my personal identity as a Christian is that I'm not afraid to admit I don't have all the answers, and that I'm not expected to. You want me to tell you why I believe in God even though there's so much evil in the world? I can't explain that discrepancy. I don't know why evil exists. But I will be sure to ask God about that when I meet Him.
For my own part, my favorite self-descriptor is apatheist. Quoth Wiki:
Apatheism, also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.
[...]
The eighteenth century French philosopher Denis Diderot, when accused of being an atheist, replied that he simply did not care whether God existed or not. In response to Voltaire, he wrote that "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God."
[...]
The eighteenth century French philosopher Denis Diderot, when accused of being an atheist, replied that he simply did not care whether God existed or not. In response to Voltaire, he wrote that "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God."
Side note: I think the closing scene of B5's "Parliament of Dreams" is really, really cool.
I'm an Atheist. This is because I don't believe in the supernatural and I do believe in reality, so take your pick whether to consider it a belief or not.
And, yes, religion very much involves denial. That's the basic concept of faith-- believing in something despite lack of evidence or negative evidence.
^YES. I describe myself as a Devout Atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural; I believe in the natural world and reality. I practice my belief every day in every facet of my life.
I think this is true for some gods, but not for all -- it depends on how the specific god is defined. While you can disprove specific aspects of a god (for example, you can disprove the efficacy of intercessory prayer) you cannot disprove a god hypothesis that conforms perfectly to nature -- ie, the god of Intelligent Design proponents, or the god of many deists' perspective. These god hypotheses which imagine a god who created the universe to develop and evolve exactly as it did, while irrational, result in a universe indistinguishable from a natural, godless universe. Therefore, they present an unfalsifiable claim.
Similar threads
