-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is a faith
- Thread starter MoonWater
- Start date
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
The symbols that are our reality. Information is interpreted in the brain which creates an association based on other associations, assimilating that information into our reality. "God" is a symbol that is part of some people's reality as a "true" being. "Evolution" is a symbol that is part of some people's reality as a "true" process.
I do not deny the power of science, or the important role of scientists, anymore than I do religion and clergy.
I just need to epistemologically work out the information they give me for myself. And through that philosophical work, I currently see a correlation between the roles of both in our culture and how we create reality.Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I was having a little fun with Jeremiah. Of course being hit by one can rearrange your face, but technically it does so without matter-to-matter contact. By "illusion" I meant "that something is improperly perceived or understood," obviously, but misperception and ignorance is what we're trying to overcome, isn't it?
Understanding changes our perception of the world around us and our relationship with it, but it doesn't change the world. It changes us.
Science has discovered that matter does not exist as such and that the observer cannot be separated from the observed, yet, contrary to evidence gathered from its own investigations, it insists that the nature of reality can be understood from the outside. It no longer pursues understanding, but rather the maintenance of its priestly authority. Is this not the classic definition of blind faith? Does this not mean that relying on evidence from the world "out there" is an act of faith?
Here's a test: Slow down your thoughts and relax. Visualize, or better yet, look at something in motion, like a creek or a thunderstrorm. Ask yourself, very sincerely, what is happening at the most fundamental level and take note of whatever is happening inside you. If you don't sense--even for a moment--anything extraordinary or beyond the surface appearance, you're living in a make-believe world, a world made untenable by science. You are living from blind faith.
If you do experience something extraordinary beneath the surface of things, you had a religious experience. Such experiences vary widely and even an atheist can have one. The next step is the conceptual interpretation, but you're interpretating a subjective experience. However it is interpreted, theistically or atheistically, to an onlooker it is a faith-experience.
Edit: 'Nuff said.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
care to ejekate? elaborate?
I'm the first to admit I'm not a "science/math" type.
I hardly understood a single word of my high school chemestry "lessons".
(of course the teachers THICK indian accent didn't help.
The kinds of questions I raised there were never answered.
So I gave up.
In fact almost ALL of my questions (in every subject) have always been
of the "how do you know?" sort. That for me always seems to be the natural "qualifying" question to discerning ANY truth.
(History is another area where I finally just went through the motions of answering the questions the way they wanted,
so I could just get out of there "with decent grades" and go study music.)
Anyway.... I KNOW there are chemical reactions taking place all around me
every day, but I would be 99% oblivious how to name/describe them in scientific terms.
The finer nuances of the "science" end of it have nothing to do with my personal experience of life. and so what?
I enjoyed looking at different cells through a microscope,
(though not memorizing all kinds of "scientific" jargon,
wich I immediately forgot after jumping through all the test taking "hoops")
I LOVE observing life! The EXPERIENCE OF IT!
But the only observational experience I have of life is my own.
I am a musician... studied Jazz primarily and got my BFA in jazz and contemporary music (piano/keyboard emphasis).
Now if I tell you your favorite song is an "undeveloped" peice of "psudo-music", musically/structurally devoid of any higher creativity, and that your favorite musician only speaks a 5% dialect of the larger language of music (ie small musical understanding and vocabulary)....
will that, should that change YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE of your favorite song/musician?
Can I tell you ... because you don't know/grasp how an Eb #9 b13 chord is structured, and that it is of the altered dominant "species" , that you have "NO UNDERSTANDING" of music, and that your personal musical insights as an observer(listener) of music are pathetically invalid? laking in any relevent depth, or of lesser relevance than mine?
All that is really relevant to YOU,
is YOUR OWN experience of the music,
and what you observe there in your own personal reality.
You are in NO WAY obligated to "trust me" into liking/raising up/taking up "more sopisticated" forms of music,
just because I am the "expert" who "says so".
You may very well think that some of the most intense and wonderful "high level" music is total crap.
And if that is what you hear (total crap), than that is what it IS for YOU, in your reality. Or if you just don't get it? No biggie.
We can't all "get" everything. Know what I mean?
When I HEAR music, I can "hear through" it ... on the "technical level".... or I can just sit back and enjoy the ride.
If you "can't hear through" to the "structure" of what's being played,
you CAN STILL sit back and enjoy the ride. The EXPERIENCE OF IT.
And so it is, with science and life.
I may not be a scientist...
but you can't find anyone who loves life more than me...
and OBSERVING the details and nuances of LITERALLY everything
that "manifests" IN MY OWN PERSONAL REALITY.
My "spirituality" is not a "faith" either BTW.
It is my direct EXPERIENCE of life.
It is ALL that I (can/will) ever REALLY know.
I am not a musician. Even though my new Crate amplifier, used Fender acoustic and new Hagstrom electric guitars sit next to me...I in no way claim to be a musician. Even though I write I am not a writer nor do I qualify myself as an artist despite the few drawings I have done.
I do have an understanding of these things. They may not be complete and they may not qualify me as a professional but my enjoyment of those things is only enhanced by...my continued learning and understanding.
I never questioned your ability to enjoy life. We can all enjoy the benefits of science without understanding it. That seems to be the standard for most of us. There is too much information for any one person to learn. However, processes are not difficult to learn. Equating science with religion shows a misunderstanding of science despite any analogous attempts to show otherwise.
A perfect example of is what is going on in South Africa where the president has refused to accept the medical science and turned over the health of millions of AIDS victims to homeopathy, or spiritual medicine. Hopefully the leadership in that nation will learn that understanding and applying that cold, soulless process known as science will do far more to help people than relying on feel good superstition. I feel that all of us capable have an imperative to understand scientific reasoning as it affects us all, willingly or not. However, I should temper my attitude.
What any of this has to do with atheism and theism I do not know. This seems like quite a tangent. I apologize for my blunt, knee jerk statement. I applaud your enjoyment of life and questioning nature. This part shows where I was wrong. And with diligence and patience I might finally learn how an Eb #9 b13 chord is structured. Any chord for that matter. Until then I'll have to keep plucking away until I finally get that intro to "Wish You Were Here" down.
Vassal
Member
But that's not the "safe" assumption, as Papersock claims it to be. The "I don't believe in God because it isn't likely that he exists" arguement fails because it's just an opinion. Was I asleep in science class when they were teaching how to calculate the probability of the existence of a deity? There isn't a way to calculate these so-called "probabilities", so the statement "God most likely doesn't exist" is nothing more than an opinion. Anyone who insists on using this "safest assumption" approach must decided to believe in God because the risk/reward ratio for believing in God is infinitly greater than the risk/reward ratio for not believing in God. It's only logcial to go for the best odds.
blackout
Violet.
What any of this has to do with atheism and theism I do not know. This seems like quite a tangent. I apologize for my blunt, knee jerk statement. I applaud your enjoyment of life and questioning nature. This part shows where I was wrong. And with diligence and patience I might finally learn how an Eb #9 b13 chord is structured. Any chord for that matter. Until then I'll have to keep plucking away until I finally get that intro to "Wish You Were Here" down.
It's all cool.
I think actually that perhaps my definition of "religion"...
as being ANYTHING that one is "expected" to "live by" as dogma,
in "blind faith" .... without PERSONAL understanding...
is MORE the communication problem here
than my understanding of the word "science".
But who knows?
Not me I guess.
After all, I am not a scientist.
And BEST OF LUCK with those chord symbols!:guitar1:
Chemical symbols will never do anything more than make my eyes cross!
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
One last post...
You asked me to define "supernatural". "I" gave it some thought; unfounded ideological concepts. Stuff like life after death, a higher purpose, God, souls, sprits and including but not limited to anything outside our "reality". Once it’s in our reality it is no longer supernatural.
"I" for see it more likely that science will not yield the results that people are looking for. "I" hold the same idea about theology. While "I" realize that there may be some great mystery out there to be solved. "I" choose to give precedence to the other side of the coin. That there is no achievable great mystery for me. So "I" have to be practical about it and focus on my life. What "I" can do to help in the areas "I" see problems. "I" am not of a great mind and/or passion with the ability to change the course of mankind. And "I" will mostly likely cease to exist when this body dies.
See that's all "I" am is an "I". But in the course of being practical "I" have to accept my body as real and place hope in my senses. (I use the word hope in place of faith because "I" do not trust my senses.) That's the root of my philosophy. "I" was only able to prove two things to myself. That "I" existed and that "I" had a desire to exist. Now "I" realize that "I" may not exist. But "I" can not prove that "I" don't. While there is evidence to support that "I" do exist. So once again the observable evidence takes precedence.
Btw it was a theist that labeled me an atheist. "I" kept the title because it seems to annoy people. While it holds truth a more accurate assessment would be to say "I" am an existentialist.
Thanks for the debate sorry if "I" caused any offense.
No. It is illogical because God has not been proven. Threatening Hellfire does not increase the chances of your God being true.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
To me it does just the opposite.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
And I think that if God were to exist, and the threats of Hellfire were to be true, then this may be sufficient reason to continue to deny God's existence.
The only problem with this argument is that it assumes that a person has only two options when believing in "God". Those two are either don't or that one must believe that "God" whoever/whatever he/she/it/they may be is a God who requires that people believe or they get sent to eternal torment. It assumes that if God exists he/she/it they actually give a big stink about whether or not you do believe. This may or may not be true, and there are thousands of Gods out there. And I'll bet that any "God" which cares so much about belief would want you to have a belief in THEM not simply a belief in any "God". So it's not necesarilly the "safer" decision to believe in "God" when there is no way to know which one, if any, of the thousands of Gods out there is THE God. Or perhaps none of them are. There is just no way to know.
How so? After all wouldn't it only cause you to suffer in the end?
If a God describes himself as a loving merciful God, He wouldn't threaten eternal Hellfire.
I am curious to know why you or why anyone else would consider it "illogical" to believe in God(please remember not to limit this to the abrahamic God as there are thousands of others) or in anything "supernatural" for that matter? Is it simply because they haven't been proven? Well they haven't been DISproven either. Do you have any other reasons? In fact, lets take the question to the other side and ask those who DO believe in "God"(however you may define God) and/or the supernatural, why you DO consider it "logical" to believe?
Yep.
The burden of proof is not on us. Atheism doesn't make a positive claim.
I don't need any other reasons.
Yes. I was talking specifically the Judeo-Christian God. All other gods as well have no evidence to convince me to believe.
While I believe that to be true as well it does not explain how (in the face of undeniable proof that such a God exists) it would be beneficial to deny the existence of a God who DOES threaten eternal hellfire.
If God has been proven, of course you should believe regardless of what you think.
In one sense Atheism DOES make a "positive claim" in that it "denies the existence of God". If the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who make the claim then I say there IS a burden of proof on you....... the burden of the proof that God does NOT exist. After all Ahteists ARE making the claim that God does NOT exist. Why should they NOT be pressured to prove THEIR claim?