Faith/Religion/Spirituality - Self-Denial? And Philosophy

[horatio83]

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?

When you focus too much on time, the future, leaving things behind and so on it becomes pretty hard to find meaning in a universe in which expands, cools down and exists forever without anything happening in it (if it collapsed again you could at least narrativize it as rebirth).
The time I spent with my grandmother in the years before she died is not something I left behind, it is forever gone just like she is. It was still good. Nothing is in vain just because it ends and vanishes.

 

[FlyingLemons]

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?

Although humans like to imagine that they'll leave behind a big, impressive legacy and that their name will be emblazoned into the world, the truth is that most of us won't have that but rather leave behind a much more subtle legacy. If we've lived well in the world, we've made it a bit of a better place and that's pretty much the most important part of life.

Quite a lot of that is just through small actions in everyday life, and no matter what people say that's where the biggest things start. For example, say you're on a bus and you see an old lady getting on, having difficulty standing and you get up to give her your seat, you've improved the world.

Why? Well, when you're surrounded by people who won't give up their seats because they're thinking "I don't want to stand" despite the fact that they are far more able-bodied than her, you've set an example and placed the thoughts in the head of those that are surrounding you that perhaps next time it might be nice to think of those who have less than they do (that can be in body as well as possessions) and while some will continue to be selfish, others will think of what you did on that day and decide that they want to be that bit better.

And when they do what you did, think of someone else, they in turn can show others that they can be better. Someone carrying out a simple act of kindness can influence others to do so as well, and even if that person didn't have much their simple and small act may help to make the world a better place through demonstrating to others that people can be better.

If I donate a lot of money to charity to make myself look good, using wealth that others don't have but then proceed to go around the world treating everyone like shit, then in effect I've undone any good I've done by setting everyone a bad example through selfish, ugly behavior which has the effect of making those around me a bit more selfish themselves. I've cancelled out the good I could do with bad.

To contrast, if someone who has far less material wealth than me is simply a decent human being then they've made the world a better place. They've done far better than I have, and according to my faith God will look more favorably on them than me. Or in secular terms, they've actually been leading a morally good life whereas I'm effectively just paying for the right to make more mess and lead a morally bad life through charitable contribution.

Ultimately what matters is not whether someone is rich or poor, but how they lead their lives. That means that pretty much even the poor can leave behind a legacy of having done good in the world while they were here, even if they're not celebrated for it.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

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...

Exactly. Your examples were good. I'll throw in another pair: some Muslim fundamentalists who become terrorists, and a Muslim home-health nurse I know, who devotes her life to taking care of her patients, few (if any) of whom share her religion.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Don't take my word for it, look at how we portray immoral creatures in our art. The Greek gods or Q are bored and the games they play matter little to them. Tolkien's elves might be an exception as they do care about the worldly matters yet to a far less degree than mortal humans who are driven to live an intense life precisely because it is so short.

In short, even if there were some heavenly afterlife of eternal bliss it would suck because after some time eternal bliss boils down to being a living dead.

Works of fiction are not evidence of reality, just evidence of opinion. If I were to write about immortality (and I have ), it would be portrayed quite differently.

 

[Amaris]

When you focus too much on time, the future, leaving things behind and so on it becomes pretty hard to find meaning in a universe in which expands, cools down and exists forever without anything happening in it (if it collapsed again you could at least narrativize it as rebirth).
The time I spent with my grandmother in the years before she died is not something I left behind, it is forever gone just like she is. It was still good. Nothing is in vain just because it ends and vanishes.

Well, one of my failings is that I constantly focus on time, and on the future. Even when I'm working on something, somewhere in the back of my mind is that second hand ticking from one second to the next, and it never goes away.

Although humans like to imagine that they'll leave behind a big, impressive legacy and that their name will be emblazoned into the world, the truth is that most of us won't have that but rather leave behind a much more subtle legacy. If we've lived well in the world, we've made it a bit of a better place and that's pretty much the most important part of life.

Quite a lot of that is just through small actions in everyday life, and no matter what people say that's where the biggest things start. For example, say you're on a bus and you see an old lady getting on, having difficulty standing and you get up to give her your seat, you've improved the world.

Why? Well, when you're surrounded by people who won't give up their seats because they're thinking "I don't want to stand" despite the fact that they are far more able-bodied than her, you've set an example and placed the thoughts in the head of those that are surrounding you that perhaps next time it might be nice to think of those who have less than they do (that can be in body as well as possessions) and while some will continue to be selfish, others will think of what you did on that day and decide that they want to be that bit better.

And when they do what you did, think of someone else, they in turn can show others that they can be better. Someone carrying out a simple act of kindness can influence others to do so as well, and even if that person didn't have much their simple and small act may help to make the world a better place through demonstrating to others that people can be better.

If I donate a lot of money to charity to make myself look good, using wealth that others don't have but then proceed to go around the world treating everyone like shit, then in effect I've undone any good I've done by setting everyone a bad example through selfish, ugly behavior which has the effect of making those around me a bit more selfish themselves. I've cancelled out the good I could do with bad.

To contrast, if someone who has far less material wealth than me is simply a decent human being then they've made the world a better place. They've done far better than I have, and according to my faith God will look more favorably on them than me. Or in secular terms, they've actually been leading a morally good life whereas I'm effectively just paying for the right to make more mess and lead a morally bad life through charitable contribution.

Ultimately what matters is not whether someone is rich or poor, but how they lead their lives. That means that pretty much even the poor can leave behind a legacy of having done good in the world while they were here, even if they're not celebrated for it.

I understand what you're saying. I guess I just chafe at the inequity inherent in the universe or at the very least, in humanity. For example, when I witness good people being stomped on, regardless of their economic status, or when a person works hard to help others, with no expectation of reward, and they are taken advantage of, and then discarded at the end of their strength, when they're no longer needed, it just brings about this sense of helpless and hopeless frustration.

I've found myself thinking about death a lot more, lately. I'll watch a television show, and there will be a shoot out, and someone will be killed, and all I can do is focus on the fact that that person, who is now dead (at least on the show), has ceased to exist, and that whatever memories of love, family, friendship, that they've had, is now gone.

The protagonists, of course, are already moving on to their next target, and so all I can think of is how easy it is for them to end that person's life and move on with their own life, as if nothing of consequence has occurred.

Granted these are television shows, but I'm only using them to explain a point. I guess it's why as I get older, I abhor violence more and more. I've never been a great fan of violence anyway, but it really gets driven home these days.

Of course, that is something about religion/spirituality that I dislike. The idea that "He's gone, but he's in a better place now". For that person it takes away some of the emotional trauma of death, but at the same time, it also takes away the hard edge of death itself, and the horrible event that has taken place, where one's life has ceased to exist. It's a double edged sword.

I guess I feel that there should be more to it than what there is. Perhaps I'm having difficulty with the idea that death is so common, as to be "normal", even routine. Nature is vicious, and time is so fleeting, and the clock just keeps ticking. So even if you survive the slings and arrows of day to day living, you will still be taken down by entropy itself. Life is costly. Time is exorbitantly so, and yet, so many of us treat them both like they're commodities that can be bartered against, when it just isn't so.

Sometimes I have no problems understanding why, at some point in our development, humans created a devil.

Sometimes I just want a hug.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's hard to imagine someone not leaning at all on the question "do you believe that god exists?" I take the lack of belief, but don't know people to be agnostic atheists.

Hi, nice to meat you!

For the record (from the same wiki),

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[20]

I'd go so far as to say that weak agnosticism implies agnostic atheism. So, I'm both an open agnostic and an agnostic atheist.

Now, you could also say, "Gee, that's just weak atheism, too," and you'd be right, in the sense that weak agnosticism also implies weak atheism. Here's some perspective, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Positive_vs._negative (not that I agree with everything in here):

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[29] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[citation needed] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[43] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[44][unreliable source?] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[45] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[46] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[47] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[48]

My reasons for preferring to self-identify as open agnostic are at least threefold.

First, I must acknowledge the influence of the literature I was exposed to growing up. The fact that my position meets the definition of weak atheism is something that I regard more of as a technicality than not, and that view of mine is no doubt influenced by those books. (However, also observe that the definition of agnostic atheist given above itself reads like a couple of technicalities.)

Second, I observe that the extreme positions, which are asserting that god exists on the one hand and asserting that god does not exist on the other, lie within theism and unqualified atheism respectively. I find it cognitively useful, therefore, not to use either of those terms to describe my position. Me selecting a third term is my way of emphasizing that my position does not lie at the extremes.

Third, people who routinely emphasize that theists have not met the burden of proof, to use in their argument that god does not exist, tend to run with the atheists, of course. Self-identifying as agnostic is also my way of distancing myself from them. I see those types of arguments as more useful for winning debates by browbeating than for acquiring knowledge.

I do have a sense that I am willing to seriously entertain the idea that god exists. I am also willing to seriously entertain the idea that god does not exist. Both are extraordinary claims to me. (To those who would argue that the idea that god does not exist is not really extraordinary, think of the impact that proving that god does not exist would have on humanity. If you don't think that that impact would be extraordinary, then I think you are deluding yourselves.) I really see myself completely in the middle. Over the years, I've made some progress, but it's all indecisive, so there's nothing really to share at this time. Therefore, any leaning that I might do would only occur in the light of evidence and the gaining of knowledge. I've tried to assume no a priori position in my quest for such knowledge.

Sorry this turned into tl;dr. I'm really passionate about it.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

i like bill maher's 'belief is a mental illness' idea. that is all.

I would not put too much stock in the bitter opinions of in a guy with such a laughable inability to date women on his own that he's spent years haunting the Playboy mansion, where he's "supplied" women paid not to say no.

That bitter mindset drives his little life, which was present in his anti-religon agenda-thon film. It is no wonder why his film was ignored.

 

[sonak]

When you focus too much on time, the future, leaving things behind and so on it becomes pretty hard to find meaning in a universe in which expands, cools down and exists forever without anything happening in it (if it collapsed again you could at least narrativize it as rebirth).
The time I spent with my grandmother in the years before she died is not something I left behind, it is forever gone just like she is. It was still good. Nothing is in vain just because it ends and vanishes.

Well, one of my failings is that I constantly focus on time, and on the future. Even when I'm working on something, somewhere in the back of my mind is that second hand ticking from one second to the next, and it never goes away.

Although humans like to imagine that they'll leave behind a big, impressive legacy and that their name will be emblazoned into the world, the truth is that most of us won't have that but rather leave behind a much more subtle legacy. If we've lived well in the world, we've made it a bit of a better place and that's pretty much the most important part of life.

Quite a lot of that is just through small actions in everyday life, and no matter what people say that's where the biggest things start. For example, say you're on a bus and you see an old lady getting on, having difficulty standing and you get up to give her your seat, you've improved the world.

Why? Well, when you're surrounded by people who won't give up their seats because they're thinking "I don't want to stand" despite the fact that they are far more able-bodied than her, you've set an example and placed the thoughts in the head of those that are surrounding you that perhaps next time it might be nice to think of those who have less than they do (that can be in body as well as possessions) and while some will continue to be selfish, others will think of what you did on that day and decide that they want to be that bit better.

And when they do what you did, think of someone else, they in turn can show others that they can be better. Someone carrying out a simple act of kindness can influence others to do so as well, and even if that person didn't have much their simple and small act may help to make the world a better place through demonstrating to others that people can be better.

If I donate a lot of money to charity to make myself look good, using wealth that others don't have but then proceed to go around the world treating everyone like shit, then in effect I've undone any good I've done by setting everyone a bad example through selfish, ugly behavior which has the effect of making those around me a bit more selfish themselves. I've cancelled out the good I could do with bad.

To contrast, if someone who has far less material wealth than me is simply a decent human being then they've made the world a better place. They've done far better than I have, and according to my faith God will look more favorably on them than me. Or in secular terms, they've actually been leading a morally good life whereas I'm effectively just paying for the right to make more mess and lead a morally bad life through charitable contribution.

Ultimately what matters is not whether someone is rich or poor, but how they lead their lives. That means that pretty much even the poor can leave behind a legacy of having done good in the world while they were here, even if they're not celebrated for it.

I understand what you're saying. I guess I just chafe at the inequity inherent in the universe or at the very least, in humanity. For example, when I witness good people being stomped on, regardless of their economic status, or when a person works hard to help others, with no expectation of reward, and they are taken advantage of, and then discarded at the end of their strength, when they're no longer needed, it just brings about this sense of helpless and hopeless frustration.

I've found myself thinking about death a lot more, lately. I'll watch a television show, and there will be a shoot out, and someone will be killed, and all I can do is focus on the fact that that person, who is now dead (at least on the show), has ceased to exist, and that whatever memories of love, family, friendship, that they've had, is now gone.

The protagonists, of course, are already moving on to their next target, and so all I can think of is how easy it is for them to end that person's life and move on with their own life, as if nothing of consequence has occurred.

Granted these are television shows, but I'm only using them to explain a point. I guess it's why as I get older, I abhor violence more and more. I've never been a great fan of violence anyway, but it really gets driven home these days.

Of course, that is something about religion/spirituality that I dislike. The idea that "He's gone, but he's in a better place now". For that person it takes away some of the emotional trauma of death, but at the same time, it also takes away the hard edge of death itself, and the horrible event that has taken place, where one's life has ceased to exist. It's a double edged sword.

I guess I feel that there should be more to it than what there is. Perhaps I'm having difficulty with the idea that death is so common, as to be "normal", even routine. Nature is vicious, and time is so fleeting, and the clock just keeps ticking. So even if you survive the slings and arrows of day to day living, you will still be taken down by entropy itself. Life is costly. Time is exorbitantly so, and yet, so many of us treat them both like they're commodities that can be bartered against, when it just isn't so.

Sometimes I have no problems understanding why, at some point in our development, humans created a devil.

Sometimes I just want a hug.

If you do good thinking you're going to get a reward for it either in this life or in an extremely unlikely afterlife, then I think that's missing the point. One should choose to do good because you believe doing good is more special, better, and just plain HARDER to do than being selfish or doing mean things. It takes no effort to give in to the cruelty and meaninglessness of a harsh world where power is rewarded and virtue isn't. To me, it's an act of existential defiance to live as if there is a just framework to the world, even when you see that there isn't.

It's like the way that the comic "whatever happened to the caped crusader" put it: Batman doesn't get rewarded for being Batman. His reward is that he gets to BE Batman. Having the power to have a positive effect on those around you is a pretty great power.

 

[Kestra]

It's hard to imagine someone not leaning at all on the question "do you believe that god exists?" I take the lack of belief, but don't know people to be agnostic atheists.

Hi, nice to meat you!

For the record (from the same wiki),

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[20]

I'd go so far as to say that weak agnosticism implies agnostic atheism. So, I'm both an open agnostic and an agnostic atheist.

Now, you could also say, "Gee, that's just weak atheism, too," and you'd be right, in the sense that weak agnosticism also implies weak atheism. Here's some perspective, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Positive_vs._negative (not that I agree with everything in here):

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[29] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[citation needed] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[43] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[44][unreliable source?] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[45] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[46] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[47] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[48]

My reasons for preferring to self-identify as open agnostic are at least threefold.

First, I must acknowledge the influence of the literature I was exposed to growing up. The fact that my position meets the definition of weak atheism is something that I regard more of as a technicality than not, and that view of mine is no doubt influenced by those books. (However, also observe that the definition of agnostic atheist given above itself reads like a couple of technicalities.)

Second, I observe that the extreme positions, which are asserting that god exists on the one hand and asserting that god does not exist on the other, lie within theism and unqualified atheism respectively. I find it cognitively useful, therefore, not to use either of those terms to describe my position. Me selecting a third term is my way of emphasizing that my position does not lie at the extremes.

Third, people who routinely emphasize that theists have not met the burden of proof, to use in their argument that god does not exist, tend to run with the atheists, of course. Self-identifying as agnostic is also my way of distancing myself from them. I see those types of arguments as more useful for winning debates by browbeating than for acquiring knowledge.

I do have a sense that I am willing to seriously entertain the idea that god exists. I am also willing to seriously entertain the idea that god does not exist. Both are extraordinary claims to me. (To those who would argue that the idea that god does not exist is not really extraordinary, think of the impact that proving that god does not exist would have on humanity. If you don't think that that impact would be extraordinary, then I think you are deluding yourselves.) I really see myself completely in the middle. Over the years, I've made some progress, but it's all indecisive, so there's nothing really to share at this time. Therefore, any leaning that I might do would only occur in the light of evidence and the gaining of knowledge. I've tried to assume no a priori position in my quest for such knowledge.

Sorry this turned into tl;dr. I'm really passionate about it.

It's good to be passionate! I don't know if I'm understanding you incorrectly but I think you're just making a distinction about how you identify yourself. It sounds as though you are an agnostic atheist but are rejecting some of the associations with the label atheist. I identify as Hindu, but I am also an agnostic theist. I don't know if you can be completely in the middle, if we say that a lack of belief is also atheism. The only way to be completely in the middle is to have never considered the question, isn't it? Or am I missing something? I'm no good at logic and philosophy.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's good to be passionate!

I think so, too!

I don't know if I'm understanding you incorrectly but I think you're just making a distinction about how you identify yourself. It sounds as though you are an agnostic atheist but are rejecting some of the associations with the label atheist.

That's partly true, as I said. As I also tried to explain, but may have been unclear about, it's also a function of how the term "agnostic" was used in the books I read when I was a teenager. It was used there in the way I self-identify, and as that usage appears to be well recognized, I see no reason to change how I prefer to self-identify, even if there are other accepted ways, that I also recognize, of describing the same thing.

In a way, I feel an attachment to the label, because I feel that, as a teenager reading and pondering, I experienced a great deal of intellectual growth that I'm fond of; perhaps such attachment is not at all unlike the attachment I feel to my Episcopalian upbringing. While there were many negative things about my church experiences, there were far more positives, and I'll always hold a special place in my heart for it.

I identify as Hindu, but I am also an agnostic theist.

As I said already, I think that's a really worthwhile distinction. If only more theists were as honest about their position!

I don't know if you can be completely in the middle, if we say that a lack of belief is also atheism. The only way to be completely in the middle is to have never considered the question, isn't it? Or am I missing something? I'm no good at logic and philosophy.

What I meant was, I'm completely in the middle on the question of whether god exists. Labels aside, that's the most important characterization of my position, I think. What that also means is that I haven't discovered or been exposed to any evidence that would sway me from that position one way or another. I'm open to the possibility of being swayed in the face of evidence. It's such a profound question that the only progress that I'm aware of is really too minute to sway one way or the other. I'm still actively searching for evidence. For whatever reason, I don't need to have the question answered just for the sake of having it answered, so until it can be answered properly, I'm willing to remain here in the middle.

I don't know if that answers what you were asking or not.

 

[Kestra]

Well, I'm just going back to the original point you commented on, where I said that agnostic was an add-on to theist and atheist (and you disagreed). I understand that you place more importance on the agnostic part of that label when it comes to your own identity, but it sounds like you are still technically an agnostic atheist.

It's totally up to you as to how you identify. I understand the value there for you. If you were looking for benefits though, I'd suggest that if more people like you identified as agnostic atheists and did not shy away from the label of atheist, there would be less stigma against that term.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, I'm just going back to the original point you commented on, where I said that agnostic was an add-on to theist and atheist (and you disagreed).

Well, my point was that the word agnostic is not exclusively an add-on (adjective), but rather there is (in addition to the well established way you used it) also well established usage where agnostic is a noun in it's own right.

I understand that you place more importance on the agnostic part of that label when it comes to your own identity, but it sounds like you are still technically an agnostic atheist.

It's totally up to you as to how you identify. I understand the value there for you. If you were looking for benefits though, I'd suggest that if more people like you identified as agnostic atheists and did not shy away from the label of atheist, there would be less stigma against that term.

It's really more of an issue in the context of polls like this, when it's reduced down to one word. That's especially so when the poll also offers various religious choices, since putting all the choices on the same list tends to influence the connotations associated with the unqualified term atheist, as evidenced by some of the discussion in this thread, which is especially true when the term agnostic also appears in the same poll. "Agnostic atheist" wasn't an option, so I went with agnostic. For all the reasons I gave, off the cuff "agnostic" is a better descriptor of my position than "atheist". Recently, I believe before this thread was opened, I've also self-described as "agnostic/atheist", intending it to concisely express the trifecta "open agnostic/agnostic atheist/weak atheist".

Since neither "agnostic" nor "atheist" alone appropriately describes my position, in unqualified form, why should I have a preference for the term atheist, either? If I shouldn't hold an attachment to the term agnostic, then by the same logic I shouldn't hold attachment to the term atheist. I don't have a problem that the terms overlap.

If your point is that I should have an interest in streamlining terminology, then my reply is that I think that paring down vocabulary is a bad thing, especially in the case when there are various well recognized traditions, schools of thought, and overlapping terms, such as this one.

Let me put it this way. You had an issue self-identifying as Hindu, and from what you said, I took it to be that that one word way of putting it maybe carried connotations or implications that didn't necessarily apply to you. It's really very similar here. The term atheist by itself is probably too broad an umbrella. I mean, look at all the choices for theists that there were in the poll.

Finally, and again I apologize for tl;dr. There is an important connotation that I haven't mentioned. With open agnosticism there is a suggestion that the person is still searching. With any kind of atheism, not so much. Rightly or wrongly, I perceive atheists more likely to be people who have settled on a final position than those who expect that their position might change. I would not describe myself as having adopted an end-game position.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's totally up to you as to how you identify. I understand the value there for you. If you were looking for benefits though, I'd suggest that if more people like you identified as agnostic atheists and did not shy away from the label of atheist, there would be less stigma against that term.

Thank you. I only just now realized that that's a compliment.

 

[Kestra]

Well, I'm just going back to the original point you commented on, where I said that agnostic was an add-on to theist and atheist (and you disagreed).

Well, my point was that the word agnostic is not exclusively an add-on (adjective), but rather there is (in addition to the well established way you used it) also well established usage where agnostic is a noun in it's own right.

Sorry, I think we're using different scales here. I don't think agnostic belongs in the theist/atheist scale as a noun in its own right, anymore than atheist belongs within agnostic and gnostic. I think my issue is with the grouping, like they compare. You can definitely say "agnostic" but I guess I don't think it is used as a substitution instead of being theist or atheist. Everyone either believes that god exists or does not believe that god exists.

Finally, and again I apologize for tl;dr. There is an important connotation that I haven't mentioned. With open agnosticism there is a suggestion that the person is still searching. With any kind of atheism, not so much. Rightly or wrongly, I perceive atheists more likely to be people who have settled on a final position than those who expect that their position might change. I would not describe myself as having adopted an end-game position.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I understand the connotation and I think that things like that need to change. I also think that we need to remember that these are fluid and that one can go from theist to atheist or the other way around. Agnostic can mean that someone is still searching, or they might not be concerned with theism on any level. I think that using the preconceived ideas of what a theist, atheist, or agnostic person is like actually does people a disservice. It also leads to polls like this where the theist options are much more varied, agnostic is used improperly, and there are no distinctions made between different types of atheism.

I want to clarify that when I'm discussing these terms, there's a big difference between what someone "technically" is and what you identify as. I don't mean to say that you need to say that you are theist or atheist, merely that in answering that question, "agnostic" would be an insufficient answer to me (and not really answering the question). Of course that's not to say that being agnostic or identifying as one isn't important. It just isn't usually the question that is being asked.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Islam. Well, the food is pretty much the same, but no, not really going there. The whole blow-yourself up thing doesn't appeal to me.

Well, the tricky thing is that the future doesn't belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam, so applicants for any type of life-extension technology would have to pass a series of religious tests about their beliefs. But anyone who passed such tests might not believe in lfe-extension, so perhaps the whole idea is a chicken and egg problem.

You made a whole list of remarks about different religions where the only one with a negative comment was in regard to Islam, and then you doubled down on the negativity toward Islam again. Taken in isolation these comments aren't even close to the worst things you've ever said, but I'm so tired of having to deal with problems from you practically every other day, and after you've been told repeatedly to knock off the trolling and been given multiple infractions for it. Just the other day you were saying how there was no genocide toward Native Americans. It's one offensive and insulting and historically deluded statement toward a group of people after another with you, to the point where every time I see a notification in Miscellaneous now I know it's going to be about you, and I almost don't even want to look at it.

So, you've earned another infraction for trolling for these two remarks. Comments to PM.

 

[horatio83]

If you do good thinking you're going to get a reward for it either in this life or in an extremely unlikely afterlife, then I think that's missing the point. One should choose to do good because you believe doing good is more special, better, and just plain HARDER to do than being selfish or doing mean things. It takes no effort to give in to the cruelty and meaninglessness of a harsh world where power is rewarded and virtue isn't. To me, it's an act of existential defiance to live as if there is a just framework to the world, even when you see that there isn't.

Very well said.

 

[Mr Awe]

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?

When you focus too much on time, the future, leaving things behind and so on it becomes pretty hard to find meaning in a universe in which expands, cools down and exists forever without anything happening in it (if it collapsed again you could at least narrativize it as rebirth).
The time I spent with my grandmother in the years before she died is not something I left behind, it is forever gone just like she is. It was still good. Nothing is in vain just because it ends and vanishes.

What criteria are you using when you say, nothing is in vain just because it ends and vanishes?

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

When you focus too much on time, the future, leaving things behind and so on it becomes pretty hard to find meaning in a universe in which expands, cools down and exists forever without anything happening in it (if it collapsed again you could at least narrativize it as rebirth).
The time I spent with my grandmother in the years before she died is not something I left behind, it is forever gone just like she is. It was still good. Nothing is in vain just because it ends and vanishes.

Well, one of my failings is that I constantly focus on time, and on the future. Even when I'm working on something, somewhere in the back of my mind is that second hand ticking from one second to the next, and it never goes away.

Although humans like to imagine that they'll leave behind a big, impressive legacy and that their name will be emblazoned into the world, the truth is that most of us won't have that but rather leave behind a much more subtle legacy. If we've lived well in the world, we've made it a bit of a better place and that's pretty much the most important part of life.

Quite a lot of that is just through small actions in everyday life, and no matter what people say that's where the biggest things start. For example, say you're on a bus and you see an old lady getting on, having difficulty standing and you get up to give her your seat, you've improved the world.

Why? Well, when you're surrounded by people who won't give up their seats because they're thinking "I don't want to stand" despite the fact that they are far more able-bodied than her, you've set an example and placed the thoughts in the head of those that are surrounding you that perhaps next time it might be nice to think of those who have less than they do (that can be in body as well as possessions) and while some will continue to be selfish, others will think of what you did on that day and decide that they want to be that bit better.

And when they do what you did, think of someone else, they in turn can show others that they can be better. Someone carrying out a simple act of kindness can influence others to do so as well, and even if that person didn't have much their simple and small act may help to make the world a better place through demonstrating to others that people can be better.

If I donate a lot of money to charity to make myself look good, using wealth that others don't have but then proceed to go around the world treating everyone like shit, then in effect I've undone any good I've done by setting everyone a bad example through selfish, ugly behavior which has the effect of making those around me a bit more selfish themselves. I've cancelled out the good I could do with bad.

To contrast, if someone who has far less material wealth than me is simply a decent human being then they've made the world a better place. They've done far better than I have, and according to my faith God will look more favorably on them than me. Or in secular terms, they've actually been leading a morally good life whereas I'm effectively just paying for the right to make more mess and lead a morally bad life through charitable contribution.

Ultimately what matters is not whether someone is rich or poor, but how they lead their lives. That means that pretty much even the poor can leave behind a legacy of having done good in the world while they were here, even if they're not celebrated for it.

I understand what you're saying. I guess I just chafe at the inequity inherent in the universe or at the very least, in humanity. For example, when I witness good people being stomped on, regardless of their economic status, or when a person works hard to help others, with no expectation of reward, and they are taken advantage of, and then discarded at the end of their strength, when they're no longer needed, it just brings about this sense of helpless and hopeless frustration.

I've found myself thinking about death a lot more, lately. I'll watch a television show, and there will be a shoot out, and someone will be killed, and all I can do is focus on the fact that that person, who is now dead (at least on the show), has ceased to exist, and that whatever memories of love, family, friendship, that they've had, is now gone.

The protagonists, of course, are already moving on to their next target, and so all I can think of is how easy it is for them to end that person's life and move on with their own life, as if nothing of consequence has occurred.

Granted these are television shows, but I'm only using them to explain a point. I guess it's why as I get older, I abhor violence more and more. I've never been a great fan of violence anyway, but it really gets driven home these days.

Of course, that is something about religion/spirituality that I dislike. The idea that "He's gone, but he's in a better place now". For that person it takes away some of the emotional trauma of death, but at the same time, it also takes away the hard edge of death itself, and the horrible event that has taken place, where one's life has ceased to exist. It's a double edged sword.

I guess I feel that there should be more to it than what there is. Perhaps I'm having difficulty with the idea that death is so common, as to be "normal", even routine. Nature is vicious, and time is so fleeting, and the clock just keeps ticking. So even if you survive the slings and arrows of day to day living, you will still be taken down by entropy itself. Life is costly. Time is exorbitantly so, and yet, so many of us treat them both like they're commodities that can be bartered against, when it just isn't so.

Sometimes I have no problems understanding why, at some point in our development, humans created a devil.

Sometimes I just want a hug.

You're a kind and caring man, J. Again, I agree with everything you wrote. I've gone through a similar transformation over time. (Although, I'm not thinking about death quite that often!) In the end, I think kindness and caring are the best principles to live by. It can be that simple.

Mr Awe

 

[Misfit Toy]

i like bill maher's 'belief is a mental illness' idea. that is all.

I would not put too much stock in the bitter opinions of in a guy with such a laughable inability to date women on his own that he's spent years haunting the Playboy mansion, where he's "supplied" women paid not to say no.

That bitter mindset drives his little life, which was present in his anti-religon agenda-thon film. It is no wonder why his film was ignored.

Bitter? I've seen far more bitterness from people claiming to be Christian than I have from an entertainer like Maher. Granted, he's got plenty of personal problems, but I don't see him suggesting that Supreme Court Justices be killed, or claiming that New Orleans "deserved" the deaths and devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

 

[Gaith]

while some might call death the great equalizer, I disagree. [...] Death isn't equal, it's indiscriminate, and that's even worse.

Death has this much to be said for it:
You don't have to get out of bed for it.
Wherever you happen to be,
They bring it to you - free!

- Kingsley Amis
​