Only in as much as they are both verbs. tsq is correct that a lack of belief cannot be defined as a kind of belief. To so define it is to misunderstand, wilfully or deliberately, the meaning of the state.
Faith/Religion/Spirituality - Self-Denial? And Philosophy
- Thread starter Mr Silver
- Start date
Only in as much as they are both verbs. tsq is correct that a lack of belief cannot be defined as a kind of belief. To so define it is to misunderstand, wilfully or deliberately, the meaning of the state.
A
Amaris
Guest
I just hate the idea of losing everything. Sure, matter is neither created nor destroyed, but what good is a memory if it's pieces are scattered beyond all hope of recovery?
Some suggest that maybe the universe remembers. While that notion is a romantic one that really appeals to me, at the same time, it just doesn't feel right. All a matter of opinion, of course.
I've generally found that it's a mixture of both. When I was still a devout Christian, I believed that atheists knew God existed, but they either refused to accept God, or they chose to deny God. Either way, the default was that everyone believed in God, just some people refused to acknowledge Him. This is what I was taught. This was a common belief in the community.
Silly, yes. Shortsighted, myopic, irrational? Yes, but there it is.
A
Amaris
Guest
I don't know about that. Not believing in Santa Claus comes in flavors.
Those who've never heard of Santa Claus (at this point isolated tribesmen somewhere), and thus don't believe or disbelieve in him (they have zero neurons devoted to his existence). That would be akin to fetal and newborn atheists, who are so young they haven't even realized there's something to question.
There are those who are aware that some cultures have a Santa Claus thingy, much like we're aware that some people in India have festivals about weird elephants and multi-armed women - or something - without even wondering whether they actually believe in such dieties, much less wondering if we do, or could.
There are those who actually believe in Santa Claus, and think he's a real magial being.
There are those who know that he's not really a magical being, but believe he was a real person whose spirit makes people give presents.
There are those who know that he's not a spirit, but a real tradition and idea that lives in the hearts of men.
There are those who think the whole story is a fake, and a vast but amusing and harmless conspiracy.
There are those who hate the idea of Santa, hate Christmas, and take delight in telling little kids that he's a fraud and their parents are lying to them.
There are those who think Santa's spirit should be sacrosanct and are irate at the way capitalists have commercialized him, exploiting something pure and good for their own ends.
There are those who think Santa is a secularization of something whole and sacrosanct, and view him as a false god that distract people from Jesus.
There are those who don't believe in Santa but study how the tradition operates, and what psychological and social needs he fulfils, and how his image changes over time.
There are those who don't really care, like expatriots who ignore local festivals to the point of not even being interested in what the latest street dancing was about.
"Believer, agnostic, and atheist" aren't quite adequate to describe all these distinctions.
Those who've never heard of Santa Claus (at this point isolated tribesmen somewhere), and thus don't believe or disbelieve in him (they have zero neurons devoted to his existence). That would be akin to fetal and newborn atheists, who are so young they haven't even realized there's something to question.
There are those who are aware that some cultures have a Santa Claus thingy, much like we're aware that some people in India have festivals about weird elephants and multi-armed women - or something - without even wondering whether they actually believe in such dieties, much less wondering if we do, or could.
There are those who actually believe in Santa Claus, and think he's a real magial being.
There are those who know that he's not really a magical being, but believe he was a real person whose spirit makes people give presents.
There are those who know that he's not a spirit, but a real tradition and idea that lives in the hearts of men.
There are those who think the whole story is a fake, and a vast but amusing and harmless conspiracy.
There are those who hate the idea of Santa, hate Christmas, and take delight in telling little kids that he's a fraud and their parents are lying to them.
There are those who think Santa's spirit should be sacrosanct and are irate at the way capitalists have commercialized him, exploiting something pure and good for their own ends.
There are those who think Santa is a secularization of something whole and sacrosanct, and view him as a false god that distract people from Jesus.
There are those who don't believe in Santa but study how the tradition operates, and what psychological and social needs he fulfils, and how his image changes over time.
There are those who don't really care, like expatriots who ignore local festivals to the point of not even being interested in what the latest street dancing was about.
"Believer, agnostic, and atheist" aren't quite adequate to describe all these distinctions.
A
Amaris
Guest
Sure it does. One word can never truly describe anything, but the descriptors used when it comes to belief (or lack thereof) are more than adequate.
Question: "Do you believe in a god or gods?"
Answer:
Believer: "Yes", or "Yes, but..."
Agnostic: "I don't know", or "I don't know, but..."
Atheist: "No", or "No, but..."
The words aren't comprehensive in that they instantly describe every aspect of a person's point of view, nor should they. Trying to make such an issue more complex merely clouds things in useless verbal and mental detritus.
Religion is so dangerous. I've probably said this before, but I regard you as coming across as one of the most good-hearted posters on this forum. My point is, that religion can be so dangerous, that even the most decent can fall into the trap of denial.
That denial can manifest in many ways, such as in J's case, in which he believe that everybody knew that God existed, but some refused to acknowledge it. I used to feel similar to this myself, when I was still conflicted.
It's a bit like Santa Claus, except people never grow out of it. Nonetheless, I'd still rather be content with being agnostic, than humour the nagging thoughts in the back of my mind, that bring out the atheistic, and scientific side of me. Maybe that's a bit of denial too.
The agnostic should be taken out of that, since it's just an add on for theist or atheist.
A
Amaris
Guest
I believe religion can be dangerous, but not that it is dangerous by default. Keep in mind that my faith was of the more hardcore evangelical variety. It would be better to say fundamentalism or extremism is dangerous, regardless of it's root belief.
I left it in because I feel it's distinct enough to have it's own answer. While an agnostic and atheist are very similar, I have no problem letting there be a minor distinction between the two. Of course, the same could be said for apatheist, in that a person simply doesn't care, but that may be a little too vague to clearly categorize.
I am unclear on what exactly you're saying here but I don't think it's always a trap to be avoided. It really depends on the individual. For some people, religion is a hindrance and impediment to their search for truth. For others, religion enriches and enhances their life. You come off really condescending here.
Personally, I'm not at all content with the idea of losing my consciousness. Not just because I've become accustomed to being alive, but also because I find it such a waste. All of that experience, information, the whole of my memories, all gone, dispersed to the four winds (Sorry, Mr. Homn, I am a bit of a romantic.).
Sure, I won't be aware of it, the person whom I identify as me will not even care because he won't be there, and intellectually I understand that, but on a more visceral level, it does affect me. At the very least, I would like the human lifespan to be longer, even though it would still end.
The idea of "me" is quite an interesting one, I find. Every time I go to sleep, my consciousness is suspended and I don't engage in any form of actively chosen deed, but rather my mind simply turns on a sort of screensaver known as REM sleep, and my body breathes, both of which are involuntary reflexes as a result of human biology. When I am in this state, I am merely lying there and seemingly not doing anything.
The thought of dying does occasionally bother me as well as I'd very much like to carry on being a part of the world and contributing to it, but if I was being faced with the prospect of actually having to meet my maker (or possibly not, as a bus advert once told me) I think I might actually turn around and think about what the world is like because of things I've done.
Biologically, I've reproduced and so there are two other individuals genetically similar to me who will carry on walking the Earth after I've gone and carry on my lineage. However, I've also touched the lives of a lot of people, I hope for the better.
I've taught quite a few students and given them my own personal perspective on things, I've helped friends out with personal problems and on a wider level I've contributed to charity and done charitable works in order to try and make the world beyond me a nicer place. I hope that all of these things will carry on after I've gone as well, so that something I've done will carry on doing good long after I've ceased to be able to do them.
Even after we've moved on from the world, we leave behind an impression on it physically (through a very, very tiny increase in entropy through heat exchange, etc) and in the memories of others and how we affected their lives, hopefully for the better. I find that quite comforting, as even if I disappear from the world tomorrow, our presence in the world has changed it forever and permanently, even if it is in a small way and our thoughts, actions and values will remain with the world long after we have physically parted from it. Even if there is no God, the possibility for something of us to survive after death is nonetheless there in the world.
Yeah, I'm less reluctant to say that because it's difficult for me to imagine religion not influencing someone's life in any way. It's such a big part of politics here that I couldn't say any American is wholly unaffected by it. I don't know other counties well enough to speak to that.
Of course that's not the same as someone being affected who is apathetic to the effects, which is highly possible.
It's also worth pointing out that there are similar shades and types in agnosticism, as listed e.g. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism, which has a nice four circle Venn diagram.
From that wiki article:
Well, I disagree. As listed in that wiki article, an agnostic can also be considered something in it's own right. I find this distinction especially significant:
From that wiki article:
I think that's a very worthwhile distinction there, between knowledge and belief.
Well, I disagree. As listed in that wiki article, an agnostic can also be considered something in it's own right. I find this distinction especially significant:
I'm an open agnostic, and I voted agnostic in the poll. I was raised Episcopalian, and I'm proud of it.
A
Amaris
Guest
Personally, I'm not at all content with the idea of losing my consciousness. Not just because I've become accustomed to being alive, but also because I find it such a waste. All of that experience, information, the whole of my memories, all gone, dispersed to the four winds (Sorry, Mr. Homn, I am a bit of a romantic.
Sure, I won't be aware of it, the person whom I identify as me will not even care because he won't be there, and intellectually I understand that, but on a more visceral level, it does affect me. At the very least, I would like the human lifespan to be longer, even though it would still end.
The idea of "me" is quite an interesting one, I find. Every time I go to sleep, my consciousness is suspended and I don't engage in any form of actively chosen deed, but rather my mind simply turns on a sort of screensaver known as REM sleep, and my body breathes, both of which are involuntary reflexes as a result of human biology. When I am in this state, I am merely lying there and seemingly not doing anything.
The thought of dying does occasionally bother me as well as I'd very much like to carry on being a part of the world and contributing to it, but if I was being faced with the prospect of actually having to meet my maker (or possibly not, as a bus advert once told me) I think I might actually turn around and think about what the world is like because of things I've done.
Biologically, I've reproduced and so there are two other individuals genetically similar to me who will carry on walking the Earth after I've gone and carry on my lineage. However, I've also touched the lives of a lot of people, I hope for the better.
I've taught quite a few students and given them my own personal perspective on things, I've helped friends out with personal problems and on a wider level I've contributed to charity and done charitable works in order to try and make the world beyond me a nicer place. I hope that all of these things will carry on after I've gone as well, so that something I've done will carry on doing good long after I've ceased to be able to do them.
Even after we've moved on from the world, we leave behind an impression on it physically (through a very, very tiny increase in entropy through heat exchange, etc) and in the memories of others and how we affected their lives, hopefully for the better. I find that quite comforting, as even if I disappear from the world tomorrow, our presence in the world has changed it forever and permanently, even if it is in a small way and our thoughts, actions and values will remain with the world long after we have physically parted from it. Even if there is no God, the possibility for something of us to survive after death is nonetheless there in the world.
You make excellent points. We touch so many lives, and it can bring it's own solace, but as you know, my mind does not rest on such things. Instead, it just brings me to ask, what about those of us who have left little or nothing? What about the lonely ones? Is there nothing for them to leave behind other than a broken, empty body?
Let's pick out two publicly known persons of one religion, Martin Luther King and Pat Robertson. The ones used his faith for something good, the other for something bad.
That's why any statement of the form "religion is XYZ" is wrong.
Religion is not something monolithic, it is rather one way of human thinking.
Take something which should be pretty prosaic and rational, the way we organize our public life, politics. Of course you can rationally argue for your position and so on but on the zero level of one's political opinion you encounter belief, you just know that it is right. That's why political discussions, which should be something totally rational, you just sit together and talk about how we organize our public life, can become so nasty: it is a crush of believes.
Need more caffeine!Similar threads
