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

[horatio83]

Everybody is an agnostic, and if they say otherwise they are lying.

Now whether you are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist is a whole 'nother thing...

No, everybody is deep in his heart a believer. Not necessarily belief into some specific religious stuff or in God but at least belief in the importance of his own life.
Freud, a textbook atheist if there ever was one, had to believe that his life's work is immortal (hence his obsession with finding a suitable "son" and the conflict with Jung). It doesn't have to be work, it can also be children or paradoxically enough even death itself (martyrdom, finding a cause worth dying for) which is your immortality device. A hedonistic life cannot be a full life.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Everybody is an agnostic, and if they say otherwise they are lying.

Now whether you are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist is a whole 'nother thing...

No, everybody is deep in his heart a believer. Not necessarily belief into some specific religious stuff or in God but at least belief in the importance of his own life.
Freud, a textbook atheist if there ever was one, had to believe that his life's work is immortal (hence his obsession with finding a suitable "son" and the conflict with Jung). It doesn't have to be work, it can also be children or paradoxically enough even death itself (martyrdom, finding a cause worth dying for) which is your immortality device. A hedonistic life cannot be a full life.

Nothing you posted after "No" contradicted what I said.

Everyone is agnostic, because agnostic just means that you don't know, or the stance that it can't be known. Nobody KNOWS there is or isn't a god. If they say they KNOW, they are a liar. Or they are deluded/insane.

Atheism is a lack of belief/faith, and Theism requires belief/faith. Neither involve knowing.

btw Outside of a few contributions, Freud is considered a big joke in the school of psychology.

 

[horatio83]

Freud was wrong about reducing everything to sexual instinct. But he was totally right with starting off the psychoanalytical project because it touches very basic human paradoxes which we do not really wanna know.
If you say that everybody is agnostic the word loses all meaning. People are believers and non-believers at the same time, they believe that their body will rot and that their soul is eternal, independent of whether they call themselves theists or atheists or whatever. The knowledge of our mortality literally drives us crazy.

 

[thestrangequark]

^That is ridiculous. I don't believe my soul is eternal. I am perfectly content with mortality. Just because you cannot reconcile non belief and sanity doesn't mean other people can't. I am crazy for completely different reasons.

 

[Amaris]

Agnostic here. I don't believe in an afterlife, though I would like to be wrong. Well, let me put that another way: I don't believe in an afterlife as we seem to think of it.

Instead, I believe that if there is something beyond this life, it's that we become one with the elements of the universe again, and that maybe someday, what made me who I am, will become part of a star, or another planet. Maybe the atoms and molecules that make up my existence will one day become a beautiful flower on a planet teeming with new life.

 

[Thestral]

I actually believe in the distinction between different types of atheism or agnosticism.

Likewise.

 

[Amaris]

I actually believe in the distinction between different types of atheism or agnosticism.

Likewise.

Ditto.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Freud was wrong about reducing everything to sexual instinct. But he was totally right with starting off the psychoanalytical project because it touches very basic human paradoxes which we do not really wanna know.

Yes, as I said, Freud made contributions, but mostly only in a historical context. Most of his research was bunk, but his heart was in the right place. In every class I have ever taken in psychology, when you start talking about freud, it is prefaced with how much of what he said was bullshit.

If you say that everybody is agnostic the word loses all meaning. People are believers and non-believers at the same time, they believe that their body will rot and that their soul is eternal, independent of whether they call themselves theists or atheists or whatever. The knowledge of our mortality literally drives us crazy.

Not sure what you're saying here at all. Seems like double talk.

When I said "everyone is an agnostic", I was focusing on the issue of the existence of god.

When it comes to God, everyone is agnostic. If they say otherwise, they are either mistaken about definitions, deluded, or lying. Nobody KNOWS one way or another whether a god or gods exist. They can believe, disbelieve, or lack a belief all they want. They do not have anymore knowledge on the existence of deities than anyone else.

Theism and atheism are two concepts that are totally independent from the concept of agnosticism.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Agnostic here. I don't believe in an afterlife, though I would like to be wrong. Well, let me put that another way: I don't believe in an afterlife as we seem to think of it.

Belief or lack of belief has nothing to do with being agnostic. It only has to do with whether you KNOW or not.

If you disbelieve/lack a belief in a god, you are an atheist. If you believe, you are a theist.

You are an agnostic, rightfully so, because you cannot say you KNOW one way or another. That doesn't preclude you from believing, if you were so inclined.

an "afterlife" as you put it is a whole different issue, really. Perhaps some sort of afterlife exists, perhaps it doesn't, but it could exist or not exist whether there is a god/gods or not.

Instead, I believe that if there is something beyond this life, it's that we become one with the elements of the universe again, and that maybe someday, what made me who I am, will become part of a star, or another planet. Maybe the atoms and molecules that make up my existence will one day become a beautiful flower on a planet teeming with new life.

I think this is basically a very scientific (somewhat romantic) way of looking at things, and I think it's basically true. When we die, we will eventually will decompose. The matter in our body will be recycled, and one day this planet will unravel in some way, and all of that matter will be in space.

 

[datagal]

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.

You sounds like me.
Nice post.

 

[Gaith]

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.

Aye, the superstitious impulse is very deeply ingrained in some, and not at all in others. I can make detailed and thoughtful arguments for why Christianity is almost certainly man-made hoax, but I'm also no more capable of choosing to believe in it than I can choose to be gay.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I actually believe in the distinction between different types of atheism or agnosticism.

Likewise.

Ditto.

Me also.

---

There's no harm in people choosing to believe the tenets of a religion, or holding onto belief that they feel. If religion weren't healthy on some level, it wouldn't be so popular.

In a many ways, religion is a personal journey.

One major way that religion does become harmful is when people try to impose their religious beliefs, or beliefs resulting from their particular religious beliefs, onto others, to make others who disagree live according to them. At this point it isn't really about religion any more, but rather it's about political power.

ETA: See below for clarification.

 

[scotpens]

Exactly how different is prayer to an invisible and silent figure, to creating an imaginary friend?

The only difference is that most people outgrow imaginary friends by the age of 6 or so.

Yes, as I said, Freud made contributions, but mostly only in a historical context. Most of his research was bunk, but his heart was in the right place. In every class I have ever taken in psychology, when you start talking about Freud, it is prefaced with how much of what he said was bullshit.

Like penis envy, for instance. He thought women had it.

(Okay, so I stole that one from Woody Allen.)

 

[Mr_Homn]

Exactly how different is prayer to an invisible and silent figure, to creating an imaginary friend?

The only difference is that most people outgrow imaginary friends by the age of 6 or so.

Funny, that's almost the exact age I started doubting the religion I was raised in. I was 7

 

[scotpens]

Well, don't know what to say.
Except that atheism isn't a belief.

Um... It is a belief, in that an individual believes that a God or supreme being, doesn't exist. It is not however, a faith or religion.

Uh . . . no. Lack of belief isn't a belief. If I assert that there are no such things as leprechauns, that doesn't make me an Anti-Leprechaunist.

 

[Mr_Homn]

People who say atheism is a belief simply do not understand the definition of atheism. They think it is just "YES OR NO, FOR OR AGAINST". This is not scientific thinking.

They can never seem to wrap their head around the extremely important difference between these two statements:

"I believe there is no god." (this is a belief)

"I lack a belief in a god." (no belief involved)

An atheist can take either of these radically different stances. You cannot classify someone who lacks a belief in god as a believer (there is no belief one way or the other). You can classify someone who believes there is no god as a believer(A believer that there is no god).


Then, to confuse things even more, when you explain to them that you lack any belief in god, they often will say "Oh well then you are an agnostic"... No. Agnostic has NOTHING to do with belief. Agnostic just means you do not or cannot know. You can be an agnostic christian/jew/muslim/etc, and you can be an agnostic atheist.

 

[scotpens]

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 you've really got me confused.

But I do believe in puppies.

 

[Gaith]

@ CorporalCaptain, suggested edit:

One major way that religion does become harmful is when people try to impose their religious beliefs, or beliefs resulting from their particular religious beliefs, onto others, to make others who disagree live according to them. At this point it isn't really about spirituality any more, but rather it's about political power.

Religion and political power have always gone hand in hand, from the cavemen-shamans of yore to the Iranian mullahs of today. To say that pure religion isn't political is to let it off the hook.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

@ CorporalCaptain, suggested edit:

One major way that religion does become harmful is when people try to impose their religious beliefs, or beliefs resulting from their particular religious beliefs, onto others, to make others who disagree live according to them. At this point it isn't really about spirituality any more, but rather it's about political power.

Religion and political power have always gone hand in hand, from the cavemen-shamans of yore to the Iranian mullahs of today. To say that pure religion isn't political is to let it off the hook.

Ah, I see your point. I agree your edit is an improvement. It communicates more clearly what I was trying to convey.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

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 think it's more about investing meaning into the unanswerable than about denial.