Atheists - how did you come to be?

[outhouse]

For just a moment, realize there is no need to become at all defensive..

Im not defensive what so ever.


Im just not fond of catching people who make unsubstantiated claims, and deny or ignore their pretentious mistakes.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Education and knowledge of exactly how many different men and cultures defined the mythological concept you know as a deity.


Your the same way, you discount the thousands of gods man has created in the past. Now that we have 9,999 of the deities placed into he category of mythology, placing one more there is no problem at all, once you know the details of how man did this.

Ok, good answer, but I think some people are misunderstanding my thread title. I'm not so much asking you how you came to become an atheist, I'm actually more interested in how you came to become manifested on earth at all. But yeah, I see what you mean.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Im not defensive what so ever.


Im just not fond of catching people who make unsubstantiated claims, and deny or ignore their pretentious mistakes.

I ultimately don't blame them if they are coming from the perspective that they seem to have to keep a good guard on their beliefs, but I'm not here telling what to believe, I just like to speculate, I happen to be an explorer type. And I am just as much an atheist or agnostic as any of you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, good answer, but I think some people are misunderstanding my thread title. I'm not so much asking you how you came to become an atheist, I'm actually more interested in how you came to become manifested on earth at all. But yeah, I see what you mean.

I did indeed misread the title. Not sure why you think the question needs an answer, though, or why you assume that it has such an specific, speculative, unproven answer.

 

[LuisDantas]

And I am just as much an atheist or agnostic as any of you.

I doubt that. You seem to have somehow convinced yourself that you are or must be an atheist, but you are nothing like one. At most you are a deist.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I did indeed misread the title. Not sure why you think the question needs an answer, though, or why you assume that it has such an specific, speculative, unproven answer.

Ok, I see now that several people may have misread it - that's my fault. That's no good, I'm going to have to somewhere down the line reframe my idea more seriously and make a better thread title. Yeah I think it is an important one though, when I get more organized with it I'm going to try and make some people think.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I doubt that. You seem to have somehow convinced yourself that you are or must be an atheist, but you are nothing like one. At most you are a deist.

Well, what you are encountering here is an explorer type, and my main theme seem to be topics of uncertainty, questioning the establishment as well as things unknown. I follow the ancient tradition of the philosopher, I have no loyalty to any idea, but only describe possibilities, I thrive on the trail of the existentially boundless. I am an atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, but I just see no reason to take that claim at face value. I suppose one can technically be an animist (which you explicitly are) who tries to be an atheist as well, but it is a very unconfortable fit.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Sorry, but I just see no reason to take that claim at face value. I suppose one can technically be an animist (which you explicitly are) who tries to be an atheist as well, but it is a very unconfortable fit.

Can you be an atheist and not be a positivist?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'd argue that many people nowadays who claim to be atheists, are actually positivists before anything else.

 

[paarsurrey]

From my perspective actually, all those you mentioned may be mythical along with every religion we've established so far, along with some modern things that science may say possibly. Really what it may come down to for me, is that we all barely see the tip of the iceberg with this stuff. My fellow atheists/agnostics or whatever they want to be called nowadays to me just seem kind of stuffy about a lot of things, and although I cannot blame them for what they've endured historically, I really wish they'd find a way to get over their cynical feelings and rekindle the adventurous, optimistic types of even spiritually exploratory thinking that could be their proper mantle.

Thanks and regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you be an atheist and not be a positivist?

Define positivism. The Comte variety is certainly avoidable by, well, everyone.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd argue that many people nowadays who claim to be atheists, are actually positivists before anything else.

Don't you mean skeptics?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Don't you mean skeptics?

Define positivism. The Comte variety is certainly avoidable by, well, everyone.

Tell you what, when I reformulate some of my ideas and inclinations, maybe I'll get some better threads together for all of that. This turned out to be more of a dry run for something I could actually build into something more relevant, when I get the motivation.

I mean, the atheist bias to deny all metaphysics. How to define positivism? Well, good question, it has a lot to do with limiting one's belief in what exists by positing it is only within the realm of what you can accurately sense, any distortion or something beyond that would be said not to really be. The A.J. Ayer take on it seems to be interesting, but he had a bit of a different way of looking at it not really content with the labels that come with belief affiliation. Overall the modern atheist's predisposition toward skepticism, toward nihilism, and overall cynicism I find discontenting to reinstate myself. I think there is a non-theistic way to approach reality and still allow for a bit of magic and optimism, the idea that there are far more doors we have not opened, that perhaps there is a science to the spirit. I don't know, I'm an atheist/agnostic but think there is something to connect with that gives our lives a greater meaning. How many ways there are to explain it.

 

[outhouse]

Was it karma, the negative and positive energies of your soul swirling in the firmament to reside in a host, was it a slighted god, molding you like craft-work.
.

Souls do not exist at this time

you might not have to keep reincarnating

No one is

You clearly were not in the very beginning,

Error.


Ever atom in your body was there.

perhaps one less soul

Souls do not exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Tell you what, when I reformulate some of my ideas and inclinations, maybe I'll get some better threads together for all of that. This turned out to be more of a dry run for something I could actually build into something more relevant, when I get the motivation.

I mean, the atheist bias to deny all metaphysics.

More like an economy measure than a bias. Occam's Razor makes sense, and helps us all out of an endless ocean of dubious conjectures.

How much sense does it make to assume the existence of entities whose presence has exactly as much discernible effect as their absence?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Souls do not exist at this time
No one is
Error.
Ever atom in your body was there.
Souls do not exist.

Alright, well, I think it all can be reframed in language that will make more sense to you and move you to acknowledge it. And to be honest, I was being a bit goofy, but I can refine things and be more serious. Part of the problem is coming up with newer language about these kinds of things.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

More like an economy measure than a bias. Occam's Razor makes sense, and helps us all out of an endless ocean of dubious conjectures.

How much sense does it make to assume the existence of entities whose presence has exactly as much discernible effect as their absence?

Well, first of all, maybe language like "entities" and "souls" is not quite fitting. When describing "transcendent" things we might be able to pin it down more through a bit more discussion on what these things could actually be. And this also makes me curious how you are reconciling buddhism with atheism, seeing as I thought there was at least some trace of an animist or metaphysical aspect to buddhism. But no matter, there could be many things that circumvent the topical human sense organs. Science everyday tells us how narrow we are, how little we perceive, and that makes a direct way to my kind of rhetoric.

 

[outhouse]

Part of the problem is coming up with newer language about these kinds of things.

No, IMHO there is not any language.

These kinds of things have to exist.

I "think" your trying convey arguments about dualism of some sort and the emergence of the conscious mind.

 

[outhouse]

there could be many things that circumvent the topical human sense organs.


.

Of which, are purely imaginative at this point.

Less size.